Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:07:40.684Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Climate Governance and Federalism in the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2023

Alan Fenna
Affiliation:
Curtin University, Perth
Sébastien Jodoin
Affiliation:
McGill University, Montréal
Joana Setzer
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science

Summary

Building on its climate change mitigation policies and associated greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the EU aims to become the world’s first climate-neutral economy by 2050. However, meeting the climate change challenge appears complex in the process of European differentiated integration, the (still) problematic 2004 enlargement to include former communist countries, as well as Brexit and the economic downturn caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The EU offers an interesting combination of different federal features although it has not yet been recognized as a federation. Also, EU climate governance development is the product of peculiar federal dynamics and characteristics, namely: the favourable context for decentralized and experimental policymaking; the enhanced prospects for triggering dynamic processes of policy diffusion; and the availability of multiple levels and forums for policymaking. In this realm, however, a number of knots still need to be disentangled, as Member States’ diverging priorities on energy and sometimes conflicting positions on mitigation targets make intergovernmental decision-making in climate policy increasingly difficult. In addition, policy fragmentation and poor or delayed implementation of EU legislation by Member States remain a critical issue.

Type
Chapter
Information
Climate Governance and Federalism
A Forum of Federations Comparative Policy Analysis
, pp. 128 - 149
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

7.1 Introduction

Building on its climate change mitigation policies and associated greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the EU aims to become the world’s first climate-neutral economy by 2050, with a reduction of 55 per cent in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030. Accordingly, in her first speech to the European Parliament, the new president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, announced the ‘European Green Deal’ as the EU’s new growth strategy involving all economic sectors.1 The Commission’s increased ambition on climate-related activities has been supported by a revised proposal agreed by the European Council for the 2021–7 EU long-term budget to allocate 30 per cent of expenditure to such activities.2 However, meeting the climate change challenge appears complex in the process of European differentiated integration (De Witte, Ott, and Vos Reference De Witte, Ott and Vos2017), the (still) problematic 2004 enlargement to include former communist countries, as well as Brexit (Leruth, Gänzle, and Trondal Reference Leruth, Gänzle and Trondal2019), the current economic downturn and energy crisis.

The EU offers an interesting combination of different federal features while not yet a federation in most senses (infra, Section 7.3) manifest in its climate governance. These include a favourable context for decentralized and experimental policymaking, enhanced prospects for triggering dynamic processes of policy diffusion, and availability of multiple levels and venues for policymaking. In this realm, however, a number of knots still need to be disentangled, as Member States’ diverging priorities on energy and sometimes conflicting positions on mitigation targets make intergovernmental decision-making in climate policy increasingly difficult. Policy fragmentation and poor or delayed implementation of EU legislation by Member States remain a critical issue.

7.2 EU Climate Change Commitments, GHG Emissions, and Climate Impact

In order to achieve GHG reduction targets, the EU has built a complex climate policy architecture based mainly on three pillars: the Emission Trading System (ETS), a cap-and-trade system applying to some sectors and aiming to reduce emissions on a European level; the Effort Sharing (ES) instrument, which sets individual Member State’s targets in non-ETS sectors; and the Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) regulation, which accounts for emissions and removals stemming from land-use activities.3 More specifically, the EU has combined binding objectives on emissions with additional binding targets on energy efficiency and renewable use for the year 2020 through its ‘2020 Climate and Energy Package’.4 These are embodied in a set of binding acts (including those on ETS, ES, renewable energy, and energy efficiency) mandating a 20 per cent reduction of GHG emissions compared to 1990 levels, along with the achievement of a 20 per cent improvement in energy efficiency and of a 20 per cent share of renewables in the EU final energy consumption.

The first two targets were binding on Member States (MS), while the latter was merely ‘indicative’. The following ‘2030 Climate and Energy Framework’ builds on the preceding framework and upgrades and updates the EU’s emission reduction and energy targets for the period from 2021 to 2030: at least 55 per cent cuts in GHG compared to 1990 levels (implemented by the EU ETS and ES and the LULUCF Regulation), a 32 per cent share for renewable energy, and a 32.5 per cent improvement in energy efficiency (under the ‘Clean Energy for all Europeans Package’, consisting of eight legislative acts, among which are those on renewable energy and energy efficiency and the new ‘Governance Regulation’, infra).5

Besides increasing targets, major differences between the 2020 and the 2030 frameworks relate to: the shift of renewable energy binding targets from MS to an overall Union target as a sign of a more intergovernmental and ‘renationalized’ phase (Kulovesi and Oberthür Reference Kulovesi and Oberthür2020; Rayner and Jordan Reference Rayner and Jordan2016) compared with the previous phase, which had benefitted from a strong endorsement of those MS leaders and elites (e.g., UK and Germany) convinced of the necessity of an ambitious EU climate change mitigation policy (Rayner and Jordan Reference Rayner and Jordan2016); the integrated framework for climate and energy planning, reporting, and reviewing under the new Governance Regulation as an important driver of cooperation, coordination, and convergence overseen by the Commission (Ringel and Knodt Reference Ringel and Knodt2018; Szulecki et al. Reference Szulecki, Fischer, Gullberg and Sartor.2016); the integration of the LULUCF sector into the EU’s Climate and Energy policy framework, not previously covered. More recently, the European Climate Law entered into force to turn the political commitment towards having a climate-neutral economy by 2050, included in the ‘European Green Deal Communication’, into a legal obligation.6 In addition, the European Commission published the ‘Fit for 55’ Package to revise key EU policies and legislative acts across various sectors, including energy, transport, and building, and align them with the new 2030 climate target of at least 55 per cent GHG reductions and the 2050 climate-neutrality objective.7

