13EU Environmental Implementation Review 2019
|
Committee’s assessment |
Politically important |
|
Cleared from scrutiny; further information requested; drawn to the attention of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee |
|
|
Document details |
Commission Communication—Environmental Implementation Review 2019: A Europe that protects its citizens and enhances their quality of life |
|
Legal base |
— |
|
Department |
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs |
|
Document Number |
(40521), 8302/19 + ADDs 1–2 and 9, COM(19) 149 |
Summary and Committee’s conclusions
13.1The EU has adopted rules to protect the environment in several areas, including waste, air, water and habitats, but rules can only be effective if implemented. Historically, environmental law has been one of the most poorly-implemented areas of EU law.109
13.2The environmental implementation review (EIR) was introduced in 2017 to improve implementation of EU environmental law and legislation. It aims to address the causes of implementation gaps and to find solutions before problems become urgent. The EIR consists of a two-yearly cycle of analysis, dialogue and collaboration, with publication of country reports and discussions between the European Commission, Member States and stakeholders.
13.3The country reports show that some of the common root causes of poor implementation are: weak integration of environmental objectives with other legitimate policy goals (such as transport, energy and agriculture); poor public administration; and lack of publicly-available information in order to encourage active public engagement in environmental implementation.
13.4The UK Report highlights some of the successes of UK implementation—such as the landfill tax, England’s 25 Year Environment Plan, resource efficiency, alternative fuel use in new passenger cars, the Central Scotland Green Network, green public procurement and the strong culture of public consultation on policy decisions.
13.5In terms of UK progress since 2017, the Commission agrees there has been some progress on nature protection, in terms of the status of habitats and species, the protection of the harbour porpoise, and in phasing out the burning of blanket bogs. The Commission also acknowledges that the latest data shows some progress on air quality in recent years, though the compliance picture has not changed.
13.6The identified areas for further improvement are:
- air quality (nitrogen dioxide levels in urban areas);
- nature protection (offshore birds through further designations of protected marine sites, as well as developing a dispersed species strategy for species such as bats and great-crested newts); and
- water quality (diffuse pollution from nitrates—largely from agriculture).
13.7Agriculture is identified as a challenge both for water quality and for nature protection. The Commission observes that the “main pressure on nature appears to come from agriculture […] possibly because of too much reliance on voluntary compliance”.
13.8The Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State for the Environment, (Dr Thérèse Coffey MP) says in her Explanatory Memorandum (EM) that the Government is taking and planning further action to secure improvements in the areas requiring improvement. For example, the UK is working “at pace” to implement its 2017 UK Plan for Tackling Roadside Nitrogen Dioxide supported by a £3.5 billion investment into air quality and cleaner transport. The UK has also committed to ending the sale of conventional new diesel and petrol cars and vans by 2040. On implementation of the Nitrates Directive, the Minister says that a recent Commission report showed that there is an improving trend with nitrate concentrations reducing in both surface waters and groundwater in the UK. The Environment Bill, due to be introduced early in the next Session of this Parliament, will also include ambitious legislative measures to take direct action on air quality, nature recovery, waste and resource efficiency, and water resource management.
13.9Turning to the UK’s future relationship with the EU, the Minister says that the UK “will no longer be subject to this report”, but that the UK will continue to work constructively with the Commission, EU Member States and all international partners to tackle those environmental issues requiring multilateral coordinated action. Brexit, says the Minister, offers a fresh opportunity to consider a long-term vision for the environment and to design an effective approach to driving environmental improvement, tailored to the needs of the UK. This includes the planned introduction of the Environment Bill which will place England’s 25 Year Environment Plan on a statutory footing and establish an Office for Environmental Protection, to ensure that the environment in a better condition is left in a better condition than the Government found it.
13.10We note the Minister’s observation that the UK “will no longer be subject to this report” once it is outside the EU. While it is accurate to say that the Environmental Implementation Review process applies only to EU Member States, we assume that it would continue to apply to the UK during any post-Brexit transition/implementation period. Furthermore, the EU and UK may agree that environmental standards should not fall below those in place at the point of Brexit or at the end of any transition/implementation period (the principle of non-regression). In that instance, we assume that the Commission will be active in assessing UK environmental policy compliance.
13.11On the matter of non-regression, the EIR demonstrates that the UK is not yet fully compliant with the current body of EU environmental law and thus has progress to make before it can meet any non-regression requirement.
13.12We note that the Minister’s response is based very much on the forthcoming Environment Bill but that the issues raised by the Commission are due in part to the agriculture sector. This chimes with the recent findings of the UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which concluded that “land-use change is the major direct driver of the loss of both biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia”.110 While we are aware that the Agriculture Bill is ambitious in its environmental objectives, we consider it critical that Government documents such as this EM highlight that agricultural policy is part of the solution to the identified environmental issues. We note indeed that the Commission observes that one of the root causes of poor implementation is weak integration of environmental objectives with other legitimate policy goals, such as agriculture.
13.13This is a non-legislative document with no suggested legislative amendments. We clear it from scrutiny but would welcome the Minister’s position—within three weeks—on the observations that we have set out above. We draw this chapter to the attention of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee.
Full details of the documents
Commission Communication—Environmental Implementation Review 2019: A Europe that protects its citizens and enhances their quality of life: (40521), 8302/19 + ADDs 1–2 and 9, COM(19) 149.
Previous Committee Reports
None, but our Reports on the 2017 EIR are relevant: Fortieth Report HC 71–xxxvii (2016–17) chapter 25 (25 April 2017); Thirty-fifth Report HC 71–xxxiii (2016–17), chapter 5 (15 March 2017).
109 European Commission website, Annual reports on monitoring the application of EU law
110 IPBES (2018): Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. M. Fischer, M. Rounsevell, A. Torre-Marin Rando, A. Mader, A. Church, M. Elbakidze, V. Elias, T. Hahn, P.A. Harrison, J. Hauck, B. Martín-López, I. Ring, C. Sandström, I. Sousa Pinto, P. Visconti, N.E. Zimmermann and M. Christie (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
Published: 11 June 2019