When Europe hits home

Environmental policies

A short history, description and its effects

Alex Mafteiu

alex.mafteiu@live.com

23.06.2011

P

age1

Contents

Aim ................................................................................................................................................................ 2

What is environment and what are environmental policies? ....................................................................... 3

The European Union environmental policy ................................................................................................... 5

Short history .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Europe 2020 .............................................................................................................................................. 9

European Environmental Policy and effect concerning the Free Trade ..................................................... 11

The regional approach ................................................................................................................................. 14

Conclusions and opinions ............................................................................................................................ 17

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................. 19

P

age2

Aim

I try in this paper to see how European Union acts concerning the Environmental policies

during its existence. I’ll try shortly to describe the history of the Environmental policies through

its Action Programs and the new EU 2020 Strategy. I am going to try to see the effect that this

type of policy and interventions has over the free trade. I’ll try also to see what are the

advantages concerning the regional approach over the environmental programs and what are

the gains from having joint – at European, regional and multi-governmental level – policies and

programs.

P

age3

What is environment and what are environmental policies?

Environmental policy is one of the most rapidly expanding areas of the European Union

policy activity. An important part of European environmental law has found its way into the

statue books. Environmental problems are high on the agenda of the Council of Ministers,

disputes over environmental issues have been the subject of many of the key decisions of the

European Court of Justice and the performance of the EU in this area has been the focus of a

growing body of scholarly research1.

From a time when most legal activities were focused on such issues as air and water

quality, waste management and the control of chemicals, the EU has become involved in

problems as varied as the protection of wildlife, the conservation of energy, the control of

genetically modified organisms, the promotion of organic agriculture, the management of

fisheries, the control of acid pollution, the international attempt to address the problems of

global warming.

Even so, it is yet hard to understand what European Union defines as being the

‘environment’. Environment is a widely use term. It is defined by Oxford Dictionary as the

surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates. This definition

hardly applies in the context of European Policy making. Environment, by its complexity cannot

be seen as surroundings, because EU has to take always in consideration factors as the

economy, social, regional or national concerns, that are affected by the policies it produces. The

complexity of the term is even more difficult to be fully integrated in a context of policy, when

all policy areas interact one with another.

The positions and the actions of policy makers in one area have an impact on those in

other areas, driving decisions about how to allocate and share finite resources such as funds,

staff and time, and generating consequences as decisions and actions in one area limit or

prompt actions in another. Perhaps more than any other area of public policy, the environment

1 McCormick, John, Environmental policy in the European Union, New York, 2002.

P

age4

impacts and is impacted by activities in almost every other area of public policy2. The most

obvious and clear impact is seen in policies of area such as industry, economy, agriculture,

energy, water supply, transport, health care, but, concerning the fact that environment has a

quality issues, it can also be related to education or poverty.

The institutions of European Union have an odd notion of the meaning of the word

‘environment’. For example the division of the responsibilities in the directorates-general if the

European Commission; Environmental DG is responsible for the issues that are conventionally

‘environmental’ (air, water pollution, waste management), fisheries conservation is part of

Fisheries DG, forestry and pesticides control are the responsibly of the Agriculture DG and

organic farming comes under Health and Consumer Protection. In the same time, EDG is also,

responsible for non-environmental issues as they are understood at national level, including, for

example, noise pollution and civil protection.

For the purpose of achieving the understanding, as much as possible, the Environmental

Policy and the EU directions towards it, I’ll accept as valid the definition that J. McCormick gives

to environment3 ‘natural surroundings in which human exists and the natural resources on

which they depend’ and environmental policy as any action taken or not by governments that

are aimed at managing human activities in the final goal to prevent harmful effects on nature

and natural resources and to ensure that man-made changes to the surroundings do not have a

harmful effect on humans.

2 McCormick, John, Environmental policy in the European Union, New York, 2002.

3 Idem.

P

age5

The European Union environmental policy

Environmental protection largely happens at national level. Most EU environmental laws

setting minimum standards then leave it up to Member States on how to achieve them.

Increasingly, however, EU environmental laws are based on internal market rules, which

seriously restrict Member States from going beyond a prescribed level of protection. Together

with the general domination of internal market rules in the EU, national environmental policy

initiatives are quite restricted. Thus governments wanting to introduce new environmental

protection often seek to influence and promote the development of EU policies. They remain

the main initiators of EU environmental policies and laws in order to achieve their desired level

of protection via the EU. “Brussels” is thus a trading and negotiation place for policies rather

than the “real” initiator.4

Member States play an important role in this sort of policies. With the 2004

enlargement of the EU involving 10 new Member States, and a general slow-down in economic

growth coupled with high unemployment, European environmental policies have come under

increasing attack from many sides. The Sustainable Development Strategy launched in 2001 in

Gothenburg by heads of states and governments recently became marginalized under the

Economic Growth Strategy established in Lisbon in 2000. The post-enlargement Commission –

which took office at the end of 2004 - has been reluctant to make proposals for new

environmental laws, emphasizing the need to focus on increasing the competitiveness of

Europe’s economy and simplifying existing EU legislation. This one-sided and imbalanced

agenda has already faced criticism from heads of states and governments, who instead placed

the economic dimension together with the social and environmental dimensions, in the context

of sustainable development, and highlighted the important contribution of environment policy

to growth and jobs (EU Presidency 2005).

4 EU Environmental Policy Handbook, European Environmental Bureau

P

age6

Short history

Even from its beginning the Commission feared that different national environmental

standards would harm the common market. From this reason the main concept was that issues

should be tackled though a common action. The first agreements that a set of compulsory

environmental standards are required between member-states were stated in late 1950s.

Europe’s environmental policy – by it’s entirely- started in 1973, following the 1972 UN

Conference on Environment. Today -37 years later and with an impressive body of

environmental legislation in place - similar or identical concerns remain: environmental progress

through technology has been outweighed by growing consumption and natural resource use.

Well known environmental problems of increasing natural resource use, biodiversity loss,

destruction of natural habitats and long-term pollution of most environmental media, persist.

The initial environmental policies were abstract and ambitious. After the UN Conference

from Stockholm (1972) the EU community put the basis of an environmental program. From the

beginning the program stated the economic development and growth and the prosperity are

mutual interdepended with the protection of the environment. It was argued, that “the

protection of the environment belongs to the essential tasks of the Community” (in: OJ C112/1

from 20.12.1973). The most important objectives that were established and discussed were: the

prevention, reduction and containment of environmental damage, the conservation of an

ecological equilibrium and the rational use of natural resources.5 This was the first European

Action Program (EAP) that was established in 1973. Its main focuses point was water and waste

but it also had a sectorial approach with references to agriculture and space planning. There

were mentioned also, emission measures; this were with preparatory perspectives for the

actions and policies that were about to come.

The Second EAP (1977 - 1981) was next step. It was essentially a follow up to the first in

terms of approach and objective with simply a greater range of problems to be dealt with.

Nature Protection received special attention.

5 CEC (2005a)2004 Environmental Policy Review, Commission Communication (2005)

P

age7

In terms of a practical approach the First and the Second Programmes (1973-1981)

advocated quality values for water and air. The quality objectives for drinking water were very

strict – those for air could be achieved without strong policy intervention6.

The Third EAP (1982 - 1986) and partially the Fourth (1987 - 1992) reflect a considerable

change in policy approach, being much more closely related to the completion of the Internal

Market than their predecessors.

This EAP shifted from a quality approach to an emission-oriented approach. It proposed

formulating emission limit values for stationary, as well as mobile, sources. But beyond this new

approach, in order to introduce better filter technologies for the reduction of emissions at the

“end of the pipe”, the objectives of the First and Second EAP were restated. The Third EAP also

made positive reference to the first global strategy for “Sustainable Development” formulated

by the IUCN in 19807. Waste avoidance, efficient resource use and integrated environmental

technologies were some of the objectives of the third EAP.

The Fourth Program is generally accepted as a paradigm changing one. The vision

concerning the environment changed. It changed from a ‘trade-orientation’ to a ‘sustainability

frame’. It was acknowledged that an approach which focused on emission controls for

stationary sources was unlikely to achieve certain ecosystem or health based quality objectives.

The Fourth EAP instead proposed a more integrated approach. For the first time, environmental

protection was not perceived as an additive, but rather as an integrated activity within the

whole production process8. This was an initial commitment for the strategic reorientation of

environmental policies in the EC, which gradually took place between 1989 and 1994.

A strategic reorientation was then explicitly formulated in the Fifth Environmental Action

Programme (1992 - 1999). Among the most interesting and innovative elements of the Fifth

Environmental Action Programme were:

The principal aim of sustainable development according to the definition of the

Brundtland Report.