Consistent with these commitments, the total GHG emissions in the EU-27 plus the UK have decreased by 1,330 million tonnes of CO2e since 1990.8 More recently, the economic downturn in 2020 following the Covid-19 pandemic, though incidental, has sharply reduced emissions and overall energy consumption, with the share of energy consumed from renewable sources likely having increased, and thereby securing achievement of the EU’s climate and energy goals for 2020.9 However, continuing at the rate achieved between 1990 and 2019 would be insufficient to meet the 2030 and 2050 objectives. In addition, current and predicted effects of climate change across the EU reinforce the urgency of mitigation and adaptation actions.10

7.3 Climate Governance in the Context of an Evolving EU Integration Process

7.3.1 The Quasi-federal Nature of the EU

The EU has many federal features (Palermo Reference Palermo and Kincaid2019). These include the ideological roots of the EU integration project (Burgess Reference Burgess2000); many EU principles (e.g., the precedence of EU law over national law; the direct effect of EU law in the national legal systems and between citizens; the principles of loyal cooperation, conferral, subsidiarity, and proportionality; the distribution of powers, infra); and a consistent part of EU constitutional terminology (e.g., terms such as pre-emption, supremacy, exclusive and concurrent powers, residual clause). In particular, the EU appears to resemble more the model of administrative federalism (Börzel Reference Bogojević2005; Burgess Reference Burgess2000; Kincaid Reference Kincaid1999; Schütze Reference Schütze2009), as most of legislative powers in the EU are currently shared (e.g., environment, climate, energy), and responsibilities for policy execution mostly rest with the Member States. Significant elements of federalism are still missing in the EU integration process, however. For instance, the hierarchical relationship between the EU and the MS, with the former prevailing over the latter (MacCormick Reference MacCormick1999), is far from being settled and requires continual adjustment (infra).

Thus, throughout the long-running European integration process, the EU has been described by scholars as: sui generis (Mason Reference Mason1955; Phelan Reference Phelan2012; Wallace and Wallace Reference Wallace and Wallace2000); a system of multi-level governance (Hooghe and Marks Reference Hooghe and Marks1996, Reference Hooghe and Marks2001; Piattoni Reference Piattoni2010); an incomplete, supranational constitutional creature (MacCormick Reference MacCormick1999; Walker Reference Walker, Rosenfeld and Sajó2012); a supranational federation (von Bogdandy Reference Wettestad, Eikeland and Nilsson2012); an asymmetric integration process (Palermo Reference Palermo and Kincaid2019).

The debate has also been addressed by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and by the constitutional courts of several MS, each asserting a different perspective on the sovereignty issue.11 These ‘judicial dialogues’ are not yet concluded and represent a specific feature of the evolving EU process of integration (Krommendijk Reference Krommendijk2020; De Witte et al. Reference De Witte, Mayoral, Jaremba, Wind and Podstawa2016).12

7.3.2 Architecture of the EU

The EU’s institutional architecture is based mainly on two orders of government: the EU and the Member States. However, the MS’s regional and local levels are increasingly gaining institutional representation at EU level (e.g., through the Committee of the Regions). In particular, the European Commission has sought to incorporate regions into the policy process – both to increase policy effectiveness and to enhance its visibility and legitimacy at the regional level (Keating Reference Keating2017).

In general, the European Council defines the EU’s overall political direction and priorities and includes the heads of state or government of the EU MS. MS defend their own national interests in the Council of the European Union, where the relevant national ministries meet and have the authority to commit their governments to the actions agreed on in the meetings, while the interests of the EU are promoted by the European Commission, where politically independent members (from MS’ national governments) sit.

The EU Treaties (i.e., the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU, and Treaty on European Union, TEU) codify some typical federal principles, such as loyal (‘sincere’) cooperation (art. 4.3 TEU), conferral, subsidiarity, and proportionality (art. 5 TEU). Four types of powers are listed (arts. 3–6 TFEU):

  1. (1) exclusive, only the EU can act;

  2. (2) shared between the EU and MS, such as on environment and climate change (art. 191–3 TFEU);

  3. (3) those where the EU sets up arrangements and MS must coordinate;

  4. (4) those where the EU can support, coordinate, or supplement MS’s actions.

7.3.3 Climate Change and the EU Division of Powers

Since 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon has introduced a new EU shared power on energy in art. 194 TFEU (Benson and Russel Reference Benson and Russel2015), which was before exerted by the EU on the basis of various provisions scattered throughout the Treaty, paradoxically allowing a wider margin to the EU (Fehling Reference Fehling2021; Jegen Reference Jegen2014).13 Therefore, climate and energy measures can be based on both environment (art. 191–3) and energy (art. 194) provisions with two main caveats.

