The EU Environmental Policy and Why It Is a Success to Both the Environment and the Economy - Case Study Example

Name : xxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxx Title : EVALUATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU FEEL EU ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY HAS BEEN ‘A SUCCESS’ Institution : xxxxxxx @2010 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. The EU Environmental Policy and why it is a success to both the environment and the economy 4 3. The European Union-A force on environmental policy success 13 4. The European Union’s Evolving Legal and Political Environments 16 5. Conclusion 19 References 20 1. Introduction The study of the effects of the EU environmental policy puts its focus on how the legislation output of the European Union is formally implemented in its Members States, as well as its consequences in terms of the European environment state. The critical outcome dimension that links output to consequence has, however, gotten slight consideration. Outcome points to behavioral changes regarding pertinent target groups are the main cause of problems. Accordingly, little is known about the causal relationships amid the condition of the European environment and the EU environmental policy. In view of the fact that the legislation of the EU is closer to the idea of multinational regimes, which are in the implementation-phase, one can argue that the critique of the effectiveness of the regime can lead to vital insights, such as how to assess and elucidate the success of the European environmental policy. Particularly, the critique of the regime’s perceptiveness is vital for someone, so as to understand how the multinational ecological regimes and EU directives interact, and how this interaction can have an effect on the EU environmental policy performance (Sbragia 1996). However, the critique of the success of the regime has limitations that are clear, particularly in the domestic milieu. Furthermore, the integration of the environmental policy ought to be linked to the critique of the regime. The European Union’s ambition is driven by the environmental policy within the EU (European Union), so as to be capable of demonstrating its leadership globally, specifically the international accords, which were negotiated under the UN (United Nation) auspices. EU is deemed to be the only institution that is supranational in its existence, and which has implemented an internal environmental policy as well as adopted the multinational actor’s role (Haverland 2003). The internal environmental policy as well as the approach that has been adopted by EU global warming is inextricably correlated. Thus, it is neither the president’s nor the commission’s role to offer leadership in the global ecological forums of the European Union. In fact, the responsibility of the commission is to initiate an internal environmental policy, so as to establish the approach that can be adopted by the European Union. In view of the fact that in overall, the performance of commission has received criticisms with regard to the ecological protection policy. The ground of action on global climate change has been deemed to be one of the features that have been of success. However, when it comes to global climate change, the EU has faced a number of challenges because modern techniques are being bought by consumers. Perhaps, the greatest success of the commission, which was uncontested, was energy package and climate (Harris 2007). This paper will assess the degree to which I feel the European environmental policy has been a successful. 2. The EU Environmental Policy and why it is a success to both the environment and the economy For the past thirty years, the European Union (EU) environmental policy has always been responsive to wider cycles that are either political or economical, that is, it has responded to both economical matters and environmental matters. The European Union commenced its environmental policy with a programme that was ambitious, and which contained a majority of today’s notions on Sustainable Development. Basing on commitments of the European Council in 1972 to implement an environmental policy for the community, the programme was decided (Baker 2007). This programme disputed the notion that ecological protection, economic development, and affluence are reciprocally independent. The main objectives of the EU environmental policy were: the rational usage of natural resources; the control, prevention, and reduction of ecological damage; and the protection of an ecological equilibrium. The first environmental policy approach needed a comprehensive critique of the consequences of other strategies, so as to shun damaging activities. Initially, the EU environmental policies had their own ecological justification. Essentially, the second ecological approach came about considering the intention and the approach, but with a majority of problems to remedy. Practically, quality ideals of air and water were advocated in both the Second and the First programmes. More so, the quality aims of drinking water were stricter. On the other hand, the quality values of air could be attained with no strong intervention of the policy. Generally, the assessment of the practical success regarding the implementation of the environmental policy’s first period is relatively critical. This is due to the fact that the initial eagerness significantly declined during those periods with economic recession. Nonetheless, several