The Von der Leyen Commission has rolled out the most ambitious Green Agenda for 20 years.
It is an agenda that looks to scale up European ambition at home and abroad. And, it is looking to take action on Europe’s environmental Achilles heel – enforcement.
Every new Commission President has some freedom to set their own political agenda. President Von der Leyen has imposed hers.
Some lay the level of ambition at the door of Frans Timmermans. They are misinformed. The level and speed of ambition has been set by the President and implemented by her inner circle. I’ve been surprised. I misread the Green ambitions of this CDU minister.
A break from the last 15 years
For the last 15 years, the green agenda was on Europe’s back burner.
Most of the policy and legislative action on delivering the Green Deal comes in 2021 and 2020.
I count around 13 keystone strategies:
-
Circular Economy Action Plan
-
Chemical Strategy
-
Zero Pollution Strategy
-
Biodiversity Strategy
-
Farm to Fork Strategy
-
Industrial Strategy
-
Renovation Wave Strategy
-
Methane Strategy
-
Hydrogen Strategy
-
Energy System Strategy
-
2030 Climate Communication
-
Consumer Agenda
-
Pharmaceutical Strategy
There may be more. Let me know.
Behind the strategies are a mix of ordinary legislation, secondary legislation, and policy actions.
It looks like from 2021 to 2020 there will be at least 19 ordinary legislative proposals to address environmental and sustainable issues will be rolled out. And, if recent experience is to go by, the list is likely to grow.
Better Regulation in hibernation?
The environmental legislative machinery of the EU has not been so busy since 1997. I was there. DG Environment under Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard and then Margot Wallström, led by Director-General Jim Currie, released an avalanche of groundbreaking proposals – from Europe wide air pollution and water pollution standards to REACH 1. They were aided by the strong-willed Chair of the Environment Committee, Ken Collins, who had the force of personality and procedural expertise to steer any proposal he wanted passed through onto the OJ.
This is a massive legislative agenda. The burden to deliver will fall on a few Commission departments.
The preparation of well reasoned Commission proposals takes time. The time is well spent. The better prepared, the easier it is to get adopted by the Council and European Parliament. The real advantage of Better Regulation is that the preparation, consultation, and impact assessment, stress tests any proposals. Weak proposals are improved and culled before they ever face the real scrutiny by Ministers and MEPs.
If this process is short-changed, weaker proposals come out the door.
Delivering legislative proposals during COVID working conditions puts a strain on the Commission teams. Good proposals rely on close teamwork between experts officials within and between Commission departments. It is not something that can easily be pulled off via Zoom. It is best done sitting down together.
Already proposals have been delayed as teams have buckled under the workload. Political instructions to meet a given deadline for adoption by the College does not mean any extra resources, let alone a flow of supporting evidence that mysteriously appears from the ether to support the case.
The comments from Regulatory Scrutiny Board are, at times, acerbic. They must long for a time when Better Regulation meant something.
Who will grind it out?
The Commission is not a legislative bemouth. Good proposals take time to develop. The drafting of a proposal is an iterative process. The majority of officials are administrators working on project management. It is not a policy wonk retreat. DG Environment in their annual plan has already signalled that one of the greatest threats they face is the retirement of experienced officials. When the people who know how to prepare proposals and get them adopted have moved on, more and more work is put on those in place.
Delivering new environmental proposals are likely to be adopted with few major changes by environment ministers and the European Parliament. The votes are there in the Council and EP. In many areas, the Commission is just giving what the Environment Council and EP have been asking for over the last 5 to 10 years.
What is missing is the poor record of implementation and enforcement by most Member States. If the Commission were serious about improving the state of Europe’s environment, they’d start there before moving on.