First, whereas the ordinary EU legislative procedure applies to both cases of shared competences, MS may adopt more stringent protective measures than those set at the EU level only according to art. 193 TFEU, not under art. 194 TFEU. For instance (art. 191–3), being the legal basis of the Effort Sharing instrument, under this system MS may maintain or introduce more ambitious targets than those set at the EU level.

Second, the sovereignty clause included under art. 192.2 (i.e., environment and climate competence) foresees that some EU measures may be adopted by the Council unanimously, with a special legislative procedure: for instance, provisions primarily of a fiscal nature, measures affecting land use, and those significantly affecting a MS’ energy sources choices and the structure of its energy supply (thus derogating to the sovereignty clause of art. 194.2, which prescribes that EU measures ‘shall not affect a MS’ right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply’). To this regard, art. 194 TFEU, in addition to other political drivers (Bürgin, Reference Bürgin2014, Rayner and Jordan Reference Rayner and Jordan2016), has directly affected the shift from MS’s binding renewable energy targets under the 2020 Package to an overall binding target at EU level under the 2030 Framework. In fact, the legal basis used for adopting the new 2018/2001 Directive ‘on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources’ was art. 194, instead of art 191 TFEU (which was the legal basis for previous renewable energy Directive 2009/28). In other terms, the adoption of MS legally binding targets under the new 2018/2001 Dir. would have likely violated the boundaries set under art. 194.2 TFEU.

Considering the interdependencies between environment, climate, and energy policies and the ‘grey areas’ left by arts. 191–4 TFEU, the relationship between EU and MS powers regarding climate-related acts is subject to varying interpretation and political compromises. An example of this ambiguity is offered by the Governance Regulation, which has a double legal base (i.e., both art. 191 and 194 TFEU), thus leaving room for uncertainty on several points (e.g., the application of sovereignty clauses and of national reinforcements of protection) (Fehling Reference Fehling2021).14 On the other side, it should be noted that the Governance Regulation aims at linking the EU climate policies and the so-called Energy Union (a framework strategy launched in 2015 to bring about the transition to a low-carbon, secure, and competitive economy) by integrating Member States’ planning and reporting obligations with regard to climate and energy (infra).15

After EU climate and energy binding acts (e.g., directives and regulations) are adopted, MS are responsible for implementing and enforcing them at national level. The European Commission monitors this implementation and has the power to commence infringement procedures (art. 258 TFEU), which can lead to a case being filed before the CJEU.16 Poor or delayed implementation of EU environmental legislation, including climate and energy related acts, has being a constant feature of the EU legal history.17 The opposite case of MS contesting the Commission, also occurs, for example when some MS’s appealed against the Commission’s powers to review MS’s National Allocation Plans of emission allowances (Bogojević Reference Bogojević2010, Reference von Bogdandy, Jones, Menon and Weatherill2013; Damro et al. Reference Oberthür and Kelly2008).18 Because of the national challenges against the Commission’s decisions and the subsequent legal uncertainty, since 2013 this decentralized, bottom-up process has been substituted by an EU-wide cap.19

Besides infringement procedures, ‘softer’ enforcement mechanisms (i.e., ‘iterative processes’ or ‘dialogues’ or the ‘Open Method of Coordination’) exist under EU law in areas where powers remain at the MS level and EU binding measures cannot be adopted. Such mechanisms rely for their success on the cooperation of MS (Smismans Reference Smismans2011). Under this soft approach, objectives are set at EU level through recommendations, standard-setting, benchmarking, peer review, and best practices (Ringel and Knodt Reference Ringel and Knodt2018), while decentralized implementation responsibilities rely on MS. The European Commission has consecutively applied these mechanisms to build a structured dialogue with the MS especially in the energy efficiency and renewable sectors, where binding national targets could not be adopted (art. 194.2 TFEU). The aim has been to cajole national energy policies towards more ambitious decarbonization targets, and somehow overcome political divisions between different MS on energy and climate priorities within the Council (Knodt, Ringel, and Müller Reference Knodt, Ringel and Müller2020). The 2018 Governance Regulation enhances these soft governance arrangements by incorporating harder elements (infra, Section 7.4.1).

7.4 EU Climate Mitigation as a Product of Federal Dynamics and Variables

7.4.1 The EU as an ‘Opportunity Structure’ for Policy Innovation, Diffusion, and Interactive Learning

As expected, the EU offers an interesting combination of different (federal) features and represents an ‘opportunity structure’ for policy innovation, rapid policy diffusion, and interactive learning in the field of mitigation (Jänicke and Quitzow Reference Jänicke and Quitzow2017; Meyer-Ohlendorf et al. Reference Meyer-Ohlendorf, Duwe, Umpfenbach and McFarlane2014). Over time both competitive and cooperative forms of governance have driven mitigation policies. MS, especially those most economically efficient and the ‘frontrunners’, have been facilitated in promoting their interests and pioneer policy choices into EU climate action, while the supranational framework has guaranteed a common arena for mutual learning, gradual convergence around common mitigation objectives in light of considerations of solidarity, and ‘differentiated responsibilities’ (Fehling Reference Fehling2021; Rayner and Jordan Reference Rayner and Jordan2016), through funding and supporting mechanisms, thus ‘leaving no one behind’.20 The institutional architecture and the mitigation policies of the EU reflect this mix of decentralized, flexible, competitive, bottom-up approaches, in addition to cooperative and supranational coordination elements, and present both opportunities and challenges as illustrated by the following examples.

