Skip to main content

The European Union in global environmental governance: Leadership in the making?

Abstract

For well over a decade, the European Union (EU) has proclaimed its leadership role in global environmental governance (GEG). In this article, we examine both the nature of its leadership and the underlying conditions for ‘actorness’ upon which leadership must depend. The EU’s record in the global conferences as well as its influence on the reform of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) are also investigated. We argue that the EU has frequently sought to shape international environmental negotiations and promote sustainable development as an organising principle of global governance. Despite its inadequate status at the UN and internal problems, it has had a significant effect on the global agenda. However, due to persistent diplomatic opposition from other coalitions, its real, directly visible influence has been more modest. For genuine directional leadership, which goes beyond the defence of self-interest, the Union will have to make internal policy coherence a greater priority. Moreover, apart from relying solely on its weighty presence in the international system or its potential capabilities, the EU needs to achieve a high level of credibility in order to enhance its powers of persuasion.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. There has been lively debate on the question of EU identity and the extent to which it has been constructed as an alternative to US hegemony or merely as the reciprocal of military weakness. See, for example, Kagan (2003), Rifkin (2004), and Bretherton and Vogler (2006), Chapter 2.

  2. See Skodvin and Andresen (2006) for further elaboration of the leadership concept.

  3. The three concepts are derived from Bretherton and Vogler (2006).

  4. The TEU, Treaty on European Union, was agreed at Maastricht in 1992, while the incorporation of sustainable development as a Community objective was achieved by the revision of the TEC, treaty establishing the EC, at Amsterdam in 1997.

  5. This again reflects internal problems with attempts to introduce sustainability requirements into the Union’s many activities through the Cardiff Process and more recently the Sustainable Development Strategy.

  6. Since 1993, commentators have usually referred to the EU—encompassing both the EC (Pillar I of the structure agreed at Maastricht in 1992) and the Member States. However, in discussing the external role of the Union it is sometimes necessary to make the legal distinction between the Community which has its own competencies, is represented by the Commission and has international legal personality and the EU as a whole. At the UN, the distinction between the Community, which only has observer status, and the Member States who attempt to co-ordinate their actions as members of the EU, is particularly important.

  7. The Community was granted the right to take over the making of external policy from the Member States in specified areas by the TEC (see Arts. 133, 300). Elsewhere, and in the case of most environmental policy, it automatically acquired external competence when internal competence was granted. This was established by the European Court of Justice in ECJ 22/70, the European Road Transport Agreement case.

  8. For further details on the extent and modes of EU participation, see Vogler (2003). Of the 79 agreements listed in the 2003–2004 Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development, the Community was a signatory of 39 in its own right with the Member States representing the Union in a number of others such as CITES, the ocean dumping conventions and MARPOL.

  9. UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2007). Group membership is important because they form the constituencies from which states are elected to serve on various UN bodies including ECOSOC, CSD and UNEP. Also selected on a group basis are the bureaux which have a continuing administrative role when conferences or commissions are not in session.

  10. Although the same formula was used for EC participation in subsequent UN conferences on Habitat, Health and Environment and the Food Summit of 1996, it took 3 weeks of preparatory discussion to insert it into the documentation of the UN General Assembly Special Session which reviewed UNCED in June 1997 (Vogler 1999, p. 34).

  11. Delors did attend but was prevented from speaking at the UNCED final Plenary. As the leaders departed he, perhaps symbolically, found it necessary to hitch a ride on French President Mitterrand’s Concorde.

  12. In this instance, the problem was one of coherence within the Commission where the trade DG tended to over-rule environment on the grounds that such matters should be dealt with under the GATT Uruguay Round which should not be complicated by the proceedings at UNCED (Interview Commission 2006).

  13. Carlo Ripa di Meana, ‘Why I will stay away from the Earth Summit’ Guardian, 30 May 1992. The principal reason appears to have been the failure of the Member States to agree on a proposal for carbon taxation.

  14. Its preparation for the summit was meticulous, though not without fault. A stream of different Council conclusions, Commission communications and overarching pronouncements from the European Council accompanied the countdown to Johannesburg.

  15. This did indeed happen at the WSSD: the EU assembled a coalition for renewable energy which did not impose any stringent conditions and hence attracted a good number of signatories.

  16. Following the recognition of the Millennium Development Targets (MDGs) as a new master frame for sustainable development and the ongoing efforts of the WTO’s Doha Development Agenda (DDA), Johannesburg’s focus was plainly on poverty eradication (Bigg 2003). This significantly reduced DG Environment’s room for manoeuvre and opportunities for influence.

  17. As Marsh (2005, p. 145) points out, “Recent years have seen environmental issues become a more prominent, recurring and frequently contentious agenda item in the transatlantic relationship.”

  18. ECOSOC has for decades been on the sidelines of the UN system, even though it had originally been intended to be at the core of it—together with the General Assembly.

  19. In 2001, a Southern delegate deplored that—after 10 years of negotiation—delegates were still not able to agree on “a satisfactory definition of sustainable development” (ENB 2001c, p. 12). Given its notoriously ambiguous meaning and political usefulness, this should not have come as a surprise.

  20. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, Record of CSD Members and Bureau (1993–2006), http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csdolmem.htm

  21. This agenda was later complemented by a common Northern appeal for ‘good governance’ to ensure the effective spending of money, the respect for human rights, and a certain measure of transparency (ENB 2005, p. 4).

  22. Environmental ministries and the EU’s DG Environment are not in control of the central budgets. Their priorities, despite the EU’s official Rio commitments, were way down the list of finance ministries.

  23. Directional leadership, in the case, would refer to the EU demonstrating the feasibility of alternative, sustainable solutions to common problems and perhaps backing this up with domestic examples, technical expertise, and funding proposals.

  24. This was at the expense of what some called the “New York mafia” (ENB 2001c, p. 12) of seasoned diplomats with little grasp of or interest in matters of practical implementation.

  25. It recommended a “focus on the practical/technical level”, a “high level segment every second year”, a limited thematic work programme, targets and indicators, the exchange of practical experiences regarding the implementation of Agenda 21 and further “development of multi-stakeholder dialogue”.

  26. In contrast to what some may have assumed at the time of UNCED, sustainable development does not replace the environment as political priority—it rather presupposes the latter in order to function properly.

  27. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK from the West European Group and Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania from the East European Group.

  28. Because the EC is not a member of the UN it is not eligible to contribute to the UNEP Environment Fund in the way that Member States do. In aggregate, the latter contribute in excess of $40 million p.a. to an Environment Fund of around $60 million (UNEP 2007). In fact, the total spending of UNEP is several times this figure because of the importance of other funds to which the Community does contribute. These include the UNEP Trust Funds and in particular the funding for MEAs. The Commission also contributes to UNEP-sponsored MEAs as a party through assessed subscriptions and through additional voluntary funding. It furthermore makes ‘earmarked contributions’ to UNEP activities, for example on chemicals policy and on sustainable consumption and production. UNEP itself regularly participates in Commission tenders and has won a significant number of environmentally related contracts. The Community is considering the establishment of a multi-annual framework partnership with UNEP, designed to avoid ad-hoc bilateral discussions and diminish reporting requirements (information obtained from DG Environment, December 2006).

  29. Some observers argued that the UNCED mandate reaffirmed UNEP as the main environmental organisation and gave it more responsibilities than ever before (Timoshenko and Berman 1996, p. 45). Yet, whereas political attention focused on the newly created CSD and developing countries grew increasingly restless in the face of Northern refusal to honour financial promises, UNEP was additionally burdened by a wavering leadership. By the time of UNGASS, it had been labelled as largely irrelevant (ENB 1999, p. 11).

  30. However, like in the case of the CSD, the Union is not ready to discard this instrument. Seeing it as part of an overarching framework of GEG reform, a more powerful EMG, backed up with a mandate from the GMEF, could address issues in need of horizontal coordination and even instruct the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) (EU Speaking Points 2006b).

  31. The Environment Council (Conclusions from 7 June 2001) ventured even further by submitting that the gradual adaptation of UNEP “could ultimately lead to a World Environment Organisation, respecting existing headquarters”.

  32. The US was also mildly in favour of this idea, for it counted on the GMEF to reign in the bureaucratic power of UNEP officials (Rosendal, this volume).

  33. The group met six times in total and held its last meeting at the seventh Special Session of the GC in February 2002. The negotiations witnessed an eventual polarisation of positions, with the EU tending to change the focus of its reform proposals when it met an insurmountable impasse.

  34. At the heart of US opposition was a straightforward rejection of greater codification and coherence which might eventually lead to regimes of monitoring and compliance or pose a threat to the WTO trading order by engaging in regulatory competition with it.

  35. The G77 supported a moderate strengthening of UNEP, including greater financial resources and better coordination of MEAs (ENB 2001d). Nonetheless, G77 also insisted on keeping the GMEF dependent on the GC and resisted any move towards a specialised agency (UNEO) or WEO.

  36. The European Council in June 2005 proposed to initiate a process of institutional reform “which will lead to negotiations on the establishment of a UN agency for the environment” that, equipped with adequate funding and equal status to other specialised agencies, would help to mainstream the environmental dimension of sustainable development more effectively and consistently (European Council 2005, p. 11).

  37. These efforts, however, were clearly part of an incremental strategy that aimed at obtaining realistic concessions from negotiating partners who were unlikely to sign up to a UNEO. Universal GC membership, as the round table document timidly mentioned, would “provide an additional impetus for reform of the governance structure” (Ecologic Round Table 2004, p. 3) and hence represent a first step forward.

  38. It also “had the undisputable value of injecting for the first time environmental issues into the security dialogue, specifically focusing on climate change” (Morgera 2006, p. 17)—two innovations that chime very well with the Union’s own new discourse on security.

  39. In a ‘constructivist’ fashion, the ENB (2005, p. 10) explains this through the growing importance of the GMEF’s “soft law statements”. And it is perhaps the European Council that served the EU as a model for its preferred, strengthened version of the GMEF.

  40. Typically, Nordic meetings including Norway precede EU co-ordination meetings. When asked about the influence of the Nordic group, a Commission official responded: ‘we are not supposed to know about that!’ (Interview Commission 2006).

Abbreviations

ACP:

African, Caribbean and Pacific countries

CFSP:

Common foreign and security policy

CSD:

Commission for sustainable development

DDA:

WTO’s Doha Development Agenda

EC:

European Community

EMG:

Environment Management Group

EU:

European Union

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organisation

G77:

The Group of 77 at the United Nations

GC:

UNEP Governing Council

GEF:

Global Environment Facility

GEG:

Global environmental governance

GMEF:

Global Ministerial Environmental Forum

JPI:

Johannesburg Plan of Implementation

LRTAP:

1979 Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution Convention

MDGs:

Millennium Development Goals

MEAs:

Multilateral environmental agreements

ODA:

Official development assistance

PIC:

Prior informed consent

POPs:

Persistent organic pollutants

REIO:

Regional Economic Integration Organisation

TEC:

Treaty Establishing the European Community

TEU:

Treaty on European Union

UNCED:

UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio 1992

UNCED+5:

Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in June 1997

UNCHE:

UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972

UNDG:

United Nations Development Group

UNECE:

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNEO:

United Nations Environment Organisation

UNEP:

United Nations Environment Programme

WEO:

World Environment Organisation

WEOG:

Western Europe and Others Group

WSSD:

World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg 2002

WTO:

World Trade Organization

References

  • Agarwal, A., Narain, S. & Sharma, A. (Eds.) (2001). Poles apart. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.

  • Andresen, S., & Agrawala, S. (2002). Leaders, pushers and laggards in the making of the climate regime. Global Environmental Change, 12, 41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigg, T. (2003). The World Summit on Sustainable Development: Was it worthwhile? International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Retrieved August 8, 2006, from http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied//docs/wssd/wssdreview.pdf

  • Brenton, T. (1994). The Greening of Machiavelli: The evolution of international environmental politics. London: RIIA/Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a global actor. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, F. (2004). After Iraq: The EU and global governance. Global Governance, 10, 157–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaban, N., Elgstrom, O., & Holland, M. (2006). The European Union as others see it. European Foreign Affairs Review, 11, 245–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danish Non-Paper (2001, October 2). World summit on sustainable development—‘A global deal’. Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http://www.anped.org/PDF/WSSD%20EU%20papers.pdf

  • Dodds, F. (2000). Reforming the international institutions. In F. Dodds (Ed.), Earth summit 2002: A new deal (pp. 291–314). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecologic Round Table (2004, February 2–3). UNEP—Establishing universal membership. Summary of the Chairman, Cecilienhof, Potsdam, Germany. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://www.ecologic.de/download/projekte/1800–1849/1810/1810_Summary.PDF

  • EMG (Environment Management Group) (2006). Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.unemg.org/about.php

  • ENB (1994a). Summary of the second session of the Commission on Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), May 16–27, 5(25). Retrieved October 17, 2006, from http://www.iisd.ca/vol05/0525078e.html

  • ENB (1994b). UN General Assembly highlights. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), October 19–21, 3(5). Retrieved October 17, 2006, from http://www.iisd.ca/vol03/0305002e.html

  • ENB (1997). Summary of the nineteenth United Nations General Assembly Special Session to review implementation of Agenda 21. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), June 23–27, 5(88). Retrieved October 17, 2006, from http://www.iisd.ca/vol05/0588010e.html

  • ENB (1998). The Sixth Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), April 20–May 1, 5(110).

  • ENB (1999). 20th Session of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), February 1–5, 16(6).

  • ENB (2001a). Summary of the 21st session of the UNEP Governing Council and Second Global Ministerial Environment Forum. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), February 5–9, 16(16).

  • ENB (2001b). Summary of the second session of the ad hoc Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Energy and Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), February 26–March 2, 5(163).

  • ENB (2001c). Summary of ninth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), April 16–28, 5(183).

  • ENB (2001d). Summary of the second meeting of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or Their Representatives on International Environmental Governance. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), July 17, 16(17).

  • ENB (2001e). Summary of the fourth meeting of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or Their Representatives on International Environmental Governance. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), November 30–December 1, 16(19).

  • ENB (2002). Summary of the seventh special session of the UNEP Governing Council, Third Global Ministerial Environment Forum and Final Open-Ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or Their Representatives on International Environmental Governance. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), February 12–15, 16(24).

  • ENB (2003). Summary of the eleventh session of the Commission on Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), April 28 – May 9, 5(193).

  • ENB (2004). Summary of the Eighth Special Session of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), March 29–31, 16(35).

  • ENB (2005). Summary of the thirteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), April 11–22, 5(227).

  • ENB (2006). Summary of the International Conference on Chemicals Management and ninth session of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), February 4–9, 16(54).

  • European Commission (2003). The European Union and the United Nations: The choice of multilateralism. COM (2003) 526 final.

  • European Council (2005, June 16–17). Presidency Conclusions.

  • EU Presidency Statement (2000, October 18). Statement by Mrs Catherine GRAS. Financial Adviser at the Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations, New York. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_192_en.htm

  • EU Presidency Statement (2001a, July 25). Statement by Mr. Jean-Paul Charlier. Representative of Belgium, on behalf of the European Union. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_187_en.htm

  • EU Presidency Statement (2001b, April 18). Meeting of UNEP Open-Ended Group of Ministers on International Environmental Governance. Statement by Mr. Kjell Larsson, Swedish Minister for the Environment on behalf of the European Union, New York. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_315_en.htm

  • EU Speaking Points (2006a, April 19). Informals of the General Assembly on environmental reform. Statement by Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union, New York. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_5936_en.htm

  • EU Speaking Points (2006b, June 13). Informal Meeting of the General Assembly on environmental reform. Statement by Counsellor Alice Zaunschirm, Austrian Mission to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union, New York. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_6052_en.htm

  • France-Diplomatie (2006, December 15). Transformer le PNUE en agence spécialisée. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/actions-france_830/onu-organisationsinternationales_1032/institutions-specialisees-onu_3187/onue-environnement_4347/

  • Hyvarinen, J., & Brack, D. (2000). Global environmental institutions: Analysis and options for change. Report prepared for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (UK). (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs).

  • Imber, M. (1993). Too many cooks? The post-Rio reform of the United Nations. International Affairs, 69(1), 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A., & Voisey, H. (1998). The ‘Rio Process’: The politics and substantive outcomes of ‘Earth Summit II’. Global Environmental Change, 8(1), 93–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. (2003). Paradise and power: America and Europe in the new world order. London: Atlantic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenzerini, F. (2006). The reform of environmental governance in the United Nations: The French proposal, (In The future of environmental law: International and European perspectives (pp. 12–14). European University Institute (EUI) Working Papers Law No. 2006/01).

  • Lightfoot, S., & Burchell, J. (2004). Green hope or greenwash? The actions of the European Union at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Global Environmental Change, 14(4), 337–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lightfoot, S., & Burchell, J. (2005). The European Union and the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Normative power Europe in Action? Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(1), 75–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, D. R. (2005). Friends and foes: Industrialised countries in multilateral environmental negotiations. In A. C. Kallhauge, G. Sjöstedt, & E. Corell (Eds.), Global challenges: Furthering the multilateral process for sustainable development (pp. 144–170). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensah, C. (1996). The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. In J. Werksman (Ed.), Greening international institutions (pp. 21–37). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgera, E. (2006). The 2005 World Summit: UN reforms and the protection of the environment. (In The future of environmental law: International and European perspectives (pp. 15–20). European University Institute (EUI) Working Papers Law No. 2006/01).

