Report on Environmental Policy in the European Union from the mid-1940s to 2002

Abstract

  This report will examine the origins and priorities of the Environmental Policy of the European Union. Then it will continue with analysis of the programs, principles, actors and policy process in the environmental field. Finally, it will look at the impact of those policies on EU member states. In conclusion the overall influence will be discussed.

Introduction

Many issues that are being discussed today have a long history. Looking back in time of the history of Environmental Policy in the EU, offers an insight into the current situation. As it seems the progress of the European Environmental Policy has always been very sensitive and ranging to the different economic and political cycles. However, the evidence shows that the environmental standards of the Member States are higher than they would have been with only national measures. Nonetheless despite these advances there is still much work that needs to be done in order to achieve the environmental goals set by the EU.

1 Environmental Policy

In order to understand what Environmental Policy is and its effects, it is essential to first define the terms ‘Environment’ and ‘Policy’, and then recognise the meaning when they are put together. So, according to the Oxford Dictionary, Environment is ‘the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal or plant lives or operates’, or in other words the physical ecosystems, social and economic dimensions that surround us. And again as stated by the Oxford Dictionary the word Policy means ‘a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual’, or in other words the declared objectives that a government or party seeks to achieve and preserve in the interest of people. From these definitions it becomes clear that Environmental Policy (EP) refers to the statement of an organization and objectives regarding the environment, e.g. air and water pollution, ecosystem management, protection of endangered species, regulation of toxic substances etc.
1.1 The origins of European Environmental Policy

The first EAP (Environmental Action Plan) was decided upon in November 1973, thanks to the establishment of a Community environmental policy in 1972 by the European Council. Many elements of today’s ideas on sustainable development date back to when the EC first started its environmental policies. Some of the most important objectives of the first EAP were: “the prevention, reduction and containment of environmental damage, the conservation of an ecological equilibrium, the rational use of natural resources.” The steps proposed by the first EAP were simplistic and quite optimistic, which served as motivation for the EU’s emerging environmental policies. It was realized that having common environmental policy could lower or diminish the concern that diverse environmental standards could result in trade barriers and competitive distortions in the Common Market.
So, not long after the first EAP, the second EAP was decided upon. It was “a follow up to the first in terms of approach and objective, with simply greater range of problems to be dealt with.” From then on, there have been many EAPs, each of which is more ambitious than the one before.

1.2 Why the European Community is involved?

“The European Community (EC) was founded in the 1957 when six European countries signed the Treaty of Rome, which remains the cornerstone of the EC today. One of the fundamental principles laid down in this Treaty was a commitment to improve the living and working conditions of all the peoples of Europe. The cleanliness of our water, for example, affects how we live and work, and this is a relevant issue to be tackled by the EC.” So since then it was thought of uniting the European Nations, but also it was thought of the equal terms in which the Member States will compete, in order to complete the Single European Market. Also it is a well-known fact that natural resources like oil and gas are limited and for the companies to be successful, now and in the future these resources have to be managed carefully.

1.3 Priorities of European Policy

The six major priorities of the European Policy are: “1-preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, 2-protecting human health, 3-prudent and rational utilization of resources, or the maintenance of future generations to a viable environment, 4-promoting measures at the international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, 5-improvement of the quality of life, 6-increased environmental efficiency.” These are just broad principles, the true measure of the definition of EU policy lies in the specific actions agreed and taken.

