Due to ever mounting scientific evidence, today neither climate sceptics nor climate believers deny the fact that climate change is occurring and that human activity can be regarded as a prime cause. Uncertainty solely remains about the precise relationship between specific concentrations of particular greenhouse gases – most importantly water vapour and carbon dioxide – and changes in global temperatures. It is beyond doubt that certain gases in the atmosphere contribute to the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ by trapping heat. Human activity like burning carbon-based fuels, but also deforestation and ploughing is intensifying this effect and causing a constant rise in carbon dioxide concentrations.
The growing empirical evidence for climate change triggered a global response, even though some authors classify it as ‘meagre’ (Helm 2008). In 1992, 154 countries joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC), to cooperatively consider what they could do in order to limit average global temperature increases and the resulting climate change. The UN FCCC built upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988, an international scientific collaboration entrusted with the task to ‘provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts’ (IPPC n.d.). The UN FCCC finally kicked off the process which culminated in the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in Japan on 11 December 1997 and entering into force on 16 February 2005. The Protocol commits 37 industrialized countries and the European Union (EU) to stabilize their greenhouse gas emissions and sets binding emission reduction targets for a certain period (cf. UN FCCC n.d.). Being of particular relevance for this paper, the Kyoto agreement enabled the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) to get under way as a prototype for a global emissions-trading regime.
The aim of this paper is to have a closer look at the EU ETS and to examine whether the development of the regime can be explained by using the lens of policy network analysis – a concept that appears particularly well suited to grasp the essence of multi-level governance in the European Union (cf. Jachtenfuchs 2001:255). The central question is whether the actors involved in the development of the EU ETS can be identified and classified by using policy network analysis as a theoretical framework.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY – ORIGINS AND DYNAMICS
A NEW IMPETUS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY – THE EU ETS
3. IN THEORY – POLICY NETWORKS AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE
3.1 MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE – AN APPROPRIATE ANALYTICAL TOOL?
3.2 A TYPOLOGY FOR POLICY NETWORK ANALYSIS
4. IN PRACTICE – WHICH ACTORS ARE INVOLVED?
4.1 GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS
4.1.1 THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
4.1.2 THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
4.1.3 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
4.1.4 INTERIM CONCLUSION
4.2 NON-STATE ACTORS
4.2.1 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
4.2.2 BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS
5. CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to investigate whether the development and establishment of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) can be explained through the theoretical lens of policy network analysis, particularly within the context of multi-level governance in the EU.
- The evolution and dynamics of European environmental policy.
- Theoretical foundations of multi-level governance and policy networks.
- A typology for assessing the influence of policy networks.
- The role and classification of governmental and non-state actors in the EU ETS.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Multi-level Governance – an Appropriate Analytical Tool?
Over the past decade, scientific research on the EU’s capacity as a decision-making system has shifted from a rather state-centric view according to which the EU acts solely as executive agent for the national sovereigns to a perspective that characterizes the Union in terms of multi-level governance. The reasons for this development can be traced back to the 1970s, when Keohane and Nye first mentioned the growing significance of cross-border transactions between transnational actors such as companies, societal organizations, financiers and foundations that added ‘a new dimension of international politics beyond the nation-state and intergovernmental politics’ (Keohane & Nye 1971, as quoted in Andonova et al. 2009:54). With the increasing intensity of globalization in the 1990s, the governance concept grew in popularity – causing Jachtenfuchs (2001:254) to conclude that governance is now ‘a political ideology, a kind of micro-constitutionalism in which different players contribute, in view of their competencies, to the policy process’.
When theorizing about the EU, the governance approach is of significant importance due to its emphasis on the Union’s inherent diversity and complexity. Governance is defined by certain characteristic features: first, the public nature of its goals – ‘it seeks to achieve some form of public good’ (Andonova et al. 2009:55). Secondly, governance means a ‘policy-creating process in which authority and policy-making are shared across multiple levels of government – subnational, national, and supranational’ (Marks, Hooghe & Blank 1996, as quoted in Craig 2011:57).
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: This chapter introduces the global response to climate change and establishes the research aim: to analyze the EU ETS through the lens of policy network analysis.
2. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY – ORIGINS AND DYNAMICS: This section provides a historical overview of how European environmental policy evolved and how the EU ETS was initiated as a key instrument.
3. IN THEORY – POLICY NETWORKS AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE: This chapter establishes the theoretical framework, defining the EU as a multi-level system and developing a typology based on membership and steering capacity to evaluate policy networks.
4. IN PRACTICE – WHICH ACTORS ARE INVOLVED?: This core section applies the theoretical typology to analyze key governmental and non-state actors involved in the development of the EU ETS.
5. CONCLUSION: This chapter summarizes findings, confirming that while the Commission remains the central driver, policy networks significantly influence European climate policy outcomes.
Keywords
EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU ETS, Policy Network Analysis, Multi-level Governance, European Environmental Policy, European Commission, Kyoto Protocol, Climate Change, Governmental Actors, Non-state Actors, European Environmental Bureau, EEB, Business Associations, UNICE, Governance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the development of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and evaluates whether its creation can be understood using policy network analysis.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the evolution of EU environmental policy, the transition to multi-level governance, the structure of policy networks, and the roles of institutional and private actors in climate policy.
What is the main research question?
The research asks whether the actors involved in the development of the EU ETS can be identified and classified using policy network analysis as a theoretical framework.
Which methodology is employed?
The author uses a qualitative approach, combining policy network models from Marsh & Rhodes and Andonova et al. to classify actors based on their membership stability and steering capacity.
What is addressed in the main part of the paper?
The main part focuses on classifying selected actors—including the Commission, Council, Parliament, NGOs like the EEB, and business associations like UNICE—according to the proposed typology.
Which keywords characterize this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as EU ETS, Policy Network Analysis, Multi-level Governance, Climate Change, and Environmental Policy.
How does the author categorize the European Commission?
The author views the Commission as the "first among equals" in the triumvirate of EU institutions, acting as the primary hub and agenda-setter in climate policy.
What distinction is made between NGOs?
The author distinguishes between "integrated policy communities" like the EEB, which have tighter institutional ties, and "loosely bound issue networks" like FIELD, which provide advice rather than collective mobilization.
What role does UNICE play according to the paper?
UNICE represents the main horizontal business organization and is classified as a tightly integrated policy community that actively pursues an agenda to protect corporate competitiveness.
- Quote paper
- Katja Philipps (Author), 2012, The EU Emissions Trading Scheme, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/233348
