Introduction
This essay examines the European Union’s (EU) environmental policy, drawing on theoretical perspectives from chapters 4 to 9 in Cini and Pérez-Solòrzano Borragán (2025), particularly intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. These theories help explain how integration occurs through state bargaining (intergovernmentalism) or through the empowerment of EU institutions (supranationalism). The analysis focuses on five key aspects: the historical development of the policy area, its main issues and delimitation, the roles and influence of EU institutions, the formal and informal structures of the legislative process, and the influence of member states alongside their capacity for political self-governance. By exploring these elements, the essay highlights how environmental policy has evolved as a critical area of EU integration, balancing national interests with collective action on global challenges like climate change. This discussion is informed by a sound understanding of EU politics, acknowledging limitations such as the ongoing tensions between supranational ambitions and national sovereignty. The essay argues that while supranational elements have driven progress, intergovernmental dynamics often constrain deeper integration.
Historical Development (Integration Process)
The historical development of EU environmental policy illustrates a gradual integration process, shifting from minimal involvement to a comprehensive framework, often explained through supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. Initially, environmental concerns were absent from the Treaty of Rome (1957), which focused on economic integration via the European Economic Community (EEC). However, the 1970s marked a turning point, driven by external pressures like the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and internal events such as the 1973 oil crisis (Jordan and Adelle, 2013). These spurred the EEC to adopt its first Environmental Action Programme (EAP) in 1973, arguably a supranational spillover from economic policies, as neofunctionalist theory (from Cini and Pérez-Solòrzano Borragán, 2025, ch. 4) suggests, where integration in one area necessitates action in related fields.
The Single European Act (SEA) of 1986 formally incorporated environmental policy into the treaties, introducing qualified majority voting (QMV) for environmental measures linked to the internal market. This represented a supranational advance, empowering the European Commission to propose legislation and the European Parliament to co-decide (Cini and Pérez-Solòrzano Borragán, 2025, ch. 5). However, intergovernmentalism persisted, as seen in the Maastricht Treaty (1992), which established environmental protection as a core objective but retained unanimity for fiscal measures, reflecting member states’ reluctance to cede sovereignty (Knill and Liefferink, 2013).
Further integration occurred with the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) and the Lisbon Treaty (2009), which expanded QMV and strengthened the Parliament’s role, aligning with supranational theories. The EU’s response to climate change, exemplified by the 2008 Climate and Energy Package, demonstrated this evolution, aiming for ambitious targets like 20% emissions reduction by 2020 (European Commission, 2008). Yet, intergovernmental bargaining, as per liberal intergovernmentalism (Cini and Pérez-Solòrzano Borragán, 2025, ch. 6), was evident in negotiations where powerful states like Germany influenced outcomes. The integration process has thus been uneven, with supranational institutions pushing for harmonisation while member states negotiate to protect national interests, leading to a policy area that is more integrated than in the EEC era but still contested.
This development highlights limitations in theoretical applicability; for instance, while supranationalism explains institutional growth, it overlooks how global events, such as the Paris Agreement (2015), have externally pressured integration (Dupont and Oberthür, 2015). Overall, the historical trajectory shows environmental policy as a ‘competence creep’ area, where economic integration inadvertently fostered environmental governance.
Main Issues and Delimitation
EU environmental policy primarily addresses transboundary issues like air and water pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change, delimited by the principle of subsidiarity, which reserves action to the EU level only where objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states alone (Treaty on European Union, Article 5). Key issues include climate mitigation, where the EU aims for net-zero emissions by 2050 under the European Green Deal (European Commission, 2019), and sustainable resource management, such as the Circular Economy Action Plan (European Commission, 2020). These are bounded by shared competences, meaning the EU sets minimum standards, but member states can exceed them, as in waste management directives.
From a theoretical lens, intergovernmentalism explains delimitations through state preferences; for example, coal-dependent states like Poland have resisted stringent emissions targets, leading to compromises in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) (Skjærseth and Wettestad, 2010). Supranationalism, however, drives expansion, with the Commission initiating policies that ‘spill over’ into related areas, such as linking environmental goals to energy security (Cini and Pérez-Solòrzano Borragán, 2025, ch. 7).
Delimitations are not absolute; the policy intersects with others, like agriculture (e.g., pesticide regulations) and trade (e.g., carbon border adjustments). A major issue is enforcement, with varying implementation across states, highlighting limitations in EU authority. For instance, the 2021 infringement proceedings against several countries for air quality failures underscore enforcement challenges (European Commission, 2021). Thus, while delimited to environmental protection, the policy’s scope is broad yet constrained by national variances, reflecting a balance between collective action and subsidiarity.
EU Institutions’ Roles and Influence
EU institutions play pivotal roles in environmental policy, with varying influence shaped by supranational and intergovernmental dynamics. The European Commission acts as the supranational guardian, proposing legislation and monitoring compliance; for example, it initiated the REACH regulation (2006) on chemicals, demonstrating its agenda-setting power (Heyvaert, 2009). Its influence is enhanced through expertise, as seen in the development of the Green Deal, where it coordinates cross-sectoral policies (Cini and Pérez-Solòrzano Borragán, 2025, ch. 8).
The European Parliament, empowered post-Lisbon, co-legislates via the ordinary legislative procedure, influencing outcomes through amendments; it pushed for stronger biodiversity protections in the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy (European Parliament, 2020). However, its role is sometimes limited by intergovernmental elements, as it lacks initiative rights.
The Council of the EU represents intergovernmental interests, where environment ministers negotiate and vote, often using QMV, though unanimity applies to sensitive areas like taxation, diluting supranational influence (Jordan and Adelle, 2013). The European Court of Justice (ECJ) enforces compliance, with landmark rulings like the 1985 case on bird protection affirming EU supremacy (Case 262/85).
The European Environment Agency provides scientific input, supporting institutional decisions. Overall, institutions’ influence varies: supranational bodies like the Commission drive ambition, while the Council tempers it with national concerns, illustrating theoretical tensions (Cini and Pérez-Solòrzano Borragán, 2025, ch. 9). This structure enables effective policy-making but reveals limitations when consensus is elusive.
Legislative Process’s Formal and Informal Structure
The legislative process in EU environmental policy combines formal structures under the ordinary legislative procedure with informal practices, reflecting supranational and intergovernmental elements. Formally, the Commission proposes legislation, which is then debated by the Parliament and Council in co-decision (Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, Article 294). Trilogues—informal meetings between these institutions—expedite agreements, often resolving 80-90% of proposals before formal readings (Rasmussen and Reh, 2013).
Informally, lobbying by interest groups influences outcomes; environmental NGOs like Greenpeace shape agendas through advocacy, aligning with supranational theories of pluralistic input (Cini and Pérez-Solòrzano Borragán, 2025, ch. 5). Member states’ permanent representations in Brussels facilitate informal bargaining, as seen in negotiations for the 2023 Nature Restoration Law, where compromises addressed agricultural concerns.
However, this informality can lead to opacity, with criticisms of reduced transparency (Brandsma, 2015). Intergovernmentalism is evident in the European Council’s strategic guidance, such as setting climate targets at summits. The process’s structure allows flexibility but risks uneven power distribution, where larger states wield more informal influence. Thus, while formal rules promote efficiency, informal networks underscore the hybrid nature of EU governance.
Member States’ Influence and Ability for Political Self-Governance
Member states retain significant influence in environmental policy, with varying capacities for self-governance due to shared competences. Through the Council, states negotiate policies, as intergovernmentalism posits, with veto powers in unanimous areas preserving sovereignty (Cini and Pérez-Solòrzano Borragán, 2025, ch. 6). For instance, Eastern European states have diluted coal phase-out ambitions, demonstrating bargaining power (Skjærseth and Wettestad, 2010).
Self-governance is enabled by subsidiarity, allowing national implementation; Sweden, for example, exceeds EU recycling targets through domestic policies (European Environment Agency, 2022). However, supranational enforcement limits autonomy, with ECJ infringements curbing deviations.
Influence varies by state size and resources; Germany often leads on renewables, shaping EU agendas, while smaller states like Malta rely on alliances (Knill and Liefferink, 2013). This asymmetry highlights limitations, as weaker states may face implementation burdens. Overall, states balance influence with EU obligations, maintaining self-governance in non-harmonised areas but conceding in core environmental standards.
Conclusion
In summary, EU environmental policy has evolved from an afterthought to a cornerstone of integration, explained through intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. Its historical development shows progressive deepening, main issues focus on climate and sustainability within subsidiarity limits, institutions like the Commission drive action, the legislative process blends formality with informality, and member states retain influence while navigating constrained self-governance. These aspects reveal the policy’s strengths in addressing transboundary challenges but also limitations from national divergences. Implications include the need for stronger supranational mechanisms to meet global goals, though this risks alienating states. Ultimately, the policy exemplifies the EU’s hybrid nature, balancing unity and diversity in an era of environmental urgency.
References
- Brandsma, G.J. (2015) ‘Co-decision after Lisbon: The politics of informal trilogues in European Union lawmaking’, European Union Politics, 16(2), pp. 300-319.
- Cini, M. and Pérez-Solòrzano Borragán, N. (2025) European Union politics. 7th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Dupont, C. and Oberthür, S. (2015) ‘The European Union as an international actor in climate change politics’, in The European Union as a diplomatic actor. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89-109.
- European Commission (2008) Climate and energy package. European Commission.
- European Commission (2019) The European Green Deal. European Commission.
- European Commission (2020) Circular economy action plan. European Commission.
- European Commission (2021) Infringement decisions. European Commission.
- European Environment Agency (2022) Europe’s changing climate hazards. EEA.
- European Parliament (2020) EU biodiversity strategy for 2030. European Parliament.
- Heyvaert, V. (2009) ‘Globalizing regulation: Reaching beyond the borders of chemical safety’, Journal of Law and Society, 36(1), pp. 110-128.
- Jordan, A. and Adelle, C. (eds.) (2013) Environmental policy in the EU: Actors, institutions and processes. 3rd edn. London: Routledge.
- Knill, C. and Liefferink, D. (2013) ‘The establishment of EU environmental policy’, in Environmental policy in the EU. London: Routledge, pp. 13-31.
- Rasmussen, A. and Reh, C. (2013) ‘The consequences of concluding codecision early: Trilogues and intra-institutional bargaining success’, Journal of European Public Policy, 20(7), pp. 1006-1024.
- Skjærseth, J.B. and Wettestad, J. (2010) ‘Making the EU emissions trading system: The European Commission as an entrepreneurial epistemic leader’, Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), pp. 1-21.
(Word count: 1624, including references)
