Brussels, 28/06/2004 (Agence Europe) - With the two political agreements achieved at the Environment Council on Monday on issues which created controversy under the Italian Presidency, Ireland is summing up its Presidency of the EU in style. With its acceptance of the compromises concocted by Dublin, the Environment Council overcame all areas of divergence which had divided ministers for months over bathing water and the sulphur content of marine fuel. The Irish Presidency was unable, however, to achieve the agreement it was hoping for concerning the review of EU measures regarding the transfer of waste entering the EU, within the EU and leaving the EU. Likewise, not agreement was struck over the sale of Zeamaïs L Line NK603 and the dossier was sent back for the Commission to decide.
It was not really of great surprise that the Council managed to reach qualified majority agreement on the draft directive stepping up current measures on the sulphur content of marine fuel. Most countries bordering the EU in the Mediterranean are concerned that the obligation to use very low sulphur fuel will be a handicap in terms of competition, because most Mediterranean countries not in the EU will continue to use higher sulphur fuels which are less costly. Italy voted against the compromise developed by the Irish Presidency, continuing to oppose the directive (as it has done all along). Greece and Malta, however, abandoned opposition (they wanted EU to provide aid to Mediterranean third countries to help them respect the same standards, using EuroMed tools). The compromise agreement foresees: - an upper limit of 1.%% for sulphur in fuel used by all craft on the North Sea, the Channel and the Baltic (this will bring EU law in line with the Marpol Convention and will apply to the Baltic Sea as from 19 May 2006); - upper limit of 1.5% for sulphur content for ferry fuel for regular services to or from EU ports, as from 19 May 2006 (the Commission had suggested 1 July 2007); - upper limit of 0.1% sulphur for fuel used by quayside vessels within the EU as from 1 January 2010 (the Commission had suggested 0.2%, to apply at an earlier date, but the Council called for a lower sulphur content at a later date, to allow vessels to adapt). For the same reasons, 16 single fuel Greek ferries running between Greek islands will not have to meet the 0.1% maximum until 1 January 2012.
The issue of bathing water was more controversial, but the Irish Presidency's compromise solution was able to get round the differences in view. Negotiations over the bathing water directive, updating current legislation (dating back to 1976) had been cut short under the Italian Presidency given the irreconcilable nature of disagreement between Member States about the standards of water quality to be achieved by 2015, particularly for sweet water. The Irish Presidency was able to reconcile views on two parameter which will determine whether sweet water is labelled 'satisfactory' or 'acceptable', namely 360 (cfu/100 mL) for intestinal enterococcus and 900 (cfu/100 mL) for E. coli. The agreement did not meet the approval of the Member States, however, which were concerned that these levels are not tight enough to ensure the safety of bathers since the European Commission has committed itself to commission an epistemological study Europe-wide, and the outcome of this research (expected in 2008) will determine whether or not the agreed levels are satisfactory. The Council was unable to decide on whether the new category of bathing water set out in the directive (in addition to 'excellent' and 'good quality') should be called 'satisfactory' or 'acceptable'. Basically, Member States with Germanic languages as their official tongue (like the UK and Germany) prefer 'satisfactory', while other Member States, headed by Spain, argue that 'satisfactory' has too positive a connotation and therefore prefer' acceptable'. The 25 ministers were unable to reach a final decision on this point, so Monday's political agreement incorporates a linguistic reservation which will have to be settled before a common position can be reached. In other words, ministers have decided to send their dispute to be dealt with by the EU's legal and language experts.
Next, in the chapter “waste”, the Council adopted a series of conclusions which formalise the results of the work of the informal meeting in Waterford in May (see EUROPE of 18 May, p. 6). These conclusions are its contribution to the future Community strategy for prevention and for recycling based on the life cycle of natural resources and products. It recognises in particular the pertinence of an approach advocated by the Commission based on the life cycle, the necessity of setting quantitative goals for prevention and developing measures to achieve them. They also guarantee the directions proposed by the Commission to use market forces to develop recycling, the challenge being to achieve in time decoupling of economic growth and the production of waste.
On that subject, the ministers tried to overcome the latest problems which have been present since March on the revision of the transfer regime for waste on entry, within, and outside the EU, that is essentially the issue of the regime applicable to transfers of waste which should be recycled to countries with less strict legislation than the EU and the issue of classifying mixtures of “green” (harmless) waste. Two difficulties prevented the Council reaching the political agreement that the Presidency wanted: on one hand, Italy wanted the proposal to be examined later, under the Dutch Presidency; on the other, the Commission stood firm on its position, claiming that articles 133 and 175 were the legal basis for the regulation, whereas the member states preferred article 175(1). This difference would mean that any change to the proposal would have to be the subject of a unanimous Council decision. The Commission proposal aims to strengthen control procedures currently in force while simplifying them and making them clearer. It is also a step towards greater harmonisation of the movement of waste on an international scale because it transposes the Basel Convention on the international movement of dangerous waste.
Having moved on to a political debate on REACH and failed to gain a majority for or against the marketing of modified maize line NK603, the Council adopted a variety of conclusions on biodiversity which we will come back to. Still to be debated at the beginning of the evening was a Commission proposal on the management of waste from mining industries.