Quo Vadis, Low Emission Zones? opinion forum

In recent years, Low Emission Zones (ZBE) have become a central issue in the urban policies of large cities in Spain, such as Madrid and Barcelona, seeking to reduce pollution and improve air quality.

However, these measures have not been without controversyand recently the courts have issued rulings that annul or question their implementation, which has generated a wide debate about the future of these areas and their legal viability.

In this article we intend to approach the reasons behind these judicial decisions and point out some possible solutions.

Air quality

The Low Emission Zones They arise in response to growing concern about air quality in large cities and the need to comply with European environmental commitments.

These are restricted areas where gas emissions must be reduced. Or, put another way, reduce combustion vehicle traffic as much as possible producer of those emissions that generate poor air quality.

In Madrid, the ZBE has been a point of conflict, both politically and judicially. Recently, the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has annulled this measure, decision that the Madrid City Council has announced that it will appealas Barcelona already did at the time.

Not only in Madrid and Barcelona

The case of Madrid It is not unique in Spain or in Europe. In addition to Madrid and Barcelona and some other Spanish capitals, in other cities, justice has also intervened against Low Emission Zones.

A significant example is that of Grenoblein France, where an administrative court suspended the ZBE arguing that the measure had not been sufficiently justified or proportionate in relation to the effects it would have on the lives of citizens.

Also in Germany, several cities such as Stuttgart have faced legal challenges against restrictions imposed on diesel vehicles. In these cases, The courts have questioned the fairness and proportionality of the measureswhich highlights the need to balance environmental policies with the socioeconomic realities of the population.

Lack of justification

In that sense, the ruling in Madrid raises similar questions about whether the ZBEs are being implemented appropriately and if they are complying with basic regulatory principles.

The first key point that the courts have pointed out is the lack of rigorous reports and studies that justify the implementation of these zones. Although it is a measure with a laudable purpose, the way in which it has been carried out does not seem to have convinced the judges.

It has been argued that the prohibition of the circulation of vehicles without an environmental label It has not been the “most democratic” or “least invasive” option. The harshness of the measure—which in many cases forces citizens to get rid of their vehicle, one of the largest investments a family makes—has generated strong social opposition.

Less restrictive alternatives

The regulations should have contemplated less restrictive alternatives (the mandatory sale of the vehicle is the most restrictive) and more inclusive. In cities like Londona pay-per-use system has been adopted that allows the access to certain areas for a feewhich encourages the reduction of the use of private vehicles without imposing the sale of cars.

This pricing may, among other measures, be established depending on the type of vehicleeither. On the other hand, in Spain, the imposition of ZBEs has been carried out in a drastic way: the sale of the vehicle yes or yes.

Remember here that, as an example, when Vehicles began to have seat belts in the rear seats It was not forced to sell within any period to those who did not have them. They died progressively. And there, the difference was even greater: the difference between dying or not in a traffic accident is precisely wearing a seat belt.

Raise awareness among the population

Furthermore, there is a fundamental criticism towards the lack of pedagogy on the real problem that is intended to be addressed: air pollution. Many citizens do not understand the extent of the problem as it does not appear to have been communicated effectively.

Although vehicle labeling is known, the same is not true of the Air Quality Index (AQI) (the “label” of each city), which should have been the key tool to raise awareness among the population about the importance of reducing emissions. The lack of information has meant that many citizens, and, therefore, judges as citizens, do not see the urgency of these measures.

Less invasive measures

The ruling of the TSJM could have repercussions in other Spanish cities with Low Emission Zones. Although it was foreseeable that judicial appeals would be presented in both Madrid and Barcelona (the allegations already indicated this), The situation could be replicated in other locations if the way in which these measures are implemented is not reviewed.

The underlying problem lies not only in the rules themselves, but in how they are designed and applied. In cities where greater proximity to citizens has been maintained and less invasive measures have been applied, there has not been the same judicial rejection.

Effective alternatives

The key is in the participatory process and in the measures being perceived as reasonable. Rules that require the sale of vehicles or that drastically restrict circulation without offering effective alternatives, such as public transportation, tend to generate greater opposition, both citizen and judicial.

The effort should focus on explaining the benefits of these measures and on adapt solutions to local needs. It is possible that the outcome in court would have been different.

How then do we move towards more responsible mobility? Low Emission Zones are, in theory, an effective tool to improve air quality and promote more sustainable mobility.

Avoid the courts

However, the implementation of these measures has been deficient in many aspects, from the lack of citizen participation to the lack of flexibility in the regulations. To prevent them from continuing to lie down in court, It is essential to rethink your design and approach. It is not just about prohibiting the circulation of certain vehicles, but about promoting more responsible and equitable mobility.

Cities like Pontevedra have managed to drastically reduce the number of trips in private vehicles without forcing them to sell any (those without labels such as ECO can circulate), which shows that there are other ways to achieve sustainability objectives. Furthermore, pedagogy and communication with citizens are essential for these measures to be understood and accepted.

More creative solutions

Ultimately, Low Emission Zones They should not only focus on reducing pollutionbut in transforming cities into more liveable places, with more space for pedestrians, bicycles and public transport (there has been, for example, no objective to reduce surface parking).

To achieve this, more open dialogue and more creative solutions are needed that combine sustainability and social justice. Only in this way will the courts continue to overturn these initiatives, and progress will be made towards a more humane city model that is less dependent on the private vehicle.

Ramón Ledesma is a director of PONS Mobility