The majority of the 150 respondents to the UK government’s call for evidence on how European environment and climate change policies affect the UK, ‘believe that EU competence has increased environmental standards in the UK’, it has been found.

The findings come in the full report of responses to government’s Review of the Balance of Competences between the UK and the European Union (EU) – specifically in regards to environment and climate change – which was released today (13 February).

Led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the report reflects and analyses evidence submitted by ‘experts, non-governmental organisations, business people, and other interested parties’, as well as a ‘literature review of relevant material’.

It aims to ’set out the current position agreed within the Coalition Government for handling this policy area in the EU’, however, it does not ‘predetermine’ proposals that the coalition may make in the future regarding changes to the EU. It is thought the review forms part of the government’s efforts to understand the impacts of a potential exit from the EU.

Responses to report

According to the report, ‘the majority of respondents believed that EU competence has increased environmental standards in the UK and across the EU and that this has led to improved performance in addressing several environmental issues’.

This mirrors the position outlined by various representative bodies for the UK waste and resource management sector, who last year issued a joint statement encouraging the government to maintain its relationship with the EU, as they believed EU-driven legislation had ‘sped up’ the ‘modernisation of the waste industry in the UK and improved the environmental impacts of waste’.

The report reads: ‘In the main, respondents believed that EU competence has increased the level of ambition of environmental legislation in the UK and many believed this has also resulted in an improvement in environmental performance. This reflects one side of the debate around the benefits and costs of legislating to protect the environment.’

Indeed, several respondents, especially those from ‘think-tanks, NGOs, political groups and academia and participants at the York workshop’ outlined that ‘EU competence has led to higher environmental standards both in the UK and across other member states than would have been set if this competence had remained at member state level’

The report highlights that the UK-based climate change research organisation, the Tyndall Centre, said that UK environmental standards would not have been set as high without EU competence, particularly in the areas where there have been ‘infringement proceedings against the UK for non-compliance with EU rules’.

The centre’s analysis showed that ‘changes to laws and the type of policies on the environment found in the UK are also found in other comparable member states’, thus indicating that environmental standards have increased across the EU due to EU competence.

Evidence submitted by the Wildlife Trusts (WT) added that ‘changes in national policy and legislation, latterly often driven by EU policy, along with technological developments and changing attitudes and behaviour, have led to improvements in some ecosystem services, particularly in the last 10-20 years’.

However, it was reportedly ‘widely recognised among respondents from a range of sectors and participants in the London and Northern Ireland workshops that it is impossible to be certain about what would have happened in the UK if the EU did not have competence for environment and climate change’.

The reception to EU legislation regarding waste management was also positive, with respondents from a ‘range of sectors, including those from the waste management profession, as well as environmental NGOs’ explaining its benefits.

Using the ‘EU Landfill Directive and Waste Framework Directive’ as evidence, they claimed: ‘The EU waste legislation has significantly changed the UK’s approach to waste management, reducing landfill and increasing recycling. Whereas 10-15 years ago almost all the UK’s waste was disposed of in landfill sites, today the UK recycles over 40 per cent of its household waste and about 50 per cent of its commercial and industrial waste.’

Compliancy company Valpack also noted that EU legislation had provided a ‘level playing field’ for manufacturers, especially in the case of regulations that require producers to contribute towards the collection, recovery and recycling of packaging and end-of life batteries and electrical and electronic equipment, for example the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive 2012/19/EU, the Waste Packaging Directive 94/62/EC and the Waste Battery Producer Responsibility Directive 2006/66/EC.

Other respondents believe that EU policy could see ‘advantages’ for the economy. The Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) and the Resource Association noted that studies by Friends of the Earth Europe/UK (with the RGR consultancy) showed that if the UK increased its recycling rate to 70 per cent this could ‘provide up to 50,000 additional jobs’. The same study suggested waste legislation could save ‘€70 billion in Member state spending’ and ‘create 400,000 jobs’.

Arguments for greater national competence

In contrast to the general views expressed, the Fresh Start Project (which ‘examines the options for a new UK-EU relationship’) thought that waste was not a transnational issue and so should not be an area of EU competence.

Nulife Glass Processing also thought that national rather than EU level targets for waste recycling would benefit the UK as the profile of waste streams, processing capability and geographical location of recycling plants is different for every EU member state. Nulife also stated that targets for recycling which are appropriate for one country may be unachievable for other countries.

The report stated that some believe, in regards to EU legislation, that ‘the costs do not justify the benefits’. UK coal producers Coal Pro, and mining company, UK Coal, claimed legislation on the management of waste from the extractive industries has ‘imposed additional cost of administration’ despite it already being ‘adequately controlled by the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969’.

Read the reportor find out more about what the ramifications of an EU-exit could be in Resource 75.