Brussels, 20/12/2007 (Agence Europe) - It would be an understatement to say that the soil protection framework directive made life difficult for the Portuguese presidency at its last Environment Council in Brussels on 20 December, and that a miracle would have been needed for agreement to have been reached without removing all substance from the text. As we went to press, failure had been acknowledged, as a result of a blocking minority. It will now fall to the Slovenian, and probably French, presidencies to break the deadlock. It was apparent right from the first round table discussion that the compromise brought forward to allow as much flexibility as possible and to try to bring as many delegations as possible on board, would not be able to obtain the qualified majority needed for the political agreement so wanted by the outgoing presidency. Five delegations opposed it, and not the smallest: Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and United Kingdom always oppose the very idea of a European directive interfering with the sovereign right of states to act as they see fit in areas of national competence, or regional competence in federal states. France deemed that the text tabled did not go far enough.
“The presidency compromise is reasonable. It is about an overly prescriptive directive. It proposes a framework directive offering a range of options allowing comparison of analyses from the various member states. The compromise will allow those who already have a policy and soil protection measures to comply with the requirements of the directive. It will allow the others to use the directive to lead their own action,” said Council Chairman Francisco Nunes Correia, at the beginning of the debate, speaking of a “minimum core to inspire those who do not yet have concrete actions”.
His plea was not heard. The national inventory and census of contaminated sites requiring improvement were the main bone of contention. Annex II of the draft directive provides for member states to establish a list of sites where very polluting activities have or are still taking place, within the 7 years following entry into force of the directive. The initial Presidency compromise already provided for exemptions to the identified zones requiring protection against the threat of contamination, expressed concern about the need to avoid disproportionate costs, and did not provide a timetable for cleaning up operations. It did not, however, convince those who were reticent. The president highlighted the paradox that the countries already active in soil protection refuse a directive when those, which have not yet taken such measures, are urging for a directive. By way of a final compromise, the presidency reluctantly suggested making Annex II optional (for dry cleaning installations, petrol stations and airports), as certain activities or installations such as Seveso, mining sites and extraction installations are already covered by Community legislation. This proposal for a compromise was judged unacceptable by most delegations and also by the Commission. During the debate, the Netherlands explained its refusal of a directive by evoking national competence and the need to take account of the policies existing in certain member states. The United Kingdom expressed doubt about the evidence put forward to justify a directive on impact assessment, and on the capacity of such a directive to abide by subsidiarity and the better regulation objective. Germany spoke of the existence of a law on soil protection in place for years, and which is “far more demanding” than the directive proposed. “Soil cannot be carried off elsewhere - and so it comes under national competence”, said Sigmar Gabriel of Germany. Austria expressed fear at seeing bureaucracy and red tape surrounding soil protection. Stressing that soil is the “last biological milieu not to be protected by Community legislation”, France considered it was “indispensable” to have a powerful text.
Italy put its foot in it by calling on member states that invoke subsidiarity to resist pressure from lobbies and not to close themselves up in sterile polemic. “The farm ministers are under pressure from farm lobbies and building lobbies. One speaks of subsidiarity when the real problem are the lobbies that do not want minimum norms!”, exclaimed Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, Italy's Environment Minister. He pointed out that the European Parliament agreed to the Commission's proposal and stressed the need to have a directive. “Our duty is to take account of what the Parliament said”, he asserted. Work will therefore follow on a dossier on which the Commission has been working for over ten years, at the initial request of Germany. (A.N.)