FoE Europe - Safe Energy for Europe

CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE

March 2003

EUROPE’S NEW CONSTITUTION IS TAKING SHAPE FAST

The work of the 'Convention on the Future of Europe' has gained enormous speed in the first weeks of 2003. After months of open discussion, the Praesidium has now proposed the first 16 Articles of a European Constitution, defining its "Constitutional structure". A second part will follow soon which defines "Union policies and their implementation".

By now, the process is so rushed, that one of the Convention's key aims - to conduct a wide and open public debate - seems to be put into question. The members of the Convention - representatives of national parliaments and governments as well as members of the European Parliament and other European Institutions - were given only one week to table proposals for changes (amendments). Despite the rush, the European environmental NGOs managed to table two key amendments.

THE FIRST 16 ARTICLES OF THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION

An analysis of the first 16 Articles from the perspective of environmental organisations is shocking: most of what was gained in the Amsterdam Treaty has been lost (e.g. Article 2 and 6). The definition of sustainable development is narrow and does not include environment. An ambitious approach to environmental protection is lost. Finally, the integration principle, which obliges the EU to take environment into consideration in all policy areas, has disappeared.

Article 3 - The Union's objectives

Article 3-2 says that the Union "shall work for a Europe of sustainable development" but then only defines sustainable development in economic and social terms. The third pillar of sustainable development - environment - has disappeared. Only later on, "environmental and social protection" is mentioned together with other additional objectives such as discovery of space. An ambitious definition of environmental protection, aiming for "a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment" (existing Treaty) is lost. With this marginalisation of the environment, the Constitution will fall far behind the existing Treaty. The 'Green-8' have therefore proposed an amendment, which reintroduces the wording of the existing Treaty and adds the most commonly used definition of sustainable development from the Brundland Report (see at the end of this article).

Saving the environmental integration principle

Article 6 of the existing Treaty provides that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into all policy areas. It has completely disappeared in the draft Constitution. The future of environmental protection and sustainable development will depend on making key European policies, such as agriculture or transport, sustainable. For environmental organisations, fighting for the integration principle is therefore much more than an academic exercise. It will be crucial for environmental progress in the coming decades. If environmental concerns are taken into consideration from the very beginning in all policy areas, environmental policy will benefit the economy and lead to improved efficiency and innovation. Environmental NGOs have therefore proposed an amendment to Article 8. It establishes the principle of policy coherence with special attention on environmental integration and the EU's external policies.

Keeping up the pressure

Several Convention members - among them Germany's foreign minister Fischer - have now submitted amendments with our proposals. Environmental NGOs will however have to follow the process closely in the near future, making sure that the next draft from the Presidium of the Convention takes these proposals into consideration. For many citizens, the environmental legislation of the European Union is one of the main success stories of Europe. Weakening environment would no doubt threaten public support for the Constitution.

Energy – a new area of Union competence?

In the draft Constitution the Praesidium proposes to add energy as an area of "shared competence". This means that the Union would start dealing with a common energy policy and that a new chapter on energy would need to be written for the second part of the Constitution. If Energy becomes a Union competence at all (which is still controversially discussed), it will be of importance how this chapter is written. Only an energy chapter with the objective to contribute to sustainable development, CO2 reduction, conservation of natural resources, the minimization of risks to human health and the environment and the promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency would be acceptable. Clearly defining progressive energy policy in the EU might also become important because until now it is still unclear if Euratom - the Treaty-dinosaur which obliges the EU to actively promote nuclear power - will be included in the Constitution, if it will be changed in that process or if it stays outside the Constitution unchanged.

UNION POLICIES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION

Within the next months, the Praesidium will publish the second part of the Constitution on "policies and their implementation". Until now it is unclear to what extent the opportunity will be taken up to rewrite the articles on the different policies. For example: will the article on agriculture be changed, deleting the aim of "increased production" and introducing the objective of healthy and safe food, produced in a sustainable way?

Decision making procedures in the Union

The second part will also set the rules for decision making in the different policy areas. A paper published recently by the Commission proposes to make qualified majority voting and co-decision of the Parliament the general rule (with some exceptions such as the use of military force, which would still require unanimity).

From an environmental point of view, this will be an interesting debate. Some policy areas such as regional policy (Structural and Cohesion Funds) or agriculture suffer from the fact that decisions are taken by unanimity. This often results in last minute horse-trading behind closed doors at European Summits - not an approach that leads to the most useful decisions. Involvement of the European Parliament and decision making by qualified majority voting could improve this. Important for environmental NGOs is also whether decisions on environmental taxes will be taken with qualified majority or whether the veto right of one single country could block progress in the future. This was just exemplified again when Italy used its veto against the Monti Directive, which would have established minimum taxes on energy products in Europe. Finally, establishing minimum taxes for corporations and binding rules for corporate accountability will only be achieved if the unanimity rule falls.

For the above reasons, the definition of decision-making structures in the Constitution should deserve a lot of attention of environmental NGOs in the next months. Several aims need to be taken into consideration:

a) A Union with 25 members must stay functional, which is put into question if 25 different countries can use their veto.

b) Decision making by qualified majority in the Council of Ministers and with co-decision power of the European Parliament has proven efficient in the case of environmental legislation - one of the policy areas which is widely recognised by the public as an EU success story.

c) Economic integration is already decided and will go ahead in any case. Efficient decision making structures are needed to put a social and environmental framework around this economic integration, making it beneficial for people and the environment.

d) In an enlarged Europe corporations can invest wherever they find the most suitable conditions. They will push governments to offer the lowest taxes and seek the lowest social/environmental standards. This trend can only be counteracted by European-wide harmonisation and regulation. Since there is always one country benefiting from attracting investment through lower taxes or standards, the veto power could prove to be a major obstacle.

e) Many citizens fear that without the veto power of their own country, the Brussels bureaucracy will overrule them. This needs to be taken seriously. The answer however can not be to make the EU-25 dysfunctional by keeping outdated decision making structures. Rather one should define where the competences of the EU start and end. Another way of taking care of these concerns is to define the majority necessary in the Council. In those policy areas where countries are reluctant to give up their veto power, defining a high majority (such as 70%) for reaching decisions might be a solution.

