Ministers agree 'flexible' curbs on industrial pollution 

The proposal, initially put forward by the European Commission in 2007, will require some 52,000 industrial operators to obtain permits from national authorities to release pollutants into the air, soil or water.

It attempts to combine seven existing EU air pollution laws, including the directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) and the Large Combustion Plants Directive.

According to the EU executive, tightening emission limits on large combustion plants (LCPs) alone will reduce health costs by €7 to €28 billion and prevent 13,000 premature deaths every year. 

But a consensus has been slow to emerge as many EU member states fear that stricter rules will come with too high a price tag. Yesterday, the Czech EU Presidency was given high marks for engineering a compromise. 

More flexibility

The issue of large combustion plants proved to be the most divisive. The Commission originally proposed to tighten emissions limit values by forcing plants to adopt Best Available Techniques (BATs) by 2016. BAT technologies are deemed to be the top of the range on the market in terms of effectiveness in reducing emissions.

Environment ministers agreed to a Czech proposal to apply current BATs to new combustion plants earlier than envisaged by the Commission, within two years after the entry into force of the directive. For existing plants, the deadline was set to 2016, with a transition period.

The presidency had suggested giving national authorities until the end of 2019 to define "transitional national plans" for reducing emissions of NOx, SO2 and dust, with a gradual decline in annual national ceilings.

But at the insistence of a group of member states led by the UK, Poland, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania, ministers decided to extend this flexibility by another year - until the end of 2020 – in order to give member states more flexibility.

The Council also set a 96% rate of desulphurisation of fossil fuels for LCPs that cannot meet the agreed SO2 limits.

Derogations to set limits

One of the Commission's main concerns in the revision of the legislation was to grant a greater role to the Best Available Techniques Reference Documents (BREFS) in the permitting process at EU level. The EU executive was hoping to leave member states with only limited scope to deviate from the BATs when handing out permits to their industries.

The Commission found allies in Germany, France, Denmark and Austria in demanding stricter rules for deviating from BATs. But after the Netherlands switched sides, a bloc headed by the UK and Italy and including many new member states won assurances that there would be more flexibility in the new system.

The compromise would consequently allow member states grant operators permission to exceed the set emission limits in specific cases where the technical characteristics of the installation, geographical location and local environmental conditions.

Difficult second reading ahead

The directive now returns to the European Parliament for a second reading, where it is expected to be set for a rocky ride.

Indeed, the Parliament's first-reading position adopted in March called for a "safety net" of minimum emission limits, set at EU level, that no installation is allowed to exceed. But many member states say the provision would involve greater administrative costs.

Moreover, the issue of including CO2 emissions in the remit of the directive could surface again in the second reading. CO2 standards were flouted by a group of MEPs in the first reading, but the amendment was deemed inadmissible by the chair of the environment committee in January (EurActiv 23/01/09).

However, due to a change in the Parliament's rules of procedure agreed in May, MEPs in the environment committee will have a free hand in introducing amendments. 

Moreover, the position negotiated by EU member states seems fragile. While most member states agree that derogations from emissions limits should not be touched again as this would unravel the carefully-negotiated text, others are keen to see stricter environmental protection inserted into the final legislation.

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas argued that it is vital to reduce industrial emissions, particularly from the most-polluting industrial plants, as they remain very high in the EU. "Today's agreement brings us one step closer to substantial emission reductions from industrial plants, which will decrease the exposure of European citizens to harmful pollutants and significantly improve the health of the environment," he said.

UK Environment Secretary Hilary Benn stated that the agreement would help ensure a transition to low-carbon power generation by 2020. "This is important legislation because it provides a high level of protection for the environment and builds on the integrated pollution control that the UK pioneered. It's about even better implementation of existing controls to deal with pollution from industry," he said.

BusinessEurope, the EU employers' organisation, congratulated the environment ministers for reaching a balance between competitiveness and environmental protection which they claimed was better than the original draft. "The revision of the IPPC Directive must strike a difficult balance: stimulate its implementation while preserving its key principles and cost-effectiveness. The Commission's proposal did not manage to do this. Luckily, the Council has reached a well-crafted compromise on which institutions should build."

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), a grouping of 140 environmental organisations from across Europe, argued that EU member states had further weakened the Czech Presidency's compromise proposal. 

"We are appalled by the minimalist approach taken by certain member states led by the UK and Poland," said Christian Schaible, EEB's industrial policy officer. "Shouldn't Environment Ministers be more concerned about ensuring better health and environmental conditions for its citizens rather than securing additional profits for operators by prolonging the period during which underperforming plants can continue being heavy polluters?" he asked.

WWF criticised ministers for not pushing for the inclusion of emission performance standards for CO2 in the new law. 

"Environment ministers skipped aimlessly past what is an obvious game-changing move. In the face of increasingly stark warnings from scientists, Europe has missed a straight-forward opportunity, using a proven regulatory tool, to plan the phase-out of dirty coal-fired power stations," said Mark Johnston, coordinator for power plant CO2 standards at WWF.