Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

European Union Competences and Actions in International Environment Law: Recent Developments and Current Challenges

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2011

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 2))

  • 1238 Accesses

Abstract

To talk of current challenges in the Union’s competences in the field of international environment law is to talk about the enormity and urgency of the challenge facing the Member States and the Union in balancing economic growth with environmental and human health protection at EU and international levels. The Union’s economic development since World War II has been at the expense of the environment, as evidenced by current CO2 concentrations in the environment and the loss of biodiversity. The Member States and the Union have used a spread of tools to tackle the problems but without succeeding to reverse the trend of unsustainable development. The overarching current challenge facing the Union then, is to find ways for the Member States to move forward collectively in environmental actions so as to meet their objectives and commitments both within the Union and beyond it.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Oberthür/Pallemaerts, The EU’s Internal and External Climate Policies: a Historical Overview, in Oberthür/Pallemaerts (eds.), The New Climate Policies of the European Union, 2010, pp. 27–63 (53–55).

  2. 2.

    As predicted by the UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, to be found at http://www.ipcc.ch/home_languages_main_french.htm#21. The scientists recommend at least a 25% to 40% international commitment for industrialised countries by 2020.

  3. 3.

    Referring to the Stern Report, see Stern, Review on the Economics of Climate Change, 30 October 2006.

  4. 4.

    See Commission Communications A mid-term assessment of the EC biodiversity action plan, COM(2008) 864 of 16 December 2008 and Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010, COM(2010) 4 of 19 January 2010.

  5. 5.

    See European Parliament Resolution on the outcome of the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change (COP 15) of 10 February 2010. This paper was concluded in March 2010.

  6. 6.

    Since the Treaty of Lisbon, the principle of subsidiarity is now contained in Art. 5 TEU.

  7. 7.

    The fifth Accession Treaty was signed with the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Cyprus, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia on 16 April 2003, OJ 2003 L 236/1, as amended.

  8. 8.

    The sixth Accession Treaty was signed with Bulgaria and Romania on 25 April 2005, OJ 2005 L 157/1, as amended.

  9. 9.

    See Commission Communication A Citizen’s Agenda: Delivering Results for Europe, COM (2006) 211 of 10 May 2006.

  10. 10.

    See “The benefits of compliance with the environmental acquis for the candidate countries and their preparations for accession”, a Commission external service contract carried out by Ecotec Research and Consulting Limited, B7-8110/2000/159960/MAR/H1, in 2000, p. xxxix, to be found on the Europa website at www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enlarg/pdf/benefit_long.pdf.

  11. 11.

    See Art. 49 TEU.

  12. 12.

    See Inglis, The Europe Agreements compared in the light of their pre-accession re-orientation, CMLRev. 37 (2000), pp 1173–1210.

  13. 13.

    See for example Jans/Vedder, European Environment Law, 2008; Krämer, EC Environmental Law, 2006.

  14. 14.

    See Dashwood/Maresceau, Introduction, in: Dashwood/Maresceau (eds.), Law and Practice of EU External Relations: Salient Features of a Changing Landscape, 2008, p. 1 et. seq; see Maresceau, Bilateral Agreements Concluded by the European Community, 2006.

  15. 15.

    For the current consolidate version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (TFEU), go to http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF.

  16. 16.

    See further.

  17. 17.

    Decision 1600/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, OJ 2002 L 242/1; see Commission Communication on the Sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Community Environment 2010: Our future, our choice, COM(2001) 31 of 24 January 2001.

  18. 18.

    For the original strategy, since revised (see further in this contribution), see Conclusions 19 to of the Presidency Conclusions adopted by the 2001 Gothenburg European Council, to be found at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/background/docs/goteborg_concl_en.pdf.

  19. 19.

    COM(2005) 670 of 21 December 2005.

  20. 20.

    See Commission Communication, Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being, COM(2006) 216 of 22 May 2006. The Union also provides support for third countries in implementing the international Convention on Biological Diversity and funds such efforts through contributions to the Global Environmental Facility.

