Benefits Of Environmental Leglsiation Patrick Ten Brink Presentation To Oxford University Masters...

EU Enlargement and the Benefits of

Environmental Legislation

Oxford University MSc Brussels Study Tour

MSc Environmental Change and Management

Brussels 7 March 2008

Patrick ten Brink / Samuela Bassi

IEEP

[email protected]

www.ieep.eu

Presentation Overview

� Aim of the Benefits Studies (CC-13, Croatia, SEE & also ENP)

� Benefits of improving environmental legislation

� Methodological approaches

� Conclusions

� EU Enlargement and the accession challenge

Building on work by the team:

Study on 13 Candidate Countries: Ecotec, IEEP, Eftec, Metroeconomica and experts

SEE Benefits study: Arcadis-Ecolas, IEEP, Metroeconomica & Enviro-L

ENP Methodology work: IEEP

� EU Enlargement and the Accession Challenge

Big Bang: EU-15 goes to EU-25

1 May 2004 : Hungary, Poland, the Czech

Republic, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, plus

the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and

Lithuania, and the Mediterranean islands of

Malta and Cyprus. The choice of these

countries for EU accession in 2004 was the

culmination of a long process of preparation

and negotiation.

Enlargement - a short history

The 2007 Sequel

1 May 2007 : Bulgaria, Romania

Now: 27 countries and 493 million people

European reconciliation after 50 years

The 2001 Benefits Study focus

All 12 of the new Member States and

Turkey`

The Future? Balkans? Turkey? Iceland?

ENP countries?

Source: European Commission

Past EU Enlargements - Details

1951 ECSC:France,Italy, Germany, Belgium,The Netherlands, Luxembourg

1973:Denmark, Ireland, and UK

1981: Greece

1986:Spain and Portugal

1995: Austria, Finland and Sweden

2004:Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia.

2007Romania and Bulgaria

Source: http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/data/current/EUenlargement2007.ppt#376,3,Previous enlargements

SEE Countries – in due course all are

expected to be part of the EU

� The SEE countries - the former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Serbia,

Kosovo, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Montenegro

are either formal EU-candidates or expected to

become EU candidates.

� The EU has repeatedly reaffirmed at the highest

level its commitment for eventual EU

membership of the Western Balkan countries,

provided they fulfil the accession criteria.

�Croatia and Turkey are formally recognised as

candidate countries. They started accession

negotiations on 3 October 2005.

� In December 2005, the European Council

granted the former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia the status of a candidate country.Croatia Benefits Study focus (2005)

The SEE Benefits Study focus (2006-7)

Source: www.albic.net

ENP countries – always simply neighbours?

Some early debate – eg on Ukraine, Moldova

Others – from Morocco to Syria – seen as special

neighbours.

Personal expectation that some will become

members (eg Moldova, Ukraine), others will

remain outside (Maghreb to Syria)

Future Members or special relationships ?

What of European Neighbourhood Policy countries?

Still Benefits of implementing

environmental legislation

Some may build on EU example, others may

build on other examples or build on

domestic vision for what is appropriate

`

ENP Benefits studies yet to be done –

only a methodological guidelines and

partial test case on the Ukraine

Source: European Commission

Conditions for Membership

Treaty of the European Union (TEU)

Article 49 of the TEU:

Any European State which respects the principles set out in

Article 6(1) may apply to become a member of the Union.

Article 6 of the TEU:

The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy,

respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the

rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.

http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/data/current/EUenlargement2007.ppt#264,5,Conditions for Membership

Conditions for membership: Copenhagen, 1993

1) Political criteria (enshrined in the TEU, article 6)

The applicant country must have achieved stability of its institutions

guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for

and protection of minorities.

2) Economic criteria

– Functioning market economy

– Capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the

EU.

3) Acquis adoption and implementation criteria

� Ability to take on the obligations related to membership, including

adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union, and to

implement them efficiently and effectively.

� The EU’s capacity to absorb new members.

http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/data/current/EUenlargement2007.ppt#265,6,Conditions for membership Copenhagen - June, 1993

Accession Negotiations: the process

• Opening of chapters to the negotiations:

– Screening

– If negative: fulfillment of contractual obligations

– EU-27 unanimous decision (Intergovernmental conference)

• For each chapter to be opened:

– Negotiating position by candidate country

– Draft Common Position by Commission to the Member States

– EU common position adopted by MS unanimously ---- Next step

• Acquis, if not negotiable?

