feature
Assessing the Environmental Health of
Europe
Protection of Europe's environmental health will depend heavily on successful management of its fast-growing industrial base. MARIA BURKE
7 6 A • FEBRUARY 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
or the first time, the Copenhagen-based European Environment Agency (EEA) has provided information on the state of the European environment and predicted future trends based on economic, as well as environmental, forecasts. Although there is some good news in Environment in the EU at the Turn of the Century, the latest snapshot of Europe's environment, presents a gloomy picture: Twenty-five years of European environmental policy have failed to produce significant signs of recovery. Success over the next 10 years will depend heavily on carefully managing Europe's fastest growing industries, mainly transportation, tourism, and land development. EEA Executive Director Domingo JimenezBeltran identifies two main challenges: reducing greenhouse gases to alleviate climate change (see box on next page) and coping with new European Union (EU) entrants, all keen for economic growth, many bringing environmental problems of their own. The
F
© 2000 American Chemical Society
Dim prospects for climate change control efforts estimates produces a 2% reduction. "The figures suggest that it will be somewhere in between," says Jol. However, the picture gets markedly more depressing for 2010. Emissions are forecast to rise 8% over the 1990 level; a 39% increase in transportation emissions will more than offset a 15% decline in industrial emissions. There is little doubt that the EU will fall far short of its second target. Greenhouse gases are expected to rise by 6% above the 1990 level in 2010. "At the moment, we are not headed in the right direction. The message for high-level policy makers is that if you continue what you're doing, we will end up missing targets. Additional policies and measures are needed if we are to change direction," says Jol. An EU-wide energy tax would help, but it depends very much on the member states' governments over the next 10 years or so, he says. Some countries have national energy taxes already. Jol thinks other actions under consideration, such as emissions trading, are only feasible for certain gases and specific sectors.
Rising global temperatures have kept climate change firmly at the top of the environmental agenda. So how well is the European Union (EU) dealing with this issue? Its two main targets are to stabilize C02 emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 and to reduce emissions of the six main greenhouse gases (C02, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons) by 8% below 1990 levels in 2008-2012. According to Andre Jol of the European Environment Agency, coordinator and coauthor of the climate change chapter, only the first of these is potentially feasible. Between 1990 and 1996, C02 emissions fell by 1%, thanks to relatively low economic growth, increases in energy efficiency, economic restructuring in Germany, and the switch from coal to natural gas in the United Kingdom. Germany (and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom) holds the key to EU-wide reductions, as it contributes almost one-third of emissions. Although European Commission projections for 2000 show C02 emissions up 2% from 1990, an aggregate of national
report, packed full of data and discussion, offers no easy answers but has one clear message: Environmental policy is futile if not integrated with economic and industrial development. "Environmental policy may have eased some problems, but economic and sectoral policies beyond the control of environmental policy have created new and bigger ones," says Jimenez-Beltran. He acknowledges that integrating environmental considerations into other policies is destined to face conflict, as it requires political and cultural change, yet he sees some headway. According to Jimenez-Beltran, the European Council of Ministers asked the key sectors—agriculture, transportation, energy, and industry—to produce targets and timetables for achieving integration in June 1998. The European Council of Ministers is the committee for the heads of government. A different member state holds the EU presidency every six months. The Finnish presidency is keen to demonstrate progress and will ask the council when it meets in December in Helsinki to ap~ prove a strate^v paper on integration Caroline Jackson, Member of European Parliament, chair of the European Parliament's environment committee, is "relatively optimistic" that environmental issues will be considered in economic and industrial policy. "Green themes have penetrated the consciousness of most mainstream political parties in Europe. But we have to realize that turning round government poli-
TABLE 1 Disappointing environmental quality trends Aside from substantial cuts in ozone-depleting substances, there has been little or no progress in reducing pressures on the state of Europe's environment. "Present" refers to a summation of progress over the past 5-10 years; "future" refers to trends projected up to 2010 (2050 for climate change and ozone-depleting substances). Pressures Present
Future
©
O C O © © O O
• C © © O © © © O © © O O O
? ? O © © O
? ?
Legend:
State and impact Environmental issues Greenhouse gases and climate change Ozone depletion Hazardous substances Transboundary air pollution Water stress Soil degradation Waste Natural and technological hazards Genetically modified organisms Biodiversity Human health Urban areas Coastal and marine areas Rural areas Mountain areas
Present
Future
O O © © © O O © ? © O © O O O
O C
? © ©
? O ?
— ?
? © ?
— —
• Positive development; © Some positive development but insufficient; O Unfavorable development; — No quantitative data available; and ? Uncertain (partial quantitative/expert analysis available).
