Advertisement

Chemicals: Pioneering Ambitions with External Effects

  • Katja Biedenkopf
Chapter
Part of the The European Union in International Affairs book series (EUIA)

Abstract

The European Union has evolved as relatively ambitious driver of internal and external chemicals policy. It has been an active participant in international negotiations, oftentimes advocating comparatively ambitious multilateral chemicals treaties. Strong domestic EU chemicals policy provides a solid baseline for the Union’s international engagement, generating a unified common position and activities. The EU’s large global chemicals market share and the high degree of globalisation of the chemicals industry lend the EU a certain degree of leverage to alter non-EU countries’ utility calculations. This can lead to increased receptiveness of certain countries to engage in dialogue and capacity building provided by the EU. Yet, the international policy context and positions of other major players such as the USA and China have conditioned the EU’s effectiveness.

References

  1. Allanou, Remi, Bjorn G. Hansen, and Yvonne Van Der Bilt. 2003a. Public Availability of Data on EU High Production Volume Chemicals—Part 1. Chimica Oggi (Chemistry Today) 21 (6): 91–95.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2003b. Public Availability of Data on EU High Production Volume Chemicals—Part 2. Chimica Oggi (Chemistry Today) 21 (7): 59–64.Google Scholar
  3. Andresen, Steinar, Kristin Rosendal, and Jon Birger Skjærseth. 2013. Why Negotiate a Legally Binding Mercury Convention? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 13 (4): 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biedenkopf, Katja. 2013. Assessing Possibilities for Enhanced EU-South Korea Cooperation on Chemicals Regulation. In EU-Korea Relations in a Changing World, ed. Axel Marx, Jan Wouters, Woosik Moon, Yeongseop Rhee, Sunhee Park, and Matthieu Burnay, 167–193. Leuven and Seoul: Joint Project by the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, KU Leuven and the Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2015. EU Chemicals Regulation: Extending Its Experimentalist REACH. In Extending Experimentalist Governance? The European Union and Transnational Regulation, ed. Jonathan Zeitlin, 107–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2016. The EU in Global Chemicals Governance. In The European Union’s Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective. Beyond the “Actorness and Power” Debate, ed. Ingo Peters, 61–79. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Biedenkopf, Katja, and DaeYoung Park. 2012. A Toxic Issue? Leadership in Comprehensive Chemicals Management. In Environmental Leadership: A Reference Handbook, ed. Deborah Rigling Gallagher, 782–795. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cefic. 2012. The European Chemical Industry in Worldwide Perspective. Facts and Figures. Brussels: The European Chemical Council.Google Scholar
  9. Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie, and Janet Welsh Brown. 2014. Global Environmental Politics. Vol. 6. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chemical Watch. 2011. Asian Economies Set Pace on Chemicals Management. Monthly Briefing July/August 2011: 25–26.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2013. REACH Passes Second Registration Deadline. https://chemicalwatch.com/15073/reach-passes-second-registration-deadline. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.
  12. ———. 2016a. EU-South Korea Data Trading Systems Launch. https://chemicalwatch.com/48068/eu-south-korea-data-trading-systems-launch. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.
  13. ———. 2016b. TTIP Negotiations ‘Useful’ on Priority Chemicals, Says Commission. https://chemicalwatch.com/45997/ttip-negotiations-useful-on-priority-chemicals-says-commission. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.
  14. Delreux, Tom. 2011. The EU as International Environmental Negotiator. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  15. Dreher, Kelly, and Simone Pulver. 2008. Environment as ‘High Politics’? Explaining Divergence in US and EU Hazardous Waste Export Policies. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 17 (3): 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission. 2013. Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. COM(2013) 100 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2014. Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. COM(2014) 109 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2015. Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. COM(2015) 139 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2016. Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. COM(2016) 268 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  20. Fallström Mujkic, Pia. 2012. Chemicals Legislation Changing in Asia. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Newsletter 3: 12–13.Google Scholar
  21. Hagen, Paul E., and Michael P. Walls. 2005. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Natural Resources and Environment 19 (4): 49–52.Google Scholar
  22. Hansen, Bjorn G., and Mark Blainey. 2006. REACH: A Step Change in the Management of Chemicals. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 15 (3): 270–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen, Steffen Foss, Lars Carlsen, and Joel A. Tickner. 2007. Chemicals Regulation and Precaution: Does REACH Really Incorporate the Precautionary Principle. Environmental Science & Policy 10: 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karlaganis, Georg, Renato Marioni, Ivo Sieber, and Andreas Weber. 2001. The Elaboration of the ‘Stockholm Convention’ on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs): A Negotiation Process Fraught with Obstacles and Opportunities. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 8 (3): 216–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karlsson, Mikael. 2010. The Precautionary Principle in EU and US Chemicals Policy: A Comparison of Industrial Chemicals Legislation. In Regulating Chemical Risks. European and Global Challenges, ed. Johan Eriksson, Michael Gilek, and Christina Rudén, 239–266. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krueger, Jonathan, and Henrik Selin. 2002. Governance for Sound Chemicals Management: The Need for a More Comprehensive Global Strategy. Global Governance 8 (3): 323–342.Google Scholar
  27. Lavenex, Sandra. 2004. EU External Governance in ‘Wider Europe’. Journal of European Public Policy 11 (4): 680–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liefferink, Duncan, and Rüdiger K. W. Wurzel. 2016. Environmental Leaders and Pioneers: Agents of Change? Journal of European Public Policy, Online First, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1161657.
  29. Löfstedt, Ragnar E. 2014. The Precautionary Principle in the EU: Why a Formal Review is Long Overdue. Risk Management 16 (3): 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schomaker, Astrid, and Christina de Avila. 2009. REACH: Towards the Safer Management of Chemicals. Chemistry International 31 (4): 15–18.Google Scholar
  31. Schwarzman, Megan R., and Michael P. Wilson. 2009. Reshaping Chemicals Policy on Two Sides of the Atlantic. In Handling Global Challenges. Managing Biodiversity and Biosafety in a Global World. EU, US, California and Comparative Perspectives, ed. Jo Swinnen, David Vogel, Axel Marx, Heddy Riss, and Jan Wouters, 306–326. Leuven: Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies.Google Scholar
  32. Scott, Joanne. 2009. REACH: Combining Harmonization and Dynamism in the Regulation of Chemicals. In Environmental Protection: European Law and Governance, ed. Joanne Scott, 56–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Selin, Henrik. 2010. Global Governance of Hazardous Chemicals. Challenges of Multilevel Management. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2013. Global Chemicals Politics and Policy. In The Handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy, ed. Robert Falkner, 107–123. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 2014. Global Environmental Law and Treaty-Making on Hazardous Substances: The Minamata Convention and Mercury Abatement. Global Environmental Politics 14 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steel, Daniel. 2011. Extrapolation, Uncertainty Factors, and the Precautionary Principle. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42: 356–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vogel, David. 1997. Trading Up and Governing Across: Transnational Governance and Environmental Protection. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (4): 556–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ———. 2012. The Politics of Precaution. Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams, Spencer E., Julie Panko, and Dennis J. Paustenbach. 2009. The European Union’s REACH Regulation: A Review of Its History and Requirements. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 39 (7): 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katja Biedenkopf
    • 1
  1. 1.LINES, University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations