It can be seen that these early EU policies were based on the combat of singular or specific pollutants and operated on a single medium basis. It was often the case that a local problem came to authority attention and regulatory instruments, such as emission limits, were then placed upon that specific pollutant or polluting industry (Holck, Jørgensen et al. 2002). This method of regulation developed into a fragmented authority structure, which eventually became a permit system that was legally enforced for a number of sectors. It can therefore be seen that the laws, directives or programs aimed to address environmental problem, did so on a very narrow level. Question over both the efficiency and effectiveness of the policy then arises when considering the lack of consideration given to the interrelationships that exists between all aspects of the environment (Sands 1991). However at the time this fragmented permit regulatory system was widely used through out the European Union members.
Perhaps the greatest problem that arose with the medium specific permit system is the potential for the pollution problem to be transferred between the different environmental media, but kept within the law. An example of this situation can be seen when an emission limit is placed on a polluting industry; the enterprise then installs technology that cleans the air emitted into the atmosphere and so reducing their polluting output. However there is no control placed on the industry in respect to waste water discharge, so the pollutants produced are instead released into a local water system; essentially shifting the problem into another environmental media although the problem is solved in respect to the atmospheric regulatory institutes (Sands 1991). Globut (1980), a critic of the time, saw the compulsory medium-specific permit system as a barrier opposing industries to develop more efficient and less polluting technology, encouraging the development of technologies that take on the “end of pipe” approach rather than a prevention approach. Schroll (1997) argues that voluntary based instruments, perhaps with an economic incentive, promotes self-regulation increasing the effectiveness of technological developments and should therefore be used in conjunction with compulsory policy.
The very nature of the multi-institutional regulation policy, involving much office and administration processes create a situation where problems can be easily filed or transferred from one authority to the other. These disadvantages were identified on a national scale as early as the 1970’s. In the USA the disadvantages surrounding medium specific regulation where first addressed in 1969 at the US Environmental Protection Agency (Sands 1991). Within Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands evaluations of their national environmental policy and regulatory system took place during the early 1970’s although the products of this evaluation produced different solutions. Following this evaluation Britain took on the Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) in which the technology used is the least harmful in comparison to others available on the market, taking the first steps to transfer away from the treatment of pollutants instruments to prevention instruments (Johnson 1989).
National attempts to improve environmental policy were supported by the OECD during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, who, on analysis of the twenty five years of the different policies in place in each of the EU member states, gave recommendation to the EU in 1991 to take on a total Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control system (Holck, Jørgensen et al. 2002). The OECD argued that the internal integration of control regulation facilitated external integration on a supranational scale and thus preventing the problem shifting effect into a more sustainable prevention approach taken by the industrial companies themselves. This recommendation was in accordance with the popular concept of sustainability, considered to be of major importance following the Single European Act of 1987 and the publication of the Brundtland report 1986, that took the approach that economic development and environmental quality are complimentary for a sustainable future (Johnson 1989). The suggestion was that of integration between all the different existing medium specific permit policies that had developed into a single governing permit system taking into account all aspects of the environment. Integrated systems had been used in national policy in several EU states, including Britain and the Netherlands, but not on a European scale with a common single policy throughout the Union (de Bruijnt).
The acknowledgement of the problems surrounding medium specific regulation and pressure from heads of state and the OECD led to the establishment of the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) act, under part 1 of the directive in the Environmental Protection Act of 1990. The main aim of the IPC was to integrate regulations of pollutants into the air, land and water by use of the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC) on a supranational level to:
“…ensure consideration of releases from industrial processes to all media in the context of the effect on the environment as a whole” ().
The role of BATNEEC required potential industries to use techniques that either prevented or minimised the release of pollutants to any environmental medium and also making any releases harmless. The main difference in policy of the IPC, compared to former EU policy, is that it is the focus has changed to the processes within the companies rather than on the outputs from the companies. The approach can be seen to be sector orientated industrial regulation, as opposed the previous medium specific approach. The directive covered approximately 2000 processes from the industrial sectors, which became known as the 'prescribed processes' specified under the Environmental Protection Regulations, 1991().