Over time, climate policy has become an important driver of EU integration, especially after the increasing support for European-level action in this field showed in public opinion polls and by green parties and environmental NGOs (Oberthür and Roche Kelly Reference Damro, Hardie and MacKenzie2008; Schreurs and Tiberghien Reference Schreurs and Tiberghien2007).21 EU leadership has been driven by such a combination of events, and in turn by the (reinforcing) competing role of mutual leadership played by several MS, for instance, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Denmark, but also Finland and Sweden.

Several MS have anticipated and influenced the EU’s climate mitigation initiative and consequently that of other MS, pushing European climate mitigation policy forward while at the same time gaining credit for their actions domestically. This has occurred, for instance, by establishing governance frameworks with a long-term outlook through the adoption of national climate laws (including some adaptation measures as well), also referred to as ‘flagship laws’ (Fankhauser et al. Reference Fankhauser, Gennaioli and Collins2015). The UK’s pioneering 2008 Climate Change Act inspired a range of related national framework laws, although the Paris Agreement may have accelerated this diffusion (Duwe and Evans Reference Duwe and Evans2020).22 Emulation was a major mechanism shaping climate framework laws developed in other MS after the UK example (Evans and Duwe Reference Evans and Duwe2021; Meyer-Ohlendorf Reference Meyer-Ohlendorf2020). Thus, peer behaviour can be confirmed to have encouraged diffusion in this context, revealing that framework legislation entails a ‘signalling character’ as it provides for further negotiations (Fankhauser et al. Reference Fankhauser, Gennaioli and Collins2016) and offers an indicator for further climate change legislation.

Most MS’ national mitigation policies and measures have been implemented in response to EU strategies and to binding instruments (e.g., the 2009 Renewable Energy Directive, the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive, the Effort Sharing Decision).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. Reference Fleig, Schmidt and Tosun2017).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 Reference Gupta and Ringius2001; Massey et al. Reference Massey, Biesbroek, Huitema and Jordan.2014; Parker and Karlsson Reference Parker and Karlsson2010; Rayner and Jordan Reference Rayner and Jordan2016). Especially because of the 2004 problematic enlargement to include formerly communist central and eastern countries, dominated by fossil fuel energy programmes, the EU’s mitigation policy ambition has at times been limited (infra), and has been only partially reinstated through substantial financial compensation and exemptions (Kulovesi and Oberthür Reference Kulovesi and Oberthür2020; Peeters and Athanasiadou Reference Peeters and Athanasiadou2020; Rayner and Jordan Reference Rayner and Jordan2016).

7.4.2 The ‘Competitive Cooperation’ between the Council and the Commission

Member States’ diverging priorities and sometimes conflicting positions are reflected, in turn, into the European Council and into the Council of the EU, where MS heads and MS ministers respectively reaffirm their sovereign priorities, sometimes in contrast with that of the European Commission. For instance, in the European Council of June 2019, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic opposed the proposed target of zero emissions, thus hampering a 2050 carbon neutrality target for the EU. Ongoing clashes among national sovereignty over energy policies (Herold et al. Reference Palermo and Kincaid2019; Marcinkiewicz and Tosun Reference Marcinkiewicz and Tosun2015; Szulecki Reference Szulecki, Fischer, Gullberg and Sartor.2016) hinder to some extent the EU’s mitigation aspirations. Moreover, clashes among MS in the Council and the Commission illustrate a peculiarity of the EU’s governance system – the ‘competitive cooperation’ between the Council and the Commission in legislative agenda setting (Bocquillon and Dobbels Reference Bocquillon and Dobbels2014).

To reconcile these opposing positions and negotiate a pan-EU climate change mitigation goal, the strategy that EU institutions seem to pursue is based on collective actions where all MS participate in the mitigation efforts, while considering national circumstances and concern of fairness and solidarity. This approach has been applied throughout numerous European instruments, such as EU legislation (e.g., EU ETS, Effort Sharing), specific financial mechanisms (e.g., the Modernisation Fund, supporting investments for a just transition in carbon-dependent regions in ten lower-income Member States), financial assistance through existing funding schemes (e.g., structural and investments funds), and increasing instruments combining research, innovation, and funding (e.g., Just Transition Platform, NER 300 programme), which create networks for MS, regions, agencies, and stakeholders to exchange information and knowledge, good practices, and specific assistance to meet collective targets.26

