14010331

Questions
1. 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 1

Rapid 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.

14010331
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.

14010331

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)
3

14010331

References
Benedick, 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 cooperation. 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.
4

14010331
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 Diversity
Spence, 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.htm
United 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.

14010331
Answer for Question 2
The 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.

14010331

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 ecolabel (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.

14010331

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
8

14010331
has shown an evolution from the traditional and rigid mandatory regulations towards newer,
more flexible voluntary and financial regulations.

(1296 words)

References
Andersen, 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. 109131). 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.

14010331
Lauber, V. (2001). Geschichte der politik zur umwelt in der zweiten republik. In Hahn, S. &
Reith, R. (Eds.), Umweltgeschichte. Vienna: Verlag fur Geschichte und Politik
Lee, 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 CO 2 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.

10