Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is EU enlargement bad for environmental policy? Confronting gloomy expectations with evidence

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As the EU expands to include the Central and East European (CEE) countries, its capacity to adopt and implement environmental policy will be negatively affected—this has been a widely held assumption. The CEE countries have been expected to be laggards, slowing down, weakening or even reversing progress in environmental policy-making. More than 2 years have now passed since the enlargement, and the new member-states have begun to make their mark on EU decision-making and implementation. This article confronts gloomy expectations with evidence in three issue-areas: genetically modified organisms, air pollution and climate change. The main conclusions are, first, that there is no indication that enlargement will result in any breakdown of EU environmental policy. Second, the consequences vary across issue-areas. The new member-states have strengthened the group that favours strict regulation of genetically modified organisms, weakened the implementation of the EU emission trading directive and have affected EU air policy hardly at all. These results can give an indication of what is to come. On the other hand, only a short time has passed since enlargement, and the picture may change with regard to other issue-areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Skjærseth and Wettestad (2002) for a discussion of the effectiveness of EU environmental policy.

  2. In a previous contribution, we examined the expected negative effects by critically assessing the explanatory variables emphasised in the literature on enlargement and the environment (Skjærseth & Wettestad, 2006).

  3. This line of argument reflects a blend of two different but complementary perspectives in the study of EU policy-making and integration: liberal inter-governmentalism and multi-level governance (see e.g., Fairbass & Jordan, 2005; Jordan, 1998).

  4. In the Environmental Politics Special Issue on EU enlargement and the environment (2004), for example, environmental NGOs are given significantly more attention than industry Environmental Politics, 13(1).

  5. Average GNP per capita in the CEECs is less than $US 4,000, as against $US 25,000 in the EU-15.

  6. It is important to note that the extent to which QMV leads to higher standards depends on the constellation of positions in the Council of Ministers.

  7. At the December 2003 EU Summit, disagreements erupted over the new system to be introduced in 2009. Poland and Spain want to retain the weighting of votes agreed in the Treaty of Nice, whereas Germany, France and others favour the introduction of a ‘double majority’ voting system with votes weighted more in accordance with population size.

  8. In addition, a new population threshold has been introduced. Any member-state can request that the 13 out of 25 member-states represent at least 62% of the total population in the EU.

  9. ENDS Daily (2004, 9 June; 2 August).

  10. The Barroso Commission, which formally took office on 1 November 2004, consists of 25 members—one from each member-state.

  11. In total, over 10,000 responses were received.

  12. ENDS Daily (2005, 23 February), TNO (2005).

  13. ENDS Daily (2005, 19 and 21 September), Euractiv (2005, 21 September).

  14. Euractiv, ibid.; ENDS Daily (2005, 22 September).

  15. ENDS Daily (2005, 5 December) and EU Council (2005).

  16. Euractiv (2006, 22 June), ENDS Daily (2006, 28 June).

  17. And interviews, Brussels January 2006.

  18. ENDS Daily (2006, 28 June).

  19. International Environment Reporter (2005, 29 June).

  20. This Committee, established to allow the CEECs to comment on EU draft legislation concerning the signature of the Accession Treaties, was composed of representatives of the EU, the EU Commission, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. See Fernandez Armenteros and Massai (2005: 432).

  21. ENDS Daily (2003, 21 March). A similar sentiment was expressed by Lidija Zivcic, coordinator of CAN Central and Eastern Europe, in February 2004: ‘The particular circumstances [of the accession countries] have not been properly considered in the shaping of this Directive’ (Point Carbon, 2004, 10 February).

  22. For instance, T. Farago from the Hungarian Ministry of the Environment stated: ‘we have followed the negotiations on the [ETS] Directive very closely, and have also expressed our concern on the linking proposal... At the moment we are waiting for the Commission’s guidelines on the NAP’ (Point Carbon, 2003, 22 August).

  23. These two countries account for around 15% of all EU allowances, and for three-quarters of the allowances from the 10 new member-states (Point Carbon, 2005, 8 July). Poland’s NAP is the third largest in the EU, after Germany and the UK.

  24. Point Carbon (2004, 7 and 14 May).

  25. Point Carbon (2005, 11 March and 15 April).

  26. ENDS Daily (2006, 30 June), Point Carbon (2005, 13 May and 18 November).

  27. International Environment Reporter (2005, 14 December), Statens Energimyndighet (2005), Reuters/Planetark (2006, 8 June).

  28. Euractiv (2006, 27 July).

  29. ENDS Daily (2003, 30 October and 8 December; and 2004, 18 February). In the case of Syngenta, the blocking alliance consisted of Austria, Denmark, France, Greece, Luxembourg and Portugal. Belgium, Germany and Italy abstained (ENDS Daily, 2003, 8 December).

