Blog: Interview with Karmenu Vella by Romanian newspaper Ziarul Financiar - Hoofdinhoud

I have read the news about the plan that aims to reduce plastic pollution in cities and oceans by banning several plastic products. Which are exactly those products?

Our thinking is that there’s nothing wrong with a ban, when a better alternative is already available. Europe-wide, we are proposing to ban the sale of not only single-use plastic cotton buds, but also plastic cutlery, plastic plates, drinks stirrers, straws and balloon sticks. We want to see better design of things like beverage containers, with caps connected to bottles, so they can’t be littered. And for other items such as the wet wipes that commonly turn up on beaches, we want to see better labelling, to ensure that everyone understands they can’t be flushed away.

Deutsche Welle wrote that the EU believes that the move towards `innovative alternatives` in this area could create some 30,000 jobs. How?

Moving to a more circular plastics economy would bring benefits in numerous areas, from research and design to production and recycling.

The employment opportunities come in various sectors, and some of the estimates are much more ambitious than that. One report from inside the recycling industry notes that achieving the plastics recycling targets will create 200 000 new jobs, which would result from the construction of some 500 new sorting and recycling plants (source: Plastics Recyclers Europe).

When should this initiative become a law of the structure?

These things can go quite quickly, as we saw with the plastic bags initiative, which we proposed in 2014 and it passed into law the following year. Our intention is to ensure that this proposal is finalized under this Commission, so before the end of next year, and we have the agreement of the other co-legislators already to try to do that.

Then there will be a short time lag as systems need to be put in place, manufacturers need to adjust and so forth, but I anticipate many governments deciding to act quickly, as these measures are genuinely popular.

Because there is a lot happening already, all over Europe. That's what makes this action so timely, it coincides with a widespread realization and will to change.

I`ve read that the plan includes that each member state should use a deposit system or other measure in order to collect 90 percent of the plastic bottles used in their country by 2025. This is mandatory right now?

Not yet, no. These are only proposals from the Commission, so they still need to go through the European Parliament and the Council, both of whom need to approve them. Then they need to be adopted in domestic law, with a timeframe that gives citizens and industry time to adjust. So it could be several years before the obligation comes into effect.

What happens if a member state doesn`t match this plan?

The thing to remember is that everyone benefits from this. If you go to the sea this summer, it’s hard not to be shocked by the amount of litter that you find. And that litter is choking the life in our seas, which is catastrophic for all of us. That’s what we are trying to change.

It’s a bit early to talk about enforcement, as these measures have only just been proposed. And in any case EU law is actually owned by EU Member States, so they are the ones who do most of the enforcement. That’s why the Directive requires each Member State to bring in a system of dissuasive penalties.

The Commission only intervenes if a law hasn’t found its way to the statute books, or if there is a serious and persistent problem with its implementation.

What other plans the European Commission has to reduce plastic pollution?

What we are proposing is a broad range of measures. Some of it will be advice, some of it will be labelling requirements, some will be extended producer responsibility, but some of it will be traditional legislation as well. It's very carefully tailored to deal with each facet of the problem on its own terms.

Encouraging the Member States is very important, but it won't always be enough. We need some stronger action as well. That’s why the proposals include bans on some items. And that’s why the legislation also requires each Member State to bring in dissuasive measures as well, to ensure that the laws are obeyed.

What is the most urgent plan of the EC regarding the reducing the pollution in general?

I think the biggest problem at the moment is air quality. The situation is improving across the EU, but not as fast as it should. Citizens’ quality of life is affected in most Member States, because air pollution is a cause of chronic and serious diseases such as asthma, cardiovascular problems and lung cancer. The end result is that air pollution is still the number one environmental cause of early death in the EU, with estimates of more than 400 000 premature deaths per year.

We tackle the problem by going at it from various angles. There are air quality standards, national emission reduction targets, and emission standards for key sources of pollution, for example from vehicle and ship emissions, and from industry and the power sector. We’ve also led a wide-ranging reform to ensure that air pollutant emissions from vehicles are measured in real driving conditions, and not under artificial conditions in laboratories.

I`ve read that Romania and six more states could go to court because they didn`t match the emissions standard imposed by EC. Is it true? Can you give me further details?

In Romania, estimates point to more than 23,000 premature deaths attributable to fine particulate matter, every year. The situation is especially severe in urban areas, where most Europeans live. In the agglomeration of București, the daily limit values have been persistently exceeded ever since EU law became applicable to Romania, and in 2016 on 38 days. So we have decided to take Romania to Court, in an effort to improve things for citizens.