– Transitional measures may be negotiated : limited in time and

scope.

Ex: free movement of workers environment

http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/data/current/EUenlargement2007.ppt#389,14,Accession Negotiations: the process

Accession negotiations: Chapters

1. Free movement of goods

2. Freedom of movement for workers

3. Right of establishment and freedom

to provide services

4. Free movement of capital

5. Public procurement

6. Company law

7. Intellectual property law

8. Competition policy

9. Financial services

10. Information society and media

11. Agriculture

12. Food safety, veterinary and

phytosanitary policy

13. Fisheries

14. Transport policy

15. Energy

16. Taxation

17. Economic and monetary policy

18. Statistics

19. Social policy and employment

20. Enterprise and industrial policy

21. Trans-European Networks

22. Regional policy and coordination

of structural instruments

23. Judiciary and fundamental rights

24. Justice, freedom and security

25. Science and research

26. Education and culture

27. Environment

28. Consumers and health protection

29. Customs union

30. External relations

31. Foreign security and defence policy

32. Financial control

33. Financial and budgetary provisions

34. Institutions

35. Other issues

http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/data/current/EUenlargement2007.ppt#266,17,Accession negotiations: Chapters

� Each country that wishes to join the EU needs to implement the body of EU

environmental law, known as the ‘Acquis Communautaire’,

� This comprises around 300 Environmental Directives and Regulations, including

daughter Directives and amendments + environmental aspects of legislation in other

sectors

� Transposition : Legislative compliance

� Getting administrative capacity in place

� Implementing legislation – identifying (best/appropriate new) projects;

covering investment costs; finding funding/finance (the financing challenge),

� Operation/maintenance (possible upgrade) of environmental infrastructure

� Monitoring and enforcing legislation

� There is the additional challenge of also respecting EU, international and domestic

commitments which go beyond implementing EU legislation, which adds to the scale

and complexity of the task (but not explored here)

The Implementation Challenge

The Steps in the Development of Legislation

Commission working proposals

DirectiveRegulationProposed

Council/Parliament

Adopted DirectiveRegulation

Transposition legislationComplementary legislation

Impact Assessment

ImplementationInspection/Enforcement

consultation

Insights on implementation

Review

Source: IMPEL Workshop: Issues of Practicability and Enforcement and the Policy Cycle, Project Workshop

11-13 October 2006, Golden Tulip Rotterdam-Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

The Steps in the Legislative Process

White Paper Green PaperCommunication

Commission Internal working

proposals

Consultation

National legislation

Commissioned work

Proposed DirectiveProposed Regulation

Council/Parliament

Transposition: Proposed National

Legislation Consultation

GuidanceComplementary legislation

Impact Assessment (IA)

Adopted DirectiveAdopted Regulation

Implementation

Monitoring, Enforcement & Reporting

Review

DirectiveRegulation

IAPropose Amendment

Consultation – eg for permits

Consultation

IA

IA

Transposition

Revision

EULegislation

Implementation

MonitoringInspectionEnforcement

EvaluationReview

Policies

Impact Assessment

requirementsprove to be

unclear, conflicting

requirements can not reasonably be complied with

requirements can not be enforced

policy aims of legislation are not met by compliance with requirements;

requirements prove to be inappropriate

compliance with requirements

can not reasonably be checked

Consultation

Good regulation should be Practicable and Enforceable

Yet problems can be seen in the Regulatory Cycle

Source: IMPEL Workshop: Issues of Practicability and Enforcement and the Policy Cycle, Project Workshop

11-13 October 2006, Golden Tulip Rotterdam-Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

The Financing challenge: estimated Financing Needs for

compliance with the EU environmental acquis

Country BG CY CZ EE H LV

Total Cost 1997

Estimate MEUR

15000 1118-

1264

13400 1500 13700 1710

2001 update

Total Cost MEUR

8610 1086 6600-

9400

4406 4118-10000 1480-

2360

Country LT MT PL RO SK SI Total

Total Cost 1997

Estimate MEUR

2380 NA 35200 22000 5400 1840 122618-

122764

2001 update

Total Cost: MEUR

1600 130 22100-

42800

22000 4809 2430 79260-

110001

Source: CEC (2001) Communication from the Commission - The Challenge of Environmental Financing in the Candidate Countries

Examples of environmental legislation – areas where

there is a real challenge to most countries

• The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) – given that the

costs will need to be spread over time and the smaller municipalities in particular

will have problems raising needed investments.

