1. Hey

2.  Since 1972  The 1 st EAP (1973-1976) was decided  The first community-wide ENV policy  Need for comprehensive assessment of the impacts of other policies in an effort to avoid damaging activities  Optimism prevailed, but frustration resulted  Research oriented on defining the objectives, criteria  Based on the protection of single environmental media (water, air, soil etc.)

3.  In the 2 nd (1977-1981)  follow-up of the 1 st EAP  Quality values for water and air  Economic recession (1975-78, 1981-83) made ENV policy unachievable  Framework directives for water and air and waste  DG XI(environment) are newly separated from DG for industry in 1981

4.  3 rd (1982-87) and 4 th (1987-92) EAPs related to the completion of the Internal Market ◦ Environmental emission standards to be harmonized to avoid distortions to industry competitiveness ◦ Product regulations (not to be a NTB)  Shift from a quality approach to an emission- oriented approach-formulating emission limit value  Clean-air policies and noise and risk management for industrial sites. ◦ Strong emission control policies pushed by Germany and others

5.  1987 is a turning point. Why? ◦ ENV received its own chapter in the treaty (Single European Act) ◦ Existing rules and principles are reflected  A “high level of harmonization” is necessary. How high? Why? ◦ Objective of the Internal market vs. environmental protection  A shift in approach ◦ From (media) quality objectives to more integrated approach ◦ ENV Protection not an additive, but as an integrated activity within the whole production process

6.  Sectoral approach considered  Ideas of Incentive based instruments (taxes, subsidies or tradable permits) discussed newly  Paradigmatic change in ENV POL! What, Why? ◦ SD, a normative reference for ENV POL since 1990s ◦ Win-win ◦ A new development model, the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment (CEC 1993)

7.  Other external factors for such change  1) Climate change issue =>  The end of pipe approach no more applicable ◦ Need for long-term approach, structural change (new patterns in prod & consumption), multi-sectoral approach in CO2 emission control, and integrated efficient technology  2) The EU’s new leadership in international negotiation  3) call for market-based instruments (based on neo-liberal wave) : taxes, subsidies, tradable permits vs “command & control”  4) wave of environmentalism in Europe; green parties, NGO capabilities improved.

8.  Aim at SD after the Brundtland Report  Sectoral approach focused vs the end of pipe approach  Market based instruments such as fiscal incentives or voluntary instruments  Concensus-oriented approach, role of NGOs and local and regional authorities  Medium- and long-term objectives  ==  a policy oriented towards “ecological structural change”

9.  Since 1992 UNCED, downward cycle of environmental policies  The competitiveness of industries and decentralization of ENV POL were raised  Energy/CO2 tax finally rejected as a Community tax in 1994  Ambitious directives modified and delayed  Nations demanded to re-nationalize ENV POLs according to the subsidiary principle  Reasons for Roll-back: the limits to European integration in ENV POLs. 1) overly optimistic  2)the pending econ crisis made members reluctant to accept overall structural change

10.  different, partially contradictory trends in policies  “Sustainability” as a community target, in Cardiff process  The revival of environmental legislation in the late 1990s ◦ New complex and holistic framework legislation ◦ Revision and modernization of the programs ◦ Introduction of new ENV POL Instruments ◦ Strengthening civil society rights, NGOs  The three Aarhus pillars?

11.  Thematic strategies on key issues (themes) ◦ Pesticides, resources, recycling, soils, the urban environment, the marine environment, and clean air etc.  Cooperative approach with industries ◦ Integrated product policies, VAs, wider use of standardization of ENV POLs, etc ◦ Focus on private and public professionals’ roles ◦ Insufficient funds ◦ Problems about Implementations of such programs-> NATO?  See page 252, the article by Cong Fu ◦ SD refocused, Lisbon Agenda

12.  Stakeholder consultation process in evaluation and modification of ENV POLs