  21. 21.

    The five priorities are: to assist developing countries to make better progress on integrating environmental sustainability in decision making and thus underpin achievement of all the Millennium Development Goals by building capacity, supporting the involvement of civil society and developing innovative approaches; promoting implementation of Community initiatives and agreed commitments (including those under Multilateral Environmental Agreements) on environment and sustainable management of natural resources, including energy at international and regional level and across national boundaries; improving environmental integration and promoting coherence in EU policies affecting third countries through methodological work and enhancing expertise; promoting EU environmental policies abroad by strengthening international environmental governance, negotiation and monitoring, assisting the operation of MEAs and other processes, supporting coherent international policy development across the three pillars of sustainable development; promoting EU energy policies abroad, in particular sustainable energy options in partner countries and regions by support for policy development and through innovative funding mechanisms.

  22. 22.

    To be found at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10917.en06.pdf.

  23. 23.

    See COM(2006) 20 of 25 January 2006.

  24. 24.

    COM(2006) 20 of 25 January 2006, p. 3.

  25. 25.

    See www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/international_issues/….

  26. 26.

    See The Action Plan of 15 June 2003, pp. 1–2.

  27. 27.

    See Commission Mid-term review of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, COM(2007) 225 of 30 April 2007, p. 29.

  28. 28.

    See European Parliament Resolution on the mid-term review of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme (2007/2204(INI)) of 10 April 2008; see also “MEPs lament poor EU progress to 2012 green goals”, ENDSEurope of 12 February 2008.

  29. 29.

    See EEB Response to the Mid-Term Review of the 6EAP, to be found at http://www.eeb.org/publication/EEB-response-to-the-Mid-Term-Review-of-6EAP-130607.pdf.

  30. 30.

    Facing the Challenge: the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment, November 2004, p. 6.

  31. 31.

    See Council Press Release 7652/1/08 of 28 May 2008; see also “The Lisbon Strategy gets social makeover”, 18 March 2008, to be found at www.EurActiv.com.

  32. 32.

    See Commisison Communication, 2009 Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development, COM(2009) 400 of 24 July 2009.

  33. 33.

    Commission staff working document accompanying Communication, Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen, SEC(2009) 101 of 28 January 2009.

  34. 34.

    See Commission Communication on an EU Strategy for supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries, 23 February 2009 and Council Conclusions on a Community framework on disaster prevention within the EU of 30 November 2009; see also Commission Communication on a Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters, COM(2009) 82 of 4 March 2009.

  35. 35.

    COM(2008) 588 of 24 September 2008.

  36. 36.

    See Council Conclusions on Integrating Environment into Development Co-operation, 25 June 2009, where the Council variously supports Union action under the Commission’s Staff Working Paper SEC(2001) 609 of April 2001 as well as the SDS.

  37. 37.

    For full information see the Europa website, http://ec.europa.eu/development/policies/9interventionareas/environment/forest/forestry_intro_en.cfm.

  38. 38.

    See COM(2010) 2020 of 3 March 2010.

  39. 39.

    SEC(2010) 114 of 2 February 2010.

  40. 40.

    See SEC(2010) 114 of 2 February, p. 5.

  41. 41.

    According the Glynn Evans of the European Commission DG Research, speaking at The 4th Annual Brussels Climate Change Conference 2008, noted that the EU invested four times in energy RTD in 1980 compared to what it invested in 2005, i.e. EUR 8.000 million then and EUR 2.000 million in 2005.

  42. 42.

    For the content of the legislative package see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action.htm.

  43. 43.

    See Explanatory Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee, Outlook for the Sustainable Development Strategy, NAT/440 of 5 November 2009.

  44. 44.

    See Commission Communication Tackling the Challenge of Rising Food Prices, COM(2008) 321 of 20 May 2008. A Commission action plan was adopted on 28 October 2009 to improve the functioning of the food supply chain in Europe, COM(2009) 591 of 28 October 2009. For EU external food security actions, see http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/index_en.htm.

  45. 45.