Source: European Environment Agency, 1999.
FEBRUARY 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 7 7 A
A formidable agenda
TABLE 2
Slow progress meeting environmental targets Although there are a few exceptions, prospects are poor for meeting European environmental targets in the future. The basis year for comparison is 1990. Emissions, production, and acidification levels existing in that year are expressed as an index value of 100. For other years, an index value greater than 100 indicates a worsening situation, and an index value greater than that targeted in future years indicates projected failure to achieve the desired reduction target.
1385 level
1930 level
1935 level
Exprected level in target year
Target
Progress
Greenhouse gases (GHG) and climate changc
-
Basket GHG emissions C 0 2 emissions
96
100
98
106
100
97
98-102
92 in 2008-2012 100 in 2000
O C
Ozone-depleting substances CFC production
160
100 100
119
100
Hv-'Fi-'s production
11
-0
0 in 1995 0 in 2025
Zdihcatm S 0 2 emissions
65
53* 16 in 2010**
N O , emissions
95
100
89
Nonmethane volatile organic
98
100
89
• • • o o
81* 55 81*
O
compound emissions nBQI0n3rSC3IB pfOulBfnS 79 Municipal waste (per capita)
\
\j\j
103
109
7 *7
i11
2UU0
V-'
Wore: Use legend frfm Tabla 1. * Based on current reductton plans of membbe rtates. ** Proposed targets that may be reviewed in the framework of the combined ozone-acidification strategy. Source: European Ennironment Ageeny, ,999.
cies to a more environmentally aware position takes time. We are dealing, in western Europe, with countries that were among the first to industrialize in the world and where the culture of environmental consciousness is relatively recently rooted. I am optimistic, however, that we have at least made a start: The EU does have in place a basic framework of environmental legislation that all countries are struggling to implement." One problem is the struggle to build a seamless monitoring and reporting system, says Jimenez Beltran. "What has been missing is a more structured reference model with indicators, and eventually targets for the main issues. The present report is one step on the way to more effective reporting." In addition, the EEA promised to publish by the end of 1999 the first in a new series of yearly reports called EU Environment Signals, which will use a package of indicators to monitor progress and trends more frequently. The European Commission the administrative arjn of the EU presented 10 "headline" eco-efficiency indicators to the council in December 1999. 7 8 A • FEBRUARY 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
The EEA report evaluates progress and predicts future success measured against EU and international targets and policy objectives. The document covers the 15 EU member states—Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom—as well as the 11 accession countries (those seeking to join)— Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Cyprus. The EU's environment remains a serious concern, the report concludes. There is "a wide-ranging and formidable agenda for the coming years." An examination (see Table 1) of how pressures on 15 environmental issues have affected environmental quality over the past 5-10 years and how they are expected to impact the future environment reveals that for most, there has been either insufficient progress or unfavorable underlying developments. Factors causing ozone depletion show the only positive improvements that should contribute toward a more hopeful future. Although there are some small, "positive signals", including increases in the use of wind energy, pesticide-free areas, organic agriculture, bicycle use in some cities, and energy efficiency, progress toward meeting targets (see Table 2) is slow. Economic, industrial, leisure, and even personal activities are pressuring an already troubled environment, and an expected 45% increase in economic growth by 2010 will probably erode environmental policy gains. What is needed, the report says, is less time between identifying problems and implementing solutions and more coordination among environmental policies. Apart from cutting emissions contributing to acidification and phosphorus discharges to rivers, progress in reducing most environmental pressures has remained largely insufficient. Europe faces continued increases in energy and materials consumption, road and air transportation, urbanization, and degradation of rural areas. Although EU economies are becoming less energyintensive, falling energy prices are threatening further reductions. Overall, an increasing demand for energy will generate more C0 2 emissions. The EEA predicts a 50% rise in domestic energy consumption between 1995 and 2010, as incomes rise and households multiply. The total projected growth of industry will more than offset any benefits from energy technology. The good news is that EEA expects a shift from solid fuels (down from 32% in 1990 to 19% in 2010) to natural gas (up from 20% to 31% in the same period). However, strong measures are needed if the EU is not to miss its 12% renewables target by 2010 by 4%; present usage is 6%. Transportation also presents a huge threat. Large increases in freight and passenger vehicle use jeopardize climate change and air pollution goals. Road transport continues to gain over rail and inland shipping. More efficient engines are not enough to offset shifts toward bigger cars, increased car and air travel, and increases in kilometers traveled per person.
