Environmental law is one of the best ways to defend our world, but often it seems usurped by big business or crafty lawyers.
Our Future Planet wonders why.
International agencies like the UN or EU spend a huge amount of time debating their strategies for increasing recycling, limiting pollution, preventing toxic discharge or protecting fisheries.
Then, once the best framework and delivery system has been created, to help the most Member States meet their commitments, bureaucrats in Brussels create EU Directives, which Member States transpose into national legislation, and environmental law is in place.
So far so good, at least in terms of the theory. It’s in terms of the practice that the picture becomes a little less rosy.
In only the last week, on March 18, the EU Environment Commission sent Romania a final warning over environmental impact assessments.
European Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik said: “Legislation on its own is never enough: it must be able to be applied ‘on the ground.’ Romania must ensure that impact assessments are carried out in cases like these, and that they respect any rulings that follow.”
He’s right. Law is useless unless it actually engenders positive change. The background to the case involves a major formaldehyde production plant, built in Romania in 2007 without a permit and before any impact assessment had been made.
Romanian authorities initially ordered the demolition of the plant, but the order was subsequently rescinded by a local court. The Commission is not aware of any sanction being applied to the operator. A failure to act on this second warning might see Romania brought before the European Court of Justice. The plant produces some 60,000 tonnes of formaldehyde per year.
Making it stick
Part of the problem is in how long it takes to actually transfer environmental harm to the courtroom. By the time any action on this case is taken, leaks or damage may have already taken place. All too often, punitive measures occur retrospectively, and with regard to the environment that’s clearly a bad thing, as one spillage can easily spell fifty year’s environmental damage.
Crushingly for those who claim legislation is working, on the same day, the European Commission pursued infringement proceedings against five Member States that failed to comply with the EU's air quality standards for dangerous airborne particles known as PM10.
These particles, emitted mainly by industry, traffic and domestic heating, can cause asthma, cardiovascular problems, lung cancer and premature death. Slovenia and Sweden are being referred to the European Court of Justice, while final written warnings have been sent to Cyprus, Portugal and Spain. In a separate case, Bulgaria is receiving a final written warning over its failure to control concentration levels of sulphur dioxide.
The events make a mockery of the law. The point is that though laws are in place, Nation States routinely flout and ignore them. This time, Janez Potočnik said: “Air pollution is bad for our health. Member States must comply with EU air quality standards quickly and reduce emissions. I am pleased to see that over recent years we have met PM10 limit values in a number of areas throughout Europe, but much more effort is still needed if we want full compliance.”
As if this weren’t bad enough, the Commission this week is also sending a final warning to Ireland over four cases where it has failed to comply with European Court of Justice rulings concerning illegal development and developments that may harm the natural and man made heritage of the countryside, access to the Irish courts and protection of marine mammals.
That’s in addition to sending Spain a final warning about a breach of EU laws governing the treatment and disposal of industrial waste. The case concerns the stockpiling of solid industrial waste in the Huelva estuary without the necessary waste management measures for the protection of the environment. The stockpiling has been going on for more than 40 years, and some 120 million tonnes of waste have now been dumped.
Once more Janez Potočnik commented: “Nature is not a dustbin and Member States must manage the waste they produce each year in an environmentally friendly way. I do not like to see waste dumped without adequate disposal plans, and I urge Spain to put its house in order quickly.”
Getting away with it
What’s truly worrying is that these abuses are taking place in supposedly well legislated, advanced parts of the planet. The true scale of logging abuses in the Amazon, or mining pollution most probably go much deeper.
Again, only this week, the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) has reported on an attempt to further pressure EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to enforce the Clean Water Act, and halt mountaintop removal coal mining (MTR). Activists erected two 20-foot-tall, purple tripod structures in front of the agency's headquarters.
“We're losing our way of life and our culture,” said Chuck Nelson, who worked as a coal miner in West Virginia for three decades and came to DC to support the protest. “Mountaintop removal should be banned today. The practice means total devastation for communities, the hardwood forests, the ecosystems, and the headwaters. Why should our communities sacrifice everything we have?”
RAN says despite the Obama administration’s big announcement last year that it was going to take ‘unprecedented steps’ to reduce the environmental damage from mountaintop removal coal mining in Appalachia, the EPA has been slow moving.
Two weeks ago, the EPA delayed action on a set of broad ranging and specific measures to reduce the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal, after details of the plan were leaked to coal state mining regulators.
“The science has become clear that mountaintop removal is harming water resources in real and measurable ways,” said Kate Rooth, from RAN. “The EPA definitely can and must do much more on mountaintop mining and that includes exercising its full regulatory authority to block every single mining permit application that seeks to remove America’s oldest mountaintops and dump the waste into waterways.”
Reading the riot act
It’s genuinely tough to know whether inertia, true lack of desire, red tape or bureaucratic indecision are at the heart of ongoing failure in international environmental law. But until something is done to sort the problem out, the ecosystem will continue to suffer.
And ultimately, that means you and I will suffer.
What are your views? Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up to Our Future Planet Today!
Resources:
Human Rights and Climate Change- Practical Steps for Implementation
SIXTH SESSION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL FORUM ON CHEMICAL SAFETY
THE STATES AND THE WORLD: TWIN LEVERS FOR REFORM OF U.S. FEDERAL LAW ON TOXIC CHEMICALS
Video’s
