The European Commission may have given assurances on Thursday 14 January that the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the United Kingdom offers all the guarantees that the level of protection provided by EU environmental and food safety standards will be maintained in the EU, but the members of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety were not convinced.
Their concerns include transboundary pollution, GMOs, which UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants to deregulate, and pesticides in case of future divergences between the EU and UK regulatory frameworks. Their concerns have not been eased.
At the heart of the debate is the non-regression clause (supposed to prevent standards from being downgraded at the end of the transition period) and rebalancing measures, which MEPs say may not be sufficient to avoid any risk of a levelling down of protection in the EU if controls on pesticides and GMOs are not strictly carried out at borders.
In addition, MEPs are concerned about the difficulty of providing any evidence of the effects of the divergences.
“For pesticides, what will happen?” asked Mr. Canfin. The European Commission replied that they are well covered by the non-regression clause as a chemical, just as GMOs are as a specific example of agri-food products. “This will be judged over time and this is what we’re going to look at”, replied a representative of the ‘Barnier Taskforce’ team.
Frustrated by this response, Mr Canfin recalled the request made a month ago by the parliamentary committee to Mr Barnier for a joint EU/UK working group to oversee controls at the main points of entry into the EU (France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands).
To Christophe Hansen (EPP, Luxembourg), the Commission recalled that under the withdrawal agreement of a year ago, as under the dispute settlement mechanism of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the Commission must complete the infringement proceedings already initiated against the UK. In addition, it is permitted to initiate infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom for four years after the end of the transitional period for offences allegedly committed before the end of the transitional period.
César Luena (S&D, Spain) deplored the fact that the agreement with the United Kingdom did not take into account the new commitments that will result from COP15 in China on biodiversity and expressed alarm at the UK’s announcement of a revision of the Water Framework Directive, “which will have repercussions on transboundary pollution. Rather than a non-regression clause, it would have been better to have a progressive alignment”, he said.
The Commission also indicated that the agreement with the United Kingdom “modernises all rights: access to justice, participation, transparency”. It also makes a very clear reference to environmental principles, mentions a precautionary approach and refers to the polluter pays’ principle - an innovation.
This was not enough. Forced to leave the exchange a little before the end, Pascal Canfin proposed to the MEPs of the other groups who, like him, would “still hunger”, to submit their questions in writing to the Taskforce and Michel Barnier. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)