In recent years, low-emission zones (LEZs) have become a central issue in the urban policies of large Spanish cities, such as Madrid and Barcelona, seeking to reduce pollution and improve air quality.
However, these measures has not been without controversyand recently the courts have issued decisions annulling or questioning their implementation, which has generated a wide debate on the future of these zones and their legal viability.
In this article we intend to address the the reasons for these judicial decisions and indicate some possible solutions.
Air quality
THE Low emission zones They respond to growing concerns about air quality in large cities and the need to meet European environmental commitments.
These are restricted areas where gas emissions must be reduced. Or, in other words, reduce the circulation of thermal vehicles as much as possible producer of these emissions which generate poor air quality.
In Madrid, the ZBE is a point of conflict, both political and judicial. Recently, the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) annulled this measure, decision that the Madrid City Council has announced it will appealas Barcelona already did at the time.
Not only in Madrid and Barcelona
The case of Madrid This is not unique in Spain or Europe.. In addition to Madrid and Barcelona and some other Spanish capitals, in other cities the courts have also intervened against low-emission zones.
A significant example is that of Grenoblein France, where an administrative court suspended the ZBE on the grounds that the measure had not been sufficiently justified or proportionate in relation to the effects it would have on the lives of citizens.
In Germany, too, several cities such as Stuttgart have faced legal challenges against restrictions 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 socio-economic realities of the population.
Lack of justification
In this sense, the Madrid judgment raises similar questions about whether ZBEs are implemented appropriately and whether they are respect basic regulatory principles.
The first key point highlighted by the courts is the lack of rigorous reporting and studies that justify the establishment of these zonesAlthough this is a measure with a laudable objective, the way in which it was implemented does not seem to have convinced the judges.
It has been suggested that banning the circulation of vehicles without an environmental label It was not the “most democratic” or “least invasive” option.The harshness of the measure – which in many cases forces citizens to get rid of their vehicles, one of a family’s biggest investments – has sparked strong social opposition.
Less restrictive alternatives
The regulation should have considered 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 which allows the paid access to certain areaswhich encourages the reduction of the use of private vehicles without imposing the sale of cars.
This pricing may, among other measures, be established according to the type of vehicleHowever, in Spain, the imposition of ZBEs was carried out in a drastic manner: the sale of the vehicle yes or yes.
Let us recall here that, as an example, when Vehicles began to have seat belts in the rear seats He was not obliged to sell within any time period to those who did not have them. They died gradually. And there, the difference was even greater: the difference between dying or not in a car accident is precisely the wearing of a seat belt.
Raising awareness among the population
In addition, there is a fundamental criticism of the lack of pedagogy on the real problem that needs to be addressed: air pollution. Many citizens do not understand the magnitude of the problem because it does not appear to have been communicated effectively.
While vehicle labeling is well-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 on the importance of reducing emissions. The lack of information means that many citizens, and therefore judges as citizens, do not see the urgency of these measures.
Less invasive measures
The TSJM’s decision could have repercussions in other Spanish cities with low-emission zones. Although it was foreseeable that legal appeals would be filed in both Madrid and Barcelona (the allegations already indicated this), The situation could be repeated in other places if the way in which these measures are implemented is not reviewed.
The underlying problem lies not only in the rules themselves, but also in in the way they are designed and appliedIn 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 the participatory process and making sure the measures are seen as reasonable. Rules that require the sale of vehicles or which drastically restrict movement without offering effective alternatives, such as public transport, tend to arouse greater opposition, both from citizens and the courts.
Effort should focus on explaining the benefits of these measures and on adapting solutions to local needs. It is possible that the outcome in court would have been different.
How then can 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 respects, from the lack of citizen participation to the lack of flexibility in the regulations. To prevent them from continuing to lie in court, It is essential to rethink your design and approachIt is not just about banning the circulation of certain vehicles, but about promoting more responsible and more equitable mobility.
Cities like Pontevedra has managed to significantly reduce the number of trips by private vehicle without forcing them to sell them (those without labels such as ECO can circulate), which shows that there are other ways to achieve sustainability goals. Furthermore, education and communication with citizens are essential for these measures to be understood and accepted.
More creative solutions
Ultimately, low-emission zones They should not focus only on reducing pollutionbut by transforming cities into more pleasant places to live, with more space for pedestrians, bicycles and public transport (for example, there was no target to reduce surface parking).
To achieve this, we need more open dialogue and more creative solutions 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 private vehicles.
Ramón Ledesma is director of PONS Mobility