• The Landfill Directive – eg for oil shale in Estonia (2009) given particular

resource there; for certain liquid wastes in Bulgaria (2014); also in place in

Poland given implementation capacity issues at the level of Gminas (2012).

• Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from storage and distribution of

petrol – given difficulties facing smaller sites.

• Sulphur content of certain liquid fuels – investment needs for certain refineries.

• Drinking water – given infrastructure costs.

• Discharges of dangerous substances into the aquatic environment.

• Packaging and packaging waste – given technology availability.

• Shipments of waste – giving time to develop national recycling infrastructure.

• Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) for existing installations –

given costs and need to link to investment cycles.

• Large combustion plant Directive (LCPD) – given costs.

• Hazardous waste incineration Directive.

EU Directives Air

SO2

NOx

Particu

late

s

VOCs

CO2

CO

Heavy metals

Dioxins

Ammonia

Halogen

s

Ozo

ne

CH4

Air Quality

Large Combustion Plants x x x

IPPC Directive x x x x x x x

National Emissions Ceilings Directive x x x x x

Emissions from Mobile Sources x x x x x x x

Ambient Air Quality Directves - SO2

and Particulates, Nitrogen Oxides, Lead,

Benzene et al

x x x x x

VOC Emissions from Storage and

Transport of Petrol

x

VOC-Solvents Directive x

Waste Incineration Directive x x x x x x x

Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive x x x x x x x x

Legislation and Common Pollutants

Main data:

�Ha and % of

protected areas

�No. of species and

level of risk

� Ecosystem

services

Main pollutants:

�CH4

Main data:

�Tonnes of Domestic,

Industrial and Inert waste

�Population served by

the collection system

�No. of existing and

planned facilities

(landfills, incineration

plants, recycling) and

collected material

�No. of illegal dump

sites and quantity of waste

Main pollutants:

�BOD and COD

�pH

�Nitrogen &

Phosphorus

�Heavy metals

�Dioxins

�Fluoride

�E. coli

Main data:

Connection to water

supply and waste water

systems and level of

waste water treatment.

Quality of rivers

(classification x km)

Number of aquifers

polluters (nitrates or

pesticides)

Main pollutants:

�SO2

�NOx

�Particulates

(PM10, PM 2.5)

�VOCs

�CO2

�CO

�Heavy metals

�Dioxins

�Furans

�Halogens

�Ozone

�CH4

NatureWasteWaterAir

What issues are likely to be important

� Aim of the Benefits Studies

The Benefits Studies

The benefits of compliance with the environmental acquis for the candidate

countries (July 2001) led by Ecotec and supported by the Institute for Environmental Policy (IEEP),

Metroeconomica, EFTEC and national experts.

Benefits for Croatia of compliance with the environmental acquis(08/2004 - 05/2005, carried out by Ecolas and IEEP with a range of national experts)

Benefits for fYRoM and other countries of SEE of compliance with the

environmental acquisby Arcadis-Ecolas and the Institute of European Environmental Policy (IEEP) with

input from experts from across the SEE countries – Enviro-L and associates

P ten Brink and S Bassi (2008) A Methodology for Assessing the Benefits of the

Environment in ENP Countries - Executive Summary Working Document for

DGENV of the European Communities.

Specific Aim of the Benefits Studies

� Explore and estimate the environmental, economic, and social benefits likely to

arise from the full implementation of the EU environmental legislation for EU

candidates

� For other countries not expected to become EU candidates explore the same

type of benefits from the implementation of ambitious but realistic

environmental legislation (eg on the basis of protocols, benchmarking practice, or

link to legislation of others)

� For EU Candidates: obtain a full and better understanding of the real effects of

their accession to the EU – covering benefits & not only costs.

� And ensure that environmental concerns are given the attention, priority and

funding that they deserve.