framework directives, specifically for waste and water, had been decided in this period. The Third EU environmental period (1982 to 1986) and part of the fourth (1987 to 1992) reflected a significant alteration in policy-approach, which had a close correlation to the completion of the market. Merits of the environmental policy as well as the probable risks to the market were emphasized in the third period. Furthermore, the association between ecological policies and internal market were effective for activities as well as the programming. In my opinion, I concur that this made the EU environmental policy to be a success because ecological emission standards were harmonized, so as to shun distortions to the competitiveness of the firm. Also, regulations of policies were harmonized, so as to shun barriers that were coming from different norms of the nationwide product (Andersen & Liefferink 1997). Economic benefits were emphasized in the third period, particularly the employment impacts that were positive, and which were to be gained from the environmental policy. This made it a success. Consequently, the approach that was used in the EU environmental was modified, that is, the third period moved from a quality approach, to an approach that is emission-oriented. In the 1980s, the main concern of the EU environmental policy was the management of clean-air, risk and noise for industrial sites. The clean-air policies that required diminution from large-combustion cars and industries were implemented by the German government (Burchell & Lightfoot 2004). In the 1980s, the federal government of Germany as well as its industries lobbied a European-emissions control strategy, which focused on setting ecological quality aims from the United Kingdom. In my opinion, in terms of practice and approach, EU environmental policy has been a success. This is because it has been deemed to be continuity other than change. The economics of the EU environmental policy is the center if thinking, basing on the assumption of agreement amid ecological protection and internal market. Harmonization at a level that is higher has been justified of a fundamental component that is required European firms, so as to compete in the global markets (Bugdahn 2005). The fourth period of the European environmental policy had an approach that was more integrated, which did not perceive environmental protection as an additive, but as an activity that was incorporated within the entire production process. This integrated approach assisted to close cycles as well as minimize material inputs and energy, so that streams of energy could be minimized. Nevertheless, this approach ensured that controlling pollution systematically controlled the entire ecological media, like soil, water, and air, and it involved the assessment of substances that caused problems. EU economic policy was also deemed to be the essential part of decision making. To that effect, it was linked to sustainable development, as from the early 1990s. It promoted the incorporation of methodical search of “no regret strategies” together with the integration of ecological dimension. This means that the win-win circumstances were identified because they benefited both the economic as well as environmental objectives. In fact, European environmental policy acted as a tool of getting better the environmental state, competitiveness, and social efficiency (Carmin &Vandeveer 2004). Also, the advancement and success of the European environmental policy was contributed by external factors, such as: a fresh gesticulate of environmentalism in Europe; emergence of new global threats; greater support for economic instrument; and preparations for the UNCED consultation in 1992. With regards to climate change, the EU environmental policy has been successful. Idyllically, a number of inherent characteristics regarding the climate change controversy needed ecological policies that were past end-of-pipe techniques. It required a perspective that was long-term, which encompassed both the effects of global warming as well as the redundancy of any measure of an effective policy. For instance, the reduction of carbon dioxide required environmental policy alterations in a number of sectors, like chemical, energy, agricultural, and transportation industry. The EU environmental policy was very helpful because it had been established with a Kyoto-protocol (Green & Dinan 2004). In my opinion, I agree with this argument because the global character of the European environmental policy allowed the society to play the main role in building a regime. As a result, it was employed as a tool for intensifying the European incorporation together with the role of the community in multinational politics. But, in some situations, the EU environmental was not able to tackle climate change because modern techniques were being bought by consumers. In my view, these modern techniques were complicated and could not fit in the innovative elements that had initially been encompassed in the EU environmental policy. The 5th EAP (environmental action programme) was from 1992 to 1999. Among its elements that were innovative include: Setting of long-term aims regarding reduction of pollutants, and propose instruments that will be employed to attain these objectives. The main aim of European environmental policy basing on the definition from the report by Brundtland. Referring to the sectoral-approach, which incorporated an ecological dimension into the sectors with most pollution, like