EU Reporter on new Eurolegislation: Time running out for candidate countries on environment laws
The European Commission has ended informal talks with environment ministers from the 10 candidate countries, who were urged to ensure that environmental legislation is not just transposed but implemented in time for their formal accession to the union.
The commission has estimated that around 80% of the 149 EU environmental laws have been transposed into national law in the accession states. The real challenge will be enforcing the new regulations, already a concern for European environmental organisations.
The World Wildlife Fund in Poland issued a warning last week, as ministers brought their discussions to a close, highlighting the threat to wildlife posed by Poland's National Development Plan (NDP), recently submitted to the commission. The NDP will be used to calculate the amount of structural funds the commission gives to Poland upon its accession in 2004 and will extend to 2006.
According to the details of the plan, much of the allocated funds will be used to make vital improvements to the country's transportation network. Concern centres around provisions in the NDP to build a new motorway to replace the Via Baltica, which would cut across four sites of international conservation importance, although the commission has previously stated that no funding would be given to projects that threaten the natural environment. Marta Majka Wieniewska of WWF Poland outlined the organisation's concerns to EU Reporter.
"If the European Commission accepts the NDP without comment (on the environmental impact), then this could be a signal to other EU accession countries that applying for EU funds does not need to take environmental issues into consideration," she said. "In other words, economic development is important; the environment is not."
Wieniewska added: "The need for transport development is obvious. However, we believe that this development can indeed be sustainable. Unfortunately, decision-makers usually do not understand environmental problems and do not care about nature. The Via Baltica is just a case in point."
Environmental liability in the EU moved a step closer when the parliament's environment committee adopted the draft opinion of Greek MEP Mihail Papayannakis. In doing so, the committee approved provisions for a compulsory insurance scheme, and rejected calls for a system of permit exemptions.
Speaking after the vote, Papayannakis said: "The costs of environmental restoration should be borne by the polluter, not the taxpayer. It would be a disgrace on all concerned if, after 10 years of discussion, we could not produce meaningful legislation."
The environment committee voted to remove the controversial "compliance with a permit" clause from the commission's proposal, which would have granted exemption from penalties for certain activities. Opponents of the permit scheme argued that such exemptions would weaken the directive, as no member states with liability laws currently allow for exemptions. The European small business industry says that the environment committee vote will put SMEs out of business. The European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (UEAPME) was "extremely disappointed" with the result of the vote.
"By taking away the permits, we could see many SMEs put out of business," the UEAPME told EU Reporter. "There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the permit scheme. It actually says that if an operator is found to be at fault, it is not exempt. Removing the permits is saying that even if you are doing things right, you can still be penalised."
The UEAPME is also concerned that the environment committee approved mandatory insurance within five years of the proposals becoming law, a position which has "not been thought through," a UEAPME spokesperson said.
"There is no legal certainty at the moment, for industry or for insurers," the spokesperson said. "There is no insurance available at the moment. We don't know if there will be when the directive comes into force, and even if there is, we don't know at what price."
Permits and insurance are more closely linked than MEPs have considered, according to the UEAPME.
"The exemptions would make products more insurable," the spokesperson said. "We need to have permits for businesses to start up. Without them, SMEs might not be able to afford the mandatory insurance."
The UEAPME is now hoping that the responsible committee, Legal Affairs, will rectify the situation.
"If the legal affairs committee approves the proposals of the environment committee exactly as they are, the directive will not be implementable from an SME point of view," the UEAPME spokesperson said. "There is a lot of business at stake."
The commission has estimated that around 80% of the 149 EU environmental laws have been transposed into national law in the accession states. The real challenge will be enforcing the new regulations, already a concern for European environmental organisations.
The World Wildlife Fund in Poland issued a warning last week, as ministers brought their discussions to a close, highlighting the threat to wildlife posed by Poland's National Development Plan (NDP), recently submitted to the commission. The NDP will be used to calculate the amount of structural funds the commission gives to Poland upon its accession in 2004 and will extend to 2006.
According to the details of the plan, much of the allocated funds will be used to make vital improvements to the country's transportation network. Concern centres around provisions in the NDP to build a new motorway to replace the Via Baltica, which would cut across four sites of international conservation importance, although the commission has previously stated that no funding would be given to projects that threaten the natural environment. Marta Majka Wieniewska of WWF Poland outlined the organisation's concerns to EU Reporter.
"If the European Commission accepts the NDP without comment (on the environmental impact), then this could be a signal to other EU accession countries that applying for EU funds does not need to take environmental issues into consideration," she said. "In other words, economic development is important; the environment is not."
Wieniewska added: "The need for transport development is obvious. However, we believe that this development can indeed be sustainable. Unfortunately, decision-makers usually do not understand environmental problems and do not care about nature. The Via Baltica is just a case in point."
Environmental liability in the EU moved a step closer when the parliament's environment committee adopted the draft opinion of Greek MEP Mihail Papayannakis. In doing so, the committee approved provisions for a compulsory insurance scheme, and rejected calls for a system of permit exemptions.
Speaking after the vote, Papayannakis said: "The costs of environmental restoration should be borne by the polluter, not the taxpayer. It would be a disgrace on all concerned if, after 10 years of discussion, we could not produce meaningful legislation."
The environment committee voted to remove the controversial "compliance with a permit" clause from the commission's proposal, which would have granted exemption from penalties for certain activities. Opponents of the permit scheme argued that such exemptions would weaken the directive, as no member states with liability laws currently allow for exemptions. The European small business industry says that the environment committee vote will put SMEs out of business. The European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (UEAPME) was "extremely disappointed" with the result of the vote.
"By taking away the permits, we could see many SMEs put out of business," the UEAPME told EU Reporter. "There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the permit scheme. It actually says that if an operator is found to be at fault, it is not exempt. Removing the permits is saying that even if you are doing things right, you can still be penalised."
The UEAPME is also concerned that the environment committee approved mandatory insurance within five years of the proposals becoming law, a position which has "not been thought through," a UEAPME spokesperson said.
"There is no legal certainty at the moment, for industry or for insurers," the spokesperson said. "There is no insurance available at the moment. We don't know if there will be when the directive comes into force, and even if there is, we don't know at what price."
Permits and insurance are more closely linked than MEPs have considered, according to the UEAPME.
"The exemptions would make products more insurable," the spokesperson said. "We need to have permits for businesses to start up. Without them, SMEs might not be able to afford the mandatory insurance."
The UEAPME is now hoping that the responsible committee, Legal Affairs, will rectify the situation.
"If the legal affairs committee approves the proposals of the environment committee exactly as they are, the directive will not be implementable from an SME point of view," the UEAPME spokesperson said. "There is a lot of business at stake."
