Download EU perspectives of environmental law (climate, water, enforcement

EU perspectives on enforcement
of environmental law
Dublin, 18 October 2012
Ludwig Krämer
[email protected]
Context
-
Prognostics are difficult, in particular, when they concern the future
-
The point of departure can only be the present state of affairs, and the attempt
to prolong past trends and tendencies into the future
-
Time horizon: 25 years /2030
Climate change achievements
•
•
.
.
Attempts to keep temperature at 2° above pre-industrial time (1750).
EU: stop CO²-emissions by 2000 at 1990 levels
achieved
reduce CO²-emissions by 8 per cent by 2012
(achieved)
Reduce CO²-emissions by 2020 by 20 per cent
Emission trading (2003/87)
Energy efficiency: 20% by 2020
Emission limits: cars, vans, trucks
Renewable sources of energy: 20% by 2020
Accessory measures
Climate change - problems
1. Is 2° temperature increase enough to stop climate change?
2. EU measures are not followed worldwide
- no international EU initiative
- USA, China, Brazil, Russia, Japan, etc
- no post-Kyoto
- environmental refugees
3. Emission trading suffers from too many allowances
Housing: not affected
Transport: weak objectives; not for export
Renewables: EU divided (nuclear-non nuclear) coal and gas remain supported
4. Enforcement problems
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
GHG emissions Ireland (allowed +13%) 55
59
68
69
61 (+10,3%)
GHG emissions Spain (allowed +25%) 283 314 381 435 356 (+25,8%)
5. Sanctions: -
Climate change law –
enforcement perspectives
1. The environment has no voice and cannot protest
2. The EU is not able – not willing? – to take the driver‘s seat for stopping global
warming. It has not adopted instruments for that.
3. The details of legislation become more and more open to manipulation (average car
emissions; reference year changing from 1990 to 2005; coal fired power plants; issuing
of too many allowances)
4. Neither criminal nor privat law enforcement or sanctions work.
5. We will achieve the 2030 targets in Europe;
but not enforce the stop of climate change.
Water protection - achievements
1. Water framework legislation for fresh water (Dir.2000/60)
2. Water framework legislation for marine waters (Dir. 2008/56)
3. Canalization and urban waste water treatment (Dir.91/271)
4. Drinking water (Dir.98/83)
5. Ground water (Dir.2006/118)
Water protection - problems
1. The EU has moved back from an integrated water policy to a coordinated water
policy.
2. Inbuilt prolongation problems
3. Legislation and „greenspeak“ (average of 5 year for bathing water; drinking water
derogations; classification of water stretches; „good quality“; )
4. Threshold values for groundwater vary between 1 and 300 for arsenic; 1 and
1200 for cadmium; 1 and 1500 for lead and mercury.
5. Water scarcity and droughts
6. Agriculture and water
Water protection –
enforcement perspectives
1. The framework legislation served mainly to buy time. We will have a status of
water by 2030 (marine waters 2020) and public authorities will declare the
waters to be of „good quality“. In the meantime, no enforcement
2. With regard to marine waters, not much will have changed with regard to today.
No enforcement
3. Effective legislation needs to limit the emissions - which is nothing else than the
limitation of discharges of pollutants into waters
4. (New) Enforcement provisions are necessary
5. Measures to adapt to climate change will be necessary (water consumption of
houses; products; irrigation)
Enforcement - achievements
1. Transposition of EU environmental directives – not regulations! – into national
law is enforced, though normally with delays and often with difficulties.
2. There is a certain sensitivitiy within the EU institutions – Commission, European
Parliament - as regards transposition.
3. A number of Member States have set up enforcement agencies; their
dependency on policymakers – „his master‘s voice“ - varies
Enforcement - problems
1. Application of existing provisions is insufficient. Environmental protection is all too
often only on paper.
2. International environmental provisions which are binding on the EU, are not enforced,
not either at national level.
3. The enforcement procedures at EU level are secret (Commission-Member State). Civil
society is not involved. Where the procedure is open in Member States, results are
better and (mental) corruption is smaller.
4. The Commission is not even using the few instruments which are at its disposal
(transparency, studies, comparisons). Its efforts to ensure good relationship with
Member States prevails over its efforts to ensure compliance with the law. At
national level the effort is to keep good contacts to economic operators.
5. Member States enforcement bodies act national and hardly cooperate. IMPEL is an
enforcement flop.
Enforcement - perspectives
1. There is a need to better network in environmental enforcement issues,
transnationally as well as with citizens and civil society.
2. There is a need to break administrative secrecy of enforcement.
3. There is a need to recognize that good environmental enforcement is an asset,
not a threat.
4. Enforcement agencies must avoid that environment protection shares the fate of
religion: good and vital in theory, but largely ignored and set aside in day to day
practice.
5. We may overcome the financial crisis; but we do not overcome climate change.
„But this is a pessimistic presentation“
1. No. But nobody should believe that environmental protection can be obtained
without fighting.
2. „Only when the last tree has been felled, the last river poisoned and the last fish
caught, man will know that he cannot eat money“.
Should we let the last river get poisoned?
3. If progress exists at all, it is to be measured in fractions of millimeters. And any
progress requires strong efforts.