Some national sovereignty instances over energy transition continue to hinder not only the integration of European energy policies and the Energy Union, but also the coherence and effectiveness of European mitigation action (Mata Pérez et al. Reference Pérez, Scholten and Stegen2019).27 Nonetheless, the package of flexible instruments described above constitutes a sound attempt to contrast the 2004 problematic enlargement dimension of the EU with regard to energy governance fragmentation and the increasingly difficult intergovernmental decision-making in climate policy (Rayner and Jordan Reference Rayner and Jordan2016) previously mentioned. Some scholars have also suggested that the Governance Regulation constitutes an attempt by the Commission to overcome the hard confrontation between the two blocs of MS, the Visegrad and Green Growth Groups, and to improve MS’ planning and reporting gaps by introducing an integrated framework and a ‘harder form of soft governance’, exemplified by the ‘blank cheque’ (Ringel and Knodt Reference Ringel and Knodt2018).28

In other terms, in the event of insufficient ambitious national plans or progress towards the energy and climate targets on the part of MS, the Commission is entitled to adopt additional measures, legislative acts, and exercising powers at the EU level (Knodt, Ringel, and Müller Reference Knodt, Ringel and Müller2020; Oberthür Reference Oberthür2019). So, in case of delivery gaps, EU intervention over MS’s energy mix choices would be justified, thus bypassing the sovereignty clause of art. 194.2 TFEU, and within the boundaries of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles (Monti and Martinez Romera Reference Duwe and Evans2020). Recalling that the Renewable Energy Directive (2018/2001) and the Energy Efficiency Directive (2018/2002) define Union-wide targets for 2030, instead of national individual ones, the new means of the Commission to advance MS policy implementation under the Governance Regulation balance the additional flexibilities granted in favour of MS (Monti and Martinez Romera Reference Duwe and Evans2020; Oberthür Reference Oberthür2019).

In this respect, some scholars have also observed a trend towards a gradual increase of European Commission authority over MS external energy policies (a power not explicitly conferred to the EU under art. 194 TFEU), culminating with the adoption of Decision 2017/684.29 The Commission has started to influence MS’ negotiations over energy imports and relations with third parties through soft pre-emptive compliance instruments, such as ex ante checks that prevent non-compliance with EU rules, guarantee the integrity of the internal energy market, and allow the Commission to gain supranational governance capacity in the energy realm (Dehousse Reference Dehousse2015, Thaler and Pakalkaite Reference Thaler and Pakalkaite2020). In this context, more recently, the Council has invited the Commission to prepare a new strategy on external action in the field of energy cooperation in light of a rapid shift towards the climate neutrality goal.30

Previous examples shed light on the drivers of the EU integration process and on the current challenges for a coherent European mitigation policy. The evolving powers of the European Commission tend to be described in contrast with those of MS, which are mainly shaped by national economic interest (in addition to political cultures and regulatory styles: Hoppe and Wesselink Reference Hoppe and Wesselink2014; and constitutional design: Steurer and Clar Reference Steurer and Clar2015). On the other side, the Commission’s role is confronted with MS interplay and changing equilibrium in the European Council. Thus, some scholars describe these processes as polarised and disconnected instead of being complementary dynamics in a complex EU governance (Schmidt Reference Schmidt2016), while others underline that the decentralized and multi-level governance structure of the EU has encouraged a process of mutual reinforcement, where MS and the European Commission are competing (Schreurs and Tiberghien Reference Schreurs and Tiberghien2007) or mutually supporting (Bürgin Reference Bürgin2014) for leadership.

7.4.3 Multilevel Reinforcing Mechanisms: Linking the EU and Regional/Local Governments and Communities

Over time the Commission has enabled and built on multiple dynamics (both vertical and horizontal ones) to exert increasing influence towards ambitious mitigation actions. This multi-level and multi-sectoral approach in targeting industries, mobilizing economic interests, involving sub-national authorities and domestic stakeholders across levels of governments (Szulecki et al. Reference Szulecki, Fischer, Gullberg and Sartor.2016; Wettestad et al. Reference Wettestad, Eikeland and Nilsson2012), has empowered EU mitigation policies by directly linking European goals with domestic and local support and with industry interests for climate-friendly technologies. To this extent, the ‘Europe 2020’ Strategy, the ‘2020 Climate and Energy Package’, and the ‘2030 Climate and Energy Framework’ have put special emphasis on strengthening the interconnections among the industrial sectors, the research community, and financial resources and specific funding programmes (e.g., NER 300 and NER 400; Innovation Fund and Modernization Fund), aiming at EU low-carbon objectives.31 Some scholars have noted that these multi-level reinforcing mechanisms are equally present in ‘frontrunners’ and ‘laggards’ MS (Jänicke and Quitzow Reference Jänicke and Quitzow2017) and provide forums for benchmarking, especially in the framework of soft governance mechanisms, as well as an opportunity structure for innovation and experimentation, interactive learning, and best-practices diffusion.

