Combating climate change – including adaptation – biodiversity and making the economy ‘greener’ should be the prevailing themes of the European Parliament’s work during the next legislature. From an environmental point of view, this Parliament should not experience any significant disruptions, even if the assembly’s shift to the right and the rise in power of the Greens could lead to some particularly stormy debates when the interests of large industries are involved.

On the procedural level, there is nothing new for environmental policy since the majority of decisions are already taken by co-decision. Even the likely entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will not change very much, apart from the fact that climate change and civil protection will now be recognised as Community competences. As for the European Commission, it stresses that collaboration with the Parliament clearly improved during the previous legislature: the environmental dossiers, champions of the conciliation procedure until two to three years ago, can now be counted on one hand. It also wishes to establish equally good relations with the new assembly. While some memorable disputes (DecaBDE) have, in the past, divided the Commission and the Parliament on the application of the comitology procedure to environmental dossiers, going as far as a referral to the EU Court of Justice, new procedures have since been applied. The way in which these will be managed on both sides will be a test in evaluating relations between the two institutions.

PRIORITY DOSSIERS

At the top of the parliamentary agenda is climate change and, more specifically, the follow-up to international negotiations (Copenhagen conference) and the translation into Community law of the elements of a possible agreement as well as – on an internal EU level – the implementation of ‘operational’ decisions linked to the energy-climate change package adopted in December 2008. This has no less than six different legislative texts, several of which (like the EU Emission Trading Scheme Directive) will require specific measures in order to be implemented. MEPs will have their say in what is likely to be a long-drawn-out process.

Another major challenge, closely linked to climate change, is safeguarding biodiversity. The first component is internal: the evaluation and revision of the EU objective to stop the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The Commission will have to present to the Council and Parliament a communication providing an assessment of EU action on the matter, the impact on habitats and the economic importance of ecosystems as well as, by the end of 2010, a proposal establishing new objectives. But there is also an international deadline: the preparation of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, scheduled for October 2010. In this case, it will be a question of setting EU objectives and preparing the position to be taken in this forum.

Lastly, MEPs will have to play an essential role in the context of ‘greener’ European policies and the integration of environmental concerns into these policies. The movement was launched with the Lisbon process and it is important to follow it despite – or mainly because of – the crisis, since making the economic recovery plan ‘greener’ is recognised as an EU priority. But this goes somewhat further. There are, in fact, budgetary decisions, such as the reform of the structural funds and the Common Agricultural Policy, and for all the strategies and measures relating to issues of eco-conception and eco-efficiency of industrial processes, products and consumer behaviour.

PROCEDURES “PENDING”

In the short and medium term, MEPs will have to take on a series of legislative texts for which the process has been launched, but not concluded, at the forefront of which is the directive aimed at reducing industrial pollution (ex-IPPC Directive). The previous assembly completed the first reading. While the Council’s common position was adopted in due course, the new assembly will have to negotiate its second reading in the autumn. But the Swedish Presidency is not deluding itself on the possibility of completing this dossier by December.

Also promised at second reading during the course of the coming year are proposals on the energy efficiency of buildings, information on the energy efficiency of consumer goods, the fight against logging and the illegal trade in timber and soil protection. The last is particularly contentious: if the Council were to fail to reach political agreement by the end of June, it would be postponed to future Presidencies.

Lastly, the new Parliament will have to launch the debate on the proposal for a revised Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, COM(2008)810, as well as that on dangerous substances contained in this equipment, COM(2008)809 (WEEE and RoHS Directives), presented in December 2008. It will have to do the same for the new proposal for a National Emission Ceilings Directive (or NEC Directive), a proposal which has been awaited for more than a year, but which will probably be dealt with by the next Commission.