Brussels, 26/01/2016 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 3 February in Strasbourg, the greatly anticipated vote will take place at the European Parliament on the draft objection to watering down the antipollution standards in road vehicles in the guise of introducing real driving emissions test measures for vehicles (second RDE package).
After having debated the subject on 18 January, MEPs will decide whether or not to agree to the controversial agreement concluded on 28 October at the motor vehicle technical committee, which, through a compliance factor of 1.5 as from 2021 instead of 1, will increase NOx emission value limits from diesel engines imposed by European regulation 715/2007 of 2007 (EURO VI standard) (see EUROPE 11461).
The result of this vote, however, is increasingly uncertain as long as this dossier divides MEPs, particularly the S&D group, which has the keys to the vote. This political group could, however, be convinced to reject the objection presented by the EP Environment Committee. This is effectively what the Greens/EFA group fears, as revealed on Monday 26 January to the European press in Brussels.
This vote should have taken place in January but will take place after the European Commission presents its draft European framework expected out on Wednesday 27 January, to improve monitoring of the national type approval systems and increase the independence of the laboratories (see other article in this newsletter).
Although he welcomed the “Commission attempt to strengthen EU controls on vehicle type approval” and the fact that the Commission is preparing to display “much more ambition than it was planning to” before the Volkswagen scandal, Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Netherlands), the Greens spokesperson for the environment is not counting on it succeeding. He sees this imminent proposal as a means of softening up the MEPs, in the total absence of guarantees regarding the fate for this project within the European vehicle type approval system.
He also said that the fact that Commission “is proposing this now, is a way of putting pressure on the European Parliament to drop its objection on RDE conformity factor. It is saying that if it proposes a very ambitious framework for the type approval system, Parliament will be satisfied. This, however, does not guarantee the result of the negotiations with the Council. If the Commission is ambitious, it is not a gesture to Parliament, it is a necessity”.
Furthermore, the fact that the European Commission is preparing to make a statement to provide assurances where in the end, the compliance factor is expected to be 1, is unconvincing because the statement is not binding.
The Greens MEP refuted the fact that an EP veto would delay the introduction of the RDE tests and said that the 2nd RDE package contains “a proposal on the RDE tests, which has already been the subject of an agreement between member states in May 2015, as well as a proposal on compliance and the compliance factor creating the difficulties”.
Divided S&D will swing vote. It is accepted that the EPP will reject the objection, as will the ENF. The ECR might also reject it. The Greens/EFA group will approve the objection, as the vast majority of MEPs from ALDE and EFDD is expected to do (although there is still uncertainty regarding the vote by the British UKIP members).
Counting on a division of the S&D MEPs, the Danish government, represented by its Minister for the Environment and Food, Eva Kjer Hansen, sent out a letter on 21 January to the President of the S&D group, Gianni Pittella, to request that this political group rejects the objection.
Whilst asserting that his country “would also have liked to see more strict requirements in the regulation. Denmark has for many years been pushing for stricter RDE tests”. The Danish minister pointed out in this letter that she supported the agreement of 28 October because she sees the final regulation “is a major improvement and in importance depth to address the shortcomings on NO2 pollution in the EU”.
Rebecca Harms, the vice president of the Greens/EFA group, said that the idea that the European Parliament may not veto a project that undoes EU legislation, “the result of a compromise reached between the Council and Parliament in 2006” is very serious. She warned that “environmental legislation has always been presented as 'flagship' EU regulation. The Environment Committee clearly acknowledges the existence of a fundamental problem involving the role of legislator and the way in which the Commission and member states act in regard to this legislation adopted 10 years ago. The vote by parliament on the results from the committee procedures is a test case for the European Parliament and the role of the regulator in all regulation involving environmental protection, citizens' health, consumer protection and possible conflicts with industry and the economy”. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)