14010331Questions1. Discuss how the United Nations and the European Union seek to manage environmental problems.2. Critically explore mandatory, voluntary and economic approaches to environmental problem solving, with you considering the variables that determine their selection.

Answer for Question 1Rapid human expansion and economic development have produced large amounts of pollution which many experts believe are reasons behind the increasing occurrence of natural disasters and global phenomena (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013). Vig (2005) points out how the level of public concern for the environment is the strongest it has ever been in the past century. Since environmental issues extend beyond the local level, a collective and multinational effort is required if environmental complications are to be addressed effectively. The international communitys response to global environmental issues is influenced and led by the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) (ONeill, 2014). This essay highlights the roles of the UN and the EU in international environmental governance and discusses the main actors which function within them.Global governance implies cooperation among nations in a particular area of interest and the success of any multinational initiative is judged based on how much cooperation that member nations have provided (Kardam, 1999). The UN and its actors have been a medium for various efforts in global environmental governance. Although the UN was not formed with the environment in mind, it is credited with bringing environmental protection to the global agenda with the pivotal 1972 Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm which led to the founding of the sole environmental advocate to provide an international focus for environmental matters namely the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (Birnie, 2000; Ellis & Wood, 2006). Being the first major UN agency located in a developing nation, UNEP can be accredited with a long list of successes which is extraordinary given the lack of resources and authority that UNEP was initially given. These include the Regional Seas Programme, the Montreal Process, and the Convention for Biological Diversity (Haas, 1990; Benedick, 1992; Parson, 1993; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2005). In fact, UNEP was critical in the proposal of the Brundtland Commission which provided a conceptual framework for nations to embrace sustainable development (UN, 1987).The importance of UNEP in fostering international collaboration on the environment should not be understated because most other agencies within the UN were not concerned with the condition of the environment at the time. In the Regional Seas Programme, UNEP managed to lobby agreements from various nations to protect marine resources. Furthermore, in the Montreal Process and the Convention for Biological Diversity, the UNEP acted as a catalyst to present the issues of ozone layer depletion and conservation of biological diversity, respectively, in terms of a common good to all parties involved. A lack of collaboration towards this common good would result in a collective loss for everyone involved which creates a solid incentive for nations to collaborate. Another important factor for international collaboration is pressure exerted from either UN actors, other UN nations or, to an extent, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGO). In fact, powerful members of the UN such as the United States, Russia and China are able to influence cooperation of other nations with close ties to them because of economic or political reasons.It is also important to note the dynamics of different regulatory instruments that operate within the UN namely traditional tools such as mandatory regulations and new tools such as voluntary or financial regulations (Wurzel et al., 2013). One important example of mandatory tools or hard laws is the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which required nations who have ratified the treaty to reduce their collective greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 5% of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012 (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2008). Although the Kyoto Protocol did not manage to stop the rise of global GHG emissions, it was a pioneering piece of mandatory legislation in global environmental diplomacy which enabled a new pathway for stabilising the output of annual GHG (Hhne, 2005). A direct result and extension of the Kyoto Protocol is the Doha Amendment which represents a second period of commitment from UN member nations to reducing GHG emissions from 2013 to 2020. On the other hand, newer forms of environmental governance or soft laws provide alternative pathways for policy success in the field of the environment. The most famous of these soft laws is the voluntary action plan known as Agenda 21 which materialised as a result of the Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This non-binding agreement asks 178 nations who initially signed the agenda to adopt more sustainable practices that transcend international, national and local levels (Connelly, Smith, Benson & Saunders, 2012). Another actor working on a multinational level to promote the environment is the EU. The EU stance on environmental protection dates back to the 1972 Paris Declaration of the then European Economic Communities (EEC) which proposed the creation of the first environmental action programme (EAP) (EEC, 1972). These EAPs set out Europes environmental policy direction with the latest EAP currently in the seventh of its kind (EU, 2014). However, provisions for a legal basis of environmental protection in the EU did not surface until 1986 with the introduction of the Single European Act which provides an explicit Treaty base for environmental action (Lee, 2005). With these new frameworks in place, the EU was given more power to proactively decide and act on intergovernmental environmental issues. In a similar fashion to the UN, the EU also utilises both hard laws and soft laws namely the regulatory, voluntary and financial tools to deal with environmental issues. The process of making EU legislation is due to 4 important parties. The first of these is the executive arm of the EU namely the European Commission which is the initiator of legislative measures. It does so by assessing the economic, social and environmental impacts of any proposed policy by consulting NGOs, local councils or the public (Spence & Edwards, 2006). The next important role in policy-making is jointly attributed to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, named the Council, both of which debate on the proposal made by the Commission and propose amendments until a consensus is reached between them (Corbett, Jacobs & Shackleton, 2011). The final actor is the European Court of Justice or ECJ which interprets and applies the law which has been passed by the previously mentioned processes. One of the ways in which the ECJ achieves this is by carrying out proceedings against any EU member state which does not comply with EU law. An example would be the case of European Commission v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2009) where the United Kingdom (UK) failed to identify sensitive eutrophication water bodies and did not implement more stringent discharge regulations to protect these areas which was charged by the ECJ.