agricultural, transportation and energy. Thereby, proposing structural alterations that favor, waste-prevention, public transport, and energy efficiency. Emphasizing on materials that are new, specifically instruments that are market oriented, e.g. voluntary instruments and/or monetary incentives, which reinforces the interests of consumers and manufacturers in ecological decision making. Using an approach that is consensus-oriented, and which considers the critical role of local authorities as well as non-governmental characters to represent environmental interests. This may: lead to concepts that are innovative; increase the awareness of the public; and put into effect the implementation of the directives of the European Union. Hence, the environmental policy approach encompassed a theoretical part that had all the policy elements that were of necessity, and which were geared towards “environmental structural change” (Bretherton & Vogler 2006). By the end 1990s, various ecological approaches of the European Union were concurrently promoted, and this made them to be successful. The sustainability approach was revived partly reinforcing those of the 1980s that were emission-oriented. Moreover, a plan for incorporation of the environmental policy was launched by a number of presidents as well as the commission. As a result, the European environmental policy became a vital element of a complicated architecture of the policy documents. Nonetheless, the European commission had put its focus of ecological policy incorporation towards an approach that was wider and less-committed. In my opinion, the success of the European Union environmental policy can be attributed to the revival of the ecological legislation in 1990s. This is because this legislation was a regulatory boom on the majority of technological issues as well as a number of political issues, such as: introduction of new instruments of environmental policy; and the revision of the legislation that is in existence, or the procedural legislation that is new. Furthermore, the preparation of the European environmental policy was participatory because it invited ecological NGOs to assist in various consultation processes, such as expert networks, and thus, managed to counter-balance important lobbying of industries at all levels of the European Commission (Falkner 2007). In view of the fact that each legislation aspect had a deficit or a short-coming that was less serious, the ecological inducements, programmes, rights and responsibilities made a progress that was impressive during the process. The European Union (EU) environmental policy was regarded as a green triangle. This was because it was a deal amid the European parliament, the European Commission and the European council. For instance, the nationwide environmental policies were mainly driven by the European Union (Börzel 2000). The European environmental policies were supported by the 6th EAP. The development concerns of member states that were new drove the political agenda. The EU environmental was linked with a new deregulation wave, which escalated the significance of fiscal considerations. This was reflected in the alterations of the majorities of politics in Europe. The ambitious objectives of the fifth period were not shared in the 6th EAP. It commenced at identifying ecological problems that were persistent, like over-consumption of resources; global climate change; or loss of biodiversity. This was because of the fact that a broader approach that was past the environment legislation was needed by them. Basically, a structure of general aims and principles were formulated in the EU environmental policy. Thematic strategies were used to specify these objectives and principles on important issues, like clean-air, pesticides, aquatic environment, resources, urban environment, reprocessing, and soils. Nonetheless, the European environmental policy aimed at reforming chemical policies, so as to minimize emission of gases from the EU green house, which also belonged to priorities of the policy that were vital (Eckley & Selin 2004). In my opinion basing on this case, the European environmental policy can be deemed as a success because it adopted an approach that was very cautious. That is, principles and themes were identified by the EU policy, and strategies were specified. Moreover, political decisions that were either controversial or contentious were posted to later phases, so as to shun the entire European commission by relying on approaches that were co-operative to the making of the EU environmental policy. The political agenda ranked high those approaches that were co-operative with industry, such as agreements that were voluntary; incorporated product policies; the broader usage of standardization for ecological policies; and cooperating with experts of Members States (Baker & Richardson 1997). It is clear that the governance approaches that were new relieved the legislators as well as strengthened the responsibility of both the private and public experts, who had the technological skills. Also, the European commission changed its main responsibility of being an initiator of the European environmental policy, to being a manager of the processes of the EU environmental policy. To that effect the environmental policy of the European Union lost its initial political silhouette, and became a theme for a few professional experts to societies, which were responsive to the evidence that was scientific. In fact, the criteria of selecting