To this same end, the European Commission has pushed for a greater emphasis on regional and local governments of MS in tackling mitigation. In 2008 the European Commission, with support of the Committee of the Regions, launched the EU Covenant of Mayors initiative.32 This initiative has become a well-established network of cities and towns committed to implementation of the EU’s GHG-reduction target by 2030 (e.g., by submitting energy and climate action plans and by taking actions in policy areas directly influenced by local administration).33 Furthermore, the European Commission has recognized the role of MS’ provincial and regional government levels as Covenant Territorial Coordinators (CTCs) in supporting municipalities with strategic guidance, financial aid (e.g., through ERDF and Cohesion Fund) and technical support. The CTCs, in some cases, even compensate for the void left by the national level, that is, the absence of MS frameworks for local energy planning. Thus, these local-level initiatives, supported by the European Commission, play an important role in reinforcing mitigation policies in pioneer MS (e.g., Germany, Denmark, the UK) and in filling the gaps in laggard MS (e.g., Poland) with weaknesses at the national level (Jänicke and Quitzow Reference Jänicke and Quitzow2017). In addition, a reduction of high administrative fragmentation has been observed in some MS (e.g., in Spain, Italy, and Belgium) (Melica et al. Reference Melica, Bertoldi and Kona2018).

Another advantage partially derived by this tighter vertical coordination network is reflected in the improved capability of local level governments to promote and finance sustainable energy projects. Also, the EU Covenant of Mayors initiative and the CTCs system have been observed to catalyse dynamic processes of policy diffusion (Grafakos et al. Reference Grafakos, Viero and Reckien2020; Kona et al. Reference De Witte, Mayoral, Jaremba, Wind and Podstawa2016; Melica et al. Reference Melica, Bertoldi and Kona2018), and to influence local entities persistently, for example, through baselines, guidance documents, regular communications and templates which push towards convergence (Heyvaert Reference Heyvaert2013). The transparency of the Covenant system also creates opportunities for ‘naming and shaming’, thus increasing the compliance of local entities (Kona et al. Reference De Witte, Mayoral, Jaremba, Wind and Podstawa2016). At the same time, the Covenant promotes some flexibility and differentiation among the local entities aiming at the development and implementation of climate mitigation and sustainable energy actions which are innovative and tailored to local circumstances.

7.5 Adaptation Action in the EU

7.5.1 The EU Initiative and Financial Assistance as Key Factors to Catalyse Adaptation Action in Member States

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. Reference Fleig, Schmidt and Tosun2017).34 Thus, cooperation among MS and coordination with the EU play a prominent role. The European Commission, in particular, provides financial assistance to MS adaptation initiatives, monitors and assesses the national adaptation strategies, and supports the MS and their government levels through the European Climate Adaptation Platform (Climate-ADAPT), which allows the exchange of data, good practices, and information.35

It should be noted that in the adaptation field several EU MS adopted strategies and framework legislation including provisions on adaptation earlier than the EU.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 Reference Lorenzoni and Hulme2009) have propelled these MS’ early adaptation actions.37 In addition, according to some scholars (Fleig et al. Reference Fleig, Schmidt and Tosun2017; Russel et al. Reference Duwe and Evans2020), diffusion of adaptation policies and laws in other ‘laggard’ and ‘wavering’ countries has been observed as a ‘Nordic-country 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. Reference Massey, Biesbroek, Huitema and Jordan.2014).

However, the steady increase over five years (2013–18) of national adaptation strategies and plans in the EU MS is strongly influenced by the EU Adaptation Strategy, adopted by the Commission.38 In fact, the EU initiative has catalysed action in MS and particularly in those that were in earlier stages of developing an adaptation policy. The EU’s facilitative role through providing guidance, funding research and adaptation action under the Strategy has urged and enhanced MS initiatives (Massey and Huitema Reference Massey and Huitema2016). In particular, in central and eastern MS, the most important driver for diffusion of adaptation measures was the EU’s effort to put adaptation on the MS agenda and the accompanying financial support (Massey et al. Reference Massey, Biesbroek, Huitema and Jordan.2014).

The EU’s efforts to promote adaptation across MS have intensified in recent years, for instance by establishing mechanisms of knowledge sharing and best-practices exchange among public and private stakeholders of MS (i.e., through the Climate-Adapt Platform), by the involvement of MS’ local governments to engage in adaptation initiatives on the basis of voluntary commitments, and by providing financial support through existing European funds (e.g., the EU’s Solidarity Fund). In this respect, EU funds play an important role as there is a lack of funding, with only half of Member States having budgets attached to their adaptation instruments (i.e., National Adaptation Strategies, NAS, and National Adaptation Plans, NAP).39 In addition, since the EU only encourages MS to adopt comprehensive adaptation strategies, a recent factor influencing MS’ action could be detected in the Commission’s intention to adopt a legally binding instrument in the event that the progress of MS is insufficient.40 Some hints of coercion, in the long run, can be perceived as an additional driver for the spreading of adaptation action in MS, as hard law equips the EU Commission with the power of initiating infringement procedures in case of non-compliance, while soft governance only relies on the active cooperation of MS.

