Search

Introduction: climate change enters the political mainstream. Inrecent years, climate change has shifted from being a marginal political issue to one that has – depending on one's point of view – potentially transformative and/or calamitous consequences for virtually all policy areas. The change in its political status has been remarkably rapid but also substantial. So when the global economy slipped intoa deep recession in the late 2000s, climate change remained alongside economic growth, employment and crime as a key political issue in the majority of industrialised states. As part of this political transformation, new actors have entered the debate. Whereas before, climate change had mainly preoccupied environmental ministries and their associated policy networks, it now attracts the sustained attention of political core executives: prime ministers, presidents and their inner cabinets. Since 2005, climate change has been a standing item at all G8 summits, and has been regularly debated at United Nations (UN) General Assembly sessions and in countless European Council meetings comprising the Heads of State of the European Union (EU). The issue of climate change has, in short, entered the political mainstream. Having struggled for years to persuade politicians totake the issue seriously, environmental actors are now finding themselvesunder intense pressure to deliver policy solutions that are sufficiently coordinated with their counterparts in ‘non-’ environmentalsectors such as energy, transport and agriculture.

This chapter looks back across the broader historical context (Chapter 3) and the five sub-areas of mitigation and adaptation policy (Chapters 4–8), and reviews how and why policy in the EU has evolved as it has. More specifically, it describes what kinds of policies have been adopted and examines the choices that most informed their design. The next section returns to the six broad phases of policy development that were originally introduced in Chapter 3. It summarises these phases and briefly relates them to some of the main findings of Chapters 4–8. The third section explores which governance dilemmas were provoked by the choices that emerged in these six phases, and examines how they were confronted and by whom, in relation to the formal and informal features of the EU introduced in Chapter 2. After that, it views these patterns from the perspective of the two main theoretical approaches originally outlined in Chapter 2. Finally, this chapter draws conclusions and makes links to the next part of the book (Chapters 10 and 11), which looks forward to climate policy beyond 2020.The evolution of climate policy in the EU.The six main phases of policy development.In the phase up to 1988, climate change was mainly discussed in scientific rather than policy circles. The Commission eagerly responded to the Toronto conference in 1988, publishing a Communication (COM (88) 656) which, although it did not offer any firm recommendations, still marked the commencement of formal policy making in the EU.

The soybean aphid ('Aphis glycines' Matsumura) is a serious pest of soybean ('Glycine max' L.) in North America. Currently, soybean aphid management has focused on foliar applied insecticides. However, there is a growing body of evidence that natural enemies can regulate soybean aphid populations. Because soybean aphid has a high intrinsic rate of increase, natural enemies alone are not aiways a viable management option for soybean aphid. Integration of natural enemies and other management options will be necessary for reliable soybean aphid management. Determining the compatibility of natural enemies and insecticides is extremely important. In 2006, the exotic soybean aphid parasitoid 'Aphelinus certus' Yanosh was discovered in Ontario. This parasitoid was found to be distributed throughout southern Ontario making it an ideal candidate for incorporation into soybean aphid management decisions. Temperature-dependent developmental parameters were investigated, as well as the susceptibility of this parasitoid to insecticides currently or potentially registered for soybean aphid management in Canada.

Sustainable development is now a fundamental goal of the European Union (EU). In its 2001 Sustainable Development Strategy the EU formally recognized that sustainable development includes the simultaneous pursuit of social, environmental and economic objectives within the Union. In addition, it stated that all EU policies ‘must actively support efforts by other countries – particularly those in the developing world – to achieve development that is more sustainable’ (CEC 2001a: 9). The EU has a positive (but not entirely unblemished) track record of attempting to address internal environmental issues such as pollution and biodiversity loss, as well as problems such as climate change and ozone depletion that have truly global consequences (Coffey and Baldock 2003; Jordan 2005). However, this is not enough: the EU must also take into account the effect of its internal policies (e.g. the Common Agricultural Policy) on the ability of other countries to develop more sustainably, especially those in the developing world. After all, if sustainable development within the EU involves ‘exporting’ problems to other areas then, by definition, it is not genuinely sustainable in an intra-or inter-generational sense. This was accepted by the then EU Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom in 2003, when she warned that ‘our credibility will suffer if unsustainable trends [in the EU] persist, or if our policies have detrimental impacts outside the EU, in particular on the development opportunities of the poorest countries’ (Wallstrom 2003). The EU’s determination to respond to this challenge was reaffirmed in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and in its own ‘external Sustainable Development Strategy’ (CEC 2002a) and related documents such as the report on The World Summit on Sustainable Development one year on: implementing our commitments (CEC 2003a).