    See COM(2010) 114, op. cit. n. 30.

  46. 46.

    To quote Javier Solana, the EU High representative for the Common Foreign and Security policy, speaking at the EU Energy Conference held in Brussels on 20 November 2006: “The scramble for territory of the past may be replaced by a scramble for energy. We have to take our energy from where we find it. Although energy markets are increasingly global, much of the world’s gas and oil reserves lie in unstable and often undemocratic parts of the world.”

  47. 47.

    See European Commission Green Paper on Energy Efficiency or Doing More With Less, COM (2005) 265 of 26 June 2005.

  48. 48.

    SEC(2006) 105, 8 March 2006.

  49. 49.

    Commission Press release, European Strategy for Energy: opportunities and challenges, Speech 07/109 of 26 February 2007.

  50. 50.

    COM(2007) 1 of 10 January 2007.

  51. 51.

    The full extent of policy and legislative measures can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action.htm.

  52. 52.

    See Youngs, Energy Security: Europe’s New Foreign Policy Challenge, 2009.

  53. 53.

    See Kremer/Müller-Kraenner, Europe’s green diplomacy: Global climate governance is a test case for Europe, IPGlobal, pp. 29, to be found at http://www.ip-global.org/archiv/volumes/volume-11-2010/after-lisbon/europe---s-green-diplomacy.html.

  54. 54.

    See Hillion, The EU’s Neighbourhood Policy towards Eastern Europe, in: Dashwood/Maresceau (eds.), Law and Practice of EU External Relations: Salient Features of a Changing Landscape, 2008.

  55. 55.

    Commission Communication Eastern Partnership, COM(2008) 823 of 3 December 2008.

  56. 56.

    Commission Communication Eastern Partnership, COM(2008) 823 of 3 December 2008, p. 12.

  57. 57.

    See Commission Press Release IP/09/1718 ”The EU and Russia reinforce the Early Warning Mechanism to improve prevention and management in case of an energy crisis” of 16 November 2009. The mechanism itself can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/international/bilateral_cooperation/russia/doc/reports/2009_11_16_ewm_signed_en.pdf.

  58. 58.

    See Commission Communication Reforming the European Union for the 21st Century, COM (2007) 412 of 10 July 2007.

  59. 59.

    For a general introduction to the Treaty of Lisbon see Dougan, The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: winning minds, not hearts, CMLRev. 45 (2008), pp. 617 et seq.

  60. 60.

    See press release of 27 November 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/hedegaard/about/mandate/hedegaard_climate_en.pdf; for other organisational consequences, see Commission Press Release IP/10/164 “Commission creates two new Directorates-General for Energy and Climate Action” of 17 February 2010.

  61. 61.

    See Krämer, Some reflections on the EU mix of instruments on climate change, in Peeters and Deketelaere (eds.), EU Climate Change Policy, 2006, pp. 279–296 (284–285). Various Members of the European Parliament involved in the climate change and energy package, however, were critical of the separation between the energy and climate port-folios, see Letter of 7 May 2009, by Avril Doyle MEP et al., to President Baroso.

  62. 62.

    See Dougan, The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: winning minds, not hearts, CMLRev. 45 (2008), pp. 663–671; see also Rossi, How Fundamental is a Fundamental Principle? Primacy and Fundamental Rights after the Lisbon Treaty, Yearbook of European Law 2008, pp. 65–89.

  63. 63.

    Speaking at the conference on 19 November 2009 on Environmental Law and Policy in the European Union: the legacy of the Treaty of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam.

  64. 64.

    See Wouters et al., Study for the Assessment of the EU’s role in International Maritime Organisations, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, April 2009.

  65. 65.

    See Burchell/Lightfoot, The Greening of the European Union, 2001, pp. 98–100.

  66. 66.

    Environmental taxes are the most cost-effective instruments for achieving environmental objectives. They encourage actors to allocate their resources more efficiently than would be the case with the command and control approach, which is established in terms of quantifiable results. Revenue tends to go to the general national budget and not for environmental ends. See EEAg Report Market Based Instruments for environmental policy in Europe, 2006, pp. 40–49.

