The European Union: the polycentric climate policy leader?

Abstract

The European Union's (EU) claims to be a leader in international climate policy are well known. Since the early 1990s, a rich and vibrant academic literature has analyzed the internal sources and international consequences of its leadership aspirations, especially in relation to the challenges of mitigation. More recently, attention has turned to adaptation policy. The literature highlights how policy actors have successfully exploited many of the opportunities afforded by the EU's 'polycentric' form, while minimizing its downsides, but that acute challenges lie ahead, particularly if a strong global-level framework remains elusive. It has continually underlined the fact that the EU's climate policy activities have enormous relevance well beyond European borders. Both in terms of its role as a driver of international policy and a source of transferable policy lessons on how to govern in 'polycentric' settings, appreciating the EU's experience is vital for those seeking to understand the governance of climate change, both within and between states.

National climate policies across Europe and their impacts on cities strategies

“…Its' first international agreement-the Kyoto Protocol-sets legally binding reduction targets for each of its signatories and provides important flexibility in how national policies achieve these (European Commission, 2010a). The EU plays a leading role in global mitigation efforts (Bäckstrand and Elgström, 2013;Rayner and Jordan, 2013), establishing ambitious environmental policies (Kelemen, 2010) and pushing for internationally binding emission reduction targets (Bäckstrand and Elgström, 2013). As a "champion of environmental protection" (Kelemen, 2010, p.12), the European Parliament set the 20-20-20 target in 2009(European Parliament, 2009).…”

“…However, Rayner and Jordan (2013) appreciated that the experiences gained at EU level can be of great importance to those seeking to understand climate policy, both within and between countries. It is therefore important to understand the implications of national frameworks to climate change policies, planning and performance by European cities (Albrecht and Arts, 2005).…”

Innovations in climate policy: conclusions and new directions

“…In the more established area of mitigation, what powerfully emerges from Hildén et al (2014) is just how large the gap is between the 'ideal' form in which evaluation is advocated (ongoing, participatory, linking ex ante and ex post) and the much more restrictive way it is widely practiced. The fact that they focused on the EU, an active policy system with well-known aspirations to innovate (Rayner and Jordan 2013), adds greater force to their arguments. In addition to significant technical barriers, they carefully documented the political barriers erected by states to deny independent evaluators a clearer sense of policy-specific effects.…”

Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options

“…2020 -2050) for mitigation and, increasingly, informs policy making on adaptation. For the EU (Rayner & Jordan, 2013), the small island states, the Least Developed Country group, as well as many advocacy organizations, it has a near totemic status. To question this target (other than by calling for it to be tightened, for example to 1.5 8C;see, e.g.…”

“…Initially, it was suggested in the mid-1990s as a way of adding substance to the UNFCCC's commitment in Article 2 to the 'stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system'. Around this time, staying within two degrees appeared challenging but eminently achievable, certainly by the EU, which strongly promoted it within and outside Europe (Jordan, Huitema, Rayner, van Asselt, & Berkhout, 2010;Rayner & Jordan, 2013). In the lead up to the Copenhagen COP to the UNFCCC, the EU managed to secure recognition of the target by the G8 (G8, 2009).…”