Conflicts over how to “scale” policy-making tasks have characterized environmental governance since time immemorial. They are particularly evident in the area of water policy and raise important questions over the democratic legitimacy, economic efficiency and effectiveness of allocating (or “scaling”) tasks to some administrative levels as opposed to others. This article adopts a comparative federalism perspective to assess the “optimality” of scaling—either upward or downward—in one issue area, namely coastal recreational water quality. It does so by comparing the scaling of recreational water quality tasks in the European Union (EU) and Australia. It reveals that the two systems have adopted rather different approaches to scaling and that this difference can partly be accounted for in federal theoretical terms. However, a much greater awareness of the inescapably political nature of scaling processes is nonetheless required. Finally, some words of caution are offered with regard to transferring policy lessons between these two jurisdictions.

The risks to human populations in coastal areas are changing due to climate and socio-economic changes, and these trends are predicted to accelerate during the twenty-first century. To understand these changing risks, and the resulting choices and pathways to successful management and adaptation, broad-scale integrated assessment is essential. Due to their complexity the two risks of flooding and erosion are usually managed independently, yet frequently they are interconnected by longshore exchange of sediments and the resulting broad scale morphological system behaviour. In order to generate new insights into the effects of climate change and coastal management practises on coastal erosion and flood risk, we present an integrated assessment of 72 km of shoreline over the twenty-first century on the East Anglian coast of England which is a site of significant controversy about how to manage coastal flood and erosion risks over the twenty-first century. A coupled system of hydrodynamic, morphological, reliability and socio-economic models has been developed for the analysis, implemented under scenarios of coastal management, climate and socio-economic change. The study is unique in coastal management terms because of the large spatial scale and extended temporal scale over which the analysis is quantified. This study for the first time quantifies what has for some years been argued qualitatively: the role of sediments released from cliff erosion in protecting neighbouring low-lying land from flooding. The losses and benefits are expressed using the common currency of economic risk. The analysis demonstrates that over the twenty-first century, flood risk in the study area is expected to be an order of magnitude greater than erosion risk. Climate and socio-economic change and coastal management policy have a significant influence on flood risk. This study demonstrates that the choices concerning coastal management are profound, and there are clear tradeoffs between erosion and flood impacts.

Traditionally bale bagging used for cotton bales has been permeable to moisture but more recently relatively impermeable material has been adopted by the industry. This impermeable bagging has significantly affected the moisture changes which occurred during storage. In many cases holes have been punched in the bagging in an effort to increase the permeability. To better understand the effect of the different bagging materials on bale weight changes, Universal Density cotton bales were formed with relatively dry lint. They were then covered with different types of bale bagging materials, and the bales stored in a humid environment for more than two months. The bale coverings included coated woven polypropylene with micro-perf holes, linear low density polyethylene film with different hole patterns, woven cotton, woven burlap, and no bale bagging. The bales were weighed periodically during storage. The bale weights were modeled with a nonlinear model exponential temporally. Different bales in the same bagging type changed weight at the same rate. The rate of bale weight change obtained from the regression was used to calculate a half time to equilibrium, in days, for each bagging type. This weight change half time will allow simplified communication of the effect bale bagging has on the rate of change of cotton bale weight during storage.

Procedures for the ex ante assessment of public policies are currently in vogue across the OECD. Their design is typically informed by an instrumentally rational model of problem solving, which assumes that knowledge is collected, evaluated and then trans-lated straightforwardly into 'better policies'. This model has, it seems, been little af-fected by more than three decades of academic research which has demonstrated thathe reality of every-day policy- making is far messier. This paper analyses whether the uptake of ex ante assessment of policies is nonetheless capable of providing new op-portunities for knowledge to inform processes of policy deliberation and learning. Drawing on an analysis of policy assessment procedures in three countries and the European Commission, it finds that there are several ways in which assessment knowl-edge is used in the policy process. Moreover, its argues that policy learning occurs de-spite, rather than because of the instrumental design of the new assessment proce-dures, which tends to act as a barrier to open deliberation and knowledge utilisation.

This chapter charts the changing ways in which environmental policy integration (EPI) has been thought about and implemented in the EU since the 1970s. The implicit assumption that has underpinned the search for implementing tools is that more effective multi-level and cross-sectoral coordination will arise through a process of incremental, non-hierarchical learning in networks, which is not guided by a template disseminated by the EU. Section 2 briefly explores the intellectual origins of the EPI principle and unpacks its core meaning. Section 3 charts the changing ways in which EPI has been thought about and put into effect in the EU since c. 1970. Section 4 then reflects on these developments and attempts to put them into context. Section 5 maps the EU's response onto the typology of coordination capacities developed in Chapter 2, and pinpoints the most obvious gaps and overlaps.

This chapter offers a more detailed theoretical explanation of the tools employed to assess the coordination capacities at network and actor level. The different sections link the two major theoretical concepts (networks and governance), provide different views on the management of networks, present a scale covering the different meanings of coordination, and describe how this will be used to assess coordination during the different phases of EU policy making.

