Although EU environmental policy have been successful in addressing many environmental risks and concerns, multiple challenges remain to be met, especially with regard to climate mitigation and adaptation, decarbonization agenda and the recent polycrisis context. In order to answer the broader analytical question of how those studying and practicing environmental policy-making understand the turbulent period facing the EU, the panel welcomes theoretical and empirical contributions that review and discuss key environmental policy dynamics and the main conceptual issues which inform past and ongoing research on EU environmental policy, while also suggesting future research trajectories.

The relation between EU environmental policy and the Single Market is complex and has changed throughout the course of European integration. Reviewing the literature on the interaction between both policy areas, this paper demonstrates that environmental policy often turned out more dynamic and independent from market forces than presumed. Although the Single Market unmistakably nudged environmental policy developments, subjects, and instruments in certain directions, it never imposed firm constraints. We review the strengths and weaknesses of the established arguments with historical hindsight, using prominent empirical illustrations. The early fears about the lowest common denominator dynamics associated with negative integration proved to be exaggerated, partly because the Single Market also required the kind of positive integration that led to the emergence of the European regulatory state. At the same time, the response to the recent economic crises is not merely regulatory, as member states have created joint fiscal capacity that to some extent was earmarked for environmental protection. Although environmental legislation has decreased in the wake of the polycrisis, so far there has been no systematic deregulation, and the extent of delegated law-making by the European Commission has even increased. Moreover, there are also qualitative differences, as some important crisis-responses allowed the EU to promote a “green recovery” using genuine fiscal capacity, green monetary policy, and development banks.

After years of environmental ambition plateau-ing at EU level, recent years have seen a renewed appetite for EU environmental action. But this renewed interest has happened at a time where the European Project has faced new levels of uncertainty, from its first contraction (Brexit), to the Covid19 pandemic, worsening democratic backsliding within the EU and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This has both challenged and shaped the delivery of the flagship European Green Deal throughout the first term of the von der Leyen Commission. Drawing on case studies of Green Deal policies (on agri-environment and energy), this paper takes stock of the academic literature on crisis and turbulence in EU policy-making. It argues that both the EU and scholars of EU policy-making need to accept that turbulence is here to stay. For the foreseeable future turbulence will constrain what can be achieved at EU level but also, if used strategically, enable policy-makers to escape path dependency. This creates new challenges and opportunity for both policy-makers and the academic community studying their work.

This paper explores the historical trajectories of EU environmental and gender policies, advocating for their integrated consideration. While both policy fields emerged alongside the common market, their parallel development remained largely independent until recent years. The chapter scrutinizes past efforts, relating the relative success of Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) with the challenges faced by gender mainstreaming. The launch of the European Green Deal (EGD) in 2019 marked a transformative shift towards comprehensive environmental strategies. However, the paper reveals that the EGD, while ambitious in addressing climate issues, falls short in integrating gender concerns. Despite positive indicators, such as acknowledgment of distributional consequences and commitment to a just transition, gender considerations remain conspicuously absent in EU climate initiatives. The paper calls attention to the oversight in the policy frameworks, presenting a disconnect between the global rhetoric of 'leaving no one behind' and the EU's gender equality efforts. Drawing on feminist theory, the chapter delve into the challenges arising from the exclusion of women in the pursuit of a just transition, offering insights into operationalizing feminist perspectives within EU environmental policy and concludes by reflecting on policy challenges and leaves room for optional policy recommendations.

This paper explores the evolution of theoretical conceptualizations of European Union (EU) environmental policy over time and assess the current and future conceptual challenges facing EU environmental policy studies. The paper argues that, in the midst of the many theoretical approaches that have shaped the theoretical thinking in this field, three core theoretical waves have defined the terms of the field: EU integration studies (often channeling developments in international relations and comparative politics), public policy and public administration, and environmental studies. The paper charts decade by decade many of the prominent theoretical works examining EU environmental policy, focusing on such approaches as institutional explanations, the role of networks and ideas, and policy dynamics. The paper reflects on the theoretical questions the literature has raised and the potential absences that need highlighting. For example, are there certain core assumptions in various works about the possibility for co-operation as opposed to conflict? What is the role for post-structuralist and critical (e.g., feminism) assumptions and methodologies? Do the dynamics of the climate crisis and the Anthropocene, as well as the challenges made by the De-colonization agenda, require both a systemic reconceptualization and a normative analytical approach as Frank Fischer and others have suggested? The conclusion will frame possibilities for old and new trajectories to enable the reader to form their own view about future theoretical choices.