Why do we need an 8th Environmental Action Programme?

Yesterday, 14 October, the Commission adopted a flurry of environmental proposals. 

The 8th Environmental Action Programme, (link) came out at the end of the day.

It reads as if it has been quickly assembled to help meet the ambitious political agenda to get proposals adopted by the College agenda.  What it lacks is a surprising lack of reflection on why the EU’s environmental agenda is not meeting some of the targets it sets itself.

 

Why a new EAP

I am not sure what the added benefit  of another Environmental Action Programme.  I am not sure if DG Environment needs the document to act. President von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines are authority alone for the Green Agenda to be mainstream.

The Environmental Action Programmes had a benefit when there was no clear legal basis for Europe to act in the environmental field. Today, the environment is mainstream in the political agenda in  most of the Commission and the Member States. 

 

Will it end silo policymaking

It is true that some Directorate-Generals take silo policy-making to purist levels. These same departments have been ignoring or by-passing the other 7 environmental action programmes and the political instructions of the President.  If the President’s agenda is being ignored in some parts of the Commission, there are easier ways to impose it.

 

The real question – why are the targets not being met?

What is hard to do is to self-examine why things are not working as you thought they would.  Why are the targets not being met?

There are good reasons for this. Sometimes, some governments don’t implement the laws on the ground. The Commission can choose  to turn a blind eye. 

Sometimes, the grounds on which the law was introduced were wrong. And, when the foundations are wrong, it can be no surprise that it ain’t delivering.

I have worked on-air pollution and fishing conservation legislation that did not live up to their ambitions. I realised, over time,  there is a clear EU culture of putting forward proposals and adopting laws with little interest in how they are implemented. 

I learned when I was young, that the hard work needs to start when the law is passed. You need the resources for the implementation plans, building up the infrastructure, and having a functioning  compliance system in place. 

The Commission needs to work with the Member States and share the best practice of countries so that others can mimic the best. They can’t pull the resources out and move on to preparing a new legislative proposal as soon as the law is published in the OJ.

The Commission needs to stop turning a blind eye. For example, the landing obligation  under the CFP has more or less been ignored by most Member States. The Commission has gone along with this. Instead, the Commission focuses on putting out new pieces of paper calling for ever more ambitious objectives and meanwhile having selective amnesia to the non-delivering of existing legal commitments. The Commission is still ignoring the Political mandate from the President to act on this.

MEPs can’t celebrate the day the law is passed and turn their back the next,  and not regularly check that the rules they voted for are being implemented.  Too many NGOs walk away when the law is on the book. Too many play along with the facade. The real work starts the day after the law is agreed to.

If the Commission double-downed on getting best practice shared early on a lot more of the objectives would be obtained.