On Monday 7 November, MEPs on the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) gave a generally positive welcome to the European Commission’s recent ‘Zero Pollution’ legislative package, but some were disappointed that the Commission had not proposed to bring future EU air quality standards fully into line with WHO recommendations.
The coordinators of the Greens/EFA, S&D and Renew Europe groups were explicit on this point, while on the right, the EPP was silent on the issue and the ECR group called for realism. The Left and ID were not represented at this exchange with the European Commissioner for the Environment, Virginijus Sinkevičius, on the three proposed legislations on 26 October (see EUROPE 13051/1, 13051/2).
Like the Commissioner, MEPs considered the review of these key ‘European Green Deal’ laws to be a major environmental and health protection issue, but with caveats, given the current energy and economic crises.
Air quality package. The revision of the 2008 directives, which will bring EU standards in line with the latest WHO recommendations (of September 2021) by 2030 as a first step (see EUROPE 13051/1), does not meet the demands of the European Parliament (see EUROPE 12686/10), stressed MEPs Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Dutch) and Tiemo Wölken (S&D, German).
The latter expressed his group’s “full support” for the Commission’s intentions. “We are fighting for zero emissions, for a ban on all substances that are toxic to health. Other groups are trying to make this legislation look like a burden. The status quo would be a risk”, he said.
Nils Torwalds (Renew Europe, Finnish) assured the Commission of his group’s support, especially in reducing the 300,000 premature deaths per year due to air pollution, but questioned whether subsidiarity would be respected, given the different situations in the Member States. The Commissioner retorted that the current legislation already incorporates the principle of subsidiarity.
To those who would have liked more ambition, Mr Sinkevičius replied that the impact assessment had shown that full alignment with the WHO guidelines for 2030 “would not be realistic” and that other EU directives, including the ‘Fit for 55’ climate package, will have an impact - hence the regular review of standards, which is planned taking into account societal changes and technological progress.
Air and water quality are major issues to which we must commit ourselves”, said Alexandr Vondra (ECR, Czech), urging caution and realism, given the difficulties of Member States in complying with current air legislation and the “analyses full of uncertainties” concerning in particular the economy, population growth, the growth of various sectors, “which may mean that it will not be possible to achieve the maximum limit value for PM 2.5”.
Water Package. Choosing to speak only on water, Pernille Weiss (EPP, Danish) found the proposals “interesting” on urban wastewater treatment and integrated freshwater management. She asked about the funding possibilities available to help Member States invest in the structures required, particularly to treat storm water effluent.
Mr Sinkevičius said that water prices should not increase much and that many funds can help Member States, such as the Recovery and Resilience Facility (for energy, but also for transport), the Cohesion Funds, the European Interconnection Facility, Invest EU, and the LIFE programme for the environment and climate.
Bas Eickhout asked why the Commission was only planning to include 24 PFAS substances to be controlled. “These are the most common ones where action can be taken as early as 2024 for drinking water”, the commissioner said. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)