Britain, France, and the European Union - Comparing Environmental Policies in 16 Countries - page 118

union and most members to ratify the protocol. This was cosmetic, and
the Europeans did not actually meet their targets. Indeed, all but Sweden
exceeded them. Spain and Italy were emitting 40% more instead of reduc-
ing 8%. he prime minister of the United Kingdom said he had changed
his thinking and that no country would be willing to cut its growth or
consumption substantially, 10 and the chancellor of Germany said she did
not want to hurt industry. The parties to the Framework Convention have
met annually to monitor and move forward on climate change, but these
became less and less productive. In 2009 the parties decided to rally sup-
port at a session in Copenhagen. Close to 115 presidents, prime ministers,
and kings attended. More than 40,000 people, representing governments,
nongovernmental organizations, religious groups, and news reporters,
were there. The results were disastrous. Major conflicts opened between
the Europeans and the Americans and the industrial world and China.
Many leaders just went home early.
Water has been another major issue for the EU. Early programs focused
on particular problems: pollution, availability, surface water, groundwa-
ter, and so forth. Obviously, water flows from one country to another. The
Rhine and Danube rivers are examples. For a long time, the European
Community addressed water piecemeal. In 1975 the Surface Water
Directive focused on rivers, lakes, and reservoirs used for drinking.
In 1976 the Bathing Waters Directive required member states to identify
and safeguard marine and fresh bathing sites for compliance. Beaches
were to be free from sewage, for example. This effort garnered a lot of
favorable publicity from ordinary citizens. That same year, the Dangerous
Substances Directive required member states to regulate hazardous chem-
ical discharges. Directives protecting fish, shellfish, groundwater, and
drinking water, and controlling urban waste followed. All these programs
depended on the underlying work of the various countries.
In 2000 the EU issued a unified Water Framework Directive. It was
intended to replace a fragmentary, top-down approach with a compre-
hensive approach. The framework expanded the scope to safeguard all
waters, set standards to be met by certain deadlines, based the program
on river basins, and encouraged citizen participation. The scope now
included aquatic ecology and specific habitats as well as water for drink-
ing and bathing. Standards have two elements: “good ecological status”
and “good chemical status.” River basins that are well managed include
the Rhine, the Maas, and the Schelde. Citizen participation is good for two
reasons. The first is that the decisions involve balancing the interests of