  30. ENDS Daily (2004, 17 June).

  31. ENDS Daily (2004, 29 June; 19 July; 8 September; 25 October).

  32. According to ENDS Daily (2005, 24 June).

  33. Only the UK supported the Commission; Finland and Sweden abstained (ENDS Daily, 2005, 27 June).

  34. Reuters/Planetark (2006, May 9).

  35. On the other hand, FoE/ANPED noted that many provisions in the laws of the CEECs addressed gaps in EU law or even went further than EU legislation. For instance, the GMO laws in Poland and Slovakia provided for liability (Friends of the Earth/ANPED, 2003b).

  36. EU Commission (2004), Euractiv (2004, 17 August).

  37. ENDS Daily (2004, June 9 and August 2).

  38. For example, the LCP directive includes differential obligations for member-states. With regard to the Auto-Oil Directive, differing time-frames on lead and SO2 have been granted to various member-states.

Abbreviations

BSA:

Burden-Sharing Agreement

CAFÉ:

Clean Air for Europe Programme

CDM:

Clean Development Mechanism

CEE:

Central and East European

CEECs:

Central and East European Countries

CLRTAP:

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution

ECCP:

European Climate Change Programme

EEA:

European Environment Agency

EITs:

Economies in Transition

ENGOs:

Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations

EP:

European Parliament

ETS:

Emissions Trading System

GMOs:

Genetically Modified Organisms

JI:

Joint Implementation

LCP:

Large Combustion Plant

NEC:

National Emission Ceilings

PM2.5:

Ultra-fine Particulates

QMV:

Qualified Majority Voting

UNFCCC:

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 3

UNICE:

Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe

WTO:

World Trade Organisation

References

  • Andersen, M. S., & Liefferink, D. (1997). European environmental policy: The pioneers. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S. (2001, May 25–26). The impact of Eastern enlargement on EU environmental governance. Paper prepared for presentation at the Environmental Studies Workshop ‘Environmental Challenges of EU Eastern Enlargement’ organised by the Robert Schumann Centre at the European University Institute, Florence, Italy.

  • Beckman, A. (2002, August). Pushing the door: The role of Central and East European NGOs in enlarging the EU. In S. Crisen & J. Carmin (Eds.), EU enlargement and environmental quality: Central and Eastern Europe & beyond. Conference proceedings retrieved from Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars website: http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1422&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=7734&group_id=7430).

  • Bernauer, T. (2003). Genes, trade and regulation—the seeds of conflict in food biotechnology. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botcheva-Andonova, L. (2002, August). EU enlargement, industries and environmental policy. In S. Crisen and J. Carmin, (Eds.), EU enlargement and environmental quality: Central and Eastern Europe & beyond. Conference proceedings retrieved from Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars website: http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1422&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=7734&group_id=7430).

  • Botcheva-Andonova, L. (2004). Transnational politics of the environment: The European Union and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology—The issue attention cycle. Public Interest, 28(Summer), 38–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA: European Environment Agency (2003). Europe’s Environment: The third assessment. Copenhagen: EEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • ENDS Daily (2003, March 21). Eastern challenge to EU Climate Trading Plan.

  • ENDS Daily (2003, October 30). EU’s GM product ban ‘Could end in two weeks’.

  • ENDS Daily (2003, December 8). EU hopes of end to GM Moratorium Dashed.

  • ENDS Daily (2004, February 18). Ministers to get more GM food for thought.

  • ENDS Daily (2004, June 9). European elections 2004 and the environment.

  • ENDS Daily (2004, June 17). Split over GMOs confirmed in first EU-25 vote.

  • ENDS Daily (2004, June 29). EU environment council round-up.

  • ENDS Daily (2004, July 19). Second modified crop gets EU Green Light.

  • ENDS Daily (2004, August 2). New-look EU Parliament Environment Committee.

  • ENDS Daily (2004, September 8). Commission stalls again on GM Norms.

  • ENDS Daily (2004, October 25). Poland to seek EU GM maize rules opt-out.

  • ENDS Daily (2005, February 23). Public has its Say on EU air pollution policy.

  • ENDS Daily (2005, June 24). Summary of EU environment council.

  • ENDS Daily (2005, June 27). EU Environment council key developments.

  • ENDS Daily (2005, September 19). EU to rein in its ambitions for cleaner air.

  • ENDS Daily (2005, September 21). EU clean air strategy sees the light of day.

  • ENDS Daily (2005, September 22). Industry reacts warily to EU clean air plan.

  • ENDS Daily (2005, December 5). Council cool on new EU air quality programme.

  • ENDS Daily (2006, June 28). Ministers agree new EU air quality limits.

  • ENDS Daily (2006, June 30). Poland enters CO2 emissions trading scheme.

