Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T13:11:01.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

With or without the European Union: the convention for the protection of the Black Sea against pollution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2024

Basak Bayramoglu  and
Corina Haita-Falah Open the ORCID record for Corina Haita-Falah [Opens in a new window]
Basak Bayramoglu*
Affiliation:
INRAE AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
Corina Haita-Falah
Affiliation:
Institute of Economics, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany
*
*Corresponding author: Basak Bayramoglu; Email: basak.bayramoglu@inrae.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Black Sea is an enclosed sea surrounded by six coastal countries, of which Bulgaria and Romania are EU Member States. The Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution was ratified in 1994 by all coastal countries. This Convention is the only European regional sea convention to which the EU is not a Party. While Romania and Bulgaria are in favor of EU accession to the Convention, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine thus far have blocked accession. In this paper, we develop a negotiation model with endogenous enforcement and exogenous fraud to analyze the different positions of groups of coastal countries relative to EU accession to the Convention. Our model contributes to defining a proposal that the EU could make to the opposing states such that they accept the EU as a Party to the Convention. In that context we investigate also whether Romania and Bulgaria might be better off delegating their decision power to the EU, rather than retaining their individual voting rights.

Keywords

Black seaEuropean UnionNash-in-Nashnegotiationpollution

JEL classification

D62: Externalities H41: Public Goods C71: Cooperative Games Q53: Air Pollution • Water Pollution • Noise • Hazardous Waste • Solid Waste • Recycling C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , First View , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahlvik, L and Pavlova, Y (2013) A strategic analysis of eutrophication abatement in the Baltic Sea. Environmental and Resource Economics 56, 353–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allingham, MG and Sandmo, A (1972) Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Public Economics 1, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amacher, GS and Malik, AS (1996) Bargaining in environmental regulation and the ideal regulator. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arguedas, C (2005) Bargaining in environmental regulation revisited. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50, 422–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, K, Staiger, RW and Yurukoglu, A (2020) “Nash-in-Nash” tariff bargaining. Journal of International Economics 122, 103263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayramoglu, B (2006) Transboundary pollution in the Black Sea: comparison of institutional arrangements. Environmental and Resource Economics 35, 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 76, 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black Sea Commission (2002) Saving the Black Sea. Official Newsletter of the Black Sea Environmental Program, Issue 7. The Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution with the support of the European Commission.Google Scholar
Black Sea Commission (2019) State of the Environment of the Black Sea (2009–2014/5), Krutov A (ed.). Publications of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (BSC), Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
Borysova, O, Kondakov, A, Paleari, S, Rautalahti-Miettinen, E, Stolberg, F and Daler, D (2005) Eutrophication in the Black Sea region; impact assessment and causal chain analysis. Sweden: University of Kalmar.Google Scholar
Collard-Wexler, A, Gowrisankaran, G and Lee, RS (2019) Nash-in-Nash’ bargaining: a microfoundation for applied work. Journal of Political Economy 1, 163–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities (2007) Black Sea Synergy – A new regional cooperation initiative. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(2007) 160 final.Google Scholar
EMBLAS Project (2021) EMBLAS Project. Available at http://emblasproject.org/beneficiaries.Google Scholar
European Commission (2021a) Environment: our oceans, seas and coasts. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/international-cooperation/regional-sea-conventions/bucharest/index_en.htm.Google Scholar
European Commission (2021b) Monitoring, reporting and verification of EU ETS emissions. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/monitoring_en.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (2015) Black Sea region briefing - The European environment – state and outlook 2015. Available at https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/countries/black-sea.Google Scholar
FAO (2018) The State of Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, Rome.Google Scholar
Fernandez, L (2009) Wastewater pollution abatement across an international border. Environmental and Development Economics 14, 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire-Gibb, LC, Koss, R, Margonski, P and Papadopoulou, N (2014) Governance strengths and weaknesses to implement the marine strategy framework directive in European waters. Marine Policy 44, 172–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gren, I-M and Folmer, H (2003) Cooperation with respect to cleaning of an international water body with stochastic environmental damage: the case of the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics 47, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, H and Wolinsky, A (1988) Bilateral monopolies and incentives for merger. The RAND Journal of Economics 19, 408–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makarenko, I (2014) European Union’ accession to the Bucharest Convention: legal aspects and challenges in transboundary context. Cercetari Marine 44, 136–146.Google Scholar
Moxey, A (2012) Agriculture and water quality: monetary costs and benefits across OECD countries. OECD.Google Scholar
Nash, JF Jr (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 18, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OSPAR Commission (2010) North Sea Manual on Maritime Oil Pollution Offences. Available at https://www.bonnagreement.org/site/assets/files/1081/north_sea_manual_on_maritime_oil_pollution_offences-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Petrakis, E and Xepapadeas, A (1996) Environmental consciousness and moral hazard in international agreements to protect the environment. Journal of Public Economics 60, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phaneuf, DJ and Requate, T (2017) A Course in Environmental Economics: Theory, Policy, and Practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shi, G-M, Wang, J-N, Zhang, B, Zhang, Z and Zhange, Y-L (2016) Pollution control costs of a transboundary river basin: empirical tests of the fairness and stability of cost allocation mechanisms using game theory. Journal of Environmental Management 177, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Srinivasan, T (1973) Tax evasion: a model. Journal of Public Economics 2, 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavitian, N, Anderson, J, Chiavari, J, Rubel, O, Wittich, A, Mass, A, Carius, A and Dupont, C (2008) Greening the Black Sea Synergy. WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature and Heinrich Böll Foundation, EU Regional Office, Brussels.Google Scholar
Velikova, V and Oral, N (2012) Governance of the protection of the Black Sea: a model for regional cooperation. In Lagutov V (ed.), Environmental Security in Watersheds: The Sea of Azov, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bayramoglu and Haita-Falah supplementary material

Bayramoglu and Haita-Falah supplementary material
Download Bayramoglu and Haita-Falah supplementary material(File)
File 737.3 KB