  • Morgera, E., & Duran, M. (2006). The 2005 UN World Summit, the environment and the role of the EU: Priorities, promises, and prospects. RECIEL, 15(1), 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Najam, A. (2003). The case against a new international environmental organization. Global Governance, 9, 367–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opoku, C., & Jordan, A. (2005, December 2–3). The European Union and the external dimension of sustainable development: Ambitious promises but uncertain outcomes. (Paper presented at the 2005 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Potsdam, Germany).

  • Rhinard, M., & Kaeding, M. (2006). The international bargaining power of the European Union in ‘mixed’ competence negotiations: The case of the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(5), 1021–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, J. (2004). The European dream: How Europe’s vision of the future is quietly eclipsing the American dream. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skodvin, T., & Andresen, S. (2006). Leadership revisited. Global Environmental Politics, 6(3), 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solbes, P. (2001, May 17). Pedro Solbes comments on ‘Sustainable Development’ at the OECD Ministerial meeting in Paris. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_128_en.htm

  • Swedish EU Discussion Paper (2001, December). International governance for sustainable development. Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http://www.anped.org/PDF/WSSD%20EU%20papers.pdf

  • Timoshenko, A., & Berman, M. (1996). The United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Development Programme. In J. Werksman (Ed.), Greening international institutions (pp. 38–54). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2007). Major UN groups and major groupings relating to the UN System. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/UNMajorGroupsGroupingsJuly2005.pdf

  • UK Note on the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2001, October). Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http://www.anped.org/PDF/WSSD%20EU%20papers.pdf

  • Underdal, A. (1991). Solving collective problems: Notes on three modes of leadership. In Challenges of a changing world: Festschrift to Willy Østreng (pp. 139–153). Lysaker, Norway: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.

  • UNEP (2007). UNEP 2006 annual report. Retrieved March 4, 2007, from http://www.unep.org/pdf/annualreport/UNEP_AR_2006_English.pdf

  • Vogler, J. (1999). The European Union as an actor in international environmental politics. Environmental Politics, 8(3), 24–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogler, J. (2003). The external environmental policy of the European Union. In O. S. Stokke & Ø. B. Thommessen (Eds.), Yearbook of international cooperation on environment and development 2003/4 (pp. 65–71). London: Fridtjof Nansen Institute/Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogler, J. (2005). The European contribution to global environmental governance. International Affairs, 81(4), 835–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Frantzius, I. (2004). World Summit on Sustainable Development Johannesburg 2002: A critical analysis and assessment of the outcomes. Environmental Politics, 13(2), 467–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, L. M. (1999). Negotiations in the UN Commission on Sustainable Development: Coalitions, processes and outcomes. International Negotiation, 4, 107–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, L. M. (2005). A commission will lead them? The UN commission on sustainable development and UNCED follow-up. In A. C. Kallhauge, G. Sjöstedt, & E. Corell (Eds.) Global challenges: Furthering the multilateral process for sustainable development (pp. 103–122). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallström, M. (2002a, February 26). A wake-up call for global sustainability. Speech at the European Policy Centre Dialogue: Sustainability and globalisation—Towards Johannesburg. Retrieved October 8, 2006, from http://www.europaworld.org/issue71/awakeupcall1302.htm

  • Wallström, M. (2002b, September 25). Conclusions of World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Environment Commissioner, European Parliament, Strasbourg. Retrieved October 8, 2006, from http://www.europaworld.org/week98/speechwalstrom27902.htm

  • Wallström, M. (2003, September 24). Implementing the WSSD outcomes. Environment Commissioner, European Parliament, Sustainable Development Inter-Group, Strasbourg. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_2781_en.htm

  • Zito, A. R. (2005). The European Union as an environmental leader in a global environment. Globalizations, 2(3), 363–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannes R. Stephan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vogler, J., Stephan, H.R. The European Union in global environmental governance: Leadership in the making?. Int Environ Agreements 7, 389–413 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-007-9051-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-007-9051-5

Keywords

  • Actorness
  • Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
  • Europe as a global actor
  • Global environmental governance (GEG)
  • Leadership
  • UNEP
  • United Nations reform