2. Policy Principles

Policy principles emerged through the Action Programmes and in other ways, together these principles constitute the core of EU policy. The documents, treaties and legislations of the EU environmental policy are characterized by the use of those principles. There are fourteen such principles:
1. ‘The polluter pays principle’, which states that “the cost of preventing and eliminating nuisances must in principle be borne by the polluter”
2. ‘The principle of sustainable development’, which means “prudent and rational utilisation of resources”.
3. ‘A high level of protection’. It relates to the “health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection.”
4. ‘The prevention principle’. It encourages the Community “to invite action in such a way as to protect the environment by preventing problems emerging.”
5. ‘The proximity principle’. “This argues that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source rather than further down the line, for example by setting emissions standards rather than air or water quality standards.”
6. ‘The integration principle’, which means that it “must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies.”
7. ‘The derogative principle’. This principle allows policy to take into account “the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community.” The derogative principle prevents possible substantial economic burden on poorer states obliged to meet the same environmental standards and goals as the richer states.
8. ‘Taking account of scientific and technical data’
9. ‘Benefit-cost calculations’, which means “to take account of the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action”.
10. ‘The subsidiarity principle’. This means that the Community shall take action only if the Member States can’t sufficiently achieve the objectives of the proposed action.
11. ‘The international principle’, which means that “the objectives of Community policy would be the promotion of measures at the international level to deal with regional or global environmental problems.”
12. ‘The proportional principle’. This principle translates to “the obligations of EU law must be reasonably related to the objectives sought and the EU must leave the Member States with as much freedom of movement as possible.”
13. ‘The precautionary principle’, implying that “the EU should take action even if there is a suspicion that an activity may cause environmental harm, rather than wait until the scientific evidence is clear.”
14. ‘The safeguard principle’. This principle allows “Member States to maintain or introduce more stringent protective measures as long as they are compatible with the treaty, and the Commission is notified.”

2.1 Implementation

Policies are made to be implemented at the level of national regulatory systems. Therefore, under Article 211 by the commission, “responsibility for implementation rests with the member states, whose performance is monitored.” In order to understand better the implementation of environmental policies, the process will be described in three steps:
• The first step is ensuring that every element of the directive is transposed into national law, as well as “making sure that the national legislative and administrative framework is suitable for the attainment of the goals of the law.” Ensuring that the goals of the law are being applied throughout the territory of every member states is responsibility of the Commission.
• The second step ensures that the Member States have or are able to create the necessary scientific, technical and administrative infrastructure to improve and protect the quality of the environment. In other words, this principle involves measurable results and practical implementation. As part of the EU laws, the Member States are required to report back to the Commission regularly on the measures taken.
• The third step of the implementation involves observing the application and effect of each law. According to Article 10, “all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community.”

3. Main Actors
The task of formulating policy and devising solutions to environmental problems is an institutional process. European institutions and institutional actors derive their powers and place in the EU’s system of environmental governance from the complex of rules and practices within which they are embedded. There are currently five institutional actors:
1. The European Commission: it performs a wide range of functions as “an agenda-setter, consensus-builder, manager, and the formal initiator of legislation.”
2. The European Parliament: Committee sessions is where big part of the Parliament’s formal work takes place. “The twenty parliamentary committees debate and investigate draft proposals, produce reports on the Commission’s legislative proposals, and propose amendments which are ultimately voted on in the Parliaments plenary sessions.”
3. The Council of Ministers and the European Council: the Council is the last place of call for European environmental legislation. It is made up of national ministers and each of them expresses their view and vote for any propositions that are being brought up to the Council.
4. The European Court: it plays a different role from the rest of the institutional actors, it “sets the limits within which policy is made, and in confirming or rejecting the legality of European-level legislation, affects and even alters the focus and priorities of environmental policy.”
5. The European Environmental Agency: it provides independent information on the environment, and is being used as a source for those involved in the decision-making and implementation of environmental policy.

3.1 Other institutions

There are some other important institutions that play a key role in the European Environmental Policy. For example:
• The European Court of Auditors: it has no judicial functions; it rather acts as a professional external investigatory audit agency. Particularly, “its practice of responding to regular European Parliament requests to investigate the cost effectiveness of various environmental measures has led to a series of influential and authoritative special reports.”
• General Consultative Forum: it is providing a framework for the exchange of information with the Commission, as well as defining principles for sustainable development.
• Environment Policy review Group: it holds four meetings every year between the European institutions and national officials, allowing for a steady exchange of ideas.
For the past decades, environmental institutions have become more important within the overall context of European Institutional Actors. Although the central institutions of European Environmental Policy-making remain the Commission, the Council of Ministers, the Parliament and the Court, other organizations have come to play an important role, too.