  67. 67.

    See EEAg Report Market Based Instruments for environmental policy in Europe, 2006, p. 8.

  68. 68.

    See Commission Communication on the Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures, COM(2009) 665 of 2 December 2009. In the Annex 4 list accompanying the Commission’s interpretative guidance on ToL, a 75 page and non-exhaustive list of proposals that are already in the legislative pipeline will be affected.

  69. 69.

    See the drafting of Art. 42 and 43(3) TFEU; see also European Parliament, The CAP and the Treaty of Lisbon, 1 August 2008, to be found at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_4.2.9.pdf.

  70. 70.

    Commission Communication, Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture (Volume III), COM (2001) 162 of 27 March 2001.

  71. 71.

    See EEAg, Distribution and targeting of the CAP budget from a biodiversity perspective, Technical Report 12/2009.

  72. 72.

    Ludwig Krämer speaking on November 19th, 2009 on Environmental Law and Policy in the European Union: the legacy of the Treaty of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, see further at subsection c).

  73. 73.

    See Burns/Carter, Is Co-decision good for the environment? An analysis of the Parliament’s Green Credentials, Political Science Studies, Vol. 58, pp. 123–142. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122421584/abstract.

  74. 74.

    Reference to the Commission being ‘fully associated’ (contained in ex-Art. 18(4) TEU) have now been deleted.

  75. 75.

    For the Guidelines, see Council Press Release 14930/49 of 23 October 2009, to be found at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st14/st14930.en09.pdf.

  76. 76.

    See Art. 27(3) TEU and Declaration 15 to the TOL.

  77. 77.

    For an analysis of various options, see CEPS Working Paper 28, The EU Foreign Service: how to build a more effective common policy, November 2007.

  78. 78.

    See Council Conclusions on Integrating Environment into Development Co-operation, 25 June 2009, where the Council variously supports Union action under the Commission’s Staff Working Paper SEC(2001) 609 of April 2001 as well as the SDS.

  79. 79.

    See van Schaik, The Sustainability of the EU’s Model for Climate Diplomacy, in: Oberthür/Pallemaerts (eds.), The New Climate Policies of the European Union, 2010, pp. 251–280 (264–269); see also Schunz/ Happaerts/van den Brande, European Union Foreign Policy and Global Climate Change: towards a Comprehensive European Climate Diplomacy, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, October 2009.

  80. 80.

    ECJ Case C-94/03, Commission v. Council, [2006] ECR I-1 and ECJ Case C-178/03, Commission v. European Parliament, [2006] ECR I-107.

  81. 81.

    See Cremona, Defining competence in EU external relations, in: Dashwood/Maresceau (eds.), Law and Practice of EU External Relations: Salient Features of a Changing Landscape, 2008, pp. 34–69. Relevant case law referred to includes ECJ Opinion 2/2000, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, [2001] ECR I-9713; ECJ Case C-281/01, Commission v. Council – Energy Star Agreement, [2002] ECR I-12049.

  82. 82.

    See Cremona, Ibid. at p. 69.

  83. 83.

    Müller-Graff, The CCP enhanced by Reform Treaty of Lisbon?, in: Dashwood/Maresceau (eds.), Law and Practice of EU External Relations: Salient Features of a Changing Landscape, 2008, pp. 188–201 (198–199).

  84. 84.

    See notes 72 and 73 above.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent University, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Kirstyn Inglis

Authors
  1. Kirstyn Inglis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kirstyn Inglis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. LS für Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht,, Europarecht, Europäisches und, Universität Passau, Innstr. 39, Passau, 94032, Germany

    Christoph Herrmann

  2. , School of Law, University of Hamburg, Rothenbaumchaussee 33, Hamburg, 20148, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Inglis, K. (2011). European Union Competences and Actions in International Environment Law: Recent Developments and Current Challenges. In: Herrmann, C., Terhechte, J. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2011. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(), vol 2. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14432-5_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation