Accession Anticipation in Environmental Ambition

Abstract

The European Union (EU) is entering a new period in its development in which two separate trajectories coincide: the renewed momentum for EU enlargement following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the green transition towards climate neutrality in 2050. The enlargement process and corresponding literature are known for the focus on conditionality towards the Candidate States. Research regarding the potential impact of a future accession on the EU and its internal policies often stays within the political and institutional implications, yet overlooks the preparedness of the EU and its policies for such change. Without effective cross-sector and -level coordination, future accessions could potentially strain the EU’s capabilities to meet its climate commitments. By employing the Multi-Level Governance (MLG) framework (Hooghe & Marks, 2001; 2003) and the MLG tool by Claire Charbit (2011), this study provides an exploratory and diagnostic insight into the coordination between enlargement and climate departments at the EU and national level, and what the limitations of said coordination indicate for the EU climate policy’s preparedness in the context of a future accession.

The research is predicated on the following research question: What do coordination gaps between climate and enlargement policy actors reveal about the preparedness of EU climate policy for future enlargement?

Research on preparedness of the EU climate policy framework is scarce and does not provide a suitable definition for this current study. For that reason, definitions from studies regarding the preparedness of other policy areas was applied, resulting in the working definition of preparedness being the institutional ability to anticipate and manage future systematic pressures through coordinated action across relevant sectors and governance levels (Kancs, 2024; König, 2024). To assess the limitations of coordination between enlargement and climate departments at the national and EU level, Charbit’s (2011) tool was employed in the operationalisation, resulting in four main coordination gaps: the Policy Gap, Information Gap, Objective Gap, and Accountability Gap. Subsequently, eight indicators, two per gap, formed the basis for the data collection and analysis processes. Through a qualitative case study of the Netherlands as the MS case, in-depth interviews with civil servants from enlargement and climate departments at both levels were conducted for data collection which were analysed in a deductive manner.

The results present a slight indication for the information gap, yet generally based on issues that are limitedly impactful on the preparedness of the EU climate policy framework. However, a policy gap, an objective gap, and an accountability gap appear more apparent within the coordination between the studied departments. Most notable is the seemingly non-existent communication between climate departments at the EU and national level, creating a policy gap. This gap appears to be increased by the misalignment of timelines of the separate processes. While the existence of an objective gap can be partially justified by the differing tasks and responsibilities of the departments, the absence of a clear aim to consider future enlargements into the development of new EU climate policies, such as the currently negotiated 2040 targets in the EU Climate Law, points towards a more apparent objective gap. Finally, the accountability gap appears most significantly at the EU level, as respondents’ answers are conflicting regarding the final decision-making authority.

This study has been an exploratory assessment and attempt to diagnose cross-sector and cross-level coordination issues. Subsequently, more research would be beneficial to provide a broader understanding of this underexplored topic.