Legislative Dynamics of Mitigation and Adaptation Framework Policies in the EU

Abstract

In this study we examine the adoption of climate framework laws in 20 member states of the European Union (EU) from 1990 until 2015. Our analysis is guided by the following research questions: First, which EU member states have adopted climate change legislation that addresses mitigation, adaptation, or both? Second, do EU countries act coherently or do we observe differences across countries regarding the response strategy or point in time of policies directed towards climate change? Third, comparing mitigation and adaptation frameworks, which approach came first and did it affect the adoption of the respective other? Our findings show that all countries save one (i.e., Hungary) covered in the analysis have adopted framework laws tackling mitigation and/or adaptation to climate change. While we did not observe a coherent pattern with respect to timing or sequence of adaptation and mitigation frameworks, we found that the best predictor of a national government's behavior is the behavior of the governments of other countries. However, the response of EU member states to climate change is less homogenous than one would have expected based on previous literature. In addition, by highlighting that mitigation and adaptation measures are equally prominent, at least within our sample of EU countries, we complement current climate change literature that often places mitigation efforts at the forefront in terms of legislation activity. Future research should examine this issue more closely, as this dynamic is likely to continue since the Paris Agreement gave prominence to adaptation.

Litigio Climático y Derechos Humanos en el Sur Global. Apuntes para el debate

“…El debate institucional abarca la evolución jurídica sustantiva y procesal de las instituciones normativas -como las del régimen climático internacional, en general, y los órganos de derechos humanos, en particular (Meron, 1982). En este sentido, los debates conllevan descripciones de cómo las normas relacionadas con el clima se infiltran en el ámbito de competencias de organismos nacionales, regionales e internacionales de derechos humanos (Tosun, 2018), con capacidad y legitimidad para proponer normas de conducta (Fleig et al, 2017;Novak, 2020), desde los defensores del pueblo nacionales hasta el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas (Ramcharan, 2015). Dentro de la propuesta de gobernanza policéntrica (Cole, 2011), las instituciones judiciales y cuasi judiciales también han sido el centro de atención.…”

Climate Governance and Federalism

“…23 Only 27 per cent of reported national actions are not directly related to a specific EU policy or legislation. 24 However, since MS have adopted climate mitigation policies and legislation of varied ambition, taking advantage of the flexibility of EU policy and of binding instruments on mitigation (directives), as well as of the autonomy of MS in the energy field (i.e., subsidiarity and sovereignty clause), some delays in adopting mitigation measures as well as implementation variances across MS occurred (Fleig et al 2017). 25 Thus, EU mitigation policies do not convey such a coherent, homogeneous, and ambitious approach as one would have expected, for instance, based on the EU's climate change leadership aspiration (Gupta and Ringius 2001;Massey et al 2014;Parker and Karlsson 2010;Rayner and Jordan 2016).…”

“…The EU initiative on adaptation (2013 EU Adaptation Strategy, followed by the new 2021 Strategy) only encourages MS, regional, and local levels to take action, rather than mandating it, as the EU lacks formal authority in a variety of areas related to adaptation (Fleig et al 2017). 34 Thus, cooperation among MS and coordination with the EU play a prominent role.…”

“…36 The increasing costs and damages associated with more frequent extreme weather events such as floods, storms, and heatwaves, recorded in MS and gaining increased public awareness and attention (Lorenzoni and Hulme 2009) have propelled these MS' early adaptation actions. 37 In addition, according to some scholars (Fleig et al 2017;Russel et al 2020), diffusion of adaptation policies and laws in other 'laggard' and 'wavering' countries has been observed as a 'Nordiccountry effect'; in other terms, the early adoption of such laws in Nordic countries has affected the diffusion of adaptation frameworks in other EU MS. In the EU context, peer behaviour has been quite influential thanks to the spread of ideas, practices, and institutions (Massey et al 2014).…”