This chapter analyses the administrative capacities that this actor has developed to coordinate the implementation of EPI across the whole of the EU (that is, EU-EPI). In so doing, it moves on from looking at the ways in which this particular actor operates in its immediate institutional space, to gauge how all the actors coordinate together in a network or networks. This chapter is written to fit a standard analytical framework, which is outlined in Chapter 2.

This chapter explores the steps that each actor has taken to implement EPI within its own institutional ‘space’. In effect, it begins to explore how well each actor has responded to the second part of the ‘double challenge’ of addressing EPI in a multi-level system such as the EU. For each actor, the organizational unit that actively champions EPI (typically the national environment department) is introduced, before briefly describing how it tackles the challenge of EPI within its own institutional ‘space’.

As the traditional mode of coordinating — essentially issuing regulation — no longer commands sufficient political support, the EU has turned to what are increasingly termed soft or ‘new’ modes of governance, which rely upon different actors working together in relatively non-hierarchical networks. New modes of governance are in vogue because they appear to provide the EU with a new way to add value to national level activities without the slow process of agreeing new legislation or the cost associated with building new administrative capacities in Brussels. This analysis provides the first book-length account of the effectiveness of network-based modes at addressing problems that simultaneously demand greater horizontal and vertical coordination. Taking as an example the thirty-year struggle to build environmental thinking into all areas and levels of EU policy making, it systematically explores the steps that two major EU institutions (the European Commission and the European Parliament), and three member states (Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK) have (not) taken to build effective networked governance. By blending state of the art theories with new empirical findings, it offers a stark reminder that networked governance is not and has never been a panacea. Coordinating networks do not spontaneously ‘self organize’ in the EU; they have to be carefully designed as part of a repertoire of different coordinating instruments. The book concludes that the EU urgently needs to devote more of its time to the more mundane but important task of auditing and managing networks, which, paradoxically, is an exercise in hierarchy. In so doing, this book helps to strip away some of the rhetorical claims made about the novelty and appeal of new modes, to reveal a much more sober and realistic appraisal of their coordinating potential.

This chapter introduces the basic administrative mechanisms for coordinating EU policy in the five actors. For each actor, it describes the most important administrative parts and explains the processes through which they seek to coordinate their input to EU policy making, both internally (that is, intra-departmentally) and with cognate actors (that is, inter-departmentally). To permit comparison, it begins by analysing the main coordination instruments and roles within each actor. It then describes the mechanisms through which each coordinates the various phases of EU policy making described in Chapter 2. Finally, it comments on how each is currently attempting to upgrade its coordination system.

This chapter aims to explore the role — both real and potential — of one particular family of coordinating devices that have come to be known as ‘new’ modes of governing. In particular, it addresses what is needed to ensure these new modes function effectively at national and at European levels. It analyses the terms coordination and governance, then shows why the coordination of a cross-sectoral, boundary spanning challenge like environmental protection is especially difficult to achieve in a complex multi-levelled governance system such as the EU. The three most widely known and intensively studied modes of coordination are described: hierarchy, markets, and networks, and are related to the steps taken by the EU to achieve greater environmental coordination at EU level.

This chapter returns to the three questions posed in Chapter 1. Section 2 assesses the extent to which the coordination tasks identified in Chapter 1 are satisfactorily performed. Section 3 examines thecapacities at network leveland assess their fitness for purpose. Section 4 reviews thecapacities of the actorswithin the network or networks. Section 5 responds to recent calls for solid ‘normative propositions’ about how EU policy networks should be structured to serve the European good. After all, as interest in complementary modes of governing grows, the EU should be more aware of what networks can — and, perhaps, just as importantly, cannot — offer by way of delivering policy objectives. The concluding section (6) returns to consider some of the broader governance-related themes raised towards the end of Chapter 1.

The relationship between the European Union (EU)1 and its member states has long been central to the study of European integration. Classic debates involving federalists, intergovernmentalists and neofunctionalists have revolved around both normative and analytical concerns relating to the power and autonomy of the state2. Nowhere have these debates had greater resonance than in Britain. So much so that the EU has become central to the practice and academic study of contemporary British politics.

In our opening chapter, we surveyed Britain’s relationship with the EU since the Treaty of Rome, and highlighted some of the popular characterizations of Britain as a ‘reluctant’, ‘semi-detached’ or ‘awkward’ partner in Europe. We also noted an imbalance in the literature on the broad topic of ‘Britain and Europe’. It tends either to look at the behaviour of Britain in Europe, or to treat British politics and policy making as processes in which the EU is a supranational body, disconnected from daily life in Westminster and Whitehall. Conspicuously missing from the existing literature is systematic analysis of the deepening interconnections between political processes at the national and EU levels. Our focus on the Europeanization of British politics brings these interconnections to the fore.