Use of the Benefits Studies

� For the European Commission – for dialogue, negotiations,

launching studies/cooperation

� National ministries of environment

� National ministries of health, labour and consumer protection

� Regional authorities

� For municipalities

� For inspectorates/enforcement agencies - eg to clarify and help argue for greater priority/resources/funding

� Good for the environment – with economic and social benefits

� Supporting move to EU accession

� Methodological approaches

Background: Development Paths

Sustainable Development

growth path "Minimisation" growth path, employing best

available technologies and waste minimisation

"Traditional Business-as-

Usual" growth path

Increased Environmental

Impact

Figure ES.1: Alternative Development Paths in the Accession Countries

Increased

economic

activity

Current position of region economy

EU Environmental

Legislation

Basic Valuation Framework

� Understand state of environment ‘now’ - the reference point. This includes

and understanding of the relationship between pollution and impact

� Understand the existing policies and policy instruments that will affect the state

of environment as well as external issues (economic growth, changes in likely

exposure levels etc) - estimate the baseline (business as usual, BaU)

� Useful also to know the cost of policy inaction (COPI) – the cost of not changing

business as usual.

� Understand the possible policy targets and timescales – eg from EU legislation

� Estimate the state of environment ensuing from the policy targets – the policy

scenario

� Compare the policy scenario with the baseline and the differences are the

benefits.

�Important to look at results in qualitative, quantitative and monetary terms

What are the improvements

and what are useful targets / benchmarks?

Level of

pollution

Current

SituationCOPI: 100%

reduction50% reduction EU acquis

Reference year

pollution level = static

baseline

Baseline pollution levels

Policy Target: eg

benchmark OECD

Methodology Overview

� Three steps to Analyse the Benefits of Implementing Env

Legislation

�Type of Benefits:

�E.g. e.g. health impacts, impacts on agriculture, buildings.

�Extent of Benefits:

�E.g. level of emissions reduced

�E.g. how many cases of respiratory diseases are avoided?

�Value of Benefits:

�E.g. how much would the reduced emissions and damages avoided

by implementing EU directives be worth?

�Need to be realistic about what can be said in what terms and to what audience.

Benefits Studies

What can be said in what terms and what was explored?

Valuation

and

Quantification

and

Description

of

Benefits

Monetary Value

Quantitative Review of Effects

Non-Specified

Benefits

Air Water Waste Nature

Qualitative Review

Chemicals

Nuclear

Yes Yes Yes Yes

yesyes

NoElements

Yes

How much would the reduced

emissions and damages avoided by

implementing EU directives be worth?

Quantitative:

Level of emissions reduced

E.g. how many cases of

respiratory diseases are

avoided?

Type of benefits

– eg health

impacts, cleaner

water

�Need to be realistic about what can be said in what terms and to what audience.

Full Range of Effects of All Directives

Basic Valuation Framework

Damage Cost / Benefits

Savings

Business as Usual

Reference Full End Time

Year Implementation Year(eg 2004)

(2020) (2030)

If difficult to define use

the reference year

Relation between pollution and impact

Exposure to pollution leads to a possibility for illness. This is measured as a

“probability function”, known as a Dose Response Function

Quantitative results

� Likely number of impacts = number of people exposed * Dose Response

Function * ambient air quality (pollution levels).

�Results given in probable number of cases of bronchitis, probable number of

early mortality etc

Monetary results

� For health impacts - use value of statistical life (VSL) + use of transfer

values for early mortality & Cost of Illness (COI) / discomfort estimates (eg for

bronchitis), based on WTP.

� For other benefits – eg benefits from improvements in quality of access to

drinking water – used willingness to Pay (WTP) estimates

Dose Response Functions – Some examples

Source: Elena Strukova, Alexander Golub, and Anil Markandya, Air Pollution Costs in Ukraine

Transfer Value approach – An example

Important as countries have different levels of wealth

Source: Elena Strukova, Alexander Golub, and Anil Markandya, Air Pollution Costs in Ukraine

Benefits of Action types - Air

Cultural tourism.

Attracting investment.