6 Idem.

7 http://www.iucn.org/

8 EU Environmental Policy Handbook, European Environmental Bureau

P

age8

Reference to the sectorial approach, which integrates an environmental dimension into

the most polluting sectors (transport, energy, agriculture, etc.), and the limits of old end-

of-pipe approaches. Instead, the Action Programme proposed structural change in favor

of public transport, energy efficiency and waste prevention.

The emphasis on new instruments, especially on market-oriented instruments such as

fiscal incentives or voluntary instruments, which strengthen producers and consumers

own interests in environmental decision-making.

The new consensus-oriented approach taking into account the crucial role of non-

governmental protagonists and local/regional authorities to represent the general

interest of the environment. This may contribute to innovative concepts, raise public

awareness, and enforce the implementation of EU directives.

The setting of medium and long-term objectives for the reduction of some pollutants,

and proposed instruments to achieve these objectives.9

The Fifth EAP created a perspective towards the policy that had all that it was necessary to

become an "ecological structural change".

The starting point of the 6th EAP is that so-called persistent environmental problems, such

as climate change, the loss of biodiversity or the over-consumption of resources require a

broader approach beyond environmental legislation. Furthermore the need for the

consolidation of existing legislation is increasing, especially in the view of enlargement. Basically

the 6th EAP formulates a framework of general principles and objectives, which will be more

specified by so-called thematic strategies on key issues, such as pesticides, resources, recycling,

soils, the urban environment, the marine environment, and clean air. The reform of chemicals

policy and policies to reduce EU greenhouse gas emissions also belongs to the key policy

priorities for this first decade of the new millennium.10

9 EU Environmental Policy Handbook, European Environmental Bureau

10 Idem.

P

age9

Europe 2020

EU 2020 will replace the overarching policy framework known as the “Lisbon Strategy”

which has guided economic, employment and social policy in the EU since 2000 and will expire

in 2010. The Lisbon Strategy dates from March 2000 and aims to make the European Union (the

"most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable

economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion" by 2010. However, the

Lisbon Strategy has focused too much on economic growth and competitiveness and neglected

social policy.11

EU 2020 is a 10-year strategy proposed by the European Commission on 3 March 2010

for reviving the economy of the European Union. It aims at "smart, sustainable, inclusive

growth" with greater coordination of national and European policy12. The new program has

specific, clear objectives concerning the environment. In the official declarations, these are:

A. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels by 2020. The

EU is prepared to go further and reduce by 30% if other developed countries make

similar commitments and developing countries contribute according to their abilities,

as part of a comprehensive global agreement.

B. Increasing the share of renewables in final energy consumption to 20%.

C. Moving towards a 20% increase in energy efficiency.

All the three objectives are part from a more inclusive perspective where the

environment doesn’t have a separated role, but an integrated one. The objectives that are

mentioned above are part of the Sustainable growth. There are other three main objectives that

are part of the Europe 2020 strategy: Smart growth, Sustainable growth and Economic

governance.

Concerning the new strategy, President of the European Commission Jose Manuel

Barroso declared the Union has set five ambitious objectives - on employment, innovation,

11

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm 12

Idem.

P

age1

0

education, social inclusion and climate/energy - to be reached by 2020. Each Member State has

adopted its own national targets in each of these areas. Concrete actions at EU and national

levels underpin the strategy13.

Concerning the strong goals we can take the climate change as an example. The new

post-Lisbon program states that ‘To achieve our climate goals, we need to reduce emissions

more quickly and harness new technologies such as wind and solar power and carbon capture

and sequestration. We must strengthen our economies' resilience to climate risks, and our

capacity for disaster prevention and response14‘. This may be seen as a turning point concerning

the environmental issues that were developed in the evolution of EU

13

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm 14

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/priorities/sustainable-growth/index_en.htm

P

age1

1

European Environmental Policy and effect concerning the Free Trade

“A healthy economy is dependent upon a healthy environment.”15

Margaret Thatcher

Environmental regulations can interfere with the running of the common market16.

Restrictions that appear to be based on environmental or product quality standards can

easily be twisted to restrict foreign imports or to tilt the industrial or marketing playing

field17. The ECJ recognized this fact and stated that the EU can modify and harmonize any

standards that are being used in such a way. How does this forcible harmonization work

in practice without overbalancing in favor of either the environment or trade?18

An exampling answering the question would be the Germany’s Green Point plan and the

EU’s subsequent entry into the field of regulating waste packaging.