‘Europeanization’ is not a new term, but the growing interest in the domestic consequences of European integration has raised its profile enormously in recent years making it something of a ‘hot topic’ (Bulmer and Radaelli, 2005: 632). In turn, this scholarly attention has generated a need for new theories, analytical frameworks and conceptual tools (Buller and Gamble, 2002; Hix and Goetz, 2000). The term ‘Europeanization’ broadly relates to the impact of the EU on its member states. Judging by the recent proliferation of books and articles bearing the word ‘Europeanization’ in their title (for empirical evidence, see Featherstone, 2003 and Mair, 2004), it is undoubtedly now one of the key themes in EU scholarship.

This chapter seeks to identify some of the broader and longer-lasting effects of EU membership on the traditional principles, structure and style of British environmental administration. Along all three of these dimensions, the administration of environmental policy in the 1990s is manifestly different from what it was in the 1970s. The chapter tries to assess the relative influence of the EU in bringing about this transition, bearing in mind the various ‘domestic’ level factors which also modify policy. This in no way assumes a simple dichotomy between the ‘national’ and ‘European’ levels, for disentangling their respective influences upon the development even of a single Directive can be exceedingly difficult. For instance, European tools and concepts have been taken up by the UK Government and applied in areas not subject to EU policy. Nor does it imply that the flow of influence is necessarily from the EU downwards because British initiatives have on occasions helped fundamentally to shape EU policy. Rather, it provides a useful perspective for thinking about the impact of the EU on national political and administrative systems. When Britain acceded to the Treaty of Rome in 1973 it accepted a body of law which formally commits all member states to certain common policies, to defined procedures for reaching decisions on these policies and to enforcing their implementation in a consistent and coherent manner. What impact has this discipline had on the manner in which British officials enunciate and put into effect policies to protect and conserve the environment? The quotations aboveprovide two helpful benchmarks although they say nothing about the intervening processes. The first, written by a leading academic analyst of European political affairs, describes the situation just prior to Britain’s entry into the then EEC, which at the time had no environmental policy. While noting that the Community had eroded the traditional distinction between foreign and domestic policy, Helen Wallace concluded that ‘European issues have…tended to be regarded [in Britain] as one bundle of issues rather than as a new dimension pervading the political spectrum.’ ‘Changes at the national level’, she continued, ‘have not been extensive’ (1971:538). The second statement, which is drawn from the UK Government’s strategy for sustainable development, issued in 1994, suggests that by then it had become increasingly difficult to conceive of or identify a freestanding entity called ‘British environmental policy’ distinct from EU policy; the two had become coterminous. Sbraiga (1996:254) asks rhetorically how many other supranational organisations involve themselves in ‘domestic’ concerns like a country’s sewerage system, its drinking water or the health of its trees. One is reminded of the prescient comment made by Lord Denning in 1974 in which he likened the Treaty of Rome to an ‘incoming tide’ which ‘flows into the estuaries and up the rivers’, and ‘cannot be held back’. To carry this analogy further, if the effects of the EU are as profound as some commentators allege, we should be able to detect them not only in the rivers and streams of policy, but also in the creeks and rivulets that make up the British administrative system.

Contains fulltext : 46213.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) This article examines how far the EU has succeeded in encouraging the content, structure and style of national environmental policies to converge. Using fresh empirical evidence collected from 10 national environmental policies, it presents a very mixed pattern of change, with some elements of national policy converging more rapidly (and through different causal pathways) than others. These findings are viewed through the lens of popular theories of structural convergence, integration and Europeanization respectively, to reach a fuller understanding of the pathways and outcomes of change in an enlarging EU. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. 12 p.

Introduction: "New" Instruments of Environmental Governance - Patterns and Pathways of Change Andrew Jordan et al. National Experiences: The Politics of "Light-Handed" Regulation - "New" Environmental Policy Instruments in Australia Elim Papadakis and Richard Grant. Struggling to Leave Behind a Highly Regulatory Past? "New" Environmental Policy Instruments in Austria Rudiger K.W. Wurzel et al. The Politics of Regulatory Reform - "New" Environmental Policy Instruments in Finland Rauno Sairinen. From High Regulatory State to Social and Ecological Market Economy? "New" Environmental Policy Instruments in Germany Rudiger K.W. Wurzel et al. Much Talk but Little Action? "New" Environmental Policy Instruments in Ireland Brendan Flynn. Instrument Innovation in an Environmental Lead State - "New" Environmental Policy Instruments in the Netherlands Anthony R. Zito et al. Policy Innovation or "Muddling Through"? "New" Environmental Policy Instruments in the United Kingdom Andrew Jordan et al. Comparative Conclusions: "New" Environmental Policy Instruments - An Evolution or a Revolution in Environmental Policy? Andrew Jordan et al.