I am reminded how deeply unfashionable some of my ideas are.
For example, if you want to understand the position of governments on an issue you can speak to them, or even easier, read what they write.
I find Peter Ludlow’s EuroCcomment briefing subscription essential reading. Read alongside the European Council Conclusions it provides a clear indication of the political forces and public policy ideas setting Europe’s direction.
Yet, it seems too many people want everything digested down into 140 characters.
Sober and analytical thinking can’t be digested, let alone regurgitated, into such small bites. There is no other way to better understand than by reading the written word.
Position of Environment Ministers
If you want to get a better understanding of where governments stand there is no better place to read Council Conclusions. Here are my personal thoughts reading the Environment Council Conclusions, 25 June 2018, on chemical policy.
Introduction
As is usual, Environment Ministers, split their meeting between environment and climate files.
In the morning, Environment Ministers discussed the drinking water directive and adopted Conclusions on EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. The Commission updated ministers on five proposals, including single use plastics (see conclusions link.)
The exchange is notable for the detailed exchange on existing and future chemical policy, although wrapped up around the circular economy. It is not so often that Environment Ministers spend so much time focused on chemicals. So much of their time for so long been set aside for climate matters. The position re-iterates or incrementally develops familiar themes from the Environment Council Conclusions on the sound management of chemicals (16 December 2016, (link). The gulf between Environment Ministers stated level of ambition and the caution of the Commission is marked. Whether this caution gives in the next Commission is an important question, and one that for which an answer will only be clearer from next November.
Summary
Sweden tabled a ‘Beyond 2020 – a new global deal on chemicals and waste” and the Austrian delegation outlined their programme.
During lunch, an informal discussion ‘adaptation in to the EU to two-2- and beyond – towards better mainstreamed policies and funding’. Ministers are keen to focus the reduced and stretched EU funds on climate measures.
On climate, ministers debated CO2 standards for cars and vans. The French delegation presented a proposal on a Paris Agreement clause for future EU trade deals
Conclusions on EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy
The Council Conclusions on the ‘Circular Economy’ are divided into three parts: (1) Plastics Strategy, (2) the interface between Chemical, Product and Waste legislation, and (3) monitoring.
The Conclusions deserve close analysis. Familiar themes from the Environment Council’s 2016 Conclusions return. More interesting is that the level of ambition reflects a general political consensus. Earlier working texts remain substantively unchanged. As a reflection of what governments want to bring forward it deserves closer reading. Whether governments, let alone ministers, are clear as to how to deliver this level of ambition is unclear, but as indicator of political consensus and likely future direction, they are clear.
The following points deserve highlighting:
- The importance of establishing non-toxic material cycles (Para 16)
- ECHA to define substances of concern to be minimised or elimination in products and waste (Para 16)
- Traceability system for substances of concern operational by 2030 covering imports (Para 16)
- Commission to develop harmonised tools to track substances of concern throughout the supply chain; including end-of-life operations (Para 16)
- Commission to develop methodology to address management of waste containing substances of concern
- Identify types of waste that typically contain legacy chemicals and that could successfully be recycled in a restricted set of applications (Para 17)
- Level playing field between with imported articles and enforcement of chemical, product and waste legislation at EU Borders (Para 18)
- Encourages voluntary approaches for the exchange of good practice in the substitution of materials containing substances of concern in the design phase (Para 19)
- Commission to develop concrete actions to ‘avoid, remove or reduce the presence of substances of concern as much and as soon as possible to ensure non-toxic material cycles’. (Para 23)
- In light of the fitness check of all chemicals legislation except REACH to develop an ambitious strategy for a non-toxic environment (Para 23)
1.2. A future global deal on chemicals and waste – SAICM (Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management)
Sweden, with the support of Luxembourg, tabled a discussion note (link) on ‘a new global deal on chemicals and waste’. Both countries want to work through SAICM for a re-invigorated ‘future global deal on chemicals and waste.’ Whether other EU Member States and other Parties back them will be seen.
1.3. Austrian Presidency
The Austrian Presidency of the EU (1 July 2018 to 31 December 2018) focus is on securing a political agreement on the Recast of the POP (Persistent Organic Pollutants) Regulation (see information note).
It is a self-declared ‘Green Presidency’. It will host Green Chemistry Conference (link) 5-6 November.
Key dates:
9 October: Environment Council – Luxembourg
29-30 October: Informal meeting of Environment Ministers – Graz, Austria
20 December: Environment Council – Brussels