Environment and health

An important question concerns how much the EU takes its environmental policy into account when drawing up its general policies. In this regard, it would be important to  always include an environmental impact study whenever the Commission drafts new legislation in line with Article 11 of the TFEU. Another aspect to be improved is the clear delimitation between EU competences and national ones, while respecting the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. This is important whenever the EU wants to solve a structural problem of a cross-border nature, which would result in added value for environmental protection. In the future, given the transboundary nature of climate change, the EU should be able to intervene proactively in areas such as forests, biodiversity, ecosystems, water, with coercive regulations.

By way of example, an important and necessary step is to recognize the Union’s attributions with regard to forest protection, which is currently a national competence. Following the studies and journalistic investigations that documented  the disastrous state of  the European forests, with special emphasis on Romania, it became clear that the European Union’s forestry sector is a matter of strategic importance.

Climate change and democracy

The EU must establish itself as a global player that seeks to promote environmental protection not only at Union but international level too. This effort is worth making, given the EU’s interest in ensuring its relevance in international environmental governance over time.

Thus, the EU institutions have agreed on the importance of the environment in relation to democratic values. Climate change has consequences that affect basic aspects of citizens’ lives, and the scale of these changes can jeopardize democracy and respect for fundamental human rights. It is important how the EU can prevent, assess and amend the consequences of a changing climate without undermining the rule of law or restricting the fundamental rights of people affected by it, such as the right to live, clean water and sanitation, food, health, housing, self-determination, culture and development.

The European Parliament has taken action in this regard and has already called on the Commission to ensure that the concrete commitments on human rights, the environment and climate change already set out in the “EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024” are effectively carried out and monitored and that the implementation of the plan also covers the gender perspective.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to illustrate the impact of environmental degradation, with serious consequences for health, society, the economy and politics. Therefore, there is a need for Member States to commit to include environmental rights as a matter of priority in their post-pandemic recovery plan and to protect those who protect the environment. The EU must also encourage Member States’ efforts to strengthen the democratic participation of environmental rights defenders in decision-making processes, including those related to international climate diplomacy.

Given that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century, it must be pointed out that it can intensify existing conflicts of any kind or even generate new ones and create mass migration. The EU needs to become more vigilant to the fact that climate change can pose a threat to global security, especially in regions where states are vulnerable and undemocratically governed. Climate change can also lead to land or resource conflicts, which in turn can lead to population displacement. Every year, millions of people are forced to settle in a different place than the one they call “home” because of the effects of climate change. The situation of climate refugees is becoming increasingly severe and difficult to tackle, and unfortunately, the most vulnerable people are always those at risk. For example, women and girls are often victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation as a result of migration due to climate change.

The current environmental challenges have truly dramatic consequences, both at the European and global level. But democracy, as a protector of human rights and fundamental freedoms and as a fighter against corruption and lack of transparency, is the only form of government compatible with sustainable development and effective protection of the environment and climate

There’s currently no common forestry policy equivalent to the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy. However, this does not mean that the competence lies exclusively with the Member States, but rather there’s a range of competences shared between the EU and its Member States – currently listed in Article 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

But the EU has already frequently exercised its environmental jurisdiction over forests and forestry. A legislative Forest Strategy could call for the strict protection of primary and secular forests in the EU and better implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives for the protection of biodiversity. Romania, in particular, could protect its extremely precious fauna and flora, in the context of aggressive deforestation and illegal logging.

In addition, an action plan would be needed for institutions with legislative authority to commit to improving the legislative process and quality, to avoid disputes due to legislation that is not clear enough.

The European response to the COVID-19 crisis has shown us an uncomfortable truth. When people criticized the lack of an EU response, we had to recall the limited powers given to the Union in this area.

Although it has integrated public health concerns into all its policies – be it agriculture, consumer protection or security – the Union cannot act directly to save people’s lives. Only medical institutions in the Member States have the right to do so. But when Member States have taken unilateral measures to curb the spread of the virus, they have proved not only ineffective but also disruptive to the vital supply chains and mobility of millions of citizens, ultimately disrupting the flow of essential goods and people across the Union. These fragmented efforts to address cross-border health threats are making Member States collectively more vulnerable.

The only way the EU can currently protect public health ( by enacting binding legislation ) is by relying on non-health-related competences, which are scattered throughout the treaties. The Union has done so over the decades, regulating the placing on the market of medicinal products, food, feed, biotechnology, blood, human organs, tobacco and alcohol, as well as recognizing the medical qualifications and rights of patients to be treated throughout the Union. That has been the EU’s public health policy so far: a compilation of scattered forms of regulation, which have emerged over time to enable the Union to function as an internal market for goods, services and workers.

Current difficulties

Although European citizens enjoy the same rights and freedoms, they do not enjoy the same health and access to health services. In terms of health, we see that there is a big gap between countries with strong economies in the West and countries in the East.

