Benefits Of Environmental Leglsiation Patrick Ten Brink Presentation To Oxford University Masters Students 7 March 2008 Final

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
Ptenbrink@ieep.eu
www.ieep.eu

Presentation Overview

EU Enlargement and the accession challenge

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

Methodological approaches

Benefits of improving environmental legislation

Conclusions

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

Enlargement - a short history
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 The 2001 Benefits Study focus
Malta and Cyprus. The choice of these All 12 of the new Member States and
countries for EU accession in 2004 was the Turkey`
culmination of a long process of preparation
and negotiation.
The 2007 Sequel
1 May 2007 : Bulgaria, Romania
Now: 27 countries and 493 million people

European reconciliation after 50 years

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.

2007
Romania 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.
Source: www.albic.net
In December 2005, the European Council
granted the former Yugoslav Republic of Croatia Benefits Study focus (2005)
Macedonia the status of a candidate country. The SEE Benefits Study focus (2006-7)

Future Members or special relationships ?
What of European Neighbourhood Policy countries?

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)

Still Benefits of implementing
environmental legislation
Source: European Commission
`
Some may build on EU example, others may ENP Benefits studies yet to be done –
build on other examples or build on only a methodological guidelines and
domestic vision for what is appropriate partial test case on the Ukraine

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 19. Social policy and employment
2. Freedom of movement for workers 20. Enterprise and industrial policy
3. Right of establishment and freedom 21. Trans-European Networks
to provide services 22. Regional policy and coordination
4. Free movement of capital of structural instruments
5. Public procurement 23. Judiciary and fundamental rights
6. Company law 24. Justice, freedom and security
7. Intellectual property law 25. Science and research
8. Competition policy 26. Education and culture
9. Financial services 27. Environment
10. Information society and media 28. Consumers and health protection
11. Agriculture 29. Customs union
12. Food safety, veterinary and 30. External relations
phytosanitary policy 31. Foreign security and defence policy
13. Fisheries 32. Financial control
14. Transport policy 33. Financial and budgetary provisions
15. Energy 34. Institutions
16. Taxation 35. Other issues
17. Economic and monetary policy
18. Statistics

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

The Implementation Challenge

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 Steps in the Development of Legislation

Review Commission working proposals

Impact Assessment consultation

Proposed Regulation Directive

Council/Parliament

Adopted Regulation Directive

Complementary legislation Transposition legislation

Implementation
Inspection/Enforcement

Insights on implementation

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 Communication Green Paper

Commissioned work Consultation
Commission Internal working
proposals
Impact Assessment (IA)

Proposed Regulation Proposed Directive

Council/Parliament

Adopted Regulation Adopted Directive
IA
Transposition: Proposed National
Legislation Consultation

Complementary legislation National legislation Guidance

Consultation – eg for permits Implementation IA

Monitoring, Enforcement & Reporting

Review Consultation

Propose Amendment IA

Regulation Directive

Good regulation should be Practicable and Enforceable
Yet problems can be seen in the Regulatory Cycle

requirements
Policies EU prove to be
Transposition
Legislation unclear, conflicting

Impact Assessment

Consultation
requirements can
not reasonably be
Revision Implementation complied with

compliance with
Monitoring
Evaluation requirements
Inspection can not reasonably
Review
Enforcement be checked
policy aims of legislation are not met
by compliance with requirements;
requirements can
requirements prove to be
not be enforced
inappropriate

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 15000 1118- 13400 1500 13700 1710
Estimate MEUR 1264

2001 update 8610 1086 6600- 4406 4118-10000 1480-
Total Cost MEUR 9400 2360

Country LT MT PL RO SK SI Total

Total Cost 1997 2380 NA 35200 22000 5400 1840 122618-
Estimate MEUR 122764

2001 update 1600 130 22100- 22000 4809 2430 79260-
Total Cost: MEUR 42800 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.

Legislation and Common Pollutants
EU Directives Air

Heavy metals
Particulate

Ammonia
Halogens
Dioxins

Ozone
VOCs
NOx

CO2
SO2

CH4
CO
s
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 x x x x x
and Partic ulates, Nitrogen Oxides, Lead,
Benzene et al
VOC Emissions from Storage and x
Transport of Petrol
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

What issues are likely to be important
Air Water Waste Nature
Main pollutants: Main pollutants: Main pollutants: Main data:
SO2 BOD and COD CH4 Ha and % of
NOx pH Main data: protected areas
Particulates Nitrogen & Tonnes of Domestic, No. of species and
(PM10, PM 2.5) Phosphorus Industrial and Inert waste level of risk
VOCs Heavy metals Population served by Ecosystem
the collection system services
CO2 Dioxins
CO Fluoride No. of existing and
planned facilities
Heavy metals E. coli
(landfills, incineration
Dioxins Main data: plants, recycling) and
Furans Connection to water collected material
Halogens supply and waste water No. of illegal dump
systems and level of sites and quantity of waste
Ozone
waste water treatment.
CH4
Quality of rivers
(classification x km)
Number of aquifers
polluters (nitrates or
pesticides)

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 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

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

Background: Development Paths

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

Increased Sustainable Development
economic growth path
activity quot;Minimisationquot; growth path, employing best
available technologies and waste minimisation

quot;Traditional Business-as-
Usualquot; growth path

EU Environmental
Legislation

Current position of region economy

Increased Environmental
Impact

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?