In less than half a year the Convention will present its final proposals for a European Constitution. Until then environmental NGOs should follow the process very closely. The first proposals from the Praesidium of the Convention give reason to be on high alert.

Contact: Martin Rocholl, Director, FoE Europe, martin.rocholl@foeeurope.org

___________________________________________________

AMENDEMENTS PROPOSED BY ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs TO THE DRAFT ARTICLES 1-16 OF THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION

Amendments are IN CAPITAL LETTERS

Article 3-2

The Union shall work for a Europe of sustainable development based on balanced economic growth, A HIGH LEVEL OF PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT and social justice, with a free single market, and economic and monetary union, aiming at full employment and generating high levels of competitiveness and living standards TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PRESENT GENERATION WITH RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF FUTURE GENERATIONS. It shall promote economic and social cohesion, equality between women and men, and environmental and social protection, and shall develop scientific and technological advance including the discovery of space. It shall encourage solidarity between generations and between States, and equal opportunities for all.

Article 8-1

The limits and use of Union competences are governed by the principles of conferral, subsidiarity, proportionality, POLICY COHERENCE and loyal cooperation.

ARTICLE 8-5 (NEW)

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF POLICY COHERENCE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS MUST BE INTEGRATED INTO THE DEFINITION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNION POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN PART 3, IN PARTICULAR WITH A VIEW TO PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

ARTICLE 8-6 (NEW)

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF POLICY COHERENCE, THE UNION SHALL ENSURE CONSISTENCY OF ITS EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES AS A WHOLE. IN PARTICULAR, THE POLICIES AND ACTIONS OF THE UNION REFERRED TO IN PART 3 AND WHICH ARE LIKELY TO AFFECT DEVELOPPING COUNTRIES SHOULD TAKE ACCOUNT THE OBJECTIVES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3.

_______________________________________

NUCLEAR POWER AND THE CONVENTION

Will the new EU constitution promote nuclear power?

By the time you read this, Friends of the Earth will have submitted the Euratom sign-on Declaration to the European Convention. (See last Bulletin for details.) The statement, now supported by 100 organisations across Europe, calls for the scrapping the 1957 Treaty thus ending the EU promotion of nuclear power.

At the same time, formal support for Euratom abolition is gaining momentum through detailed proposals made by Convention Member's Marie Nagy, Renée Wagner and Neil MacCormick. Their paper is close to what FoEE is seeking, with most of the Treaty repealed while certain safety, security and environmental protection powers are transferred into the general treaties.

Meanwhile, the Convention's ruling 'Praesidium' has itself privately been looking at what to do with Euratom under the new Constitution, and is expect to publish a statement shortly. Whether its view and our view come close to each other, however, remains to be seen. FoEE will have to react swiftly when the Praesidium makes its move.

Some key Convention members are arguing tactically that Euratom should be ignored, and so 'allowed to die in obscurity'. Others, including backers of the unofficial 'ProdiPenelope' draft, call for the effective readoption of Euratom as an annex to the new Constitution. Both these options continue the promotion of nuclear and in FoEE's current view must not succeed. The achievement of our aim to END nuclear promotion requires a careful strategy that steers a path between these other interests.

Energy policy in general terms has already become a formal issue for the Convention, as Part 1 of the draft Constitution proposes (in article 12) that there is shared competency between EU institutions and Member States (see p.1. article on Constitution).

Such a move had traditionally been resisted by Member states, especially those with progressive policies on green energy options who would not accept having weaker policies imposed upon them. The divergent views on energy issues across Europe, and particularly on nuclear matters, make for interesting times ahead.

THE COMMISSION’S ‘NUCLEAR PACKAGE’

Whatever happens to the treaties and new Constitution from 2004 onwards, the Commission is still trying hard to push through its package of nuclear proposals during 2003 under the existing framework. Formally adopted by the Commission on 30 January, the measures include enlarging the Euratom loans regime; attempting to introduce an EU wide safety regime; and setting deadlines by which Member States with nuclear generation must build underground waste dumps.

FoEE sees the package as no more than a lifeline seeking to rescue a dying industry. The safety measures, when examined in detail, are of so little consequence as to be meaningless. The dump deadlines are entirely arbitrary, thus ignoring issues to do with technical and safety assessments and political and public acceptability.

And the rejuvenated loans regime, if it were approved, would of course only extend the overall radioactive legacy while undermining the alternatives. Several nonnuclear states are already asking awkward questions about the loan extension and may well vote to block it in the Council of Ministers. FOE will be encouraging them to do so.

FoEE has called for the package to be suspended until Euratom is repealed. Any new proposals could only come forward under a new Treaty in which the European Parliament is fully involved, and there is a level playing field with other energy options.

Contact: Mark Johnston, FoEE Nuclear Campaigner, johnston.mark@virgin.net

More information on the campaign to abolish Euratom

back to page "Europe's future constitution"