CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON THE GOVERNMENT’S REVIEW OF THE BALANCE OF COMPETENCES BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
Environment and Climate Change
Response by the Aviation Environment Federation
The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) is the principal UK NGO concerned exclusively with the environmental impacts of aviation. Supported by individuals and community groups affected by the UK’s airports and airfields or concerned about aviation and climate change, we promote a sustainable future for aviation which fully recognises and takes account of all its environmental and amenity affects. As well as supporting our members with local issues, we have regular input into international, EU and UK policy discussions. In 2011 we acted as the sole community and environmental representative on the Government’s South East Airports Taskforce. At the UN we are the lead representative of the environmental umbrella organisation ICSA, which is actively engaged in the current talks aimed at agreeing global climate measures for aviation.
We welcome the opportunity to respond to this consultation insofar as we are able, recognising that consultation covers an extremely broad range of issues. We respond below to the questions set out in the Call for Evidence.
Advantages and disadvantages
1. What evidence is there that EU competence in the area of environment and/or climate change has:
i. benefited the UK / your sector?
ii. disadvantaged the UK / your sector?
EU legislation on air pollution has been very beneficial. There is no doubt that it can be influential in protecting citizens from ill health and death. In studies on Heathrow expansion, EU air pollution limits (for PM10 and NO2) were considered by the UK government to be critical. The government addressed the meeting or otherwise of these limits in great detail because the EU ‘limit values’ were seen as potentially preventing expansion or only allowing expansion in a way that addressed air pollution. Air pollution continues to be a factor that is addressed in all other proposals for airport expansion. While the UK has its own limits, equal to the EU ones, these are not even mentioned in government studies and in impact assessments for planning applications. Unlike the EU, there are no constraints, fines or sanctions implicit in the UK targets. Thus it can be concluded that giving the UK competency on air pollution would remove all pressure to address air pollution.
EU legislation has undoubtedly been useful in addressing climate change, particularly as it encourages a levelling up in policy; it is hard to imagine that the UK would have agreed to the 80% emissions cut enshrined in the Climate Act if comparable commitments had not been made, and policy measures put into play, at European level. The EU emissions trading system for CO2 is potentially of great use, notwithstanding the current problem of permits being higher than the demand, and has allowed the Committee on Climate Change to take effective account of aviation emissions under the Climate Act even though they are not yet formally included in UK carbon accounts. We very much hope that ETS can be rescued, for example through the use of a ‘floor price’ for carbon.
Where should decisions be made?
2. Considering specific examples, how might the national interest be better served if decisions:
i. currently made at EU level were instead made at a national, regional or international level? (What measures, if any, would be needed in the absence of EU legislation?)
ii. currently made at another level were instead made at EU level?
The answer to this depends on what one considers “the national interest”. AEF considers it is in the national interest of the UK to protect the lives, health and quality of life for its citizens and to safeguard the future for the next generations.
There are some areas in which we would be opposed to any change in the current balance of powers between the EU and the UK
As noted above, EU competence on air pollution is a driver in reducing air pollution (or stopping it increasing). If competence were to be given to the UK, research, legal process, sanctions, etc would have to be instituted at UK level in place of EU activity, which is likely to be an inefficient process.
Also as noted above, the ETS has allowed the UK to develop a much stronger climate strategy than it would have done otherwise, given the inevitable concerns that would have arisen in relation both to competitiveness and to carbon leakage. It is also very unlikely that the stringent fuel efficiency standards for cars, which may help bring down air pollution around airports, would have been instituted in the UK.
For aircraft noise, the position is less clear-cut, as neither the UK nor the EU have introduced the quantitative noise targets that we consider necessary. Imposing noise standards for individual aircraft is already carried out internationally and it is not clear whether EU action would help. Noise standards for airports could be helpful, but they need to impose minimum standards and not prevent more stringent national standards. Legislation currently being debated by the EU legislation could actually make it harder for the UK to impose limits on noise at airports through operational restrictions.
There is one specific area in which we consider it may be useful for the UK to consider a change to the current balance of competency, namely air traffic management. The UK has long held the view – which we support – that auctioning of slots at airports would be a more efficient and effective system than the current arrangements, which are based largely around grandfather rights, and that it would encourage airports to operate those flights for which most demand existed and that delivered the greatest economic benefit. Currently, however, our powers to effect change in this area are restricted as the system is managed at EU level, and the UK has been unable so far to persuade other states to agree to reform.
Internal market and economic growth
3. To what extent do you consider EU environmental standards necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market?
EU standards are important. Without them there would be competition between EU countries using low environmental standards as a competitive weapon. Airport lobbyists in the UK and other countries in the EU argue against environmental standards on the basis that they could impact their competitive position. (The main impact would be on transfer traffic, which is arguably ‘footloose’ as it could potentially go to another hub airport. Terminating traffic is much less affected.). A “race to be bottom” by EU countries would be unproductive because countries’ attempts to take traffic from each other would cancel each other out when they all impose low standards. Meanwhile, all EU citizens would suffer the health and quality of life impacts. An internal market that that leads to this sort of outcome is by no stretch of the imagination “proper functioning”.
4. To what extent does EU legislation on the environment and climate change provide the right balance between protecting the environment and the wider UK economic interest?
The implication behind this question is that strong EU legislation and environment and climate change will damage the UK economy. We do not accept this simplistic “environment versus economy” view. As noted in 3, a race to the bottom between EU countries benefits no-one in the EU and therefore does not serve the UK’s economic interests, particularly in the longer term.