Agriculture, accounting for 40% of all EU land, is another concern (see box at right). Fertilizer use is declining, but pesticide use started to rise again in 1994; that trend has continued until now, but future developments are uncertain. Agriculture, the report projects, will be the top contributor of acidifying emissions (ammonia) over the next decade, and it is hardly able to reduce its emissions like other sectors.
Plugging the gaps Although there has been some progress, a lack of data that are comparable, compatible, and verifiable remains a serious problem. The report examines the data needs of 11 environmental areas, including ambient air quality, for which only half of EU countries provide complete and timely data; chemicals, for which there remains inadequate toxicity data for 75% of chemicals in use; and waste, for which "confusion prevails". "At present, some of the systems used for monitoring and gathering information about the environment in European countries are inefficient and wasteful," says EEA board chairman Derek Osborne. "They generate excessive amounts of data on subjects, which do not need it, and they fail to provide timely and relevant information on other subjects where there is an urgent policy need for betterfocused information, as well as consistent environmental assessment and reporting." EEA is working toward streamlining states' reporting requirements to international and European conventions, reports EEA's David Gee, coauthor of the chapter on environmental information needs and gaps from Environment in the EU at the Turn of the Century. .I is slso pushing for new directives to require states to study policy effectiveness rather than just produce data. "This is a lot harder but a more useful approach," says Gee. "In the longer term, a group of states may cooperate in assessing one area, such as lead in petrol, for the whole EU."
Water quality problems continue The European Union (EU) extracts and uses around 21% of its renewable water resources, which the European Environment Agency regards as sustainable. Projections indicate that extraction will increase slowly, and demand will remain stable until 2010, as water efficiency policies such as water pricing, reuse, and leakage control start to have an impact. In southern Europe, the agricultural sector uses the most water. It is unclear whether EU agricultural policy reforms would push water use up or down. Industrial use, which has fallen thanks to greater water reuse, increased process efficiency, and discharge fees, should continue decreasing, as should household usage. Meanwhile, water quality reports present a mixed outlook. The past 20 years have seen a marked drop in organic matter and phosphorus discharges into surface waters. "Phosphates loads are falling but may level off, as they are still used in fertilizers," says Steve Nixon of the Water Research Centre in Bucks, United Kingdom. "In contrast, nitrate levels remain high and, if anything,
Uncertainties about GMOs As there is very limited experience in the European Union (EU) with genetically modified crop cultivation, the report couldn't evaluate the environmental effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It recommended more comprehensive monitoring and further research into environmental and health impacts and risk assessments. The EU has only approved four commercial food crops, and only Novartis's insect-resistant maize was grown commercially during 1998. "We found that the EU's regulatory system for genetically modified crops is not working," says Sue Mayer, director of GeneWatch UK. The lack of standards has caused disputes between member states. One area of disagreement relates to the 1990 Deliberate Release Directive, which is under revision. "The scope is too narrow; states have different environments, agricultural practices, and biodiversities. We can't harmonize the European environment; we must allow for differences," says Mayer. States have disagreed over what constitutes adverse effects and whether the directive should cover only immediate effects of GMO release or also look at wider environmental changes, such as changes in chemical usage. The proposed revision, made since the report was written, is a considerable improvement, however, and recognizes that ecosystems are different across Europe, says Mayer. But it doesn't allow for organic farming and still marginalizes ethical concerns, she adds. Another contentious area is antibiotic-resistant marker genes. Novartis's insect and herbicide-resistant maize carries a gene coding for resistance to ampicillin. Austria and Luxembourg have banned its use even though two EU scientific committees concluded that the gene is safe. There is little public confidence or support for developing and regulating GMOs, although there is more sympathy for their use in medical applications, says Mayer. "The technocratic approach has failed. The current state of affairs is awful—war has broken out—because no mature debate was allowed before making these regulations. New regulations must command public respect and address their concerns. There has to be much broader public debate such as [under] what circumstances would GMO use be legitimate and welcome?"
are going up." The picture for groundwater remains hazy because of a lack of comparable data. Controlling point source discharges such as industrial effluents has been relatively effective, particularly for phosphates, which are restricted or banned in detergents. Nevertheless, most states have room for improvement. "We now need to look at small bodies of water and small point sources, such as small sewage plants that discharge into smaller water bodies, which are not covered by current legislation," says Nixon. Effective control of diffuse sources such as nitrate runoff from agriculture has been rare. Even though fertilizer and manure use has decreased from 1980s peak levels, nutrient input from agriculture is still too high. Implementation of the nitrate directive has been so unsatisfactory that the Commission has started legal proceedings against some member states. "We need to address more seriously now diffuse sources and agriculture, which have largely gotten away with it in the past," says Nixon. He hopes that the proposed water framework directive, which replaces six old water directives, will have a significant impact.