Figure 1.1. Power structure of the EU showing the different interactions between key EU actors. Extracted from Mroczkowski (2014).Wurzel, Zito and Jordan (2013) point out that much of the EU relies on hard laws or mandatory command-and-control measures to address environmental problems where environmental guidelines are legally enforced in countries to a degree of success such as Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. An example of such a tool is the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) Directive which sets a variety of industrial emissions standards for EU member states (Defra, 2010). The counterpart of the hard law is the soft law which had made much progress in environmental policy-making such as voluntary or financial instruments. Voluntary instruments such as information dissemination involves informing the public on the environmental impacts of a certain product or service (Jordan & Liefferink, 2004). On the other hand, financial instruments such as emissions trading scheme (ETS) which is comprised of emission allowances that are traded among companies on a market (Dales, 1968). As a conclusion, the UN has paved the way for other international organisations, particularly the EU, to establish environmental protection as a main priority in the decision making process. UNEP, as UNs main environmental body, has proven itself to be a key player in international environmental governance by acting as a mediator between parties and steering the direction of global environmental policy. On a smaller scale, the EU has united European countries in tackling environmental issues as well as serving as role models for development of environmental governance in other parts of the world. However, the UN and EU need to devise solutions to balance the economy with the environment in order to ensure sustainability of Earths resources.

(1378 words)

ReferencesBenedick, R. (1992). Ozone diplomacy: New directions in safeguarding the planet. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Parson, E. A. (1993). In Haas, P. M., Keohane, R. O. & Levy, M. (Eds.), Institutions for the Earth: Sources of effective international environmental protection. (pp. 27-74). Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Birnie, P., Boyle, A. & Redgwell, C. (2009). International law and the environment. (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Connelly, J., Smith, G., Benson, D. & Saunders, C. (2012). Politics and the environment: From theory to practice. (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Corbett, R., Jacobs, F. & Shackleton, M. (2011). The European Parliament. (8th ed.). London: John Harper Publishing.Dales, J. (1968). Pollution, property and prices. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2010). Environmental permitting guidance: The IPPC Directive. London: HMSO.Ellis, J. & Wood, S. (2006). International environmental law. In Richardson, B. J. & Wood, S. (Eds.), Environmental law for sustainability. Oxford: Hart Publishing.European Commission v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, C-390/07 (EUECJ 2009).European Economic Community. (1957). Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community. Rome: European Economic Community.European Union. (2014). General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020: Living well, within the limits of our planet. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Haas, P. (1990). Saving the Mediterranean: The politics of international environmental co-operation. New York: Columbia University Press.Hhne, N. (2005). Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on stabilization of carbon dioxide concentration. In Scientific Symposium Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Exeter: United Kingdom Meteorological Office.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Jordan, A. & Liefferink, D. (Eds.). (2004). Environmental policy in Europe: The Europeanisation of national environmental policy. London: Routledge.Kardam, N. (November, 1999). Institutional mechanisms and global governance. Paper presented at the Beijing +5 Future Action and Initiatives Workshop, Beirut.Lee, M. (2005). EU environmental law: Challenges, change and decision-making. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Mroczkowski, G. (2014). How do we matter in the EU? Retrieved June, 1, 2015 from http://batumi14.com/how-do-we-matter-in-the-eu/ONeill, K. (2014). Architects, agitators and entrepreneurs: International and nongovernmental organizations in global environmental politics. In Axelrod, R. S. & VanDeveer, S. D. (Eds.), The global environment: Institutions, law and policy. (4th ed.). (pp. 157-186). London: Sage Publications.Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2005). Handbook of the convention on biological diversity including its Cartagena protocol on biosafety. (3rd ed.). Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological DiversitySpence, D. & Edwards, G. (Eds.). The European Commission. (3rd ed.). London: John Harper Publishing.United Nations. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: General Assembly resolution 42/187. Retrieved January, 15, 2015 from http://www.un-documents.net/a42r187.htmUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2008). Kyoto protocol reference manual on accounting of emissions and assigned amount. Bonn: UNFCC.Vig, N. J. (2005). Introduction: Governing the international environment. In Axelrod, R. S., Downie, D. L. & Vig, N. J. (Eds.), The global environment: Institutions, law and policy. (2nd ed.). (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Wurzel, R. K. W., Zita, A. R. & Jordan, A. J. (2013). Environmental governance in Europe: A comparative analysis of new environmental policy instruments. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Answer for Question 2The nature of environmental issues may range in nature from local to regional to global. Solutions to these problems depend on the resource availability, economic realities, local traditions and technology levels which vary from location to location (Jahren & Sui, 2014). Therefore, it is important to realise that a wide array of tools are required when trying to provide sustainable and realistic solutions for environmental problems. Over the course of history, governments across the globe have utilised mandatory, voluntary and economic measures to control environmental issues. This essay will critically discuss each of these approaches to look into how they function in environmental problem solving, their advantages and disadvantages as well as the reasons for their selection in different countries.Mandatory instruments involve state authorised bodies steering any activities under its jurisdiction towards achieving certain environmental objectives which have been set in the countrys legislation (Howlett, 2011). These steering methods consist of prohibitions, design standards, permits, licenses and protective zoning to name a few. The use of regulatory practices produces a sense of normalising and guaranteeing as highlighted by De Bruin and Hufen (1998) which, in theory, means that any environmental objectives set by the government should be achieved due to the presence of monitoring and enforcement. However, in practice, these environmental aims are sometimes not achieved in the set period because of legal loopholes or lapses in enforcement. One such example is shown in the case of European Commission v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2009) in which the United Kingdom (UK) was charged with failing to identify sensitive eutrophication water bodies and a lack of implementing more stringent discharge regulations to protect these areas. The adoption of the regulatory approach relies on the policy style of the countrys government in question. Germany, Austria and the Netherlands have an interventionist style of policy while the UK is more of a policy-improviser (Wurzel, Zito & Jordan, 2013). Nevertheless, these two policy styles require certain rules to be imposed and conditions be met which influences the adoption of mandatory tools to address environmental issues. Although this approach is considered rigid and inflexible, a certain degree of success can be achieved through mandatory policy instruments. Despite some setbacks, regulatory approaches have seen significant success and improvement in countries such as Germany, Austria and the Netherlands all of which rely on interventionist type action to address environmental concerns (Bressers & Plettenburg, 1997; Lauber, 2001; Pesendorfer, 2007). In fact, as Figure 2.1 highlights, mandatory instruments are important in that they form the framework to which other governance tools rely upon to function effectively.