The fifth EU action program, 1993, again held the initial recommendation by the OECD of a total Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) directive under high priority. Three years later it was approved by the European Council, becoming the IPPC directive in 1996 (). The directive was based upon the IPC directive and again took on the approach to use the best available technique (BAT) technology representing a certain technological level, and therefore emission level. The enforcement however does not correspond to the actual use of BAT technology but the standard it sets within each industrial sector, and hence is also implementing a sectoral approach to regulation. The concept of BAT is that the environmental issues and current economic viability are balanced making the directive more successful than the previous uniform policy. Consideration has also been extended from the air, land and water parameters of the IPC directive to include energy efficiency, sustainable use of raw materials, accident prevention, soil pollution and the clean up of industries that fall into disuse ().
There is however no specific guide provided for each nation to follow in order to meet the standards of the actual directive and unify the medium specific permit system to include these extra parameters. It can be argued that this may result in a wide range of interpretation between the different member states and therefore create problems during actual enforcement. Although it has also been argued that in order for the directive to be successfully carried out throughout the EU, flexibility is essential. The broad characteristic of the directive is not however applied to its method of regulation. It is still primarily a permit system, which might indicate that the legislation is a narrow method of regulation and therefore raises similar questions over its effectiveness and efficiency as the former medium specific permit systems.
IPPC regulation is, however, expected to be an easier policy for the EU member states to implement because of its integration and flexibility that previous legislation lacked. It is believed by many authorities to be the long awaited policy of ecological modernisation and sustainable long term management. However it has be argued that the transition from medium specific regulation into a single integrated policy has been tried, and proved a failure. The US’s unification policy reform in 1969 following the Environmental Protection Agency has been widely regarded as unsuccessful. The fragmented nature of the initial permit system led to conflict and an inability of existing industries to effectively respond to the change. There is some concern that this failure will occur within Europe. It is also argued that the policy developed by the EU has taken on the USA’s policy and learned from its mistakes. It is believed that the policy will be more successful in some states than others based upon the prior structure of regulation. Germany for example has a long tradition of a nation wide uniform policy that takes a definite top-down approach to regulation and therefore the change may be harder than countries such as Denmark, Britain and the Netherlands who already had an integrated system. Britain especially, having a Best Practical Environmental Option system in place similar to the BAT scheme prior to the IPC directive.
This differential ability of the member states perhaps highlights the risk that the implementation of the IPPC directive across the EU will be inconsistent and perhaps then proved ineffective. However the directive is long term based, so to assess effectiveness is perhaps, at this stage, too soon, as compliance into the directive of existing industries is not enforced until 2007. Problems also may arise from the competitive nature of economic development. To achieve a consistent and European wide level of environmental quality, the distribution of both information and technological advances must be exchanged throughout the EU in order to reach a common BAT technological standard.
The role of legislation, like the IPPC directive, is an attempt to integrate all aspects of environmental protection in order increase the overall quality. The change has been long awaited with the problems surrounding the former media specific policy has been understood for many years. Although it is impossible to assess how successful the policy is at present and there are definite uncertainties surrounding enforcement and viability, it is generally regarded to be a landmark step in the right direction.
Reference
de Bruijnt, T. (2001). TRANSFORMING REGULATORY SYSTEMS
Multilevel Governance in a European Context. Center for Clean Technology and Environmental Policy. The Netherlands, CSTM University of Twente.
Holck, A. K., P. Jørgensen, et al. (2002). Environmental Regulation and Integrated Permit Systems: A comparative study of industrial regulation in Denmark, England, and the Netherlands. Department of Environment, Technology, and Social Studies, Roskilde University.
Johnson, S. a. C., G., (1989). The Environmental Policy of the European Communities. London.
Leveque, F. (1996). The European Fabric of Environmental Regulations. Environmental Policy in Europe: Industry, Competition and the Policy process. F. Leveque. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
McCormick, J. (1989). The Global Environmental Movement. London, Belhaven Press.
Sands, P., . (1991). "European Community environmental law: the evolution of a regional regime of international environmental protection." The Yale Law Journal 100.