representatives from the civil society, who wanted to take part in those societies escalated (Holzinger & Schäfer 2006). In my view, the European environmental policy was focused. This is because it dealt with environmental problems that were persistent, and which were the main challenge in policy making. Furthermore, the EU policy managed to solve those environmental problems that were persistent because it involved other sectors, however, the key role was played by the EU environmental policy, in essence that it set up targets that were binding and quantitative, which were differentiated nationwide, but gave direction to the entire environment of Europe, as well as defined risk levels that were acceptable, and of ecological quality on the basis of the pre-cautionary principle. This continued to the task of the EU environmental policy. Nevertheless, the European environmental policy has managed to improve the standards of emissions, as well as incentives and/or restrictions, so as to supplement preventative behavior from consumers and corporate. The implementation of this policy has been successful because of the better negotiation, and cooperation amid European commission and other sectors. In addition, the negotiation also encompassed somebody that was entitled to act as a representative of the environment during negations, which in this case was the Environmental Citizens Organizations. The EU policy on the environment commenced its negotiations by implanting ecological legislation, which targeted quality objectives of the member states as well as the industry. As a result, it can be deemed to be successful because climate change and clear-air policies, which clearly indicated that the approach that was target-led, acted as an inspiration for the improvement (Hicks 2004). 3. The European Union-A force on environmental policy success The EU took a risk of signing an agreement which other countries had refused. To that effect, it was regarded as a leader because of its capability to deliver. In my opinion, the environmental policy of the EU has been deemed to be successful because of the full support it has got from the EU. That is, The European Union (EU) has been a force on ecological concerns. By Europe acting together, it has attained much with regards to pollution, climate change and quality than if individual nations could manage if each acted alone. The first EU environmental policy was launched in 1972, since then, the European Union has proved to be a framework that high effective for co-operating on environmental matters. For the last thirty years the European Union has been able to tackle the following: banned pollutants, like lead in petrol; problems that are associated with acidic rain; waste, noise and pollution; the thinning of the Ozone layer and air quality. For instance, water policy can be deemed to be a case point. In every aspect, water is a resource that is vital; thus without a European objective that is common, it would not be easy for the majority of the member states to attain a better water quality. Ideally, the success of the EU environmental policy has greatly been opposed by Regions as well as nations. This is due to the fact that these nations ought not to co-operate across political and managerial frontiers in the structure of the river basins that are common. Nowadays, the Rhine, which was once regarded as “sewer of Europe”, is a dwelling to the salmon (Fairbrass & Jordan 2001). The European Union espoused the Water Framework Directive in the year 2000. This policy was ambitious and it aimed at ensuring that all of the various water types in the European Union, such as coastal waters, rivers, groundwater and lakes attained good quality. Additionally, the European Union made a considerate disparity on the protection of the natural world and biodiversity. For example, if the European Union environmental policy was absent, Natura 2000, which is deemed to be the network that has been most successful and widespread on the basis of high-value nature sites, would not be in existence. The Natura 2000 was formed through the European Union legislation on habitats and birds, and currently, throughout Europe, more than 30 thousand sites are boasted by it. With no Natura 2000, the conservation of species and habitats that are vital could have been created in a manner that is non-coordinated and ad-hoc. In view of the fact that still a lot of work needs to be done, there exists numerous success tales that involve species that are emblematic, like corn-crakes, otters, bitterns, beavers, wolves, bears, etc. Basically, the European environmental policy indicates that the European Union has to guarantee a higher level of environmental conservation, not only for environmental sake per se, but also for our survival as well as for the sake of our health. This can be illustrated by the fresh European Union regulation on the authorization, registration and assessment of the available chemicals. These chemicals ought to be tested for safety purposes, because the majority of them have never undergone such a testing (Borzel 2002). In my view, another success tale that can be attributed to the EU environmental policy is that, the EU has attained the structure of the UN (United Nations) on the concern of climate. As a result, no single nation of the European Union can considerably have influence on global emissions of gases in the greenhouse. If the single EU nations act alone, they would be exposed to competitive pressures that are