4 The impacts of EEP

The impact of EU Policy on Member States is great, especially in areas such as waste disposal, biodiversity, pollution control, recycling, climate change, chemicals and dangerous substances. There is evidence of improvements in the quality of the environment, for example “In 1995, around 83 per cent of municipal waste generated in the UK was landfills, but this had fallen to 49 per cent by 2011 in response to a series of European Directives.” Another good example of the improvements is the review of the impacts of the ‘Birds Directive’, which shows that “on average the more land that is designated as an EU protected area, the more likely it is that bird populations will increase.”
An additional impact that the EEP has is the prevention of unfair competition between the Member States. This means that there is no significant difference in the environmental standards of various countries, as well as it provides a higher level of security for investors, because the national measures for the environment are less likely to change in short term.
A different impact to be added is the stimulation of innovation across the EU, for example innovation in the car industry, because of the set standards on emissions. However, nothing is perfect and the EEP is no exception. For instance there are improvements that need to be made to a number of policies, such as the EU Emissions Trading System, that are not functionary satisfactory.
Conclusion

Overall, the European Environmental Policy has influence beyond the EU, in the EEA and rest of the world. Policy at the EU level has provided many advantages in various spheres. The gains are greater, both within Europe and globally through the political and economic control that the EU can apply. There is no doubt that the environmental policies have strengthen national law, but as the EU expands the challenge of meeting environmental targets will inevitably become more difficult.

Bibliography
1EU Enmental Policies: A short history of the policy strategies, Dr. Christian Hey, http://www.eeb.org/publication/chapter-3.pdf, viewed 14.03.14, p.2
2EU Environmental Policies: A short history of the policy strategies, Dr. Christian Hey, http://www.eeb.org/publication/chapter-3.pdf, viewed 14.03.14, p.3
3 Europe and the Environment – Catherine Taylor and Alison Press (1992) the Industrial Society, p.2
4 Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p.23,24
5 Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 75
6 Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 76
7 Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 77
8 Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 78
9 Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 78
10 Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 80
11Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 81
12Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 82
13Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 84
14Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 84
15Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 85
16Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 85
17Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 135
18Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 135
19Environmental policy in the European Union – John McCormick (2001) Palgrave, p. 135
20Environmental Governance in Europe – Albert Weale, Geoffrey Pridham, M.C., D.K., M.P., B.F., (2000) Oxford, p.87
21Environmental Governance in Europe – Albert Weale, Geoffrey Pridham, M.C., D.K., M.P., B.F., (2000) Oxford,p.92
22Environmental Governance in Europe – Albert Weale, Geoffrey Pridham, M.C., D.K., M.P., B.F., (2000) Oxford, p.102
23Environmental Governance in Europe – Albert Weale, Geoffrey Pridham, M.C., D.K., M.P., B.F., (2000) Oxford, p.105
24Report on the influence of EU policies on the environment , http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1230/Final_Report_-_Influence_of_EU_Policies_on_the_Environment.pdf, viewed on 14.03.14, p. iv
25 Report on the influence of EU policies on the environment , http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1230/Final_Report_-_Influence_of_EU_Policies_on_the_Environment.pdf, viewed on 14.03.14, p. Iv

Report on The lessons that the American experience with federalism may offer to the development of the European Union

maybe..

1. Federalism
Some see the EU as a primarily intergovernmental body; others prefer to view the EU institutions as forming a supranational entity with autonomous authority of its own. The “federal” form is then frequently discussed as one of a range of options within this supranationalist category.
Judge Koen Lenaerts of the European Communities Court of First Instance has argued that “federalism, as a means of structuring the relationship between interlinked authorities, can be used either within or without the framework of a nation-state.”(1) Used in this broader sense, federalism’s “basic tenet is that power will be divided between a central authority and the component entities of a nation-state or an international organization so as to make each of them responsible for the exercise of their own powers.'(2) Federalism searches for the balance between the desire to create and/or to retain an efficient central authority that can find its origin in historic, social, or other considerations, and the concern of the component entities to keep or gain their autonomy so that they can defend their own interests.