Vertical coordination among European, national, regional, and local authorities is essential, as current financial and knowledge gaps at the local level may hinder local action. However, systematic coordination across all levels of administration has only been observed in some MS, while gaps in the involvement of sub-national governance levels have been detected in other MS.41 In 2014, the European Commission launched a separate initiative called Mayors Adapt, based on the EU Covenant of Mayors experience (see above). This had the aim of engaging cities in taking action to adapt to climate change, either by developing comprehensive adaptation strategies or by integrating adaptation to climate change into their relevant existing plans. In 2015, the two initiatives officially merged into the Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy and now represent successful experiences (Kona et al. Reference Kona, Melica and Bertoldi2017) of vertical (local and regional linking to national/EU levels) and horizontal (e.g., national and transnational city networking, learning and best practices sharing) collaboration for mitigation and adaptation actions.42 At the local level, involvement in the EU Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy has proven to be effective in promoting city-level adaptation policymaking and in linking the EU strategy with local action. In some cases, further support is assured by national and regional initiatives (Grafakos et al. Reference Grafakos, Viero and Reckien2020). For instance, the Ministry of the Environment of Czech Republic has officially committed to providing strategic guidance, financial and technical support to local authorities that are signatories to the Covenant and has been recognized by the European Commission as a Covenant National Coordinator. These cases further exemplify how, over the years, the EU has established collaborative policy frameworks, networks facilitating mutually supportive schemes, and knowledge sharing and financial support mechanisms across government levels.

7.5.2 Adaptation as a Cross-Cutting Policy Area across Multiple Scales: Progress and Challenges

In this realm, the transnational cooperation among MS (plus third countries) has also increased with the recognition of the importance of adaptation as a cross-cutting policy area. Notably, EU-driven transboundary adaptation action is channelled through four macro-regional strategies, thus involving most MS.43 For instance, the EU Strategy for the Danube Region emphasizes adaptation to extreme weather events and provides an important platform to foster cooperation on joint monitoring and flood management. At the same time, this cooperation facilitates the collective implementation of existing EU directives and sectoral policy which, in turn, contribute to efforts for adaptation to climate change with regard to water issues. This case is replicated in the other European macro-regions regarding other sectoral policies and related adaptation initiatives. For instance, multiple initiatives addressing adaptation to climate change exist for mountain ranges and for biodiversity (e.g., Alpine space).44

These examples illustrate the process of mainstreaming adaptation action into the EU’s sectoral policies at different levels, by supporting environmental policy integration practices across multiple scales (Heyvaert Reference Heyvaert2013; Jordan and Lenschow Reference Jordan and Lenschow2010), and the process of ‘multi-level reinforcement of policy action’ in the EU climate change adaptation field. Nonetheless, some policy sectors, such as marine and coastal ones, though singled out as priorities in the EU Adaptation Strategy, receive less attention in terms of adaptation mainstreaming and do not fall into these virtuous dynamics mainly because of some MS’ conflicting agendas and preferences. Germany, for instance, has strongly opposed any policy action affecting marine and coastal planning issues from the European Commission (Russel et al. Reference Russel, den Uyla and de Vito2018). In addition, gaps at national and sub-national levels in introducing adaptation considerations in certain sectors are still relevant. Only a few MS have national policy instruments that promote adaptation at the sectoral level, in line with national priorities and in areas where adaptation is mainstreamed in EU policies.45 A final aspect concerns knowledge gaps. Investment in the development of knowledge on climate adaptation is more likely in countries that already have a strong research base, and a greater critical mass (e.g., Germany, France, and the UK, as a former MS), while smaller countries and countries with a small research budget make progress by becoming involved in European research projects and by cooperating with other MS that face similar issues (Massey and Huitema Reference Massey and Huitema2016; Massey et al. Reference Massey, Biesbroek, Huitema and Jordan.2014; Russel et al. Reference Duwe and Evans2020).

7.6 Conclusion

EU climate governance has been shaped over the years into a very dynamic and progressive process, leading to ambitious policies with ambitious targets. This leadership was developed despite the hindrance of conflicting MS’ positions and diverging priorities, a burdensome enlargement process, and still uncountable uncertainties in the wake of Brexit. The institutional structure of the EU has definitely played a major role in the creation, circulation, and development of climate mitigation and adaptation policies, by providing an arena in which leadership can be exerted at multiple levels and multiple times, by fostering experimental and innovative solutions, by triggering numerous horizontal and vertical forums for mutual learning and support, by mobilizing economic interests at all levels and sectors, by providing substantial financial resources and funding programmes that have supported the mitigation and adaptation policies diffusion and implementation at different levels of governance and in most affected MS, and by combining (differentiated) legal obligations for MS and voluntary mechanisms (i.e., soft governance mechanisms).

Over time, this ‘multi-impulse’ system has endorsed and reinforced a relatively robust EU climate governance, even against the backdrop of past and present challenges and hindrances – notably inherent tensions in EU climate and energy governance; misalignment of policy objectives; tensions between flexible and stable approaches; policy fragmentation and weak implementation.46 Despite additional current and future pressures due to the economic and energy crises, and besides the warning that more than incremental developments in the EU’s climate policy are needed to meet the EU’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, a number of mechanisms and options exist to maintain progress towards EU’s climate ambitions. As explained through the chapter, the EU Governance Regulation offers the opportunity to overcome the EU’s dilemma of having ambitious climate policies but only limited authority and capacity in the energy policy field, and the potential to enforce interim targets, as it allows for streamlining and strong coordination under the Commission’s oversight. Moreover, the Commission is in the process of reviewing, and where necessary proposing to revise, all relevant policy instruments to deliver the additional emissions reductions for 2030 and achieve the climate-neutrality target by 2050.

