Opinion: An Enlarged Europe Will Be Better for the Environment

By Margot Wallstrom

{The European Union will soon be enlarged by 13 new countries that will become EU Member States - Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey.

Margot Wallstrom, Member of the European Commission responsible for Environment and a a Swedish Social Democrat, made these comments on the environmental aspects of EU enlargement September 30, 2002, at the British Labour Party Conference in Blackpool, England.}

The enlargement of the European Union is approaching its finale.

The Union has announced its readiness to welcome the first new Member States in 2004.

The journey has at times been rocky. But, looking back a lot has been achieved since the accession negotiations on environment were launched.

European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom (Photo courtesy Office of the Commissioner)

One of the requirements for accession is that candidate countries must adopt and implement all the Union's legal acts, known in the EU jargon as the "acquis."

The Union's environmental acquis is a vast block of complex laws - around 270 - that are often highly technical and require specific skills from those who implement them. This is a serious problem in many candidate countries, where the environmental sector lacks funds and has problems attracting skilled staff with adequate salaries.

Secondly, let's face it, putting these laws into practice can be expensive. Particularly so in the candidate countries, where environmental protection has not been a priority area in the past and where technologies used are often outdated.

According to European Commission estimates, the 10 central and eastern candidate countries have to invest between 80 and 110 billion €uro to comply with EU environmental requirements.

Thirdly, time is a crucial factor. In a relatively short period the candidate countries have had to pass hundreds of laws through their national legislatures. In many countries the challenge is aggravated by a chronically slow decision making process.

No Environmental Dumping

Faced sometimes by the sheer practical impossibility of the task, the candidates and the EU have agreed to extend the implementation deadline of certain environment directives [laws].

Margot Wallstrom in discussion in her office (Photo courtesy Office of the Commissioner)

This has not been the case. The EU defined already in the early stage of the negotiations that transitional periods for certain environmental directives would be out of question. No transition periods should be accepted if they have a major effect on the Single Market. For example, that is why the EU has refused transition periods for the directives related to the product standards for fuel.

On the other hand, transition periods on legislation requiring very heavy investments have been possible. They have been negotiated on a case-by-case basis, and accepted where they have been sufficiently limited in time and scope.

Successful Negotiations

The EU launched the enlargement process formally in March 1998, and the negotiations in the environment chapter were opened with first countries in 1999. Already before official opening, most candidates had started to prepare for accession by transposing the EU environmental laws into national statute books, although it was usually not done in a systematic way.

By the end of 2001 the accession negotiations on the environment chapter were provisionally concluded with nine countries - Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Considering the difficulties related to the chapter, the progress has been very fast.

Progress was stimulated by the Commission's 'road map' for enlargement, setting 2004 as first target date for accession.

March 2001 was a historic moment as it marked the closure of the environmental negotiations with the first of the candidate countries - Slovenia.

Remarkable Benefits

Margot Wallstrom at climate negotiations in Bonn, July 2001. Beside her is Belgian Minister for Energy and Sustainable Development Olivier Deleuze (Photo courtesy IISD/ENB-Leila Mead)

Putting the EU directives into practice is about much more than just fulfilling the accession criteria.

Up-grading the national environmental norms to match EU requirements will reduce air pollution, bring better quality of drinking water for millions and improve waste management. It will eliminate the worst health hazards and improve people's living environment, for instance by reducing respiratory diseases. This is particularly important for exposed groups such as children.

These benefits are very real. If we do not take them into account, we will never have a complete understanding of the true effects of enlargement.

That's why the Commission financed a study on the benefits that the candidate countries can expect from EU environmental policy.

Its main results are, I believe, truly remarkable.

The study confirms that all candidate countries will reap significant benefits from EU environmental directives. The total value of these benefits could range from 134 to 681 billion €uro for the period of 1999-2020, or 12 to 69 billion €uro annually.

Wallstrom gets around Brussels by bicycle. (Photo courtesy Office of the Commissioner)

According to the study, reaching EU air standards will reduce the number of cases of chronic bronchitis in the candidate countries by between 43,000 to 180,000. In addition, some 15,000 to 34,000 premature deaths could be avoided.

Moreover, the health benefits from better air quality are not limited to the candidate countries. Pollution in the air or in the waterways, just like so many other environmental problems, travels freely across national borders.

For the EU, less air pollution from the candidate countries could imply public health benefits worth €6.5 billion annually. This is also the case for countries such as Russia, Ukraine or Belorussia that can all expect cleaner air.

Environmental investments and more modern technology will improve economic efficiency and boost companies' productivity. For industry, more efficient waste management brings savings, and better water quality means lower production and maintenance costs, as equipment will no longer be damaged by dirty water.

Further Enhancing the EU Environment

But let's not forget the environmental advantages the candidate countries can currently boast.

The candidate countries will also make an important environmental contribution to the EU.

Many candidate countries still enjoy well functioning public transport systems. They should be encouraged to maintain and upgrade these. This may, of course, be difficult in the face of demands for more private car ownership as living standards rise.

Central and eastern European countries also still have animal and plant species that are rare or extinct - mammals such as the European bison, wolf or bear, and birds such as the red-footed falcon. They host wetlands and forests that are remarkable on an international scale.

In the future, these animals and nature sites will enjoy the protection of the EU nature legislation.

The EU Helps Financially Too

In recent years most candidate countries have increased their expenditure on environmental protection or are planning to do so. Currently, investment expenditure on the environment ranges from 0.6 to three percent of GDP [Gross Domestic Product]. For most countries this is still only a fraction of the required investments.

For full implementation of the EU legislation the countries would have to spend on environment on average between two and three percent of GDP in the coming years.

But the candidate countries are not left alone to bear the costs.

The EU's annual pre-accession aid has doubled from €1.5 billion to €3 billion for the period 2000 to 2006. Out of the total provided through the EU's financial instruments, an important share - approximately 20 percent per year - goes to environmental investments.

Much Has Been Achieved

So we've come a long way since opening the first accession negotiations in the environment chapter in 1999.

I am happy to say that in just a couple of years we have been able to settle a large number of problematic issues in a manner that satisfies both sides of the negotiation table. Even more importantly, in a manner that does not compromise our efforts for a better European environment.

Of course, a legal act is only as good as its implementation. We need to ensure that legislation is properly implemented, but that applies as much to the existing Member States as the candidate countries.

We can never forget the political context of the times in which we live.

What we are talking about here is no less than the historic reunification of the European continent in little over a decade since the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

I have tried to show you that we are doing so in a way that will improve the environment, public health and daily lives of ordinary citizens in both east and west.

So, to answer the question of this seminar, yes an enlarged Europe will be better for the environment!

I believe that the European Commission, the candidate countries and the Member States can all take pride in this.

For me, it is a privilege to be the European Commissioner for the Environment. I am doubly privileged to be the Environment Commissioner at the time of enlargement.