Competition between the UK and countries outside the EU is a somewhat different issue. While it may be superficially attractive to argue for low standards in order to compete with the rest of the world, this is pernicious and ultimately indefensible. Does the EU really need to use low environmental standards as a weapon to compete with poor countries and ‘emerging’ economies? Should we be aspiring to the environmental and social standards of Bangladesh, China or Brazil in order to squeeze a few points increase in GDP? Low environmental standards can impose their own costs in terms of human health and productivity. Road noise in England alone has been estimated to cost £7-£10 billion annually , and just one type of air pollution – particulates – at, conservatively, £16 billion per annum .
Competition between the EU and the rest of the world is very commonly cited as a reason for the EU not to take action on climate, particularly in the case of energy-intensive manufacturing which may lead to those industries re-locating outside the EU. However, the issue much less significant in other sectors. It is not a serious issue for aviation because flights from, say, the UK obviously cannot re-locate to, say, China.
The problem of competition between the EU and countries outside could be tackled by the EU imposing a tax (at the right level) on embedded carbon on all products brought into the EU.
Current legislation
5. Considering specific examples, how far do you consider EU legislation relating to environment and climate change to be:
i. focused on outcomes (results)?
ii. based on an assessment of risk and scientific evidence?
We are not clear why a distinction is being drawn here. EU legislation is clearly focussed on outcomes (eg air pollution levels, protection of habitats, reduction of CO2 emissions) but these outcomes are all informed by an assessment of risk and scientific evidence. (For example, CO2 targets are informed by the risks of and due to climate change.)
A more relevant question is perhaps whether legislation relates to an over-arching objective or more proximate targets. There is a mixture. Air pollution targets, which are expressed in terms of limiting concentrations to protect human health, are an over-arching objective and an end in themselves. But emissions limits on cars or incinerators are proximate targets, intended to facilitate the aim of limiting concentrations.
Doing things differently
6. How could the EU‟s current competence for the environment be used more effectively? (e.g. better ways of developing proposals and/or impact assessments, greater recognition of national circumstances, alternatives to legislation for protecting/improving the environment?)
This is rather technical issue and the answers are likely to vary greatly according to type of environmental impact.
7. How far do you think the UK might benefit from the EU taking:
i. More action on the environment/climate change
More action will help to protect EU citizens’ lives, health and quality of life. For example, less illness and fewer deaths from air pollution, less heat stress, richer wildlife, and more beautiful landscapes.
ii. Less action on the environment/climate change?
Less action could lead to a slightly higher GDP for the UK in the short to medium term. This can happen for two reasons. Firstly, not taking action now is like borrowing money. It makes one richer for a short period, but ultimately a price has to be paid. Not protecting the environment is like mortgaging our future. Secondly, GDP is not a measure of human welfare. The only reason why sacrificing the environment for economic gain can seemingly work is because of the narrow definition of economic gain, namely consumption of goods and services that have a traded or market price but with no recognition of human life, health, welfare or happiness. Failure to make the right investments now to help the UK become a low carbon economy will almost inevitably lead to economic costs in the long term. Either carbon markets will have developed such that non-renewable energy sources have become very expensive or global efforts to develop low-carbon sources of energy will have stalled in which case high demand for fossil fuels is likely to increase their cost.
8. Are there any alternative approaches the UK could take to the way it implements EU Directives on the environment and climate change?
Any alternative should have as its aim to improve environmental protection, not weaken it as some would have.
9. a. What advantages or disadvantages might there be in the EU having a greater or lesser role in negotiating and entering into agreements internationally or with third countries?
As the EU is often better than most of the rest of the world in recognising and addressing environmental issues, a greater role should be beneficial to the local and global environment.
b. How important is it for the UK to be part of “Team EU” at the UNFCCC?
As the UK is better than many other EU countries in recognising and addressing climate change, a strong role should be beneficial for the local, EU and global environment.
Future challenges and opportunities
10. a. What future challenges or opportunities might we face on environmental protection and climate change?
We envisage two main challenges:
a) Continued or even increased claims that we should not protect the environment because it will damage the economy.
b) ‘Beggar my neighbour’ attitudes – if every other country doesn’t take action, neither will we.
b. Going forward what do you see as the right balance between actions taken at international, EU, UK, and industry level to address these challenges and opportunities?
Action at all these levels is important. The order international, EU, UK and industry should be the order of preference because the broader the agreements or policies , the more can potentially be achieved. But where action at one level is not bearing fruit, it is vital that action at the next level down is prioritised. For example, currently, international action on climate is in many ways ineffective. This makes it more important to act at EU level.
c. What would be the costs and benefits to the UK of addressing these future challenges at an EU level?
This has been covered in previous answers.
11. Are there any general points you wish to make which are not captured in any of the questions above?
a) We notice that there are 32 separate strands to the consultation. Of these, just part of one addresses climate change. This suggests a distinct lack of concern and priority about what is probably the most important issue on earth.
b) As our responses indicate, we are generally in favour of strong EU environmental policies and of not allowing MSs freedom to damage the local, European and global environment. However, it is important that EU policies doe not constrain MSs who want to go further than the EU. If a MS wants to provide, say, better protection against noise or to protect its habitats better than the EU requires, nothing in EU legislation or policies should prevent that or make it harder.
NF 9/8/13