Press Release, 20th August

DECENTRALISED EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IS THE WAY FORWARD SAYS GLOBAL VISION

In a new paper for Global Vision, Mark Pennington challenges the rationale for the centralisation and harmonisation of environmental policy at the European level.

The need to tackle trans-boundary environmental problems is often cited as a reason to augment the powers of the European Union. In particular, the economic theory of collective goods – which recognises the potential for regulatory interventions to tackle instances of ‘market failure’ – has been invoked to justify the case for European-wide environmental policy. 

Pennington states that the desire to avoid a ‘race to the bottom’ scenario – whereby those with more stringent regulations are placed at a disadvantage in the competition for investment capital than countries with lower environmental standards – has further driven attempts at harmonising environmental regulation across the EU.

However, he argues that the theory of collective goods provides little – if any – justification for the further extension of EU powers.   Very few environmental goods are completely indivisible in supply; most are territorial in nature and their supply can differ within countries, between regions and even much smaller localities.  Thus most environmental problems can be dealt with on a localised basis.  Pennington argues that, in principle, such goods are suited to a process of decentralised supply in which citizens can ‘vote with their feet’.  

He challenges the assumption that even when collective goods problems do transcend national boundaries, EU action is the only possible option. In fact, most trans-boundary environmental issues do not correspond with the geographical boundaries of the EU and would be better dealt with via a process of decentralised bargaining between the states directly affected – which could provide the key to solving a whole host of environmental problems.  The Common Fisheries Policy is one area in particular which is ripe for a more decentralist approach. 

Pennington stated,

“Far from requiring that powers are transferred up from the nation state, in the British context, effective response to environmental problems requires that powers are devolved down to local authorities and to private individuals and voluntary organisations.”

He went on to say,

“The European Union does have a positive role to play in promoting better environmental outcomes, but it is a very different role from that with which they are currently engaged. By far the most positive role that the EU can play is that of arbiter/referee in the cross-border environmental dispute.  However, the Union should confine its direct powers of regulation over Member States to the handful of issues that cannot be dealt with adequately through a process of decentralised bargaining.”