LegislationClimate a priority for new CommissionClimate change emerged as one of the winners in the new European Commission, with the announcement of a new department dedicated to steering the EU's climate change agenda. Connie Hedegaard, former climate and energy minister of Denmark, will head the new department and serve as Climate Commissioner under Commission President José Manuel Barroso.Introducing the team for his second term, Mr Barroso said the new commissioner will “promote the climate agenda both internally and externally”. Ms Hedegaard had been a favourite for the post. She will deal with the EU's international climate strategy, Europe's emissions trading scheme and industrial emissions and ozone layer protection, including the integrated pollution prevention and control directive (IPPC).The move represents a set back for the Commission's environment department, which has been significantly scaled down. In addition to climate and industrial pollution it will lose its biotechnology, pesticides and health unit to the health department and two civil protection units to the humanitarian aid department. Its main responsibilities, under former research commissioner Janez Potočnik, will be issues such as soil protection, water and air policy.Mr Barroso also confirmed the transport and energy directorate would be split into two departments, with the pro-nuclear German Gunter Oettinger in charge of energy. EU anti-fraud chief Siim Kallas will become transport commissioner in place of Antonio Tajani, who takes over as head of the industry department. Andris Piebalgs moves from energy to development and Maire Geoghegan-Quinn obtained the research portfolio.All posts are subject to confirmation hearings in the European Parliament in January.European Commission:http://ec.europa.eu/EU gets tough on wasteThe European Commission is set to take a much tougher stance on waste management, after two recent reports showed waste law is poorly implemented and enforced in many countries. Member States must take EU waste legislation much more seriously than they have done in the past, the Commission said.The analysis came in a report on recent implementation of eight waste laws, including directives on end-of-life vehicles, waste oils, sewage sludge and hazardous waste. Implementation of the waste framework directive and laws on landfills and waste shipment are particularly problematic, the Commission said. In many cases, waste treatment infrastructure is missing and waste is not collected separately, it added. This means targets for the reuse, recycling and recovery for waste streams such as electrical and electronic equipment, end-of-life vehicles and packaging are not being met. Problems are particularly acute in eastern European countries.More than 20% of all EU environmental infringement cases are related to waste management and the Commission has signalled its intention to step up enforcement actions against those states failing to comply. Proper implementation of EU waste legislation could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30%, the Commission estimates. There are also significant opportunities for companies from generating secondary raw materials.Brussels also called for better information and indicators which “could facilitate a more in-depth investigation into the state of implementation” and the effectiveness and efficiency of waste legislation. The statement is further evidence that the EU executive's policy focus is progressively shifting from law-making to implementation and enforcement.The Commission is also finalising guidelines, to be published later this year, for drawing up national waste prevention programmes. Member States must draw up such plans by December 2013. According to a spokesperson, waste prevention initiatives work best when targeted at specific waste streams such as paper and packaging. Governments must set “waste prevention objectives” in their plans but they are under no obligation to set quantitative targets.European Commission:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/Agency to revise SO2standardsAfter nitrogen, ozone and particulate matter,1sulphur dioxide is the next pollutant on EPA's list to be subject to stricter air quality standards. The Agency has announced it is to strengthen the sulphur dioxide (SO2) air quality standard for the first time in nearly 40 years.Under the proposal, EPA would set a new national one-hour SO2standard at between 50 and 100 parts per billion (ppb). This standard is designed to protect against short-term exposures ranging from five minutes to 24 hours. The current 24 hour and annual health standards would be revoked because the revised standards would be more protective.Monitoring and reporting requirements will also be strengthened, with monitors being placed in areas with high SO2emission levels as well as in urban areas. The Air Quality Index would be updated to reflect the revised standards, improving states' ability to alert the public when short-term SO2levels may affect their health.Only the primary standards—those designed to protect public health—are affected. EPA will address the secondary standard—designed to protect the public welfare, including the environment—as part of a separate proposal in 2011.Also, EPA has unveiled new interactive tracking tools on its website to provide the public with information on SO2emissions. Users can observe recent changes in emissions and other indicators using interactive charts and Google Earth satellite maps. In addition, information on federal and state enforcement of air and hazardous waste regulations at facility level is available through the Agency's updated Enforcement and Compliance Online (ECHO) website.EPA:www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide;www.epa.gov/airmarkets/quarterlytracking.html;www.epa-echo.gov/echo/Europe