1.1 Federalism and the Federalists

The new federal state extends beyond the existing European Community and is both more binding and regulated in a formal constitutional and political sense than present organisational arrangements.
Terms like ‘unfinished’ or ‘incomplete’ union (3) are regularly used to portray it as somehow lacking in the essential qualities necessary to achieve the rank of being a normal state, a unitary state.
Viewed from the standpoint of federalism being described as a form of unitary government, it becomes literally alarming. It creates a direct attack upon the Community’s member states, pushing them, through increasing centralisation, assuredly towards a unitary end. One of the most difficult obstacles for federalists to overcome in their struggle to achieve political unification in Europe is this psychological perception of their intentions. It is made all the more difficult because of traditional state-building and national integration.
1.2 Federalism and the Single European Act, 1985-1987, Theoretical Implications – Spinelli

The federalism of Spinelli had as its main focus and goal the building of the European federation, based upon a federal constitution. “New European federation would be a state and states are notoriously resilient and tough in defence and promotion of their perceived interests.” (4)
At the level of European unification there are no examples in history for what Spinelli wanted to achieve. Well known fact is that the Union is only effective when it is achieved, that is, when it begins to safeguard interests on a European level previously assigned to the states. Only at this point does it connect directly with ordinary people’s daily lives.

1.3 Federal theory and EU

Although the study of federalism as a form of political organization has been a topic in political philosophy at least “since the publication of ‘Althusius’s Politica in 1603’, it was not until the creation of the United State that the conception of federalism as political community was established” (5). Federalism had been defined in terms of associations or groups of states each with a separate identity and distinct citizenry.
“Until the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, few observers characterized the European Community (EC) as a federation. For although the Community had, by the late 1980s, acquired what looked like the institutional structure typical of a federal state, in practical terms it fell far short of meeting the minimal conditions for federation.”(6)
With the path of the SEA (Single European Act) it appeared to be moving towards a more federal-like structure. The main objective of the SEA was to create a single market and provide for the free movement of labour, goods, and capital among the member states, the Act also contained clear political objectives, which all pointed in the direction of building a federation rather than a loose community of states.

2. Power Federalism in Europe
“Power federalism doctrines hold that the central government simply lacks power to act in certain situations. 165 In the absence of such power, regulatory authority is reserved to the states. This, of course, is the basic structure established by Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which enumerates specific powers for Congress, and the Tenth Amendment, which clarifies that all power not enumerated is reserved to the People or to the States.” (7)
The doctrine of ‘dual federalism’ meant a system that divided the world into “two mutually exclusive, reciprocally limiting fields of power-that of the national government and of the States. The two authorities confront each other as equals across a precise constitutional line, defining their respective jurisdictions.” (8)
The failure of dual federalism and the general American uneasiness about tests that more directly incorporate federalism values are all relevant to the issues currently confronting Europe.
2.1 Economic centralization to federal state

When countries come together voluntarily to form federations they do so for good practical, political reasons. In the European case, a group of neighbouring countries with a history of increasing co-operation in the context of the EC found it convenient to go one step further and form a political union because of the apparent advantages that union would bring in the shape of supranationally imposed macroeconomic discipline. The increased economic centralization which will likely result from the full implementation of EMU (European Monetary Union), will raise the government of the EU to that of a pseudo-federal state.
2.2 Policy and Party system (EU-USA)

The monetary union would trigger pressures for policy centralization which would in turn produce institutional change, but unlike the United States there is no federation-wide party system worthy of the name which would provide the newly powerful federal government with a base of popular support or legitimacy. Although theoretically such a party system could develop, such evidence as exists suggests that it is unlikely to. Two admittedly limited sources of evidence can be invoked to support this claim: the functioning of political parties in the existing EP and levels of public support for the EU and its policies.

3. Broader lessons

In this last part are outlined some broader speculations about the prospects for federalism in Europe and the lessons that Americans might draw from the European experience and the other way around.