unfair. Nonetheless, the Kyoto Protocol was spearheaded by the European Union, and its devoted efforts guaranteed a backing that was adequate, so as to ensure that the protocol enters into force. The rest of the globe will listen when the European Union acts together. The EU environmental policy was designed so as to guarantee that the European Union meets its commitments. For instance, the ETS (EU Emissions Trading Scheme), the largest international ecological scheme in the globe, was created by the EU. The European Commission set up a target of reducing emissions by 20 percent, and being committed to renewing energy up to 20 percent. In doing this, most of the required reductions in emissions will be minimized. This will get better the competitiveness of the European Union (Hilson 2002). The EU environmental policy has been incorporated into all policies that are relevant. There has been a significant progress in agriculture, with the restructuring of CAP (the Common Agricultural Policy). Furthermore, fiscal support is not associated with production. Steadfast payments to manufacturers are underpinned in respect to conditions that are fundamental, and which are associated with the environment. Thus, according to me, the EU environmental policy has assisted in attaining water objectives, as well as attaining biodiversity, so that adaptation and alleviation of climate change can be contributed by agriculture. Also, the European environmental policy has assisted to protect biodiversity and the natural world, and this will in turn assist biodiversity to acclimatize to climate changes in protected areas that are both outside and inside (Fairbrass & Jordan 2001). 4. The European Union’s Evolving Legal and Political Environments The European Union as an organization has legal status that is special as well as extensive powers to take action. Policy in the European Union is made within a system that is political, in which there is power balancing amid institutions and the actors. The president of the European Commission ought to commence with constraints and chances regarding the capacity of individuals to operate basing on their competencies. The bureaucracy of the European Union has become more politicized and this is of necessity, so as to act in response to the challenges that are escalating (The 1950s treaties lacked any reference regarding action on climatic changes (Skjærseth & Wettestad 2007) The foundation of the climate change policy of the European Union was developed from the EU environmental policy, an arena of an action that was supranational, and which was not encompassed on the European Union’s founding treaty till the European Act (of 1987). Indeed, the environmental policy was deemed to be an area of the European Union action that was proactive. The shared competence was provided by the first reference treaty, so as to enable the society to be capable of contributing to the improvement as well as the conservation of environment. The European Union was to only take action suppose the member states are not able to adequately attain the objectives of the actions that were proposed. From the political framework, the emergence of the EU environmental policy was due to the imperative to eliminate worldwide ecological policies between rich nations (e.g. Portugal) and poor nations (e.g. India), which were probable to deform the incorporation of the market. This helped to create a united market thus diminished the environmental crisis. The importance of the market that was united with the shared capability for action, made the European Commission to respond by re-orientation from the expansion of the task to consolidation, and furthermore from strategy to entrepreneurship governance (Lenschow 2005). This pushed for stake-holders, policy sectors and actors to coordinate, so as to shun conflict. Nonetheless, these factors made the European Commission to retreat from its original responsibility as a path-finder institution for an integration that is ever closed, to that of managing particular objects as well as being a mediator of the consensus between rich and poor nations. The political leadership model in the politics that has been adopted by the European Union with regards to climate change is usually not determined by the European Commission. Due to the role of the European Commission in making of policies, it is deemed to be the key actor in developing the model-of-action. Also, the styles of leadership are able to identify the dissimilarities amid a dull technocratic manager and a heroic-leader, that is, a strategist. A strategist, as a leader, ought to demonstrate a number of aspects, which primarily concentrates on the individual’s belief of being capable of influencing strategy decisions; have to sustain a relationship that is good; and ought to have a stronger attachment to the organization that is supranational (Hubschmid & Moser 1997). Climate change is deemed to be a major problem and thereby, it needs the support of many stake-holders and actors for the development of EU environmental policy. In my view, the leaders of the European Union ought to consider the necessity and need of sustaining the ambition of taking action on climatic changes, irrespective of the things that might be decided by the global community. However, the view of the energy that was adopted as well as the climate is not supported (Golub 1998). Criticisms from the reflections of European Leaders and the ecological NGOs illustrate that, while the European Union leaders have escalated their belief on their capability of influencing events, they ought to be familiar with the milieu in which an environment policy has been implemented. The style of leadership in the European Union can be regarded as being technocratic or pragmatic. This is not an astonishing development because the style of managerial leadership might move to a position that is strategic, but the person may not move to the pole that is opposite to the style of leadership that is visionary (Skogstad 2003). 