If stricter rules are ever introduced for the steel factory of Tata Steel in IJmuiden, they will have their origin in an office in a suburb of Seville. To the west of the Spanish city, almost on the outskirts, stands a stainless steel clad building, originally erected for a 1992 World’s Fair that took place there.
This is the office of the European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (EIPPCB), an agency of the European Union that leads discussions on environmental standards to be met by industry across Europe. In this ‘Seville process’, industrial sector associations, the European federation of environmental organizations EEB and representatives of member states talk to each other about rules for the various sectors, from paper to steel. The discussions, often involving more than a hundred stakeholders per sector, are at the heart of European industrial legislation and determine the living environment and the environment across the continent.
All the more strange, Christian Schaible thinks, is what he sometimes sees happening. As a policy officer at the environmental umbrella organization EEB, Schaible regularly attends discussions. A few years ago, he sat opposite a Czech national delegation partly made up of representatives of the metalworking industry. The country had simply included the industry in its own delegation. “Crazy isn’t it? But it really happened.”
Industry over-representation
Is industry playing too big a role in the definition of European industrial legislation? This is an ongoing theme for the academic world and in the corridors of Seville. Environmental organizations such as the EEB and lawyers have pointed out for years that the industry is often represented by many people at the EIPPCB and to a large extent determines the conversation. Environmental clubs with their limited resources, on the other hand, join with small delegations.
Although the discussion about the influence of industry on environmental standards is not new, it is especially relevant for the Netherlands these days. The supervisor of the Tata Steel steel factory in IJmuiden, the North Sea Canal Area Environmental Service (OD NZKG), has recently been speaking out loud and clear about inadequate standards. As far as the service is concerned, ‘Seville’ should tighten it up. Until then, he can “insufficiently” protect the environment, according to a recent letter to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. The steel factory (9,000 employees) emits harmful PAHs and other substances that can harm the health of local residents. Nitrogen is also released during steel production; not directly harmful to local residents, but to the environment.
An example. In May, it emerged that the most controversial part of the gigantic Tata complex, the coke plants, was not subject to strict emissions standards for nitrogen and dust. At the coke plants, coal is prepared for the steelmaking process in the blast furnace. The installations, the Environment Agency established, are so old that they have an exceptional position and are allowed to emit a relatively large amount of dust and nitrogen. In the case of nitrogen, this involves emissions that are 3.5 times higher than the standard for newer factories.
In May it turned out that the coke factories of Tata Steel could not impose a strict emission standard for nitrogen
Sometimes the supervisor does try to impose a strict standard, but this is met with resistance from Tata Steel. For example, an objection procedure is currently underway about stricter standards for the sulfuric acid factories. According to Tata Steel, the Environment Agency wrongly wants to ‘allow sharply’, while the European standard does not require this.
Best available technique
When Maria Lee, a law professor at University College London, began studying the Seville process, she was amazed. “I was surprised that the industry is so strongly represented there,” she says. “Ngos can be there, but they don’t have enough resources and knowledge at all.”
The talks in Seville revolve around identifying the ‘best available techniques’ – so-called bbt conclusions – for all kinds of industries, from paper to steel. Which factory in Europe produces the cleanest? Is it feasible to oblige the technology used there elsewhere? Which filters are involved, which emission levels, which production techniques? The standards for the coming years will then be based on this.
In theory, this is an objective process. In practice, the state of affairs in Seville is anything but objective. Because in manpower and knowledge, the industry there far outstrips the environmental movement, member states and the EIPPCB agency itself. The exact attendance lists of many meetings are not shared, even after questions from NRC. However, from the discussions on large power plants, for example, it is known that 137 industry representatives were present, compared to 8 from the EEB environmental umbrella and 25 from the EIPPCB. Each Member State took a handful of officials with them.
It is not surprising that the industry is sitting around the table, says Professor Lee. You cannot do without these kinds of processes. The industry also usually emphasizes that they simply have the most knowledge about the installations that are being discussed. But there are risks in the imbalance. These have been extensively described in academic studies. For example, it is impossible for the representatives of the environmental clubs to go through all the details. In addition, there is a risk that the industry, which is also the supplier of data about factories, will omit information.
“We have to know a fair bit about all subjects,” says Jean-Luc Wietor, policy officer at the EEB, who regularly attends meetings in Seville. “But some parameters are more important than others, and that’s what we focus on.” You can’t keep track of everything. According to him, the industry sometimes tries to shift the emphasis to less controversial aspects of the production processes. You have to see through that, says Wietor.
The EEB itself emphasizes that it is in principle the responsibility of environmental organizations to be able to participate at a high level. But of course that is difficult, says Professor Lee. As an NGO, you have to focus on campaigns that generate attention, publicity and donors – and talking about technical topics in an office in Seville is simply not part of that.
Exceptions to the rule
In the opinion of the EEB, the unequal force field often leads to bt conclusions that are full of exceptions, or that are simply bad. For example, according to the environmental umbrella, the industry often ensures that many different factories serve as models for the best available technology, so that only a few factories need to introduce better techniques. There is also often room for exceptions when it would be too expensive or too complex to provide an installation with better techniques.
The industry generally sees this differently: some exception clauses are simply necessary. Take the legislation for coke plants in the steel industry. There was considerable discussion about this in 2012, representatives of industry and government confirm. The industry does not consider it possible to impose low nitrogen emission standards on these plants. It would be impossible to shut down a coke factory, it will run permanently. Therefore, no additional nitrogen capture can be built on it.
The exception for the older factory is a typical problem of environmental legislation
For example, there is no obligation for factories older than ten years to reduce nitrogen emissions. In practice, this means that a standard applies to few coking plants in Europe, because the vast majority are decades old. “A typical problem of environmental law,” says Professor Lee, “The exception for the older factory.”
According to the industry, this exception is unavoidable: only in this way can you still make steel in Europe. Because no steel company is setting up a new factory here. This requires a huge investment, while making steel from coal seems to have no future. Steel companies are only building new coke plants in Asia: there is greater belief in coal.
Read also Tension about greening British Tata
It is difficult to determine whether this argument is correct for the coke factories. And that is precisely the problem with the Seville process, where the industry dominates the debate with technical arguments that are sometimes difficult to verify.
Although there are only a handful of coke factories in Europe, the discussion has not subsided. Other emission standards for the steel industry will also be vigorously debated next time. In principle, the talks about this should take place in Seville every eight years. The European Commission has defined this period in industrial legislation. This should keep factories up to date and the European living environment clean.
New rounds of conversations
The North Sea Canal Area Environmental Service and environmental organizations are eager to impose stricter standards on the steel industry in a new round of talks. The OD NZKG has already explicitly requested the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management for a seat at the table, via the Dutch delegation. There, the service wants to push for stricter emission standards.
Problem: It’s totally unclear when this will happen. The bbt conclusions have to be renewed every eight years, but in Seville one thing is certain: that deadline is rarely if ever met. Member States and the agency, for example, do not have nearly enough civil servants available, according to an online presentation of the EIPPCB. And when the talks finally start, it could take many more years before an agreement is reached.
Member States may indicate to Seville which sector they wish to tackle as a matter of priority. The steel industry is high on the list in the Netherlands, but that may be different in other countries. With the conclusions from 2012, the sector has been confronted with new requirements relatively recently. The Environment Agency also wants to work with the bbt conclusions for storage and transhipment of goods. They date from 2006, and are just as relevant for Tata Steel – where a lot of dusty coal is stored.