3.1 What do we want federalism to do in a polity?

American federalism has prospered with a mix of extremely limited power federalism doctrines and a heavy reliance on process. Even without presuming to prescribe particular procedural structures for European federalism, one might be tempted to recommend the overall approach as a viable model for Europe. That would be a mistake, however, without taking stock of a more basic question: What do we want federalism to do in a polity?
First, we might want a strong principle of federalism that would maintain the states (or Member States) as culturally and politically autonomous units. A second, more modest vision would preserve some opportunity for cultural distinctiveness at the state level, while conceding that most citizens will think of themselves as citizens of the nation (or Union).
Although America has learned to live quite well with a more modest form of federalism, Europeans may want the strong form-at least for now. Larry Siedentop, for example, has urged that “the attraction of federalism, properly understood, for Europe is that it should make possible the survival of these different national political cultures and forms of civic spirit. “ (9) To the extent that Europe wants to preserve a strong form of Member State autonomy, the American experience is relevant primarily as a cautionary tale.

3.2 Europe, Federalism and Time

When people successfully live together under federalism they move freely from region to region; ethnic, cultural, and religious patterns become more diffuse. Certainly the barriers of language, the relative reluctance of citizens to move from one Member State to another, and the long traditions of each State as an independent nation would make the prospect of homogenization more remote. Notwithstanding determined efforts by European leaders, the sense of European identity which they hoped to encourage has been slow to evolve, despite the explosion of cross-border transactions and the turnover of generations. Even Americans tend to forget how diverse the American colonies were on the eve of nationhood.
3.3America’s Federal Conversation

American debates about federalism are fraught with political and historical baggage.
The cause of federalism is, after all, most prominently associated with slavery in the nineteenth century and massive resistance to desegregation in the twentieth.
European federalism surely has baggage of its own, but at least it is different baggage. David McKay has observed that “in the EU we have little reason to believe that the federal government’ will come to represent liberal progressive opinion battling against backward regressive states or groups of states. For the American observer, the shift in context may serve to shake up settled habits of thought about structural issues.” (10)
Americans have tended to view federalism as a zero-sum game, with sovereignty of the federal government trading off with that of the states. Relatively little attention has been paid to developing structures and approaches to federal action that would allow state governments to maximize the benefits of federal cooperation without simply turning over their policy concerns to Washington.

Europe is at a far different place in history than America, and that difference has profound implications for the role of supranational regimes. The important point for present purposes is simply that the federal experience is a two-way street: Americans may well have just as much to learn from Europe as Europeans can learn from us. Given increasing pressure on the already modest American guarantees of state autonomy, those lessons may prove invaluable in years to come.

Conclusion

Europe appears to be moving toward an ever-closer Union while Europeans retain substantial attachments to their Member States. In America, there is a 200-year-old constitutional structure whose basic outlines are relatively fixed but which must be made to work despite radical shifts in economic relationships, technology, and the nature and functions of government. Europeans, on the other hand, have both the luxury and the challenge afforded by a system that is still very much in the making; they have, in other words, an opportunity to design a structure of constitutional federalism in light of contemporary challenges and experience.
Europeans are thus in a position to profit from the experience and the mistakes-of others. In any event, the basic point is that federal systems can smooth over-or fight through quite profound cultural and political differences over the course of a couple centuries.

1 – “United States of Europe” – Koen Lenaerts, Federalism: Essential Concepts in Evolution – the case of the European Union, 21 Fordham INT L.J. 746,747 (1998)
2 – T. Koopmans, Federalism: the wrong debate, 29 Common Mkt. 1047, 1050 (1992)

3 – Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union, Routledge London and New York, 1989
4 – Ever closer Union (European perspectives series, Brussels, 1985)
5- Federalism in theory and practice, London, Pall Mall Press, 1968, ch.2
6 – David McKay, Federalism and European Union, A political economy perspective, Oxford press, 1999
7 – Ernest A. Young, State Sovereign Immunity and the future of Federalism, 1999 Sup. Ct. Rev., 1, 26-29
8 – Federalism: Historic Questions and Contemporary Meanings, 25-25, Valerie Earle ed. , 1968
9 – Seth F. Kreimer, Federalism and Freedom, Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 70-71 (2001)
-10 – David McKay, Federalism and European union, A political economy perspective, O