The decision was taken in May, when France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and the United Kingdom were also referred to the Court for failing to respect agreed air quality limit values and for failing to take appropriate measures to keep exceedance periods as short as possible.

What is Romania situation right now regarding the environmental transformation and the reducing of pollution?

As well as the air quality problems, waste management remains a key challenge. The country's performance is characterized by extremely low recycling (5%) and slightly higher composting (11%), and high landfilling (82 %) rates, contrary to the waste hierarchy and the recycling targets set at EU level. Those things really need to change.

Water pollution is another issue that will become more important in the coming years. Despite your large reserves, quality issues mean that the actual usable water resource is quite low, due to widespread contamination from domestic, industrial and agricultural sectors. All of those factors need to be addressed, as does urban waste-water treatment, where considerable investments will be needed. But we are working closely together with the Romanian government on that issue.

How does the European Commission work with the Romanian government?

My services work closely with all national authorities to find tailored local solutions. If you look at air quality for instance, infringement proceedings are only part of a much broader approach, including compliance-promotion dialogues at Air Quality Expert Group meetings where all aspects of implementation are discussed. This covers a wide range of topics, from general policy developments to more specific assessments of plans and measures aimed at improving air quality, monitoring and governance, but the meetings also cover things like the availability of EU structural and investment funds and LIFE, the funding instrument for the environment, to address air quality issues.

We also have intensive dialogues with the Member States at a bilateral level. This has been reinforced through a tool called the Environmental Implementation Review, which covers all the main areas of environmental policy.

And we help train national judges and prosecutors to understand what is at stake. This approach has produced some very encouraging results, as we now see more air quality or water and waste management procedures being handled at the Member States level. That’s obviously good news for Europe’s citizens.

What is the most pressing situation of Romania regarding the environment?

One recurrent issue is a delay in enacting EU Environmental laws into national legislation, although once the law appears it is generally satisfactory. But the bigger problem is implementation: although Romania is one of the most recent Member States to join the Union, it already has a high number of environmental infringements. Most are in areas like waste management (e.g. closure of substandard landfills), air pollution (e.g. exceedances of PM10 emission limit values and shortcomings in the air quality monitoring), non-adaptation of old large combustion plants to EU standards, and authorisation of projects without the necessary assessments to underpin a well founded decision. All those issues need to be addressed.

What are the most urgent problems regarding the environment in Romania that are breaching EU legislation?

I think the biggest changes need to come in two areas. The first is improving compliance with EU legislation concerning waste management and urban waste-water collection and treatment. Romania has to make significant progress in order to meet the EU targets and standards, as most deadlines set out in the Accession Treaty have elapsed, and the final ones will do so at the end of this year.

The second is improving coordination and enhancing the administrative capacity of the authorities and Agencies involved in the implementation of EU legislation, in particular with regard to water and waste management and the protection and management of the Natura 2000 sites, as part of the broader strategy to strengthen public administration. Changes like that would spur major improvements.

What are your main recommendations and pieces of advice for Romania?

Romania could do much more with its assets! Often the knowledge base is solid, and there are some good practices, but they aren’t being widely shared. This is especially true when it comes to pulling together the best solutions into comprehensive, realistic waste management and prevention plans based on an inclusive public participation process. Uptake of EU funds is another - more work needs to be done to eliminate the obstacles to adequate and targeted use of EU funds to support the implementation of the EU requirements.

Also, make the most of reporting and monitoring obligations, which are there to help you to have better public policies, with more foresight and better decisions, including investment decisions made. If you take something like the river basin management plans, they are actually there to improve water policies and water quality - but to do that, you need effective monitoring networks and assessment methods. When you put those in place, the improvements soon follow. That knowledge empowers citizens, and helps them push for change where it is needed.

Do you have any warning for our country?

Not a warning, more an invitation to look at the advantages of fully implementing the Union’s environmental legislation. Because protecting the environment is really good for the economy, and not enough people realise that.

Our estimates show that if Romania implemented the existing waste legislation in full, it could create more than 29 000 jobs and increase the annual turnover of your waste sector by over EUR 3 billion. And if you went a step further and moved towards the targets of the Roadmap on resource efficiency, that could create over 30 000 additional jobs and increase the annual turnover by over EUR 3.6 billion.

These are opportunities, and you are missing out. I’d love to see that change.

***

This interview was originally published in Romanian by Ziarul Financiar http://www.zf.ro/eveniment/karmenu-vella-comisarul-european-mediu-afaceri-maritime-pescuit-romania-ar-pune-practica-totalitate-legislatia-existenta-privire-deseuri-ar-crea-29-000-locuri-munca-venituri-suplimentare-3-miliarde-17354006