Employment from environmental goods

Wider economic

benefits

Improved access to cultural heritage (less damage to

historic buildings)

Lesser social inequality by poor being more exposed

to air pollution

Social benefits

Avoided global warming from CO2 emissions

Avoided damage to lake & forest ecosystems from

acidic rains

Ecosystem

benefits

Avoided damage to buildings and cropsResource benefits

Avoided respiratory illnesses and premature deathsHealth benefits

From: Benefits for fYRoM and other countries of SEE of compliance with the environmental acquis by Arcadis-Ecolas and the Institute

of European Environmental Policy (IEEP) with input from experts from across the SEE countries – Enviro-L and associates

Benefits - Water

Employment via tourism related to water recreationWider economic

benefits

Confidence in drinking waterSocial benefits

Likely changes in river and lake water qualityEcosystem

benefits

Reduction of contaminants in surface waterResource benefits

Households benefiting from connection to (improved)

quality water

Health benefits



Waste: Qualitative Assessment

Increased efficiency in the use of material and reduced production

of primary material as a result of higher levels of recycling. The

recovery of energy is increased through the Incineration Directive.

Resource

benefits

Lower pollution to groundwater and surface water

Reduced health and explosions risks as well as lower impact on

global warming as methane emissions from landfills are captured and

made to generate energy. Reduced health risks by improved

treatment and disposal of hazardous waste

Health benefits

Lower costs for waste collection, treatment and disposal, as less

waste will be produced.

Wider economic

benefits

Reduced discrimination by fewer low income households living close

to unprotected landfills, etc.

Social benefits

Benefits to eco-systems and other environmental resources as

emissions from waste activities into air, water and soil are reduced

(avoided leachate, methane emissions) – reduced pressure

Ecosystem

benefits



Benefits from Nature Directives

• Environmental benefits� Increased protected areas coverage

� Increase in the level of protection

� Increased connectivity between protected areas: eg reduced fragmentation in FYROM due to infrastructures, overuse of resources etc

� Reduced threats/risks to species and habitats: eg wetlands destruction, intensive agriculture etc threatening birds in Kosovo

� Eco-system benefits (: eg reduced soil erosion from deforestation in Albania

� Improved environmental data – especially in Kosovo and B-H



Now

Reduced threats,

improved mgt

Quality

1900

Quantity

1950

2000

1000

Transformation

of Europe to

Agricultural

economy

Pollution starts

to have major

effect on quality

Quality

Quantity

With EU Acquis

Further potential possible

Designation of new

areas as Natura 2000

Approach: Nature benefits

�Qualitative benefits: environmental – social - economic

�Quantitative benefits: expected increase in protected areas size

�Monetary benefits: n/a

� Benefits from improving the environment

Key Findings: CC-13 Study

Extent of Benefits

� Air

� 43.000 and 180.000 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis;

� 15.000 and 34.000 fewer cases of premature death;

�Waste

� Recycling: increase by around 3.7 million tonnes (22 kg per

capita) due to Packaging Waste Directive;

� Reduction in waste disposed in landfill from between 59

million tonnes (1998) to 20-35 million tonnes in 2020.

From: The benefits of compliance with the environmental acquis for the candidate countries (July 2001) led by Ecotec and

supported by the Institute for Environmental Policy (IEEP), Metroeconomica, EFTEC and national experts.

� Air

� 7 to 44 billion Euro / yr for full compliance

� Water

� 5 to 14 billion Euro a year

� Waste

�1 to 12 billion Euro a year

�Total

�12.5 to 69 billion Euro / year for full compliance

�134 to 680 billion Euro for period to 2020

� Given uncertainties:

� important to show range

� important to use lower estimate for drawing insights

� important to underline what is covered and what not

Key Findings: CC-13 Study

Value of Benefits



Key Findings: SEE study

� Air

� Approximately 6050 equivalent cases of chronic bronchitis / 4475 fewer

cases of premature death arising from lung cancer could be avoided per

year

� Air benefits : annual benefit 631 to 1.115 million EUR,

� Water

� 55% to 94% of population benefiting from quality improvements of

drinking water / 6.3 million households

� Drinking water quality benefits : around 654 million EUR/year

� Benefits of an improved surface water quality : 114 to 389 million

EUR/year

� Total Water Benefits: 750 - 893 million EUR/year

� Total benefits air and water: 1,4 - 2 billion EUR/year



Key Findings: SEE study (cont.)

� Waste

� Reduction of methane emissions from landfills: 70 - 191 ktonnes/year

� decrease in landfill disposal levels to around 64 to 54% of the non-

implementation levels.