The rate of premature mortality and that of preventable mortality are usually above the Union average for Eastern countries, where investments in the health system are also lower.

At the European level, a general package of medical benefits is provided for all citizens, and unmet medical needs at Union level are relatively low. Even so, we can see a disproportion between low-income population groups living in isolated rural areas, much more affected by the lack of regular access to medical services, and middle-income and above-average population categories.

Health education differs from country to country, with a higher level of health knowledge in Western countries than in Eastern countries. The latter also have a very low rate of adherence to general screening and prevention programs.

To truly be a Health Union, disparities between Member States’ health systems must be reduced and the European Union must take on the role of guaranteeing equal access to high-quality medical treatment for all citizens.

What can change?

In order to provide a solid basis for any kind of extension of the European Union’s action in the field of health, amendments to the Treaty must also be made in this area. The Union must put health at the heart of all political decisions, with the main focus of action being the prevention of premature death and disability, ensuring equal and equitable access for all citizens

Solidarity in the face of cross-border health challenges

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us the need for a Union that has the legislative framework in place to enable it to act directly, decisively and promptly to combat various cross-border health hazards it may face, such as communicable diseases, the spread of resistance. antimicrobials or even attacks with biochemical or nuclear weapons.

The European Commission, through its agencies, the European Medicines Agency and the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control, must be able to inspect, with the help of field teams, Member States’ capacities to respond to various health crises and provide support to them to improve the resilience of national health systems.

The establishment of its network of research laboratories to ensure the collection and processing of medical data on its own, under the auspices of the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control, is a necessary step to ensure a Community response to cross-border health hazards.

The need for autonomous health competence at the European level

One of the lessons of the pandemic is that the European Union must be equipped with an autonomous competence on health that does not depend on Article 114 TFEU and a more consistent budget so that European actions have a real impact. The vulnerability of a health system can become the vulnerability of the entire European Union in the event of a crisis. The revision of the Treaties, which would turn the European Union’s objective of protecting human health into an EU competence in this field, would improve the clarity and legitimacy of EU action and achieve the objectives of public health policy.

There is a need for new shared competences that allow for faster decision-making and a minimum standard of health and compliance with health protocols in all Member States. We can talk about the power of field inspection of agencies to check the difficulties faced by national health systems, to help Member States make necessary reforms and to reduce corruption in hospitals. There is a need for a solid European program, such as EU4Health, with an adequate budget, but which must also come with normative power, with conditions and measures that the European Union can take in the event of inaction by the Member States.

Interconnected health systems

New technologies must be used to increase the level of digitization and interconnection of national public health systems, facilitating the transfer of interchangeable medical data between different Member States, as well as the right of European citizens to receive the highest quality treatment in any Member State.

The standardization and simplification of procedures for the authorization of innovative medicines, the evaluation of health technologies, centralized at the European level (HTA), as well as the stimulation of a domestic pharmaceutical industry, are necessary measures to facilitate the process of marketing new medicines and medical technologies in all Member States.

Union of health against chronic diseases

A true Health Union must have as its main objective the protection of the lives of all citizens of the Union, by ensuring a high standard of health services in all Member States, and by strengthening European programs and public health agencies.

The European Union needs competences to be able to directly support Member States in developing resilient national health systems through European programs to combat the financial burden of chronic diseases, such as cancer or cardiovascular disease.

We must ensure equal access to high-quality treatment for all chronically ill people, and the Union must be able to intervene directly in the development of healthcare infrastructure in the lagging Member States.

Combating recurrent drug shortages, as well as the lack of access to innovative treatments, are other major challenges, the solutions of which can be found at the European level, through joint procurement programs for innovative medicines, thus ensuring equal and equitable access for all Member States to new drug therapies.

Well-written legislation does not help the citizen if it is not judiciously applied. The correct implementation of the Aarhus Convention requires more citizen control over interventions of any kind on the environment. We have, for example, consistent legislation that protects forests. However, in reality, they have been illegally cleared for years under the helpless or careless eyes of the authorities. It is therefore important to strengthen the role of NGOs, in particular by recognizing their procedural capacity before the CJEU.

Encouraging and ensuring public participation means more democracy and more power in the hands of every citizen regarding the air they breathe, the water they drink, the forests that surround the locality in which they live.

A proactive European Union, which is concerned with legislation, but also with its implementation, in areas such as forests, water, biodiversity, ecosystems, waste, means that each of us lives in a healthier environment.

In the field of health, we see today an unfair gap between the medical treatment enjoyed by a citizen living in the West of the Union compared to one in the East. An autonomous EU health competence and a consistent budget for this chapter will allow us to reach a common health standard in Europe sooner so that if you get sick in Lyon or Iasi you have comparable chances of recovery.

When the pandemic broke out, European citizens from all over the Union looked to Brussels, asking what the EU was doing to help them.

It is clear that the citizens want more powers for the Union because when the powers of the  member states prove to be insufficient, expectations move towards the European response.