  • EU Commission (2001). The clean air for Europe (CAFÉ) programme: Towards a thematic strategy for air quality. commission communication, COM(2001) 245. Brussels: EU Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Commission (2004). Questions and answers on enlargement and environment. Brussels: EU Commission, Memo/04/86.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Commission (2005a). Lisbon, growth and jobs—working together for Europe’s future. Special Eurobarometer 215. Retrieved from www.europa.eu.int/comm/public.opinion/index.en.htm. .

  • EU Commission (2005b). Questions and Answers on the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. Memo. Brussels: EU Commission.

  • EU Council (2005). Thematic strategy on air pollution, proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the council on ambient air quality and cleaner Air for Europe (Public debate at Environment Council on 2 December 2005, 2005/0183).

  • Euractiv (2004, August 17). EU steps up efforts to enforce GMO rules in new member states.

  • Euractiv (2005, September 21). Clean air strategy seeks balance between health and business concerns.

  • Euractiv (2006, June 22). MEPs want tight, yet flexible air quality rules.

  • Euractiv (2006, July 27). CO2 quota plans: EU threatens legal action against Latecomers.

  • Fairbass, J., & Jordan, A. (2005). Multi-level governance and environmental policy. In I. Bache, & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multilevel governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez Armenteros, M., & Massai, L. (2005). Emissions trading and joint implementation: Interactions in the enlarged EU. In M. Bothe, & E. Rehbinder (Eds.), Climate change policy (pp. 407–450). Utrecht: Elservier International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friends of the Earth/ANPED (2003a, May). EU enlargement—The introduction of GMO’s by the backdoor of EU accession? Report, FoE/ANPED Northern Alliance for Sustainability.

  • Friends of the Earth/ANPED (2003b, May 27). Environmental groups warn that EU enlargement could weaken policy on GMOs. Press release, FoE/ANPED Northern Alliance for Sustainability.

  • Garvey, T. (2002, August). EU enlargement: is it sustainable? In S. Crisen & J. Carmin (Eds.), EU enlargement and environmental quality: Central and Eastern Europe & beyond. Conference proceedings retrieved from Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars website: http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1422&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=7734&group_id=7430).

  • Greenspan Bell, R. (2004). Further up the learning curve: NGOs from transition to Brussels. In Special Issue: EU enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Environmental Politics, 13(1), 194–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, N. (Ed) (2003). Manual of environmental policy release 24. Oxford: IEEP/Elsevier.

  • Haigh, N. (Ed) (2006). Genetically modified organisms—food and feed (section 7.22); and traceability and labelling (section 7.23). In Manual of environmental policy: The EU and Britain. London: IEEP.

  • Hallstrom, L. K. (2004). Eurocratisising enlargement? EU elites and NGO participation in European environmental policy (In special issue: EU enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe). Environmental Politics, 13(1), 175–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, B. (2004). Setting agendas and shaping activism: EU influence on Central and Eastern European movements (In special issue: EU enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe). Environmental Politics, 13(1), 216–233.

  • Holzinger, K., & Knoepfel, P. (2000). The need for flexibility: European environmental policy on the brink of Eastern Enlargement. In K. Holzinger, & P. Knoepfel (Eds.), Environmental policy in a European union of variable geometry. The challenge of the next enlargement. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homeyer, I. (2001, May 25–26). Enlarging EU environmental policy. Paper prepared for presentation at the Environmental Studies Workshop ‘Environmental challenges of EU Eastern enlargement’ organised by the Robert Schumann Centre at the European University Institute, Florence, Italy.

  • Homeyer, I. (2004). Differential effects of enlargement on EU environmental governance (In special issue: EU enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe). Environmental Politics, 13(1), 52–77.

  • International Environment Reporter (2005, June 29). EU Finance Institution lends power plant in Poland Euro 220 million for emissions control.

  • International Environment Reporter (2005, December 14). Simplicity a virtue in structuring EU emissions trading, official says.

  • Jehlicka, P. & Tickle, A. (2002, August). Environmental policy and EU enlargement: A state-centered approach. In S. Crisen & J. Carmin (Eds.), EU enlargement and environmental quality: Central and Eastern Europe & beyond. Conference proceedings retrieved from Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars website: http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1422&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=7734&group_id=7430.

  • Jehlicka, P., & Tickle, A. (2004). Environmental implications of Eastern enlargement: The end of progressive EU environmental policy? (In special issue: EU enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe). Environmental Politics, 13(1), 77–95.

  • Jordan, A. J. (1999). The implementation of EC environmental policy: A policy problem without a political solution? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 17(1), 69–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. (1998). EU environmental policy at 25—The politics of multinational governance. Environment, 40(1), 15–45 January/February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, J. M. (2002, August). Enlargement and the environment: future challenges. In S. Crisen & J. Carmin (Eds.), EU enlargement and environmental quality: Central and Eastern Europe & beyond. Conference proceedings retrieved from Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars website: http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1422&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=7734&group_id=7430).

