Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGOs Scathing About Commission Performance -Global Policy Forum- NGOs NGOs Scathing About Commission Performance
European Report
July 27, 2002
Eight key environmental protection agencies (BirdLife International, European Environmental Bureau - EEB, World Wildlife Fund - WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Friends of Nature International and CAN-Europe) have painted an unflattering picture of the European Commission's action on the environmental front, as the Prodi team is halfway through its term of office. One finding is that when it wants to lay down the law, the Commission, and the EU, can manage to produce tangible results. According to the NGOs the institution fails to commit itself enough: a lack of political determination or ambition or perhaps a question of personalities, wonder the "8" agencies. Assessments of how the Commissioners are performing are scarcely any more flattering: Commissioners Margot Wallstr'm (Environment) and Franz Fischler (Agriculture/ Fisheries) emerge from the analysis fairly unscathed but Loyola de Palacio (Transport and Energy) has been virtually smothered in brickbats.
Good marks for the Commission for the key role it has taken on during the gruelling climate change talks and the procedures for implementing the Kyoto Protocol. The NGOs also credit the Commission, along with the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies, with the success of getting the Protocol's provisions implemented and welcome the proposals it has tabled towards this end. Even though the provisions may not be as proactive as they should be and some of them may involve no more than trading activities if care is not taken (emissions trading). This issue is proof that when the Commission, and above the relevant Commissioner, get to grips with a policy, they can produce results both at home and abroad.
The NGOs also have kind words to say about the reform proposals the Commission has tabled for farm and fisheries policies. If they are adopted, for the first time ever, farm policy will take account of the need to turn away from intensive farming practices heavily reliant on pesticides and fertilisers to less intensive polices and to withhold subsidies for aggressive farming practices. The proposed fisheries reform takes account of the real problem raised by over-exploiting fish stocks. Good marks are also awarded for the way the Commission is conducting the EU enlargement talks: the NGOs note that in these business-like, concession-free talks there are few or no exemptions or transitional periods granted in this sphere. Shortcomings.
Next comes a long litany of flaws the NGOs have noted in the Commission policy. In all areas where industry is involved the Commission accepts clearly counter-productive compromises in terms of environmental protection, according to the NGOs. Bad marks are awarded for the following items:
* sustainable development: the NGOs accuse the Commission of lacking leadership and any real willingness to influence the international debate.
* waste policy : a real retreat on what was achieved by the previous Commission, say the NGOs, lashing out at the Commission for paying scant attention to the "prevention" issue and instead granting priority to incineration.
* environmental liability: the proposals under discussion do not go far enough at all in encouraging companies to be accountable, an argument that is brought up for the waste issue. The NGOs accuses the Commission of caving in to pressure from industry; the current proposals, as they stand, will lack the polluter-pays target. The NGOs also points to the strains within the heart of the Commission, between the environment and industry services, strains that are also reflected in policy-making for waste and chemicals, two items where the expected proposals are well behind schedule.
* transport policy, which in spite the alarm sounded by the European Environment Agency fails to take account of environmental concerns.
* energy: welcome proposals have appeared for renewable sources of energy, but the NGOs lament the fact that they feature no precise aims and feels that as they stand they could encourage waste incineration if not duly apply on a EU-wide basis. Not to mention Commissioner de Palacio's championing of nuclear energy.
The environmentalists castigate the Commission for priding itself on changes for the best in various areas, (framework Directive on water, end-of-life vehicles, electroscrap), when most of the work was achieved or prepared by the previous Commission team. The environmentalist have drawn up a top ten of the "greenest" Commissioners. At the top of the list are Margot Wallstr'm (Environment), Franz Fischler (Agriculture and Fisheries) and Guenter Verheugen (Enlargement). Way down the list are Loyola de Palacio (Energy/Transport) Philippe Busquin (Research) and Erkki Liikanen (Enterprise).
Loyola de Palacio is undoubtedly very unpopular with the NGOs, which believe she has a key role in the Prodi team, whatever subject crops up for discussion. Criticism is levelled at both her transport policy and her energy proposals, including her latest Communication on energy co-operation with the developing countries. The NGOs hit out at her for proposing, in a paper Commissioner Wallstr'm and Commission President Romano Prodi are due to present in Johannesburg, to promote "clean coal" and nuclear energy. The environmentalists point out that these plans are detrimental to the environment and sustainable development. The NGOs broadly slam the Commission for erring too much on the side on industry, a lack of interest in environmental issues and... the lack of expert advisers in her Cabinet. The Commissioner and her Cabinet are soundly thrashed for their lack of openness and contact with environmental NGOs, even their doors are wide open to industry.
More Information on NGOs and States
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