5. Conclusion Initially, the European Union mainly concentrated on dealing with point-source pollution. Currently, it deals with a view that is wider, which targets patterns of consumption and production that have been deeply rooted. It further insists on the incorporation of ecological issues into other environmental policy sections. This policy has also been a success because it is transforming from the use of regulatory legislation to the use of instruments that are lither, ground-breaking, and market-based (e.g. the ETS). The environment (on which we rely for affluence, food and health) faces a number of challenges, both in Europe and world-wide. Theses challenges ought to be met. Nonetheless, the European environmental policy has managed to improve the standards of emissions, as well as incentives and/or restrictions, so as to supplement preventative behavior from consumers and corporate. The implementation of this policy has been successful because of the better negotiation, and cooperation amid European commission and other sectors. References Andersen, M & Liefferink, D 1997, European environmental policy - the pioneers Manchester. Manchester University Press. Baker, S 2007 ‘Sustainable Development as Symbolic Commitment’, Journal of Environmental politics, vol. 16, no.3, pp. 296-317. Baker, S & Richardson, D 1997, The Politics of Sustainable Development – practice, theory and policy within the European Union, London: Routledge. Börzel, T 2000, ‘Why there is no “Southern Problem”, on Laggards and ecological Leaders and in the European Union’, Journal of European public policy, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 140-162. Borzel, T 2002‘Pace-Setting, Foot-Dragging, and Fence-Sitting-Member State Responses to Europeanization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 40, no. 3, pp.193-214. Bretherton, C & Vogler, J 2006, The European Union as a Global Actor, London: Routledge Bugdahn, S 2005 ‘Of Europeanization and domestication- the implementation of the ecological information directive in Germany, Ireland and Great Britain’, Journal of European public policy, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 176-199. Burchell, J & Lightfoot, S 2004, The European Union and Sustainable Development, London, Routledge Carmin, J &Vandeveer, S 2004, ‘European Union Enlargement and the Environment- Environmental Policy and Institutional Change in Eastern and Central Europe’, Journal of Environmental politics, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 322-455 Eckley, N & Selin, H 2004, ‘All Talk, but Little Action-Precaution and Regulation of European Chemicals’, Journal of European public policy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 76-105. Fairbrass, J & Jordan, A 2001, ‘Protecting Biodiversity in the European Union-European Opportunities and National Barriers? ’, European public policy Journal, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 498-518. Falkner, R 2007, ‘The political economy of “normative-power” Europe- European environmental leadership in multinational biotechnology regulation’, Journal of European public policy, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 506-525. Golub, J 1998, EU environmental policy Global competition, London, Routledge. Green, M & Dinan, D, 2004, European Union Developments, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Harris, P 2007, Global climate change and Europe-regional cooperation, politics and foreign policy, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. Haverland, M 2003, The effect of the European Union on Environmental Policies, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hicks, B 2004, ‘Shaping Activism and Setting Agendas- EU Influence on Eastern and Central European Environmental Movements’, Journal of Environmental politics, Vol. 12, no.1, pp. 215-232 Hilson, C 2002, ‘Social Movements that are New- the Legal Opportunity Role’, European public policy Journal, vol. 8, no.2, pp. 237-256. Holzinger, K & Schäfer, A 2006, ’Reality or Rhetoric “New Governance” in EU Environmental Policy’ Journal of European law, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 401–419. Hubschmid, C & Moser, P 1997 ‘The procedure of co-operation in the EU-why the EP was so influential in the choice on car emission standards ’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol.34, no.3, pp.223-240. Lenschow, A 2005, Environmental Policy making-The European Union, Oxford University Press Sbragia, A 1996, Environmental policy-policy-making in the EU, Oxford, Oxford University Press Skjærseth, J & Wettestad, J 2007, ‘Is enlargement of the European Union bad for environmental policy? Confronting expectations with evidence’, Journal of International environmental agreements, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 267-283. Skogstad, G 2003, ‘Legitimacy and policy effectiveness? : GMO directive and System Governance in the EU’, European public policy Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 320-40. Read More