  • Kudelko, M., & Suwala, W. (2003). Environmental policy in Poland—Current state and perspectives of development. Energy and Environment, 14(5), 737–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefevre, J. (2005). The EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme. In F. Yamin (Ed.), Climate change and carbon markets—A handbook of emissions reduction mechanisms (pp. 75–151). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlínek, P., & Pickles, J. (2004). Environmental pasts/environmental futures in post-socialist Europe (In special issue: EU enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe). Environmental Politics, 13(1), 237–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrom, S. (1997). The constraints of daily work in Brussels: How relevant is the input from National Capitals? In D. Liefferink, & M. S. Andersen (Eds.), The innovation of EU environmental policy. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Point Carbon (2003, August 22). Hungary: Late bloomer by intent. Carbon Market Europe.

  • Point Carbon (2004, February 10). Lack of EU NAP progress stirs NGO reactions.

  • Point Carbon (2004, May 7). NAP watch: New governments cause delays.

  • Point Carbon (2004, May 14). Viewpoint: Polish EU ETS undermining Kyoto principles?.

  • Point Carbon (2005, March 11). Commission roughs up new member states, Carbon Market Europe.

  • Point Carbon (2005, April 15). Carbon Market Europe.

  • Point Carbon (2005, May 13). Carbon Market Europe.

  • Point Carbon (2005, July 8). CEEC Companies Cautious to Provide EUA Supply, Carbon Market Europe.

  • Point Carbon (2005, November 18). Mixed emotions as NAP talks in deadlock, Carbon Market Europe.

  • Reuters/Planetark (2006, May 9). EU lets Poland ban GMO maize seeds across country.

  • Reuters/Planetark (2006, June 8). Polish CO2 permits surplus in ‘05 not big.

  • Rosendal, G. K. (2005). Governing GMOs in the EU: A deviant case of environmental policy-making? Global Environmental Politics, 5(1), 82–104 February.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreurs, M. (2004). Environmental protection in an expanding european community: Lessons from past accessions (In special issue: EU enlargement and the environment: institutional change and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe). Environmental Politics, 13(1), 27–52.

  • Skjærseth, J. B., & Wettestad, J. (2002). Understanding the effectiveness of EU environmental policy: How can regime analysis contribute? Environmental Politics, 11(3), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skjærseth, J. B., & Wettestad, J. (2006). EU enlargement and environmental policy: The bright side. FNI Report 14/2006. Lysaker: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

  • Soversoki, M. (2001). Flexibility, subsidiarity and environmental derogations: Past, present and future implications for enlargement. Luxembourg: European Institute of Public Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statens Energimyndighet (2005). Prisutvecklingen på el og utsleppsretter samt de internationella brenslemarknaderna. Stockholm: Statens Energimyndighet rapport ER 2005:35.

  • TNO (2005, April). Public views on air pollution in the European Union, results of the European Commission’s Public consultation on air pollution. Apeldoorn, the Netherlands: TNO Report R 2005/100.

  • Wettestad, J. (2002a). Clearing the air—European advances in tackling acid rain and atmospheric pollution. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettestad, J. (2002b). The convention on long-range transboundary air pollution (CLRTAP). In E. Miles, A. Underdal, S. Andresen, J. Wettestad, J. B. Skjærseth, & E. Carlin (Eds.), Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence (pp. 197–223). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettestad, J. (2005). The making of the 2003 EU emissions trading directive: Ultra-quick process due to entrepreneurial proficiency? Global Environmental Politics, 5(1), 1–24 February.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wettestad, J. & Saeverud, I. A. (2005, 15–17 June). Implementing EU emissions trading: Institutional misfit? Paper presented at the 7th Nordic Environmental Social Science Research Conference, Gothenburg University.

  • Wilkinson, D., Monkhouse, C. & Baldock, D. (2004). The future of EU environment policy: Challenges & opportunities. A special report for the all-party Parliamentary Environment Group. London: Institute European Environmental Policy.

  • Wurzel, R. (2002). Environmental policy-making in Britain, Germany and the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jon Birger Skjærseth

    Present address: , 371-F Cannon Green, Goleta, CA, 93117, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Fridtjof Nansens vei 17, 1326, Lysaker, Norway

    Jon Birger Skjærseth & Jørgen Wettestad

Authors
  1. Jon Birger Skjærseth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jørgen Wettestad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon Birger Skjærseth.

Additional information

Jon Birger Skjærseth is presently a visiting researcher at University of California, Santa Barbara

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Skjærseth, J.B., Wettestad, J. Is EU enlargement bad for environmental policy? Confronting gloomy expectations with evidence. Int Environ Agreements 7, 263–280 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-007-9033-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-007-9033-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation