Part of the Problem? The Eurasian Economic Union and Environmental Challenges in the Former Soviet Union

Abstract

While there is a sizeable body of evidence linking greater economic freedom to better environmental outcomes, one of the outliers which persists is the ambiguous relationship of trade to the environment. Some theoretical approaches posit that trade would lead to a "race to the bottom," where firms would move to countries with the laxest regulations; on the other hand, the competitive effects of trade should force polluting firms to clean up in order to better serve their customers. But what occurs when trade expands among countries who already have shown -via policy and politics -that the environment is not a priority? Such an example comes from real life with the Eurasian Economic Union (EaEU), a collection of autocracies who have pursued integration but without any extensive, market-based liberalization. This paper examines the role of the EaEU in increasing trade among its member states and attempts to ascertain the effect this has had on the already-fragile environments in each of these countries. A theoretical examination, backed up with an empirical exercise, shows that the EaEU did indeed lead to more environmentally unfriendly production. I conclude that the EaEU needs to shift towards marketbased liberalization in order to improve environmental quality within the group.

Economy and environmental protection: the search for optimal solutions for balanced development and minimizing the negative impact on nature

“…The development of various departmental regulations should include not only punitive measures against companies and enterprises engaged in non-ecological production, but also an incentive for such companies to focus on alternative ways of conducting production activities. The consolidation of these norms by law will allow companies to rely on them more firmly, since state support is an important factor contributing to the development of entrepreneurship in various countries [14].…”

In our (frozen) backyard: the Eurasian Union and regional environmental governance in the Arctic

“…Indeed, the greatest successes in the EaEU's existence have been in the trade realm, driven by the explicit desires of its members and, in particular, by its two largest members, Russia and Kazakhstan. 4 However, unlike the EU, the delegation of powers within the EaEU does not extend to environmental policy, a point that Hartwell (2021) has noted in the context of the EaEU's approach to environmental governance: while environmental protection is included in discrete areas in the treaty founding the EaEU (Obydenkovka (2022b) notes that the treaty has extensive references to sustainable development, while Hall et al (2022) show precisely the emphasis on the environment), a unified environmental policy is lacking. In reality, the environmental sphere has been added in bits and pieces to the existing multilateral structure, considered only in terms of its relation to central delegated powers such as trade, with sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures harmonized, along with veterinary standards and some specific aspects of epidemiological welfare (Navasardova et al 2022).…”

“…Indeed, this approach to environmental governance mirrored the very beginning of the EaEU: as Dragneva and Wolczuk (2017:2) noted, "The rapid launch of the union was made possible through bilateral deals initiated by Russia with individual member countries rather than any particular appetite for integration from member states." This approach has meant that the scope of environmental focus has been limited to issues which are important for the dyad in question rather than taken holistically across the entire trading zone, an oversight when one considers that the performance of the EaEU in fostering green outcomes has not been excellent (Hartwell 2021). Ironically, the integration organization that has had the most focus on environmental policy in the former Soviet Union has not been the EaEU but the EU, offering billions of euros of support via various Partnership agreements for improved environmental policy (Konopelko 2018).…”

“…Similarly, given that the governance mechanisms of EaEU member states are predicated on supporting the ruling regimes of members rather than creating liberal integration, there would likely be little space to push for environmental innovation, even if Russia was amenable to having the EaEU play a broader role. Finally, as Hartwell (2021) notes, the EaEU's overall record on the environment above and beyond its member state productive capacities is rather bleak, as countries which participated in the customs union and/or the EaEU have had less efficient (more materials intensive) production than non-EaEU members since the grouping came together.…”

“…At the same time, Russia is also the only member of the EaEU with direct interests in the Arctic: the Russian Federation has an Arctic coastline which stretches for 24,410 km, accounting for over half (53%) of the total coastline of the Arctic, while its administrative "Arctic Zone" (AZRF) comprises 5 million square kilometers, with a population of 2.5 million people. Thus, in absolute terms, Russia is the largest player in the Arctic region but, theoretically, is also part of a regional grouping which could play an active role in all transboundary environmental issues (Hartwell 2021), even in the Arctic.…”