Figure 2.1. Various regulatory instruments and the evolution from traditional to new. Extracted from KPMG Global Sustainability Services (2006). A philosophical opposite to the mandatory approach is the voluntary approach which, instead of a top-down command-and-control style of regulation, promotes a more horizontal orientated form of self-coordination. Wurzel et al. (2013) characterises the emergence of voluntary policy instruments as a shift from the traditional mandatory approach towards the adoption of new government tools. Micheletti, Follesdal and Stolle (2004) point out how high levels of environmental awareness among the public represent strong incentives for companies to adopt eco-label schemes or environmental management systems (EMS) in order to keep up with a competition-driven market. The first of these eco-label schemes to see significant success was the pioneering German Blue Angel label established in 1978 which went on to inspire the creation of national eco-labels in other European Union (EU) countries such as the Nordic Swan label of the Nordic states, the Austrian eco-label and the EU eco-label (Jordan et al., 2004). These eco-labels are said to promote the purchasing of products and services with a smaller environmental impact as well as encourage other companies to follow suit. However, some problems with multiple eco-labels in the same country have existed. For example, the creation of the EU-wide eco label has caused confusion among consumers and diluted the effect that eco-labels have on the progress of sustainable development. Jordan et al. (2004) points out that the adoption of eco-labels is influenced by market competitiveness rather than the objective of changing consumer behaviour. Thus, most countries in the EU have their own eco-label which overshadow the EU eco-label and a lack of public awareness regarding the EU eco-label has further reduced its market presence. A similar situation exists with the EU-bred EMS known as the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). Kollman and Prakash (2002) point out how, ironically, the UK as the pioneer of EMSs and has shaped the evolution of EMAS, but the less stringent and more globally-recognised ISO 14001 has overtaken EMAS adoption in the UK specifically and the EU in general. Therefore, it is evident that the success of voluntary instruments utilised by governments to address environmental issues are driven more by market factors rather than idealistic moral suasion factors such as promoting sustainable development. Nevertheless, as Figure 2.2 shows, the transformation from mandatory to regulatory offers opportunities to innovate on the rigid mandatory system and find better methods of environmental regulation.

