Ever since the EU introduced majority voting on environmental issues in 1992, it has been a global force for cleaner transport and often a first mover. Examples of ‘EU firsts’ include: abolition of single-hull oil tankers following some nasty spills; a carbon price on aviation fuels through the emissions trading system; binding sustainability criteria for biofuels; pedestrian protection rules for cars; and environmental labels for tyres. These have not only benefited the environment Europeans live in, but have also given the EU tremendous soft power and Europe’s industry a huge advantage: most major emerging markets follow EU rules for road vehicles and fuels, for example.
The sales-distorted world map below shows which countries follow what rules for their road vehicles; ‘EU blue’ still leads the world. The same is true in many other areas like chemicals and pesticides.
Numerous industrial interests want the EU to stop leading, to take fewer new initiatives to protect Europeans and their environment, or at least to adopt the same rules as North America.
The latest generation of trade deals is a good example. There is nothing inherently bad about trade, but many tariffs are already low by now, so negotiations have shifted towards a broader set of issues such as rule-making, investment and regulatory cooperation, just to name a few. The EU-Canada deal (CETA) introduces, for the first time, EU-wide investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), in the meantime re-branded into the Investment Court System (ICS), which allows foreign investors to bypass normal courts and directly sue European governments in investment arbitration panels. A main objective of the EU-US deal (TTIP) is to align as many EU and US regulations as possible and prevent new differences from popping up. Such new clauses can severely hamper the ability of the EU and its governments to act in the public interest.
There are also numerous internal pressures trying to slow down lawmaking in the public interest. Incessant and increasingly successful calls from industry and some member states are resulting in demands for deregulation and a more ‘slim-line’ Europe. This has triggered the Regulatory Fitness and Performance (‘REFIT’) programme and a so-called ‘Better Regulation’ package that drowns the lawmaking process itself in red tape by introducing new obstacles for EU action.
Our campaign for better trade and regulation aims to retain and improve Europe’s ability and willingness to legislate for the common good in general, and for more sustainable transport in particular.
Trade and freight are intrinsically linked – the spectacular increase in global trade has been fuelled by the steep decline in costs of international transport. Internalising the external costs of aviation, shipping and road freight remains one of the key objectives of our work.
However, we are also increasingly concerned about the way the EU approaches its trade negotiations with third countries. We are not anti-trade; cooperation on reduction or elimination of tariffs can greatly enhance economic vitality. Rather, we are alarmed by the emergence of ‘post-Lisbon’ deals that go beyond classic tariff negotiations and threaten to create a ‘fright to regulate.’ This means that the EU will have less room to make its own policies and set its own standards to protect people and the environment in the future, all because of obligations to and pressure from external trading partners. (We experienced this with the Fuel Quality Directive). One aspect that has not changed is the traditional deep secrecy in which these deals are negotiated, with mutually approved texts only publicly available after the agreement is signed.
The largest trade agreement currently being negotiated by the EU and, prospectively, the largest bilateral free trade agreement in the world, is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between Europe and the US. T&E currently monitors the EU’s TTIP negotiations as part of the Commission’s TTIP advisory group.
European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker made ‘Better Regulation’ a cornerstone of his Commission upon taking office in 2014. Mr Juncker appointed a new ‘First Vice-President’ to design and execute a ‘Better Regulation’ package, which was subsequently launched in 2015. The aim of the package, the Commission claims, is to streamline policy making while eschewing deregulation and instead focusing on improvements to existing regulations.
We are increasingly concerned by this EU-wide approach under the new Better Regulation package. This is not because we don’t believe ‘Better Regulation’ is impossible or unnecessary; we have not been shy in criticising the complicated and ineffective way Europe regulates the sustainability of its transport fuels, for example. It is because, for many, including Mr Juncker, ‘Better Regulation’ is a euphemism for less regulation.
Environmental policy often gets unwelcome special attention in such ‘Better Regulation’ efforts, despite the fact that environmental protection is impossible without legislation, that environmental policy is one of the few areas in which Europeans actually want the EU to act, and that only 0.6% of the administrative burden from EU laws comes from environmental laws.
We want better laws to protect the environment, not fewer ones to protect special interests.