Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

EU accession: Negotiating “environmental dumping”?

  • Environmental Standards
  • Published:
Intereconomics

Abstract

“Environmental dumping” is a concern frequently raised in discussions on the potential risks involved in the eastern enlargement of the European Union1 (EU).2 There is a general concern that the Central and Eastern European accession countries may be neither willing nor able to fully apply the EU’s environmental acquis communautaire, the body of Community environmental legislation, once they have joined the EU. As a result, these countries would benefit from a competitive advantage when selling their goods on the Internal Market. This article asks whether, and in which specific cases, such concerns may be justified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cf. European Commission. Strategy Paper, Regular Reports from the Commission on Progress towards Accession by Each of the Candidate Countries, Brussels 8 November 2000, European Commission, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See, for example, Council of the European Union: European Union Common Position, Conference on Accession to the European Union—Czech Republic, CONF-H 63/99, Brussels 1999, Council of the European Union, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See A. Carius, I. von Homeyer, S. Bär. The Eastern Enlargement of the European Union and Environmental Policy: Challenges, Expectations, Speeds and Flexibility, in: K. Holzinger, P. Knoepfel (ed.): Environmental Policy in a European Union of Variable Geometry? The Challenge of the Next Enlargement, Basle 2000, Helbig & Lichtenhahn, pp. 161–162. Soil and Water Ltd.: Development of Synthesis Reports for Approximation of EU Environmental Legislation, Final Report DISAE MC-112, Vantaa 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. European Commission: Communication from the Commission on Accession Strategies for Environment: Meeting the Challenge of Enlargement with the Candidate Countries in Central and Eastern Europe, COM(98) 294, Brussels 1998, European Commission, p. 4. For a discussion of this point, see A. Carius, I. von Homeyer, S. Bär, op. cit., The Eastern Enlargement of the European Union and Environmental Policy: Challenges, Expectations, Speeds and Flexibility, in: K. Holzinger, P. Knoepfel (eds.): Environmental Policy in a European Union of Variable Geometry? The Challenge of the Next Enlargement, Basle 2000, Helbig & Lichtenhahn, pp. 163–164, note 7.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cf. Soil and Water Ltd.: Development of Synthesis Reports for Approximation of EU Environmental Legislation, Final Report DISAE MC-112, Vantaa 2000, p. 70.

  6. Government of the Czech Republic: Additional Information provided by the Czech Republic on the Common Position of the European Union, Chapter 22—Environment, Conference on Accession to the European Union—Czech Republic, CONF-CZ 73/00, Brussels 2000, p. 17.

  7. Carl Bro et al.: Pre-Accession Planning to Meet the Requirements of EU Legislation in the Water Sector in the Czech Republic, Final Report, Prague 1999, p. 150.

  8. Cf. Carl Bro et al., op. cit., Pre-Accession Planning to Meet the Requirements of EU Legislation in the Water Sector in the Czech Republic, Final Report, Prague 1999, p. 126, note 11.

  9. Government of Poland: Poland’s Reply to the Common Position, Chapter 22: Environment, Conference on Accession to the European Union—Poland, CONF-PL 53/00, Brussels 2000, p. 13.

  10. G. Hughes, J. Bucknall: Poland, Complying with EU Environmental Legislation, World Bank Technical Paper No. 454, Washington 2000, World Bank, p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cf. Soil and Water Ltd., op. cit., Development of Synthesis Reports for Approximation of EU Environmental Legislation, Final Report DISAE MC-112, Vantaa 2000, p. 40, note 9.

  12. Cf. Soil and Water Ltd., op. cit., Development of Synthesis Reports for Approximation of EU Environmental Legislation, Final Report DISAE MC-112, Vantaa 2000, p. 89, note 9.

  13. Government of the Czech Republic, op. cit., Additional Information provided by the Czech Republic on the Common Position of the European Union, Chapter 22—Environment, Conference on Accession to the European Union—Czech Republic, CONF-CZ 73/00, Brussels 2000, p. 33, note 10.

  14. European Commission: Poland—Screening Results, Chapter 22— Environment, MD 287/99, Brussels 1999, European Commission, p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cf. the different costing estimates of the World Bank in: G. Hughes, J. Bucknall, op. cit., p. 29, note 14.

    Google Scholar 

  16. European Commission, op. cit.,, p. 9, note 18.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Halcrow Group Ltd.: Assessment of Environmental Enforcement Structures and Practices in Estonia and Poland, Final Report DISAE-Project MC-111, Polane 1999, Halcrow Group Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Government of the Czech Republic, op. cit., Additional Information provided by the Czech Republic on the Common Position of the European Union, Chapter 22—Environment, Conference on Accession to the European Union—Czech Republic, CONF-CZ 73/00, Brussels 2000, pp. 29–30, note 10.

  19. OECD: Environment in the Transition to a Market Economy, Progress in Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States, Paris 1999, OECD, Centre for Co-operation with Non-Members, p. 64. A. Carius, I. von Homeyer, S. Bär, op. cit., The Eastern Enlargement of the European Union and Environmental Policy: Challenges, Expectations, Speeds and Flexibility, in: K. Holzinger, P. Knoepfel (eds.): Environmental Policy in a European Union of Variable Geometry? The Challenge of the Next Enlargement, Basle 2000, Helbig & Lichtenhahn, pp. 163–164, note 7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Susan Baker, Petr Jehlicka: Dilemmas of Transition: The Environment, Democracy and Economic Reform in East Central Europe—An Introduction, in: Susan Baker, Petr Jehlicka, (eds.): Dilemmas of Transition: The Environment, Democracy and Economic Reform in East Central Europe, Ilford 1998, Frank Cass, pp. 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cf. Soil and Water Ltd., op. cit., Development of Synthesis Reports for Approximation of EU Environmental Legislation, Final Report DISAE MC-112, Vantaa 2000, p. 39, note 9.

