Discuss the contention that EU environmental policy has been slow to develop because economic and political policies have been allowed to take priority.
Discuss the contention that EU environmental policy has been slow to develop because economic and political policies have been allowed to take priority.
The implementation of any form of environmental policy in the EU is a relatively new phenomenon. 1972 was the turning point for environmental policy when the policy was announced for the first time at the Paris Summit in 1972. Environmental Action Programme was subsequently devised in 1973. The EU now has a history of almost thirty years in environmental policy, in which time five environmental action plans have been devised and details of the sixth are to be announced at the end of 2001. Since these action programmes have been in place, over 200 pieces of legislation have been passed relating to environment, which mainly deal with limiting air and water pollution, waste management etc.
EU Environmental policy is now seen as essential due to the increasing awareness of the damage being done to the environment. Legislation on a EU level is necessary because without it, no environmental rules would come into being at all in large parts of the community.1
Since the start of the 30 years in existence, has the policy served the citizens of the EU member states enough? It has been argued that the policy has been slow to develop, and that it has taken a "back seat" while economic related policies have been allowed to take priority. This essay will discuss and question the validity of this standpoint.
Economic policy versus environmental policy is an issue that has caused debate for several years because the two are so closely linked. The general viewpoint held by the EU is that the employment of more stringent environmental policy would be very expensive. This decreases the efficiency of the single market, which in turn will have an adverse effect on the economy. This will increase inflation and unemployment. So therefore, the EU has been very cautious and still is, when introducing new environmental policies and this is reflected in the way in which policies are introduced which will be discussed later.
An argument, which shows evidence of the environmental policy being slow to develop, lies in the mechanisms of the way in which EU policy is made, adjusted and implemented. The Treaty of Rome (1957) made no reference to environment, and was not one of the treaties objectives. Furthermore the adoption of environmental legislation did not fit into the decision making process.2 The ways in which environmental adjustments and directives are made has changed over the years. Before the Single European Act was introduced and came into force in 1987, all new directives passed had to be justified in terms of either whether the directive would aid or help the creation of a "Common Market" or "allowed the community to move into new areas to accomplish its goals."3 In other words, the policy / directive would not be adopted unless it helped the EU in economic related issues (such as the single market). This was, after all, implied by the original name of what is now known as the EU - the EEC (European Economic Community). Any decisions had to be taken unanimously and parliament played virtually no role. So therefore, it is clear to see, that at this point in time, economic policy was clearly favoured over environmental policy by the EEC's own admission.
After the introduction of the Single European Act (1986), the way in which environmental legislation was adopted became more complex. Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) was introduced, as well as the cooperation procedure in the European Parliament for directives associated with the "trade harmonization"4. In other words, environmental protection measures had to be part of other EC policies if they were to be voted by QMV. Any environmental protection measures unconnected with the Single Market had to be voted by a unanimous vote for the measure to be adopted.
The difference between having a directed voted on ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
After the introduction of the Single European Act (1986), the way in which environmental legislation was adopted became more complex. Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) was introduced, as well as the cooperation procedure in the European Parliament for directives associated with the "trade harmonization"4. In other words, environmental protection measures had to be part of other EC policies if they were to be voted by QMV. Any environmental protection measures unconnected with the Single Market had to be voted by a unanimous vote for the measure to be adopted.
The difference between having a directed voted on by qualified majority voting and unanimity is not to be underestimated. Under this system, it is very hard to get environmental protection legislation through, as the voting against the directive by one representative will prevent this. With this in mind, the system employed is still a very biased system, has prevented new environmental legislation being introduced, and hinder its development while favouring economic related policies. Some also may argue that the then EC was not at all interested in the strengthening of environmental policy. They merely allowed the introduction of legislation voted unanimously to make it look as though they are taking the environment seriously, while knowing that with the unanimity rule, only few pieces of legislation would pass, and those that would pass would certainly not be substantial enough to hinder the development of economic issues. The way in which the environment takes a back seat is highlighted especially when you look at other policies, which are also not thought of as important as economic policies. Policies such as Foreign policy and many others all use the qualified majority voting procedure of voting.5
The treaty of Maastricht, which came into force in 1992, is also significant when looking at the growth of environmental policy. In the period leading up to the Maastricht Treaty, support was gained for the idea of the EU having more power over environmental issues. The was to be done by allowing qualified majority voting for environmental issues not associated to the single market. There was strong support for this among most of the EU member states. However, during negotiations for the treaty, Spain exerted objections and pressure to prevent this from happening to the extent that was hoped from more environmentally advanced member states such as Germany and the Netherlands. Therefore, this evidence does not imply that environmental policy had taken a so-called "back seat" and they were only interested in expanding the economy. It implies there is another problem/reason as to why environmental policy has been slower to develop than economic policy. The problem also lies in the fact that the various EU member states are all at different stages both environmentally and economically. It is clear that Spain did not object to the use of qualified majority voting because they do not want to protect the environment. For Spain, having to adhere to environmental policy established on an EU level (initiated by countries at a more advanced stage economically as well as environmentally) would force them to enforce this legislation. This would have an adverse effect on such a countries economy, as the enforcement of environmental legislation is known to be extremely expensive. This would reduce the country's economy and in turn increase unemployment and inflation to name just a few effects. Greece and Portugal are other countries in a similar situation. These issues are regarded as being far more important by the vast majority of the electorate and by the EU and should therefore take priority.