Several years ago, Germany passed laws requiring all manufacturers selling goods

in Germany to recycle packaging in which goods are transported and sold. This requirement

applied equally to native and foreign manufacturers, and in all appearances was a genuine

environmental attempt to reduce waste. As a result of this ordinance, many German

companies united and formed a system for the retrieval of packaging waste from retailers

and homes, called the Duales System Deutschland ("DSD"). The selling of "green spots" to

each participating company funds this program. For each package that a participating

country enters into the DSD system, the company pays a certain amount of money and 15

Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, in a speech to the Royal Society (September 1998). 16

Treaty of Amsterdam, Oct. 2, 1997. 17

Damian Chalmers, Inhabitants in the Field of European Community Environmental Law. 18

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 26 - Article 8 - European Environmental Policy and Its Effects on Free Trade.

P

age1

2

promises that the packages waste will be recycled according to DSD standards, once DSD

returns the packaging waste. In return, DSD places a "green spot" upon the package,

which assures retailers and homeowners that DSD will be retrieving the waste, and

promises consumers that the company involved has promised to recycle the waste in a DSD-

approved manner.

The German government was so thrilled with the DSD system that it agreed to subsidize

the system." The DSD system worked very well in achieving its intended aim. Unfortunately, it

created a few problems in other areas. As time progressed, the DSD system had a large

negative impact upon the free flow of goods from member states into Germany. Even if

foreign retailers who were not members of the DSD scheme were willing to do their own

retrieval and recycling, retailers would often refuse to stock the items anyway, because it

would be more difficult to deal with those packaging wastes than DSD packaging wastes.

Consumers would often refuse to buy products without the “green spot” seal of environmental

approval.

Foreign companies often had a difficult time becoming a member of DSD due to

differences regarding what is considered to be acceptable recyclable materials and methods

between countries. For example, some countries accept the use of heat from incineration

as a form of recycling, but Germany does not19.

As the success of DSD grew, other problems appeared. DSD became so successful

that it eventually began recovering more waste packaging than there was capacity to

recycle it in Germany, so the waste began to be shipped to recycling facilities in other

countries. This outward shipment of waste grew and grew until finally, instead of being able

to sell the waste to recycling companies, they had to pay the recycling companies to take it.

Not only did this get quite expensive, but it also knocked the bottom out of the waste

market in the EU as a whole, and Britain and France began complaining that Germany was

"environmentally dumping," by making it fiscally impossible for other countries to have

their waste recycled.

19

Martin Coleman, Environmental Barriers to Trade and European Community Law.

P

age1

3

As a result of this upheaval, the EU stepped in to harmonize national waste

recovery programs with Directive 92/62/EEC. This directive required all members to

establish return and management systems that comply with certain EU guidelines as to

what are considered to be recyclable materials and methods, including reuse, organic

recycling and incineration for the production of heat, just as all packaging placed on the

common market must abide by certain common guidelines. Furthermore, all packaging

across the common market had to be marked to demonstrate the degree to which it has

recyclable. The goal of the directive was to achieve a 50% minimum/65% maximum

recovery rate, a 25% minimum/45% maximum recycling rate and a 15% minimum rate for

recycling of each category of material by July 200120. Member states could recover and

recycle more than the maximum rate if they choose, but only if they are capable of

handling the excess waste within their own countries21.

Although the road to implementation has been a somewhat bumpy one involving

the issuance of more than one Reasoned Opinion to try and bring member states into

compliance, the situation appears to have stabilized22.

In this example it is clearly stated that the EU trade and industry in general benefited from the

Environmental policies. Nevertheless, not every environmental measure benefits every industry.

This fact may be balanced by the fact that these environmental policies create entirely

new markets and opportunities to be taken advantage of by other industries. For example,

the environmental industry itself is said to be valued at over $250 billion worldwide23.

Furthermore, the EU makes use of environmental measures that can be used by

existing industries to gain a competitive edge in the new common market.

20

Pamela and Ian BARNES, Environmental policies in European Union 21

Idem. 22

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 26 23

Pamela and Ian BARNES, Environmental policies in European Union

P

age1

4

The regional approach

This background of mixed progress and potentially substantial future problems, then,

what is there to be said for the regional approach to environmental issues as exemplified by the

record of the European Union? By no mean there political or public consensus that membership

of the European Union has been beneficial to the member states, although opinion varies from

one country to another, and from one issues to another. Euro-barometer polls find that support

for European integration tends to be highest in the poorer member stat such as Ireland, Greece,

Portugal, Romania and Bulgaria, while skepticism is greater in countries such as Denmark,

Sweden, Austria and Britain.

