Search

This paper focuses on the EU's capacity to play a pioneering role in international environmental policy. The objective is to explore the circumstances under which political entities possess the capacity to act as a policy pioneer. It proposes a conceptual framework for policy pioneership and applies these considerations to the EU.One could distinguish three major ways in which the EU influences international environmental policy: international negotiations, the use of coercion and conditionality, and voluntary diffusion of ambitious EU environmental rules. The voluntary diffusion of policy from one political entity to another can be an influential alternative and supplementation to the more traditional mode of global policy-making by nation states through international agreements and coercive measures. Policy diffusion is triggered by globalisation and the increasing interaction between various jurisdictions and other stakeholders. Through policy diffusion, not only nation states but also political entities such as the European Union can play an influential role at the global level. The first section of this paper discusses policy diffusion. The second part outlines the different factors and conditions that determine a political entity's capacity to pioneer policy. In section three, these conceptual considerations are applied to the EU. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the revision process of the EU emissions trading system (ETS). The ETS has so far operated on the basis of a main directive adopted in 2003 and a 'linking directive' adopted in 2004. In January 2008 the European Commission put forward a formal proposal for a revision of the system and hence new rules for trading in the 2013-20 period. The proposal was debated in the EU decision-making bodies in the course of 2008 and the final revised directive was adopted in December 2008. With the outcome of the process and the significant changes adopted as the dependent variable, the paper discusses three main explanations. First, applying 'intergovernmentalist' lenses, the key determinants for EU policy are found at the level of member states. The member states are the ultimate and main decision-makers, through decisions in the Council. Second, applying the lenses of multi-level governance theory, key determinants for EU policy are (increasingly) found in the positions and actions of the European Commission and the European Parliament. The Commission is the formal agenda-setter in the EU, but has also formal and informal influence in the decision-making phase. The Parliament has become a formal co-decider in the EU. Third, looking through global lenses, key determinants for EU policy may be found in global factors and institutions. Not least, EU policy-making is often embedded in global regimes/institutions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In international climate policy as much as in the EU multi-level system of governance, the question how to distribute emission reduction efforts among parties (or member states in the latter case) is a crucial precondition for successful and ambitious climate policy. As in the global climate arena, burden sharing requires policy-makers to strike a balance between prescribing emission abatement where it is most cost-effective, while taking account of largely diverging national circumstances and social and economic development objectives. With the accession of 12 new member states, these questions have only become more salient in the EU, to the degree that one may consider the European Community as a microcosm which may anticipate some of the future global debates on climate policy. As Lacasta et al. (2006) state, the EU might even "become a testing ground for policy development and negotiation challenges of increasingly complex and differentiated future global climate developments." In this vein, how EU policy-makers have addressed questions related to burden-sharing may yield valuable lessons also for the broader evolution of the global climate regime. The EU has had not one, but several stabs at developing a durable burden sharing arrangement. The first dates back to 1991/1992, when the European Commission tabled a proposal prior to the signing of the FCCC, but failed in the face of Member State resistance. A second attempt in 1996/1997, mainly orchestrated by the Dutch Presidency in early 1997, eventually produced an agreement prior to the Kyoto summit, but subsequently even this had to be re-adjusted (see Chapter 3). The burden sharing issue reared its head a third time in 2007-8 when the Commission started to prepare its 20-20-20 package. In early 2008, as part of its 'climate policy package', the EU Commission published a draft decision in early 2008, outlining an approach and proposing emission reduction targets for Member states in order to implement the unilateral EU objective of a 20 percent (or 30 percent in case of an international agreement) emission cut by 2020. After protracted negotiations on the package, it was finally adopted in December 2008, including the new 'effort sharing' Decision. This paper analyses and compares the key dynamics and outcomes of decision-making on burden-sharing in the 1990s with the recently concluded effort-sharing negotiations, based on literature review and a series of interviews with policy-makers and experts. Conclusions point to the following: The basic dynamics of the negotiations, opposing wealthier and poorer member states in the EU, have not changed much between the 1990s and today, whereas key actors have to some extent: the newly acceded countries have taken over the role of the 'cohesion countries' in the 1990s, which themselves 'graduated' into taking over more responsibility as middle income countries. The European Commission has markedly increased its agenda-setting capacity in an enlarged Community, providing evidence to Europeanisation tendencies in climate policy. The grounding of member state targets in economic models has in both cases increased their acceptability, although final decisions are still most likely taken in a negotiations setting. Finally, while the 1998 agreement embraced both efficiency and equity considerations, the pending effort-sharing proposal is exclusively based on equity criteria, with efficiency being a major driver of other parts of the proposed climate package. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Almost two decades have now passed since the publication of Peter Haas' Saving the Mediterranean in 1990, in which he employed the concept of "epistemic communities" for his analysis of the "low politics" negotiations on environmental issues for the Mediterranean Action Plan since 1975. A number of similar regional initiatives were launched throughout Europe since then and, for instance, the Barcelona Convention on coastal areas and the UNEP Regional Seas Programme, as well as the Alpine and Carpathian Conventions on mountain regions were developed. As in the case of the Mediterranean Action Plan analyzed by Haas, UNEP played an active role in the development of most of these initiatives, while the EU maintained a certain distance from these initiatives. This submission proposes an appraisal of the Alpine Convention after decades of activity, as well as it sketches an evaluation of the respective roles of UNEP and the EU in the development of this initiative. It also examines the effects on the long run of "low interest" levels, few spillover effects, and loose epistemic communities on overlapping international organizations. Functionalism revisited. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EU emissions trading system (ETS) has now completed its three year pilot phase (i.e. 2005-7). Links have already been established between the EU ETS and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol. Furthermore, global emissions trading under the Protocol is set to commence in 2008. Based on an emerging body of literature on institutional interaction, this paper will discuss various dimensions of the developing positive and negative interaction between the company focused EU ETS and the country focused global carbon trading and other relevant global institutions. More specifically, the following three cases of interaction will be analysed: First, the interaction between the Kyoto Protocol (as source) and the ETS as target. The first and seminal phase of this interaction started quite immediately after the adoption of the Protocol in late 1997. A second phase of interaction started in 2004 when the EU states started to develop national allocation plans (NAPs) where bringing in credits/allowances developed under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and (subsequently) Joint Implementation (JI) became one compliance strategy. Second, the opposite relationship will be more closely examined. i.e. with the ETS as the source and the Kyoto Protocol institutions as targets. This can also be analysed in several phases, with the first phase starting after the adoption of the 2003 ET Directive and with the developing ETS possibly leading to a more rapid and extensive CDM development than would otherwise have been the case. A separate case of interaction deals with the possible role the ETS plays and could play for an emerging global carbon market. Third, attention will be given to a different type of interaction involving the ETS, namely interaction between the ETS and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we integrate the literature that is concerned with how to conceptualize and explain the effect of member states on processes and outcomes of regional integration with the literature on the responses of member states to the impact of supranational processes and institutions. This is done by analyzing the role of the EU members as shapers and takers of European environmental policies. Thereby, we try to simultaneously answer the two following questions: (i) Why do some member states achieve a better European policy fit than others? (ii) Why do some members infringe (even) on (fitting) environmental policies more frequently than others? We argue that member states that are good shapers are also effective takers of supranational policies â€" not only due to the better fit between obligations and domestic settings, but also because the factors that enable member states to shape environmental policies help them to ensure their effective implementation. In order to develop and test this argument, our paper proceeds in three steps. Drawing on the two-level games literature, the first part presents a theoretical framework that systematically links the making and taking stages of supranational policies. In the second part we employ econometric methods to assess the impact of several factors identified in the relevant literature against empirical evidence from the field of European environmental policy. The paper concludes with a discussion on the generalizability of our findings. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the foundations for pessimistic expectations in the European Union (EU). It discusses the underlying models and variables and extent to which they succeed in capturing the essence of enlargement and the nature of EU environmental policy. It claims that reluctant member states and insufficient EU institutional capacity will lead to slowdown in EU decision making. It details the basis for domestic environmental policy in new member states.