As mentioned before, the economy and environment are closely linked to one another, and fear of a downward turn in the economy through strengthening of the environmental policy is a definite reason as to why environmental policy has been slower to develop than hoped by some. It is this conflict of priorities that may be attributed to the slow development of EU Environmental policy, although Germany has argued that the exact opposite relationship also can exist. "Pollution control came to be viewed by many as contributing to economic growth rather than inhibiting it". 6
The member states of the EU can be classified into three categories; the 'leader' countries (Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark), the 'laggard counties' (which includes Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Belgium) and those in the middle (United Kingdom, France and Luxembourg). These three driving countries of EU environmental policy (often referred to as the "Green Troika") place the environment high on their list of priorities. It has been seen in the past that the green troika has been the pioneer of much of the environmental policy. As a result of this, it is the domestic environmental policies of these leader states that serve as the main driving force behind the EU's measures to protect the environment. So the furthering of environmental policy is hindered by the pressures of the green troika consisting of two small member states and one major member state fighting for "europeanization" of their greener domestic policies, and pressures for economic development and financial restrain against a larger amount of countries with collectively more power which does not consider the environment as much of a priority. So one can see that the "pro-green" member states are clearly in the minority to the others, and because unanimity is required for many of directives to be passed, this is a further reason why the policy is seen to be developing slowly.
The notion of environmental problems in Europe being a "trans-boundary" nature is very important when looking at environmental policy. The reason why EU policy is so paramount, and that the single member states own domestic policy on environment is not sufficient is because environmental damage that one member state causes will affect other states' environments. For example, wind carries pollution, and acid let out into the atmosphere in one country, will cause acid rain in other countries. This idea of environmental problems being trans-boundary in nature has been known for a relatively long time. However, the extent to which it occurs was not highlighted until the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. This disaster in the former USSR (now Ukraine) consisted of massive radioactive explosions that killed thirty people instantly, and has had huge environmental consequences. Because of the trans-boundary nature of this gigantic disaster, it has caused practically the whole of the north hemisphere to be affected7. The Chernobyl disaster is the most extreme example of how serious the trans-boundary issue is important and therefore highlighting the importance of a policy for the EU. This is reflected in the increased prominence of environmental policy during the late 1980s and early 1990s8, which followed the disaster. This is reflected in the subsequent fifth Environmental Action Policy. This event has shown how environment has not taken a back seat but, on the contrary, has "between 1989 and 1991, the EC enacted more environmental legislation than in the previous twenty years combined"9 and "environmental policy has been the area in which the Community has increased its activity the most"10 and "by early 1990 almost 130 items of Community legislation (...) had been enacted, (...) and 340 provisions (...) in force"11
The EU is currently at a stage where it still has great potential for enlargement. This is seen as a positive thing for the EU, as it hopes to gain power by doing this. Many of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe are very keen to become members of the EU, however the reason for their lack of success so far is because conditions of the "accession process" have not been met. When talking of the accession process, the economic conditions are generally referred to. However, the EU has stringent environmental conditions that have to be met before a state may become a member of the EU.
"In partnership with the Union, realistic national long term strategies for gradual alignment should be drawn up and start being implemented in all applicant countries before accession, in particular for tackling water and air pollution. These strategies should identify key priority areas and objectives to be fulfilled by the dates of accession as well as timetables for further full compliance"12
The fact that these conditions, and not merely economic conditions, exist as part of the accession process, highlights how important the EU considers the environment and that the policy has not been slow to develop.
It can therefore be concluded, that although one can argue that environmental policy has been put below economic and political policies in the list of priorities, it can still be seen as a success story of the EU. The Treaty of Rome in 1957 made no reference to environment, and so policy relating to environment only began less than 30 years ago. This is a small space of time and so relatively speaking, a lot has been achieved, as economic and political policies have been in existence for far longer. The way in which the economy has been favoured when there is a conflict of interests between environment and economy (unemployment, inflation etc) should not be seen as a surprise, as statistics clearly show that the general public consider economical issues more important than environment issues, and the EU places it fourth in its list of priorities.13 So therefore, in this sense economic policies are clearly going to be developed more quickly than environmental ones. Because of this fact though, one should not believe that the present day EU does not consider the environment an important issue, and indeed it must if it is to achieve its goal of "transforming the European Economy into one whose development world be sustainable for generations to come"14.
*
*
*
*
*
L.Krammer 1992:53
2 Policy Making in the EU
3 Article 235
4 Article 100a
5 http://mhs.trinity.com-cm.ac.uk/europe/b1_a1.htm
6 Weale 1992 a:75-90
7 http://www.chernobyl.co.uk (28/10/2001)
8 Policy Making in the EU Page 236
9 Vogel, 1993 B:125
0 Liefferink et. al 1993b:4
1 The European Union Page 77
2 EC 1997 (Notes in class)
3 Notes made in Class, 2001
4 Taking European Environmental Policy into the 21st Century - A Summary of the Commission's Progress Report and Action Plan on the Fifth Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to Sustainable Development"