Baseline pollution levels
Level of Reference year
pollution pollution level = static
baseline

Current COPI: 100% EU acquis Policy Target: eg
50% reduction
Situation reduction 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?
How much would the reduced
Non-Specified emissions and damages avoided by
Valuation implementing EU directives be worth?
Benefits
and
Quantitative:
Quantification Elements No Level of emissions reduced
Monetary Value E.g. how many cases of
and respiratory diseases are
avoided?
Description
Yes yes yes
of Quantitative Review of Effects
Type of benefits
Benefits – eg health
impacts, cleaner
Yes Yes Yes Yes water
Qualitative Review
Chemicals
Air Water Waste Nature Nuclear

Full Range of Effects of All Directives
Need to be realistic about what can be said in what terms and to what audience.

Basic Valuation Framework

Damage Cost / Benefits
Savings

Business as Usual
If difficult to define use
the reference year

Reference Full End Time
Year (eg 2004) Implementation Year
(2020) (2030)

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

Health benefits Avoided respiratory illnesses and premature deaths

Resource benefits Avoided damage to buildings and crops
Ecosystem Avoided global warming from CO2 emissions
benefits Avoided damage to lake & forest ecosystems from
acidic rains
Social benefits Improved access to cultural heritage (less damage to
historic buildings)
Lesser social inequality by poor being more exposed
to air pollution
Wider economic Cultural tourism.
benefits Attracting investment.
Employment from environmental goods

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

Health benefits Households benefiting from connection to (improved)
quality water
Resource benefits Reduction of contaminants in surface water
Ecosystem Likely changes in river and lake water quality
benefits
Social benefits Confidence in drinking water
Wider economic Employment via tourism related to water recreation
benefits


Waste: Qualitative Assessment

Health 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
Resource Increased efficiency in the use of material and reduced production
benefits of primary material as a result of higher levels of recycling. The
recovery of energy is increased through the Incineration Directive.

Ecosystem Benefits to eco-systems and other environmental resources as
benefits emissions from waste activities into air, water and soil are reduced
(avoided leachate, methane emissions) – reduced pressure
Social benefits Reduced discrimination by fewer low income households living close
to unprotected landfills, etc.
Wider economic Lower costs for waste collection, treatment and disposal, as less
benefits waste will be produced.


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


Approach: Nature benefits
Quality Quality

1000
1900 Further potential possible
Pollution starts Transformation
to have major With EU Acquis
of Europe to
effect on quality Agricultural Reduced threats,
1950 economy improved mgt

2000 Now

Designation of new
areas as Natura 2000

Quantity Quantity

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.

Key Findings: CC-13 Study
Value of Benefits
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: 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.


Key Findings: Ukraine
from reduced exposure to air pollution

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

Some country details
Annual Value of Benefits for Full Compliance: Lower Estimate

4500
4000
3500
Waste
3000
MEUR

2500
Water
2000
1500
Air
1000
500
0
PL TU CR RO HU SK BU LI SL LV EE CY MA


Annual Benefits of Full Compliance - Share of GDP
CZ 4.80%
RO 3.99%
SZ 3.89%
LI 2.92%
PO 2.91%
ALL 2.58%
BU 2.52%
HU 2.17%
TU 1.72%
EE 1.67%
LV 1.65%
SL 1.32%
CY 0.76%
MA 0.71%

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


Total Candidate Country Benefits – Benefits from Domestic Action
and Benefits from action by other Candidate Countries
(MEUR/year upon full compliance in 2010)
Poland

Turkey

Romania
Dom Other
Czech. Rep.

Hungary

Slovakia

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Slovenia

Latvia

Estonia

Cyprus

Malta

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
MEUR


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 Bassi
Policy Analyst

Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
ptenbrink@ieep.eu
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 Students 7 March 2008 Final

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (11)

Semelhante a Benefits Of Environmental Leglsiation Patrick Ten Brink Presentation To Oxford University Masters Students 7 March 2008 Final

Semelhante a Benefits Of Environmental Leglsiation Patrick Ten Brink Presentation To Oxford University Masters Students 7 March 2008 Final (20)

Mais de Institute for European Environmental Policy IEEP

Mais de Institute for European Environmental Policy IEEP (20)

Último

Último (20)

Benefits Of Environmental Leglsiation Patrick Ten Brink Presentation To Oxford University Masters Students 7 March 2008 Final