split on biocides directiveEuropean authorities are divided over controversial proposals to revise EU rules on biocidal products.Under proposals tabled by the European Commission,2companies would be charged annual fees for certain biocide approvals. Authorisation would be introduced Europe-wide, with fees paid to the European Chemicals Agency and national bodies. Many Member States are opposed to annual fees, although some such as Ireland already impose charges. The Commission accepts that reduced fees could be introduced for small businesses, provided these could be financed by other means.MEPs, meanwhile, are concerned that the Commission's proposals for on EU-wide authorisation system do not go far enough. At present, only two types of products—low-risk biocides and products based on new active ingredients—would require EU authorisation; others would continue to be authorised at national level, with strengthened rules on mutual recognition by other EU states. Some MEPs want to rein back the proposals, while others want them extended to cover a wider range of biocidal products.Christa Klass, who is leading the Parliament's response on the measure, said the proposal could entail “massive costs” for industry. But Danish centre-left MEP Dan Jorgensen said there was too much focus on reducing costs at the expense of environmental and health protection. Mr Jorgensen predicted that the Parliament's discussions on biocides would closely mirror its lively debates on the new EU authorisation procedure for pesticides.Industry representatives are concerned about the Commission's “low-risk” definition for products subject to EU-wide authorisation. Alexander Grube of German chemicals body VCI said its members believed it would be “almost impossible” to find substances meeting the definition. Ministers are divided over how broad the low-risk definition should be.European Commission:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biocides/index.htm; European Parliament:www.europarl.europa.euRoHS debate hits full strideDebate on the proposed revision to two EU laws relating to electrical and electronic equipment intensified during the late autumn, with discussions in both the European Parliament and Environment Council (representing national governments). The two bodies agree on some issues and are split on others.Most EU governments want the restrictions on hazardous substances in electrical equipment (RoHS) legislation to cover all electrical goods, with specific exemptions for certain products.3With many MEPs in the Parliament's Environment Committee taking a similar line, the European Commission's proposal to retain the existing closed scope for RoHS looks likely to be rejected.UK MEP Jill Evans, who is the Parliament's sponsor (or ‘rapporteur’) for the proposals, wants restrictions extended to cover PVC, chlorinated plasticisers, and the phthalates DEHP, BBP and DBP. There should be a transition period of three-and-a-half years for products not previously covered by RoHS to give producers time to prepare and apply for exemptions. Looking further ahead, Ms Evans wants new criteria for deciding on future substance bans. Reviews should consider the impact of a substance on the recyclability of products, the exposure of workers handling end-of-life products, and the potential release of hazardous substances during recovery or disposal.Many large electronics firms are already phasing out halogenated flame retardants and PVC from their products. At a recent event on greening electronics, a spokesperson for Sony Ericsson Mobile said the mobile phone industry “is already going bromine- and PVC-free”. “Legislation banning these substances would help, because it makes alternatives cheaper more quickly,” he said. But Willem Hofland of EBFRIP, representing manufacturers, said the Commission's decision not to propose restrictions on chlorinated and brominated flame retardants, such as TBBPA, was due to a lack of scientific evidence for a ban. These substances are “far more tested and controlled” than current alternatives, and some have already passed EU risk assessments, he added.Governments and MEPs are less united over proposals for harmonisation of EU rules on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), however. Under the Commission's proposal producers would only have to complete a single registration in one EU country to be registered in all member states where they operate. This is designed to eliminate the need for multiple registrations, which the Commission and industry say are overly burdensome. Governments have argued that EU-wide registration will make it harder for them to enforce the rules in their territories, and have also raised concerns over the costs of making their producer registries interoperable.In a debate in the Parliament's Environment Committee, German MEP Karl-Heinz Florenz questioned governments' stance on the issue. “I can only assume it's because registrations generate revenues, and governments don't want to lose money”, he said. Mr Florenz also questioned why a new EU-wide WEEE collection target of at least 65% by weight of EEE products placed on the market in the previous two years would only apply from 2016.In a related move, industry has criticised Ms Evans's proposal to phase out antimony trioxide as part of the RoHS revision. The International Antimony Association said the measure was ill-informed because the substance poses no health risks. Other substances on the review list include arsenic and beryllium compounds, bisphenol-A, and organobromines and organochlorines other than flame retardants and plasticisers.European Parliament, Environment Committee:www.europarl.europa.eu; EBFRIP:www.ebfrip.org; International Antimony Association:www.antimony.be