In regard to environment there is a strong support across all member states for EU

activities. When interviewees are asked which issues they feel are priorities for the EU, there is

a majority support (64-69%) for EU action on issues such as unemployment and poverty,

protecting consumers, a common defense policy, a common foreign policy, social policy and the

environment. In 1995, 69% of responders agreed that decisions on the environment should be

taken at EU level rather than at national level (European Commission, 1995). The autumn 1998

Euro barometer poll found that 66% of the responders’ favorite joint EU decision-making on the

environment over the national level decision-making and 89% of responders saw that protecting

environment as a priority for the EU (European Commission, 1999).

Unfortunately, Euro-barometers polls do not ask the responders why they feel that the

environment is an issue better dealt with at the EU level. McCornick identifies several reasons

why the citizens of EU might tend to consider this. Among the first are the following:

environment problems do not respect national borders. And to solve them, collaboration

among several nations and national governments is required. The second reason might be that

individual counties working alone may be reluctant to take action on the environment for fear

P

age1

5

of placing themselves at an economic disadvantage by having to bear the costs of acting alone.

From this perspective, multiple countries acting together may be less resistant to taking action

because they are involved in a joint endeavor with share costs and benefits. The importance of

burden-sharing was exemplified by the EU response to acidification; after several years of lonely

opposition Thatcher government found itself encouraged to take action in the late 1980s by –

among other things – the logic of sharing costs which were divided up among the member

states very broadly on the basis of their respective economies.

Another reason would be that as a result to the ‘leader-laggard’ dynamics, governments

with a progressive approach to environmental problems can set a pace which may encourage

those with a less progressive approach to take action, when otherwise they might not. The case

of the EU offers many example of states with a more aggressive approach (such as Germany or

Scandinavian states) increasing the political pressure on those more reluctant to take action

(such as Britain or the Mediterranean states).

While there are normally few sanctions or tools that can be used by one country or

groups of countries effectively to encourage action on the environment, regional integration

provides compelling economic reasons for joint action. Not least of these is the pressure to build

free trade or the single market by harmonizing laws.

Regional integration encourages member states to realize how many environmental

problems they either share or have in common, and how they can benefit from a culture of

cooperation on such problems.

Counties alone may be reluctant to share data, information and ideas for fear of losing

economic advantage, while counties acting in concert can help maximize the efficiency of their

actions by sharing such data. The exchange of information has been a requirement of individual

pieces of EU law, such as the 1984 directive on air pollution from industrial plants which

requires that member states share experience and information on reducing pollution and about

the equipment they used.

P

age1

6

While these are many benefits to regional cooperation on environmental matters, the

effect of free trade it’s not without its problems. And not only the free trade, is affected.

Among the problems that emerge from the instance of environmental cooperation and policies

are the removal of non-tariff barriers to trade – or the increased competition produced by the

single market – results in the loss of national protection for industry and the demands of

progressive governments of the imposition of new rules in the poorer states. The effect can be

to impose new costs on marginal industries which may compel them to close, with a resulting

loss of jobs and damage to local or regional economies.

The removal of trade barriers can encourage industry to move to those regions of a free

trade area that have the laws on environmental management, particularly if different member

states are allowed derogation from the law, or are given more modest targets in terms of air,

water or soil quality. This can lead to the development of ‘pollution havens’ and provide poorer

states or regions with a competitive advantage.

On balance, however, the regional approach to the resolution of environmental

problems offers many advantages over isolated national approaches. In the midst of all the

debates and controversies about the nature and consequences of regional integration, there are

selected policy issues where it is clear that a joint approach makes a better sense; preopening

among those questions is the question of managing humane environment.24

24

McCormick, John, Environmental policy in the European Union, New York, 2002.

P

age1

7

Conclusions and opinions

In conclusion, it seems apparent that disregard for the differences between

environmental standards can cause severe problems in the free flow of trade and equal,

efficient competition, and that the heightening of such standards to a higher common level

may be done without causing as much damage to industry as might have been previously

thought. The EU and its members deserve commendation for having realized these essential

truths early on in the rush toward a more global market and for setting about these

common environmental standards in a positive, balanced way.

It is to be hoped that the presence of the EU on the broader international scene will

inspire other states to integrate something similar to the EU environmental system into

their own multilateral treaties25.

