Introduction

Maintaining the environment and promoting economic growth have been popularly conceived of as naturally at odds with one another. One is black, the other white. However, that popular concept is beginning to change, as more and more corporations and countries begin to realize that achieving sustainable growth can be done in an economically viable fashion. In no situation is that more proven than that of the European Union. Created as a way to break down the economic and political barriers between the nations of Europe, the EU has been a pioneer in showing how environmental responsibility and growth can be achieved together. Though its track record is not perfect, it is probably the best example of a truly influential supranational organization that is actually helping the environment and the economy at the same time.

The European Union is made up of fifteen Member States, which vary in their environmental policy from the extremely stringent Northern countries (i.e., Denmark and Sweden) to the less-structured countries such as the United Kingdom to countries like Spain, which until joining the EU did not have any domestic policy regarding the environment at all. There are also the former Iron Curtain countries in Eastern Europe that are not yet members of the EU, yet are striving to meet their environmental requirements (along with the economic and social ones) in order to become members.

To understand how the policies of the European Union are positively affecting the environment, it is necessary to understand the history of how the union was formed. At that point, we can more fully investigate how specific policies are being targeted to create a situation of sustainable growth, how those policies are implemented, and finally, how successful they have been. The complexity and extreme levels of bureaucracy of the EU has led to some major policy implementation failures, yet their efforts to promote sustainable growth show the way for other organizations in the future. It is to be hoped that as the EU continues to integrate environmental and economic concerns, its example will be followed around the world.

A brief history of the European Union

In 1946, Winston Churchill proposed what he termed a "United States of Europe" (www.europa.eu.int). Though he would not be a major participant in the resulting economic union, he was one of the first important statesmen to see the need for such an organization. In 1951, six European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands) signed the Treaty of Paris establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Europe was taking its first steps towards economic unification.

On March 25, 1957, the Treaties of Rome were signed by those same six member states. These treaties established both the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). This was the true beginning of full unification.

The Treaty of Rome states (art. 2) that the Community shall have as its task, by establishing an economic and monetary union, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities. Creation, by the Treaty, of the Monetary Committee and the European Investment Bank (www.europa.eu.int)

There was nothing in this original 1957 Treaty of Rome that mentioned the environment (Baker et al 1994); this was long before Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published, and so the wake-up call of the 1960s was still to come. However, even though the Treaty had no mention of the environment, it was already beginning to play a role because economic changes will always have some influence on the environment (Brown et al, 1).

During the 1960s, the European Economic Community began to grow. More nations applied for admission, including the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark. Also, the nations individually began to focus more on environmental issues. Leaders in these issues were countries like Sweden and Denmark. They began initiating domestic policies of pollution control that were dedicated towards preserving and cleaning up the air and water. As yet, however, there was still no uniform policy in the EEC regarding environmental issues.

In 1972, this situation changed. The EEC heads of state began to realize that environmental issues were not geographically bound, and that the policies and principles of one nation-state could adversely affect its neighbors. With this in mind, the heads of state met in Paris to initiate an organized environmental set of policies (Baker et al 3). With the 1972 meeting, a series of action programs were initiated. These were named "Environmental Action Programmes." Though none have carried a specific expiration date, each one has generally lasted for a period of three to five years, and each one has established a different set of environmental mandates. Currently, the EU is working on the Fifth Programme, which began in 1993, and is the strictest one yet. Its target of sustainable growth and its focus on regulations instead of directives (which are not mandatory) make it an incredibly important step in the integration of economic growth and environmental conservation.

Since 1972, the EEC has passed over 200 items enacting environmental legislation (www.europa.eu.int). These have ranged from establishing emissions standards to land and water preservation. In both the Single European Act of 1987 and the Treaty on European Union of 1992, environmental standards were built in to ensure that countries would have to comply with certain standards. It was also established that countries were free to exceed these standards according to their own domestic policies. The Treaty on European Union created the following general standards for its member countries.

• Preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment;

• protecting human health;

• ensuring a prudent and rational utilization of natural resources;

• promoting measures at the international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems

In the 1990s, the EU has had to deal with several environmental issues that were not present in the 1980s. For example, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Iron Curtain has created an Eastern Europe that is hopelessly behind in environmental legislation. These countries were under a regime that was unconcerned with the problems associated with pollution and with exhausting natural resources. Therefore, they have to deal both with a severely damaged environment and a political mindset, created over several decades that is unconcerned with the government's role in preserving the environment.