  22. Cf. Carl Bro et al., op. cit., Pre-Accession Planning to Meet the Requirements of EU Legislation in the Water Sector in the Czech Republic, Final Report, Prague 1999, p. 13, note 11.

  23. Europäische Kommission: Regelmäßiger Bericht 2000 der Kommission über die Fortschritte Polens auf dem Weg zum Beitritt, Brüssel 2000, Europäische Kommission, pp. 80–81.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cf. M. Rauscher: International Trade, Factor Movements and the Environment, Oxford 1997, Clarendon Press; A. Jaffe, S. Peterson, P. Portney, R. Stavins: Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What does the Evidence Tell Us?, in: Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 33, 1995, pp. 132–163; J. Dean: Testing the Impact of Trade Liberalisation on the Environment, Seminar Paper, Adelaide 1996, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cf. T. Panayotou, J. R. Vincent: Environment and Competitiveness, Global Competitiveness Report, Geneva 1997.

  26. Cf. J. Horbach, T. Meißner, J. Rothfels, K. Holst, P. Voigt. Umweltschutz und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Baden-Baden 1998, Nomos, pp. 60–81.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See G. M. Grossman, A. B. Krueger: Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement, in: P. M. Garber (ed.): The Mexico-US Free Trade Agreement, Cambridge, MA 1993, MIT Press, pp. 13–56.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cf. W. Hager: The Environment in European Enlargement, Report of a CEPS Working Party, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cf. J. Albrecht: Environmental Regulation, Comparative Advantage and the Porter Hypothesis, FEEM Working Paper, No. 59, Milan 1998, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

    Google Scholar 

  30. For an early assessment, see, C. Aturupane, S. Djankov, B. Hoekman: Determinants of Intra-Industry Trade between East and West Europe, World Bank Working Paper, No. 1850, Washington 1997, World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cf. S. U. Schmid: Umweltpolitik und internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Kieler Working Papers, No. 823, Kiel 1997.

  32. K. W. Steininger: Trade and Environment: The Regulatory Controversy and a Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of Unilateral Environmental Action, Heidelberg 1994, Physica, pp. 74–77.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See H. Siebert: Environmental Policy and European Integration, in: H. Siebert (ed.): Environmental Scarcity: The International Dimension, Tübingen 1991, Mohr, pp. 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  34. For a detailed discussion of the flexibility of Community environmental legislation, see I. von Homeyer, A. Carius, S. Bär: Flexibility or Renationalization, Effects of Enlargement on EC Environmental Policy, in: M. G. Cowles, M. Smith (eds.): The State of the European Union, Risks, Reform, Resistance and Revival, Vol. V, Oxford 2000, Oxford University Press, pp. 364–366. See also K. Holzinger: Optimal Regulatory Units: A Concept of Regional Differentiation of Environmental Standards in the European Union, in: K. Holzinger, P. Knoepfel (eds.): Environmental Policy in a European Union of Variable Geometry? Basel, Geneva, Munich 2000, Helbing & Lichterhahn, pp. 65–107.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cf. Siebert, op. cit.,, pp. 59–70, note 37.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See G. Hughes, J. Bucknall: Poland, Complying with EU Environmental Legislation, World Bank Technical Paper No. 454, Washington 2000, World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  37. G. Hughes, J. Bucknall, op. cit.,. p. 44, note 40.

    Google Scholar 

  38. For an empirical assessment of the Polish environmental funds, see G. Anderson, T. Zylicz: The Role of Polish Environmental Funds: too Generous or too Restrictive?, in: Environmental and Development Economics, Vol. 4, pp. 413–448.

  39. European Environmental Agency (EEA): Environment in the European Union at the Turn of the Century, Copenhagen 1999.

  40. W. Hager, op. cit.,, p. 17, note 32.

    Google Scholar 

  41. For an assessment of these effects on the basis of a simple model of intra-industry trade with factor movement, see K. C. Fung, A. M. Maechler: The Impact of Intra-Industry Trade on the Environment, SCCIE Working Paper 00-4, Santa Cruz 2000, University of California, Santa Cruz Centre for International Economics.

  42. See, for example, European Environmental Agency (EEA): Prospects and Scenarios, No. 1, Environment and European Enlargement: Air Emissions, Environmental Issues Series, Vol. 8, Copenhagen 1999.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecologic-Centre for International and European Environmental Research, Berlin, Germany

    Ingmar von Homeyer

  2. Institute for Management in Environmental Planning, Technical University, Berlin

    Axel Klaphake

  3. Ecologic-Centre for International and European Environmental Research, Berlin, Germany

    Hans-Dieter Sohn

Authors
  1. Ingmar von Homeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Axel Klaphake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hans-Dieter Sohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

von Homeyer, I., Klaphake, A. & Sohn, HD. EU accession: Negotiating “environmental dumping”?. Intereconomics 36, 87–97 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02973774

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02973774

Keywords

Search

Navigation