Future environmental policies need to become refocused. Persistent environmental

problems are the challenge for the forthcoming phase of policy making and should be

prioritized. Solving persistent environmental problems needs the involvement of other sectors,

but environmental policy will have to play a key role. Setting quantitative and binding targets,

which may be nationally differentiated but give direction to Europe’s environment as a whole,

and defining acceptable levels of risk and of environmental quality based upon the reactionary

principle, will continue to be an environmental policy task. There is also a great deal of scope for

improvement in emissions standards, and restrictions or incentives for further preventative

behavior from business and consumers. However, the behavior of these two groups will not

improve if the overall market signals are wrong. Implementation not only requires better

cooperation and negotiation with other sectors and with industry, but there will also be a need

in the future for someone who is entitled to negotiate on behalf of the environment, such as

environmental citizens’ organizations and naturally the respective environmental authorities.

Environmental legislation on targets and quality objectives are key starting points for

negotiating with industry and member states.

25

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 26

P

age1

8

Clean air and climate change policies show that a target led approach can acts as driving

force for improvement.26

I truly think that all the environmental policies are over-regulated and this has a huge

impact over the freedom itself, not only over the free-market, but over the freedom in its

essence. The freedom of revenue, the freedom of association (by imposing over-control taxes

and imposes in business and entrepreneurship).

Even so, environment, being one of the most regulated and successful policy field in the

EU I do not see other solution that to go ahead with it.

"Environmentally friendly cars will soon cease to be an option...they will become a necessity."

- Fujio Cho, President of Toyota Motors, North American International

Auto Show, 2004.

26

EU Environmental Policies: A short history of the policy strategies By Dr. Christian Hey, 2005

P

age1

9

Bibliography

"Amazon.com: Environmental Policy in the European Union (9781858983394): Pamela M.

Barnes, Ian G. Barnes: Books." Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel,

Computers, Books, DVDs & More. Web. 22 June 2011.

<http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Policy-European-Pamela-

Barnes/dp/1858983398>.

Borzel, Tanja. "Pace-setting, Foot-dragging, and Face-sitting: Member State Responses to

Europeanization." JCMS 40 (2002). Print.

Christoph Knill, Andrea Lenschow. "Implementing EU Environmental Policy: New Directions and

Old Problems." Google Books. Web. 19 June 2011.

<http://books.google.com/books?hl=en>.

Environmental Policy Review. Commission Communication (2005). Web. 2004.

"Europe 2020 - EU Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth." EUROPA - European

Commission - Homepage. Web. 21 June 2011.

<http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm>.

"Europe 2020 - EU Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth." EUROPA - European

Commission - Homepage. Web. 22 June 2011.

<http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm>.

"European Commission - Environment." EUROPA - European Commission - Homepage. Web. 18

June 2011. <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm>.

"European Commission - Environment." EUROPA - European Commission - Homepage. Web. 18

June 2011. <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm>.

"European Environmental Bureau / Publications." Welcome to the European Environmental

Bureau - EEB. Web. 23 June 2011.

<http://www.eeb.org/publication/policy_handbook.html>.

"European Environmental Policy and Its Effects on Free Trade." William & Mary Environmental

Law and Policy Review Volume 26.Article 8.

P

age2

0

"IEEP - Institute for European Environmental Policy - Introduction." IEEP - Institute for European

Environmental Policy - Home. Web. 16 June 2011. <http://www.ieep.eu/the-

manual/introduction/>.

McCormick, John. Environmental Policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001.

Print.

"Overview of EU Policy: Supporting Policy : Manual of European Environmental Policy." Home.

Web. 23 June 2011.

<http://www.europeanenvironmentalpolicy.eu/view/meep/MEEP_1101.xml>.

Piattoni, Simona. The Theory of Multi-level Governance: Conceptual, Empirical, and Normative

Challenges. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

"The Sustainable Development Strategy, the Lisbon Strategy, and the Europe 2020 Strategy :

Manual of European Environmental Policy." Home. Web. 23 June 2011.

<http://www.europeanenvironmentalpolicy.eu/view/meep/MEEP_0107.xml>.

"Sustainable Growth - for a Resource Efficient, Greener and More Competitive Economy."

EUROPA - European Commission - Homepage. Web. 21 June 2011.

<http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/priorities/sustainable-growth/index_en.htm>.

"Trade and the Environment." Encyclopedia of Earth. Web. 22 June 2011.

<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Trade_and_the_environment>.

Welcome to the European Environmental Bureau - EEB. Web. 22 June 2011.

<http://www.eeb.org/>.