Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
erences among member states distorting the internal market, the EU
began developing new laws. The moratorium on new GM crops was lifted in 2004, in part
due to pressure from the World Trade Organization (WTO) based on a legal challenge by
the United States and other large producers of GM crops (Lieberman and Gray, 2008).
Replacing earlier legislation, a revised system for approving GM crops on a case-by-case
basis taking into account the precautionary principle was set up. The EU also established
a scheme for tracing GM products 'from farm to fork'. With this new set of legislation,
the Commission began pushing member states to remove domestic controls restricting
trade. Nevertheless, there remain noticeable di
To overcome di
ff
erences in opinion towards GM crops
among EU organizations, member states and stakeholder groups, a
ff
ff
ecting the function-
ing of the internal market.
In many prominent human health and environment cases, the precautionary principle
is at the center of EU debate and decision-making. The Treaty on European Union states
that all EU environmental policy should be based on the precautionary principle. This
view is strongly supported by EU organizations and in
uential member states seeking to
use the precautionary principle as a guide on issues of decision-making under uncertainty
(European Commission, 2000; Harremoes et al., 2002; Eckley and Selin, 2004). However,
member states sometimes di
fl
er in their interpretation and application of the precaution-
ary principle, as seen in cases of GM crops. There, member states have drawn di
ff
ff
erent
regulatory conclusions from the same set of scienti
fi
c data in
fl
uenced by national debates.
This has direct implications for e
orts to harmonize regulatory requirements and product
standards across all member states.
Yet member states have also initiated many progressive environmental policy develop-
ments. In fact, much early EU environmental policy was championed by 'leader states'
such as Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, working to upload their higher domes-
tic standards to the European level (Lie
ff
erink and Andersen, 1998; Jänicke, 2005). When
Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU in 1995, the group of green member states
grew. Coupled with the shift to quali
ff
ed majority voting on most environmental issues,
this increased opportunities for the passing of progressive environmental policy in the
Council. The Commission's DG Environment also has a long tradition of working closely
with environmental leader states. In addition, leader states frequently place experts in the
Commission to work on prioritized policy issues aiding e
fi
orts to expand EU environ-
mental policy and upload domestic standards (Börzel, 2002; Selin and VanDeveer, 2003).
Higher-regulation states have multiple reasons for seeking to upload their higher
domestic standards (Börzel, 2002). First, many environmental problems are transbound-
ary, and concerted e
ff
orts are needed to meet domestic policy goals. Second, uploading of
domestic standards reduces competitive disadvantages for domestic industry by creating
a level playing
ff
eld with foreign competitors. Third, the more new EU policy resembles
domestic standards and
fi
ts domestic modes of regulation, the less new costly domestic
implementation action is required. Fourth, voters supportive of progressive environmen-
tal policy expect elected o
fi
cials to pursue such policies both domestically and within the
EU. Fifth, the expansion of domestic environmental standards to the European level may
create new export opportunities for domestic producers of green technology.
To these ends, environmental leader states have used the need to harmonize regulations
across the internal market as a powerful leverage for raising European environmental
standards (Vogel, 1995, 2003; Selin and VanDeveer, 2006). In many such cases, national