FEBRUARY 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 7 9 A
Another key theme is eco-efBciency "headline" indicators, says Gee, which were presented to the council in December. These should show how land or water (see box on previous page), for example, is faring across the board. "We are trying to focus on key flows of information so policy makers can get to grips with environmental information more easily," notes Gee. The availability and quality of information are gradually improving, but big gaps remain. Hans Wolters, director of Greenpeace Europe in Brussels, predicts that it will take another 5-10 years before reliable, comparable figures are available. The accession countries, on target to join early next century, will deepen these problems. "With Eastern European countries joining, it will be an even bigger task to get reliable and comparable data" says John Hontelez secretary-general of the Eu-
"Those not convinced that environmental policies have had a limited impact will see here a concrete picture
ropean Environmental Bureau in Brussels "The EEA is trying to harmonize data systems but this is a major task " He is also concerned that governments are tending to spend less on data AcoOUXL-Co.
Adding to the challenge of harmonization in a timely manner, the accession —John Hontelez, countries bring with them a host of enviEuropean ronmental problems, such as hazardous Environmental Bureau Soviet-era nuclear and military bases, as well as industrial areas heavily damaged by sulfur and heavy metal emissions. "Enlargement is going to big problems because the applicant states will want to be full members on 3. rapid time scale, whereas their capability to meet the demands of EU environmental legislation is going to mean that thev will need long lead-in times before they can complv with what is currently in force " says Jackson She also predicts problems with fair competition if industries in accession countries are allowed to be more polluting "The question is: How much will cleanup in European countries cost and who will pay?"
of their failure."
Industrial pollution in eastern Europe has improved since the 1980s, the result of faltering economies—less industrial activity has meant less pollution. But now economic development is a priority. Wolters, therefore, wants the EU to invest in sustainable technologies and infrastructures, such as rail rather than road transport, for these states. Hontelez, meanwhile, points out that the EU may find it more difficult to agree to more progressive policies with countries reluctant to take on additional financial and regulatory burdens.
directorate and has been used by the Finns and Swedes to apply pressure within the council. It could also persuade EU environment ministers to adopt a cross-sectoral sustainable development program, at present under discussion. Wolters, who found the report "depressing and alarming", agrees that it is already having an effect. "The EEA is the environmental conscience of the EU. This report is very valuable in making policy makers aware of problems and that they are not doing enough. It is also valuable for nongovernmental organizations as a source of information that is reliable and not contested by member states. We use this information to confront policy makers. Importantly, this report has opened up a new debate in the European Parliament." Hontelez agrees: "Those not convinced that environmental policies have had a limited impact will see here a concrete picture of their failure. The economy is growing so fast that technical measures are neutralized." Wilkinson thinks the report also demonstrates that there is insufficient reporting and monitoring of policy effectiveness. "We need a new system of reporting to assess the effects of environmental measures and see what the impacts are on the ground. The EEA is commissioned to predict future trends, but few states report policies' effects. The EEA and the commission are at a loss." Very few countries are good at this kind of evaluation; Sweden and Norway are the most advanced, he adds. According to Wolters, the report serves a further purpose: It highlights the need for the EU to implement all agreed-upon legislation and to secure compliance of existing legislation by bringing states to the European Court of Justice and ensuring that penalties are paid. The latter issue—ensuring compliance^—is an enormous problem. "The EEA was, in the eyes of many MEPs, the first step toward securing better compliance, but it seems at the moment mainly a data-capture agency. It is still the case that the commission has great difficulty in putting together a case to take to the court. Years are lost as letters go to and fro, and directives wither," says Jackson. She believes that the commission should attach meaningful cost assessments to its new proposals, believing that states need them to understand the reality of compliance—member states should not agree to laws that they will subsequently ignore For the future, many observers are hesitantly optimistic. A n e w Swedish environment commissioner and a strong commitment from Parliament mean a chance to make progress in policy developments. Policy integration is a big challenge, but this report will play an important role in moving toward this goal at the Helsinki summit. Maria Burke is a freelance science, technology, and business writer living in St. Albans, England.
References Is anybody listening? David Wilkinson of the Institute of European Environment Policy in London believes that the EEA report has influenced the commission's environment 8 0 A • FEBRUARY 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
(1) European Environment Agency (EEA). Environment in Europe at the Turn of the Century; EEA: Copenhagene Denmark, 1999. (2) EEA. EU Enviroment Signals; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, in press.
