Brussels, 27/02/2009 (Agence Europe) - A highly charged political agenda is awaiting EU environment ministers on Monday 2 March in a meeting dominated by preparations for the European Council of 19-20 March. The EU27 will be aware that the EU has to collectively face the challenge of the current financial and economic crisis and the problem of global warming in the medium and long-term hand-in-hand with other partners around the globe. The stand-off between the Commission and the member states over the growing of certain types of genetically modified maize in the EU is likely to continue and be an area of tension at the meeting. Like all the other Council formations, this first Environment Council chaired by Martin Bursik, who is both deputy Czech prime minister and Czech environment minister, will finalise its traditional contribution to the Spring summit, in which it will focus on the environmental impact of the European economic recovery plan and the potential opportunities of ecological innovation in terms of job creation and growth. The contribution will be accompanied by a conclusions document on the position the EU should argue at the United Nations' talks over a global climate protection plan for post-2012, to be sealed in Copenhagen in December 2009 at the UN's fifth climate conference (COP 15). Michael Zammit Cutahjar, chair of the special working group on concerted long-term action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, has been invited to join ministers for an informal discussion over lunch. The EU27 environment ministers will hold a public debate on the draft overhaul of EU rules on industrial pollution and will prepare for the upcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission in June. EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas will be representing the Commission. Monday's agenda:
Preparing for the European Council
Climate change: The Council will adopt a conclusions document setting out the EU's position on a global environment deal for post-2012 for the 7-18 December 2009 UN conference in Copenhagen. The document will set out the EU's negotiating strategy vis-à-vis industrialised nations, emerging economies and developing countries with the aim of leading its partners in complex negotiations requiring concerted global action. To this end, the ministers are using suggestions by the European Commission unveiled in a report on 28 January 2009 “Towards a global climate change agreement in Copenhagen” (see EUROPE 9829 and 9828). The document will address: 1) The EU's ambitions for industrial nations, where the EU is recommending a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions but has not yet agreed on detailed progress evaluation criteria to compare like-for-like. The Commission is suggesting using GDP per inhabitant, emissions per unit of GDP, trends since 1990 and demographic trends. Some member states back this, but others, like the new member states, prefer no criteria to be set for fear of blocking the negotiations. Other countries are demanding further criteria. France, for example, wants a 2 tonne emission by inhabitant criterion for 2050); - Developing countries: The EU is suggesting that a range of developing countries slow their emission growth by 15-30% below business as usual levels, but should this be compulsory? 2) Instruments: The EU is suggesting setting up the broadest possible carbon trading system but the member states have yet to choose between the two options on the table: inviting all OECD countries to use a system similar to the EU's emissions trading system (ETS) by 2015, or developing and extending the European market to reach a more representative price for carbon; 3) Reducing aviation and maritime emissions: The EU has an ambitious approach, including aviation in the ETS in 2012, and is prepared to include the emissions of ships if no progress is made at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 4) Finance: The Commission's first estimates suggest €175bn will be required between 2013 and 2020 to reduce global warming for the planet as a whole, and between €23bn and €54bn a year to help developing countries adjust. Should these estimates be included in the document? What type of funding mechanism should be introduced at Copenhagen and what should be done with existing funding mechanisms? Discussion about the EU's role in the global financial system has been postponed. Finance ministers will negotiate innovative funding mechanisms on 10 March 2009 to help developing countries adapt to climate change, but it is not expected to be possible to decide on this ahead of the European summit. The issue is expected to be
handed over to the Swedish Presidency.
? General environment policy: The Council will adopt conclusions welcoming environmentally-friendly measures proposed in the context of the European Economic Recovery Plan. Ministers are expected to agree on measures to be given preference (some member states suggest that the possibility of applying reduced VAT rates to green products and services should be mentioned, but others are opposed to this). The text will underline the importance of sustainable production and consumption, will reaffirm the need to use resources that are compatible with sustainable development, and will invite member states and the Commission to encourage sustainable behaviour, for example via the use of eco-design and environmental labelling extended to products or prices including the environmental cost of a product. The Council will underline the worrying fall in demand for recycled materials and may call on the Commission to suggest measures to reverse the trend. The conclusions are also expected to express concern caused by the lack of biodiversity in Europe and insist on the urgent need to deploy additional efforts to respect the objective subscribed to by the EU (although it has not gone along that road) to eliminate the decline in biodiversity by 2010. The worrying impact of climate change on biodiversity should also be mentioned. Conclusions will stress the importance of a “green GDP”, whose calculation reflects links between the economy, the environment and the social pillars - the three pillars of sustainable development.
? Industrial pollution: The Council will hold a public debate on the proposal for a Commission directive presented in December 2007 to strengthen and blend seven European directives into a single text, including the IPPC directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (EUROPE 9825). Discussions on this text, which is a priority for the Czech Presidency, are highly technical and will continue under Swedish EU Presidency. At this stage, the debate will focus on four issues: (1) Is it appropriate to strengthen reference documents on the best technologies available for granting exploitation permits? - (2) Are ministers in favour of minimum limit values being decided by comitology, from which no derogation is possible, as the environment committee of the European Parliament suggests (except Germany and Austria, the delegations are not in favour of this “safety net”); - (3) Should the buffer date for imposing on the same minimum limit values large combustion installations be 2016 or should one accept a margin of flexibility until 2020? (an option that the European Commission has not suggested).
? GMOs: The Council will be invited to take a stance on the Commission proposals aimed at placing Austria and Hungary under an obligation to repeal their safeguard measures preventing the growth or sale and use on their territory of genetically engineered MON 810 maize (Hungary and Austria) and the T25 maize for Austria. These genetically modified forms of maize were authorised in the EU on the basis of a favourable opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), before far stricter provisions took effect on the assessment and surveillance of GMO risks (Directive 2001/18/EC on the voluntary dissemination of GMOs in the environment, and Regulation 1829/2003/EC on foodstuffs and feed that is genetically modified). In December 2006, the Council had refused to compel Austria to lift its measures that only affected use and sale and, in February 2007, it had countered the Commission in its attempt to impose anything on Hungary that bans the growth of such crops. New scientific data provided in the meantime by the two states to justify their measures have been considered by EFSA as providing no new elements. This time, the Council may either reoffend or fail to gain the qualified majority required for approving or rejecting the Commission's proposals. In any event, a simple majority of member states is expected to oppose the Commission's resolve to force the two reluctant member states to comply with Community legislation.
? Whaling: The Council will finalise the Union's position for coming meetings of the International Whaling Commission (IWC, Rome 9-11 March and Madeira in June 2009). (A.N./transl.fl/jl)