Figure 2.2. As governance tools shift from regulatory to voluntary, so too does compliance become innovation. Extracted from KPMG Global Sustainability Services (2010).An indirect response to the shortcomings of the voluntary approach to environmental problem solving is the emergence of economic policy instruments which attempt to quantify the value of the environment in financial terms. The most prevalent of these initiatives is the introduction of taxes based on emissions or activities that relate to the pollution of the environment. Tindale and Holtham (1996) point out how the UKs Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, Lloyd George, introduced a petrol tax in 1909 which is considered the worlds first environmental tax. However, this tax was not enacted with the benefit of the environment in mind, rather it was to eliminate poverty among the British public (Lee, 2008). It was not until the late 1970s that a Dutch tax on sewage, originally intended to fund public sewage treatment works, had unintentionally caused some companies to reduce their pollution output in order to mitigate the amount of tax they had to pay (Andersen, 1994). The Netherlands took advantage of this discovery to introduce national taxes on water and air pollution which was followed by other EU nations including Germany, the Nordic states and France (Wurzel et al., 2013). Zito (2000) points out how attempts to introduce a significant EU wide eco-tax were hampered by member states who opposed the idea based on fiscal issues. While eco-taxes did not take off in the EU with much success, another concept was better received by the EU member states and is known as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The concept of an ETS is characterised by emission allowances which are traded among companies on a market that is theoretically controlled by a countrys policy makers who set the total national emissions released (Dales, 1968). Denmark was the first to have the concept of an ETS covering carbon dioxide for its power stations as early as 1999 followed by the UK in 2002 with an ETS covering all six greenhouse gases (Department for Environment and Rural Affairs, 2003; Pedersen, 2003). However, even though the EU ETS is a financial tool, it cannot exist without mandatory regulation forming its framework and enabling it to operate. Moreover, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have also raised concern that ETSs allowed companies to continue producing pollution instead of reducing it. As a conclusion, the diverse set of tools available to policy makers allows them to select the most suitable one for the situation at hand. In fact, the combination of different types of tools may provide a flexibility in dealing with certain environmental scenarios that would otherwise be too rigid for a single method. Indeed, a diverse set of tools would compensate for the shortcomings of the others. In particular, the EU stand on the environment has shown an evolution from the traditional and rigid mandatory regulations towards newer, more flexible voluntary and financial regulations.

(1296 words)

ReferencesAndersen, M. S. (1994). Governance by green taxes: Making pollution prevention pay. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Bressers, H. & Plettenburg, L. (1997). The Netherlands. In Janicke, M. & Weidner, H. (Eds.), National environmental policies: A comparative study of capacity-building (pp. 109-131). Berlin: Springer. Dales, J. (1968). Pollution, property and prices. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Department for Environment and Rural Affairs. (2003). UK emissions trading scheme: Auction analysis and progress report. London: Department for Environment and Rural Affairs.European Commission v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, C-390/07 (EUECJ 2009).Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Oxford: Taylor and Francis.Jahren, P. & Sui, T. (2014). Concrete and sustainability. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Kollman, K. & Prakash, A. (2002). EMS-based environmental regimes as club goods: Examining variations in firm-level adoption of ISO 14001 and EMAS in UK, US and Germany. Policy Sciences, 35(1), 43-67.KPMG Global Sustainability Services. (2006). Carrots and sticks for starters: Current trends and approaches in voluntary and mandatory standards for sustainability reporting. Johannesburg: KPMG Global Sustainability Services.KPMG Global Sustainability Services. (2010). Carrots and sticks Promoting transparency and sustainability: An update on trends in voluntary and mandatory approaches to sustainability reporting. Johannesburg: KPMG Global Sustainability Services.Lauber, V. (2001). Geschichte der politik zur umwelt in der zweiten republik. In Hahn, S. & Reith, R. (Eds.), Umweltgeschichte. Vienna: Verlag fur Geschichte und PolitikLee, G. (2008). The peoples budget: An Edwardian tragedy. London: Shepheard-Walwyn Publishers Ltd.Micheletti, M., Follesdal, A. & Stolle, D. (Eds.). (2004). Politics, products and markets: Exploring political consumerism past and present. London: Transaction Publisher.Pedersen, S. L. (2003). The Danish CO2 emissions trading scheme. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 9(3), 223-231.Pesendorfer, D. (2007). Paradigmenwechsel in der umweltpolitik: Von den anfngen der umweltzu einer nachhaltigkeitspolitik: Modellfall sterreich? Weisbaden: VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften.Tindale, S. & Holtham, G. (1996). Green tax reform. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Wurzel, R. K. W., Zita, A. R. & Jordan, A. J. (2013). Environmental governance in Europe: A comparative analysis of new environmental policy instruments. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Zito, A. (2000). Creating environmental policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave.9