� Nature

� Level of nature protected areas increases from 0.5% - 8% of the territory to

about 10% - 16%

� Level of management and protection expected to improve.

� The SEE countries will add to the wealth of EU biodiversity and ecosystems.



�Air

� 22,000-27,000 cases of early mortality and 13,000-90,000 cases of

morbidity could potentially be avoided if city ambient air quality

were to meet WHO standards.

� The avoided cost for improved city air quality could be of about 13

billion grivynas (US$2.6 billion), ie 4 percent of GDP.

Key Findings: Ukraine from reduced exposure to air pollution

Source: Strukova E., Golub, A. and Markandya, A. (2006): Air Pollution Costs in Ukraine

Annual Value of Benefits for Full Compliance: Lower Estimate

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

PL TU CR RO HU SK BU LI SL LV EE CY MA

ME

UR

Waste

Water

Air

Some country details



Annual Benefits of Full Compliance - Share of GDP

0.71%

0.76%

1.32%

1.65%

1.67%

1.72%

2.17%

2.52%

2.58%

2.91%

2.92%

3.89%

3.99%

4.80%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%

MA

CY

SL

LV

EE

TU

HU

BU

ALL

PO

LI

SZ

RO

CZ

(percentage of GDP)



Transboundary Benefits

� Domestic action also benefits to other candidate countries and the

EU- notably from implementing the EU air legislation:

� Half of the total benefits in Hungary derived from action in other

candidate countries;

� Polish initiatives will lead to between 0.6 to 3.3 billion Euro

benefits other candidate countries;

� The EU would benefit from lower emissions in the candidate

countries (around 6 billion Euro/year - lower estimate).

� Third countries (Russia, Ukraine…) will also benefit from compliance:

� Total benefits to third countries: around 10 billion Euros per year.



0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Malta

Cyprus

Estonia

Latvia

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Lithuania

Slovakia

Hungary

Czech. Rep.

Romania

Turkey

Poland

MEUR

Dom Other

Total Candidate Country Benefits – Benefits from Domestic Action

and Benefits from action by other Candidate Countries

(MEUR/year upon full compliance in 2010)



� Conclusions

Overall Conclusions

� Implementing the EU environmental directives can help improve the

health and quality of life for citizens across the Candidate Countries, and to

a certain extent, to citizens of the EU

� Co-operation across candidate countries is crucial to maximise the

transboundary benefits from reducing air pollution

� In narrow monetary terms, the assessed benefits are likely to be of the

same order of magnitude if not larger than the costs of implementation EU

directives.

� The results to help communicate the importance of the environmental

issues to the political level.

� quantification of the health and environmental benefits from action

� valuable economic message from the monetisation aspect – reaching

some new audiences

Where is benefits assessment going?

� Benefits have to be assessed within the Impact Assessments that now

need to be done for all major policies/legislation, programmes etc.

� Benefits assessments for new candidates is arguably becoming ‘good

practice’ – it was done for Croatia, also for FYROM and other SEE

countries, and some scoping work for ENP. Future detailed studies can be

expected. It is a tool that can help the Commission, and help Ministries of

Environment in the countries themselves.

� Benefits assessments are being done in an increasingly wide range of

areas – eg eco-system services losses; socio-economic benefits of Natura

2000 – major input for COP9 of the CBD and beyond.

� Being increasingly complemented by cost of policy inaction (COPI)

studies to help present the scale of the need for action.

EU Enlargement and the Benefits of

Environmental Legislation

IEEP is an independent not for profit institute dedicated to advancing an

environmentally sustainable Europe through policy analysis, development and

dissemination.

Thank you !

Patrick ten Brink

Senior Fellow and Head of Brussels Office

Samuela BassiPolicy Analyst

Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)

[email protected]

www.ieep.eu

Building on work by the team:

13 Candidate Countries: Ecotec, IEEP, Eftec, Metroeconomica and experts

SEE Benefits: Arcadis-Ecolas, IEEP, Metroeconomica & Enviro-L

ENP Methodology work: IEEP

Benefits Of Environmental Leglsiation Patrick Ten Brink Presentation To Oxford University Masters...

Economy & Finance

Transcript of Benefits Of Environmental Leglsiation Patrick Ten Brink Presentation To Oxford University Masters...