Changes in the science and technology sectors of Central and East European states since the 1980s have resulted in enormous changes to the composition, access, and influence of the scientific community upon environmental policy. Such changes were drastic enough during the transition from communist rule, but when combined with subsequent accession into the European Union, the influence of the science community upon the environmental debate has become even more complicated and less well understood. This paper examines the role that the scientific community of the new EU member states plays in legitimating the EU's environmental discourse of risk and the precautionary principle, and argues that the accession process has posed severe challenges to the ability of the science and technology communities to positively influence larger environmental debates. By comparing the experience of the United States in increasingly centralized decision-making processes, the EU risks marginalizing vital criticism in the same manner as has occurred in the US and Canada. The consequences of this may include a move from the precautionary principle to NIMBY-ism in CEE states, and loss of international environmental leadership on the part of the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is growing interest in comparative studies of EU and US federalism and its implications for environmental policy. US and EU approaches to atmospheric pollution issues, such as acid rain and climate change have been the subject of various studies and have pointed to the different approaches of the US and the EU towards common air pollution problems. This paper will examine policy making styles towards air pollution problems in federalist systems. Of particular interest is how an expanding EU may influence the policy approaches of the EU towards air pollution problems and will consider whether an enlarged EU will lead to greater convergence between EU and US approaches to air pollution issues or will instead, reinforce the divergent approaches of these federal systems towards problems such as acid rain and climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The polluter pays principle (PPP) has been part of the environmental policy discourse and policy toolkit for more than two decades. Institutions such as the EU and countries like the Netherlands and Germany have made it a cornerstone of their environmenta ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After the end of the Cold War and through subsequent waves of EU enlargement the Baltic Sea region (BSR) has become an integral part of the European Union. However, international and transnational cooperation in the area of environmental policy and sustai ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International legislative agreements have become a central mode of governance at the supranational level. The European Union has emerged as a regulatory state enabling the efficient and institutionalized coordination of international legislation in Europe. The regulatory nature of the European Community implies such political systems derive their efficiency and legitimacy through compliance with international laws by member States. However, although member states have engaged in such form of international agreement through voluntary treaty ratification and institutional bargaining, the European Union has been reported to suffer from an implementation deficit whereby national states may fail to comply with their obligation. This paper addresses the issue of state compliance to supranational law by focusing on the European Union political system through cross-country analysis of the application of EU directives promoting trade and environmental agreements since 1980. Trade and environmental policies have high political salience. They define the current context of economic competition and reduce the negative externalities of market mechanism at the national and European level for member states. Using econometric techniques the following research finds functional institutional designs delegating enforcement mechanisms to non-state actors are the main determinant of state compliance. In addition, variances in observed levels of compliance are not the product of rational cost benefit calculations alone and are determined by institutional capabilities and learning. This papers draw empirically verifiable recommendations for the design of efficient institutional models of governance and should provide valuable implications for EU and international political economy research. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the proliferation of environmental policy conditions within bilateral and small regional trade agreements and assesses the extent to which those conditions affect regulatory standards and their implementation among trading partners, with emphasis on trade agreements the U.S., Canada, and the EU have struck with developing countries. It explains how and why environmental conditionality has become a standard component of these trade agreements. It also examines how unilateral environmental regulation in the large markets of these rich countries is altering environmental policies within export-dependent developing countries. While Parties to the World Trade Organization have been at a prolonged impasse over whether and how to incorporate environmental considerations into global trade agreements, in many cases by explicit intent of both rich and poorer countries, a recent spike in bilateral and regional trade agreements, both formal and tacit, has de facto supplanted WTO talks in this area. Finally, the paper assesses normative consequences. Some observers note approvingly that bilateral and regional trade has become a significant force to improve the capacity for and transparency of environmental law enforcement in countries where implementation has been historically weak. Another important consequence, however, is that the comparatively stronger bargaining position of rich countries in bilateral as opposed to multilateral trade negotiations has imprinted environmental policies on large areas of the developing world that serve the interests and political agendas of rich countries without necessarily addressing environmental priorities of their poorer counterparts. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last two decades have witnessed an increasing deployment of innovative environmental policy instruments that seek to lighten the burden on government to enforce strict regulations. Toxic emission inventories have gained popularity because of their assumed non-regulatory approach. After the Aarhus Convention recently entered into full force, more countries have started to implement pollutant release and transfer registries (PRTRs) worldwide. However, even though the basic assumptions under all of these programmes are the same (reducing toxic emissions), the patterns of adoption have varied greatly. In the case of North American PRTRs, the forces behind implementation have not been the same than in OECD and European Union countries. Moreover, development of implementation plans in EU countries seems to have followed diverging patterns than those in North America. This paper uses a historical approach to investigate this apparent disconnect. Lessons for the global governance of toxics are drawn from this comparison. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) became reality on 1 January 2005 with around USD 50 billion worth of carbon allowances allocated annually across the 25 EU member countries covering some 13,000 installations and up to 4,000 companies. The EU ETS was designed to help the EU meet its Kyoto Protocol target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below its 1990 level until 2012. This article aims to answer whether the EU ETS would be a model for a global emissions trading scheme in the fight against climate change. By offereing a detailed SWOTT analysis, this article first delves into strengths and weaknesses of the EU ETS and later offers an evaluation of to what extent it provides a road map for a global emissions trading system that would be a major part of a truly global cooperation in combating this global problem. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the implementation of the EU emissions trading system (ETS). Three explanatory lenses are utilised: national; EU level; and global. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper contributes to the literature on regionalism and European Union (EU) environmental policy making through a case study of the development of the REACH ? Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals ? program. REACH is a recent major expansion of the EU?s policy influence into issues that have traditionally been dealt with by national governments. The case of REACH is used to empirically study and analyze drivers of more expansive EU chemicals policy, linking this analysis to the literature on the Europeanization of environmental policy. Whereas the dominating line of EU environmental policy conflicts in the 1980s and 1990s tended to be between different governance levels, this paper demonstrates that the development of REACH is driven by top-down and bottom-up interactions between a cross-scale coalition of pro-REACH actors from EU organizations, member states, and environmental and public health advocacy groups, sometime in the face of opposition from a more REACH-skeptic cross-scale coalition of actors. In addition, the paper discusses international implications of an expansion of EU chemicals policy, and identifies areas for continued research. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most widely observed phenomena in environmental politics is "Not In My Back Yard" or NIMBY: environmental activists generally oppose the siting of environmentally destructive or hazardous facilities within their own localities or regions. Presently, most EU member states are burdened by sizeable amounts of high-level radioactive waste, yet none has thus far created a permanent repository for the disposal of it. Under these conditions, one might expect to see "nuclear NIMBYism": environmentalist demands that such repositories be established as far as away as possible, preferably in another country all together. One might also anticipate that the European nuclear industry, plagued by public concerns about waste disposal, would concur. Such a possibility now exists due to the Russian government's recent offer to dispose of foreign spent nuclear fuel. Paradoxically, however, the reaction of both environmentalists and proponents of nuclear power within the EU has been to press for internal disposal instead. This has occurred because both the antinuclear and pronuclear lobbies believe that insistence upon internal disposal will advance their respective policy goals, be it the phaseout of nuclear power or the reinvigoration of it, while export to Russia would undermine those goals. This paper explains the logic behind these contradictory positions and explores the sources of instability within the currrent "anti-export" coalition. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analysts have mainly painted a gloomy picture of the consequences of enlargement for EU environmental policy. Enlargement is widely expected to protract decision-making and widen the implementation gap. In this paper, we first specify and the arguments and logic behind the gloomy expectations. Second, we confront these arguments with empirical evidence from three issue-areas: air pollution, GMOs and climate change. The main concusion is that the consequences of enlargement vary between issue-areas. Air pollution indicates status quo, climate change som unfortunate consequences whereas the new memebr-states have strengthened EU's restrictive policy on GMOs somewhat. The paper then goes on to discuss why there is a mismatch between expectations and empirical observations. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Continued integration of the European Union calls for coordination among member states. While coordination implies achieving common goals, few specifications exist on the means to achieve desired outcomes. New EU member states enjoy flexibility in determining the pathway to environmental policy reform and this is reflected in their particular choices for the implementation of key EU environmental directives. One of the central debates in political science centers on the level of government: How much is enough? Does successful environmental protection require a laissez-faire or regulatory state? Who is involved in the decisionmaking and how does the mix of actors impact policy choices and outcomes? While Brussels is making decisions with an eye toward its member states, creative innovations are emerging at the state and local levels. Indeed, member states respond to Brussels, but the strength, timing, and type of response varies considerably across states. Several factors including historical experience, institutional processes, civil society, and geopolitical pull impact state responses and explain well why states have chosen particular paths for achieving common regional environmental protection goals. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines progress made by EU and other European nations in achieving the targets they agreed to when they ratified the Kyoto Protocol and the additional goals some countries have set unilaterally, assesses the policies they have put in place to pursue these goals and how these policies compare; and explores the political factors that contribute to the political support for these efforts. The paper uses theories and frameworks from comparative public policy and politics to assess these policy and political developments, and seeks to identify lessons from Europe concerning how to generate political support for precautionary climate policies and the kinds of policies that are most effective in efficiently reducing greenhouse gas emissions that might help move climate policy forward in the United States. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will assess the implementation of the 2003 EU emissions trading directive and the first year of operation of the system. Necessary conditions for climate policy success include, first, ambitious and harmonised National Allocation Plans (NAPs) which create scarcity in the system, and, second, the development of liquid and not too volatile trading. Have these conditions then been met so far? What can explain developments? At the EU level, factors such as the provision of clear and strong policy signals and guidance to the Member States will be discussed. At the domestic level, factors such as administrative capacity, including capacity to consult and learn from other Member States, and industrial lobbying will be discussed. Specifically focused Member States include Germany, Spain and the UK. The paper will wind up with a discussion of prospects ahead, both for the more short-term review and adjustment of the system in 2006 and the more long-term prospects for the ETS to significantly contribute to overall EU climate policy success? ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The practice of international stakeholder participation has increased exponentially in the last decade. Following especially the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, stakeholder participation has become praxis for UN conferences and decision-making, and become increasingly accepted for the formulation of EU policy as well as in the implementation of large-scale industrial developments. The integration of stakeholders in these processes is often undertaken short-term through invitation of stakeholders for conferences, and more long-term through inclusion of stakeholder groups in decision-making structures. However, given the relative recency and breadth of international stakeholder processes, and the diverse actors practicing it, there has been very little systematic study of the contribution and efficiency of international stakeholder participation. This paper attempts to outline the diverse types of participation in policy and business, describe the main ways in which it is practiced, and evaluate key examples of international stakeholder participation according to set criteria of efficiency. The examples evaluated include the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and UN Forum on Forests, the EU Water Initiative and EU Action on Climate Change, and Shell International?s outreach activities. The paper concludes that while the practices and processes in the examples differ largely, they display common biases towards the own field, level of activity and organisational style that may possibly limit the participatory outreach. At the same time, they provide some assessment of relevant and well-functioning practices for outreach and international participatory democracy. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trans-Atlantic relations are important in many areas of international environmental politics. Studies show that the status of these relations can both facilitate and hinder effective policy making and implementation. This paper examines trans-Atlantic relations on international chemicals management. The paper shows how EU and U.S. led policy developments on chemicals over the past decade have led to the creation of several multilateral treaties and organizations, as well as the expansion of existing programs. While they share a basic concern over hazardous chemicals, however, the European Union and the United States often disagree over specific regulatory issues and approaches. There are moreover signs that ongoing European efforts to expand Community chemicals assessment and regulation are resulting in growing EU-U.S. controversy over the future direction of chemicals management. Specifically, the EU and the U.S. disagree on regulatory, financial and market based issues relating to chemicals and their management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is concerned with an example of transatlantic harmonization of policies in a practical perspective. Studying environmental standard-setting for export credit agencies provides an interesting perspective on how conflicting environmental policy positions emerge and are mediated across the Atlantic. In this issue area, the European Union plays a somewhat limited role; therefore, this paper will focus on the most relevant national players in Europe, especially Germany. Differing regulatory cultures that have produced differing means to provide export credits, nevertheless, provide a direct link to the panel?s theme of different institutional structures and policy cultures. It is exactly these differing regulatory cultures that have turned export credit agency policy harmonization into a contentious issue. In setting environmental standards for export credit agencies, Germany and the United States assume counter-intuitive roles. The United States unilaterally implemented high standards in the mid-1990s and sought harmonization of these standards within the OECD to its own level. In 2001, OECD negotiations resulted in non-binding ?Common Approaches? to environmental screening that fell short of U.S. demands ? due largely to Germany?s opposition to these standards. The consequences were high environmental standards for U.S. exporters seeking export credits, and lower standards for their foreign competitors; thus putting U.S. exporters at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their competitors in accessing developing- and transition-country markets. I argue that roles were distributed this way because of diverging domestic institutions and domestic power distributions. Rules proposed by the United States provided for a poor institutional fit in countries which also had lesser incentives than the United States to arrive at a substantial international agreement on the issue. This case underscores that domestic politics and national interest drive international environmental politics. Norms and values matter and certainly help particular negotiating parties that can invoke them on their behalf, but they first need to overcome hard material interests that may leave little room for ?good? policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While climate protection has not been on the policy agenda of the Bush administration, California took a step forward towards the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from cars. Although it will take several years until such regulations will be in place, California’s initiative is characteristic for US environmental policy. California has always set examples for the rest of the country. Other states follow and the California effect changes the situation in the nation. This example shows the importance of subnational initiatives for climate protection in multilevel systems. The paper will compare such initiatives in Europe and in the US. It will include not only the state but also the local level. This seems to be more important in Europe where almost 1.000 cities joined the Climate Alliance, a transnational city network, and committed themselves to reduce CO2 emission by 50 percent until 2010. This paper aims at a systematic comparison of the role of cities and regions in the US and the EU multilevel system. This includes their impact on policy making in Washington and in Brussels as well as horizontal effects, such as learning patterns among American states or European cities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US and the EU have clashed at the global level on a number of environment-related issues such as climate change and agriculture (GMOs) with implications for international environmental agreements, global trade, the trans-Atlantic relationship, and developing countries. The differences stem in part from the different degrees of influence wielded by environmental advocates in the EU and the US. This makes it important to consider what the implications of the expansion of the EU to include ten additional members in 2004 will be on EU environmental and agricultural policies. The positions of accession states on environment related matters differs at times substantially with that of the EU-15. This paper will consider how EU environmental and agricultural policy is likely to be affected by expansion and its implications for the Trans-Atlantic divide using an institutionalist analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]