The closest example to this in Western Europe is Spain. While they are a member of the EU, they are probably the farthest behind when in comes to protecting the environment under the law. While the rest of Europe was undergoing the sea change of the 1960s, Spain was still under control of Franco and did not experience the same alteration in their socio-political perspective. They have the worst record of environmental non-compliance in the EU, because they do not have the same idealistic basis as many of their fellow members (Baker et al, 102). In fact, until 1986 when Spain entered the EU, they had never passed any environmental legislation at all (Andersen et al, 5).

Currently, as they enter the 21st Century, the EU has several different departments that deal directly with the environment. The Directorate General XI was established in 1981, and was created to ensure preparation and implementation of environmental laws. They have been accused of being too influenced by environmental lobbyists, yet they have been able to work effectively with countries and corporations to pass important legislation (Baker et al 24).

Besides DG XI, the Council of Environment Ministers of the European Union established the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 1993. Its mission is to "provide Member States with objective, reliable, and comparable information" (Brown, 47) that can be used to help the environment. Because the role of the EU in regulating the environment has grown considerably during the past decade, the EEA can help with compliance when "the regulator comes knocking at the door armed with new powers" (Brown 48). "As attitudes change, so does the demand for accurate information: on policy formation, regulations and legislation, better technologies, and examples of corporate good practice. This is where the EEA comes in" (Brown 48).

As these examples show, the EEC and now the EU have begun to play a far more major role in implementing and creating environmental policies. This evolution can be traced to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and to a greater popular concern for environmental causes. In Protecting the Periphery, three main reasons are given for the EU's evolution as an engine for creating a better environment: (1) the geographic logic of a supranational environmental entity; (2) the public support for that action, which can be used as a way to support the EU in general; and (3) the EU's own commitment to sustainable development. The EU has learned how to use popular environmental causes to increase its legitimacy (Brown et al 4). We can now examine some of the policies in more detail, including how they are implemented and their degree of success.

Environmental policies of the EU

As mentioned previously, the EU is currently working under the aegis of the Fifth Programme, which has as its goal a mission of sustainable growth. The EU has several different tools to help member countries attain this goal, but probably the most important and effective tool that they currently have is the Cohesion Fund.

The Cohesion Fund was created in order to help the poorest members of the EU meet the costs of environmental and infrastructural developments (Brown et al, 23). Though it sounds similar to the SuperFund that the United States EPA uses, it is not principally for clean up. Instead, through the Cohesion Fund, member states can apply for money that will actually help them become more environmentally sound. This is an important tool because it enables poorer member states to continue their economic development without going through a "dirty industry" stage that so many of the now clean member states went through. Many times, less developed areas feel as if environmental legislation is imposed upon them as a way to keep them from becoming a viable member of the economic community. The Cohesion Fund is the EU's way of sharing the burden of creating clean development.

Unfortunately, due to the dual nature of the Cohesion Fund, which funds both environmental and infrastructural developments, there has been conflict regarding how the money is used. "Regional initiatives funded by the Union have in the past often been at odds with EU environmental objectives" (Brown et al, 27). One good example of this is money that was used from the Cohesion Fund to develop a harbor in the Mediterranean. Tons of polluted silt were dumped into an already damaged water system, all funded by the EU (Brown et al 27). "Several programmes financed by the [Cohesion Fund] actually contributed to the deterioration of the environment" (Brown et al 28).

In fact, because of the confusing, Byzantine nature of the regulating entities of the EU, there have been times when two divisions were funding both sides of an environmental dispute. In the case of a set of wetlands in Spain, there was a group of developers that were receiving money from the EU to drain and make economically viable the wetlands. At the same time, the EU was funding an environmental group that was dedicated to preserving them. Obviously, it can be seen from this example that there are still serious policy problems regarding the EU's relation to environmental regulations (Brown et al 30).

The use of funds such as the Cohesion Fund can prove a very delicate task. Countries that are less developed than other member states in fact often have a very clean environment, simply because they do not yet have enough "dirty industry" to make a significant impact on the country. Therefore, on the edges of Europe the environment is preserved simply because of a lack of industrialization (Brown et al 18). When the EU comes in and wants to expand the country economically, this has the potential to damage the environment (Brown et al 14). However, smaller states have been known to bridle against the EU environmental standards, claiming that the EU simply wants to preserve the land in order to give tourists somewhere to go on their vacations. This is an unfortunate situation, and one that has to be handled with much care if the EU wants to make their policies successful.

Besides the difficulty in creating policies, the EU also has a problem with member countries actually following the policies once they are set up. "The EU is plagued by implementation failure" (Brown et al 41), and this failure has set up some unfortunate situations. For example, although the EU can now legally establish environmental requirements, often they prefer to use directives, which are not mandatory. The directives allow for a great deal of independent, uncontrollable action, and this action often has detrimental effects to the environment (Brown et al 4).

Cohesion Funds, therefore, often do not live up to their potential of creating a cohesive environmental strategy between all of the member states. It must, after all, be remembered that environmental policies are still subordinate (and will doubtless continue to be so) to economic ones in the EU. However, the EU can still positively impact the environment. In its socio-political role (as opposed to economic), the EU has tremendous power and influence over its weaker member states, and over those countries that wish to become member states. This power and influence is often what drives countries with less developed environmental policies to become compliant with the more stringent standards of the Union.

In the past five years, countries such as Poland, Hungary, and the former Czechoslovakia have applied for membership in the EU. Although they are not officially members yet, they do have an established relationship with the EU that involves improving their environmental track record. Poland, for example, established a relationship with the EU in 1July 989, when the Western Economic Summit in Paris created the PHARE program to coordinate aid for economic restructuring Poland and Hungary (www.europa.eu.int). In September of that year, a Cooperation Agreement was sighed between Poland and the EU in Warsaw. That relationship continued in 1991, when Poland signed the "Europe Agreements" the EU, and in April 1994, Poland officially applied for membership. "Peripheral areas are feeling a pressure to raise environmental standards to comply with EU targets and legislation" (Brown et al, 14). If they want the benefits of being a member state, which are social and political and well as economic, then they must comply with the environmental regulations, among others. This pressure to become a part of the group can have even more of a positive outcome than something like the Cohesion Fund, which at times seems to throw money in a capricious way at any country that needs it.

Besides those countries that are not yet members, the further-behind Southern states have also benefited from the atmosphere of environmental concern that has become so important to the EU. As mentioned previously, Spain did not even have an environmental policy until it became a member. Countries such as Portugal and Greece were in nearly the same situation upon joining. Therefore, it can be seen that the EU has definitely been a motivating factor for creating environmental regulations in the South (Brown et al 99). Without the existence of the EU and its policies, it is entirely possible that countries such as Greece and Spain would continue to have no laws regulating their environment. However, due to the influence of the EU, and the corresponding desire for those countries in the South to be seen as "good Europeans," there are certain environmental requirements that are being met in the countries near the Mediterranean.

Yet another indirect way in which the EU is positively affecting the environment is in the case of green Non Governmental Organizations, or NGOs. Though these organizations have always had a major impact on individual European countries, they are able to use the EU as a way to organize and voice their concerns on a supranational level. "Deepening European integration" (Brown et al, 18) has strengthened these NGOs and made them into a powerful lobbying force.

From this policy discussion, we have seen that there are some ways of influencing the member states that work better than others. The Cohesion Fund, for example, seems to cause as many problems as it solves. On the other hand, the social and political advantages to being seen as a "good European" help to keep the less-compliant nations in step with advances in environmental legislation. Finally, those countries that simply want to be seen as European at all (i.e., the former nations of the Soviet Union) are exceptionally eager to comply with whatever the EU wants.

Conclusion

When I began this paper, I was reasonably certain that I would be able to find many flaws in the environmental policies of the EU. Though I was certainly not disappointed, what was surprising is the level of success that they have had in introducing environmental policies to countries that had never regulated industry with regards to pollution at all.

The EU is an incredibly complex system of government, and it seems to grow more complex as it matures and gains more influence. The power to make environmental legislation currently rests with many different governmental agencies with names that seem created specifically to cause confusion. DG XI, for example, or the European Environment Agency as opposed to the Council of Environment Ministers. Combine this with the fact that the EU is dedicated to creating a union between member states that speak several different languages and conduct their lives in radically different ways, and you do not have a recipe for success.

Yet somehow, the EU has been able to hammer out several important economic initiatives. Perhaps most importantly, they have proven that concern about the environment does not automatically negate economic growth. Instead, they appear to have taken a pragmatic approach to environmental sustainability that is not caught up in either the idealism of pure capitalism or in radical environmentalism. This restraint and pragmatism is to be admired. The EU does not have a perfect track record when it comes to the environment. However, they are certainly pioneers in showing other supranational organizations how to create a consensus over what should be done to keep our environment viable for generations to come.

Works Cited

Andersen, Mikael Skou and Duncan Liefferink, Eds. European Environmental Policy: the Pioneers. Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1997.

Baker, Susan, Kay Milton, and Steven Yearly, Eds. Protecting the Periphery: Environmental Policy in Peripheral Regions of the EU. New York: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., 1994.

Brown, Nicholas. "The European Environment Agency web site." Database 4/14/99.

http://www.europa.eu.int: The official web site of the EU

http://eea.eu.int: The official web site of the European Environment Agency.