From law-taking to policy-making. The environmental dimension of the EU accession process - Challenges, risks and chances for the SEE countries

Environmental Policy and Governance

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 130-139

  Tews, Kerstin ^a  

^a FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Central and Eastern Europe; Conditionality; Enlargement; EU; Policy transfer; South Eastern Europe

Indexed keywords

CONDITIONALITY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; EUROPEAN UNION; POLICY MAKING; RISK ASSESSMENT;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EASTERN EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE;

EID: 67549098324     PISSN: 1756932X     EISSN: 17569338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eet.498     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bennett CJ. 1991. What is policy convergence and what causes it? British Journal of Political Science 25(3): 215-233.
2. Börzel T. 2000. Improving compliance through domestic mobilisation? New instruments and effectiveness of implementation in Spain. In Implementing EU Environmental Policy. New Directions and Old Problems, Knill C, Lenschow A (eds). Manchester University Press: Manchester; 223-250.
3. Caddy J. 1997. Harmonization and asymmetry: environmental policy coordination between the European Union and Central Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 4(3): 318-336.
4. COM (1998) 294 final: of the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Candidate Countries in Central and Eastern Europe on Accession Strategies for Environment: Meeting the Challenge of Enlargement with the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. European Commission: Brussels.
5. COM (2005) 561 final: Communication from the Commission: 2005 Enlargement Strategy Paper. European Commission: Brussels.
6. COM (2006) 649: Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2006-2007. European Commission: Brussels.
7. Dolowitz DP. 2003. A policy-maker's guide to policy transfer. The Political Quarterly 74(1): 101-108.
8. Dolowitz DP, Marsh D. 2000. Learning from abroad. The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy making. Governance 13(1): 5-24.
9. ECOTEC. 2001. Administrative Capacity for Implementation and Enforcement of EU Environmental Policy in the 13 Candidate Countries. Final report. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enlarg/ administrative-capacity.htm [30 May 2001].
10. Evans M, Davies J. 1999. Understanding policy transfer: a multi-level, multi-disciplinary perspective. Public Administration 77(2): 361-385.
11. Fagin A, Jehlicka P. 2001. The impact of EU assistance on Czech environmental movement capacity since 1990. Paper presented at the workshop Environmental Challenges of EU Eastern Enlargement, Florenz, 2001.
12. Knill C, Lenschow A. 1998. Change as 'appropriate adaptation': administrative adjustment to European environmental policy in Britain and Germany. In European Integration Online Papers (EioP). http:// eiop.or.at [20 September 2007].
13. Marcussen M. 2001. The OECD in search of a role: playing the idea game. Paper prepared for presentation at the ECPR, 29th Joint Session of Workshops, Grenoble, 2001.
14. Mossberger K, Wolman H. 2001. Policy Transfer as a Form of Prospective Policy Evaluation. ESRC Research Programme on Future Governance, Future Governance Paper 2.
15. Phare. 1997. Phare Environmental Strategy: the Pre-Accession Phase. European Commission: Brussels.
16. Piontek E. 1997. Central and Eastern European countries in preparation for membership in the European Union - a Polish perspective. In Yearbook of Polish European Studies. Warsaw University Centre for Europe: Warsaw; Vol. 1, 73-87.
17. REC. 2005a. Progress in Environmental Law Drafting in South East Europe. REC: Budapest.
18. REC. 2005b. Targeting the Environmental Investment Challenge in South Eastern Europe. REC: Budapest.
19. REC. 2006. Environmental Snapshot of South Eastern Europe. REReP country profi les. REC: Budapest.
20. Rose R. 2001. Ten Steps in Learning Lessons from Abroad. ESRC Research Programme on Future Governance, Future Governance Paper 1.
21. Stone D. 1999. Learning lessons and transferring policies across time, space, and disciplines. Politics 19(1): 51-59.
22. Stone D. 2000. Learning lessons, transferring policies and exporting ideas. Paper presented at the international workshop The Diffusion of Environmental Policy Innovations, Berlin, 2000.
23. Tews K. 1999. EU-Erweiterung und Umweltschutz. Umweltpolitische Koordination zwischen EU und Polen. Leipziger Universitätsverlag: Leipzig.
24. Tews K. 2000. Umweltpolitik per Oktroi? Problematische Konsequenzen des einseitigen Rechtsanpassungszwangs am Beispiel der umweltpolitischen Koordination zwischen EU und Polen. In Osterweiterung der EU. Reformerfordernisse und Anpassungsleistungen, Hasse RH, Kunze C (eds). Leipziger Universitatsverlag; Leipzig; 85-113.
25. Tews K. 2002. Politiktransfer: Phänomen zwischen Policy-Lernen und Oktroi. Überlegungen zu unfreiwilligen Umweltpolitikimporten am Beispiel der EU-Osterweiterung. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht 25(2): 173-201.
26. Tews K, Binder M. 2006. Converging objectives diverging result? National goal formulation and goal achievement in climate change policies. In Environmental Governance in Global Perspective, Jänicke M, Jacob K (eds.)., Freie Universität Berlin: Berlin; 97-122.