References

Benson, David, and Russel, Daniel. 2015. ‘Patterns of EU Energy Policy Outputs: Incrementalism or punctuated equilibrium?West European Politics 38 (1): 185205.Google Scholar
Bocquillon, Pierre, and Dobbels, Mathias. 2014. ‘An Elephant on the 13th Floor of the Berlaymont? European Council and Commission relations in legislative agenda setting’. Journal of European Public Policy 21(1): 2038.Google Scholar
von Bogdandy, Armin. 2012. ‘Neither an International Organization Nor a Nation State: The EU as a supranational federation.’ In The Oxford Handbook of the European Union, eds. Jones, Erik, Menon, Arnand, and Weatherill, Stephen: 761–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bogojević, Sanja. 2010. ‘Litigating the NAP: Legal challenges for the Emissions Trading Scheme of the European Union’. Carbon and Climate Law Review 3: 217–25.Google Scholar
Bogojević, Sanja. 2013. ‘EU Climate Change Litigation, the Role of the European Courts, and the Importance of Legal Culture’. Law and Policy 53(3): 184207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börzel, Tanja A. 2005. ‘What Can Federalism Teach Us About the European Union? The German experience’. Regional and Federal Studies 15(2): 245–57.Google Scholar
Burgess, Michael. 2000. The Building of Europe, 1950–2000. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bürgin, Alexander. 2014. ‘National Binding Renewable Energy Targets for 2020, But Not for 2030 Anymore: Why the European Commission developed from a supporter to a brakeman’. Journal of European Public Policy 22(5): 690707.Google Scholar
Damro, Chad, Hardie, Iain, and MacKenzie, Donald. 2008. ‘The EU and Climate Change Policy: Law, politics and prominence at different levels’. Journal of Contemporary European Research 4(3): 179–92.Google Scholar
Dehousse, Renaud. 2015. ‘The New Supranationalism‘. Paper prepared for the ECPR General Conference, Montreal, 26–9 August 2015. https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/281383a5–0285-4417-a613-eed8cd5d36bd.pdf>..>Google Scholar
De Witte, Bruno, Mayoral, Juan, Jaremba, Urzsula, Wind, Marlene, and Podstawa, Karolina. eds. 2016. National Courts and EU Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
De Witte, Bruno, Ott, Andrea, and Vos, Ellen, eds. 2017. Between Flexibility and Disintegration: The trajectory of differentiation in EU law. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Duwe, Matthias, and Evans, Nicholas. 2020. Climate Laws in Europe: Good Practices in Net-Zero Management. Berlin and Den Haag: Ecologic Institute. www.ecologic.eu/17233.Google Scholar
Evans, Nick, and Duwe, Matthias. 2021. Climate Governance Systems in Europe: The role of national advisory bodies. Ecologic Institute. www.ecologic.eu/18093.Google Scholar
Evans, Simon. 2019. ‘Analysis: UK renewables generate more electricity than fossil fuels for the first time’. Carbon Brief. www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-more-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time.Google Scholar
Fankhauser, Samuel, Gennaioli, Caterina, and Collins, Murray. 2015. ‘The Political Economy of Passing Climate Change Legislation: Evidence from a survey’. Global Environmental Change 35: 5261.Google Scholar
Fankhauser, Samuel, Gennaioli, Caterina, and Collins, Murray. 2016. ‘Do International Factors Influence the Passage of Climate Change Legislation?Climate Policy 16(3): 318–31.Google Scholar
Fehling, Michael. 2021. ‘Energy Transition in the European Union and its Member States: Interpreting federal competence allocation in the light of the Paris Agreement’. Transnational Environmental Law 10(2): 125.Google Scholar
Fleig, Andreas, Schmidt, Nicole M., and Tosun, Jale. 2017. ‘Legislative Dynamics of Mitigation and Adaptation Framework Policies in the EU’. European Policy Analysis 3(1): 101–24.Google Scholar
Grafakos, S., Viero, G., Reckien, D., et al. 2020. ‘Integration of Mitigation and Adaptation in Urban Climate Change Action Plans in Europe: A systematic assessment’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121: 120.Google Scholar
Gupta, Joyeeta, and Ringius, Lasse. 2001. ‘The EU’s Climate Leadership: Reconciling ambition and reality’. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 1(2): 281–99.Google Scholar
Herold, Anke, Cook, Vanessa, and Baron, Yifaat, et al., 2019. ‘EU Environment and Climate Change Policies State of Play: Current and future challenges’.www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2019)63842.Google Scholar
Heyvaert, Veerle. 2013. ‘What’s in a Name? The Covenant of Mayors as transnational environmental regulation’. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 22(1): 7890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppe, Robert, and Wesselink, Anna. 2014. ‘Comparing the Role of Boundary Organizations in the Governance of Climate Change in Three EU Member States’. Environmental Science & Policy 44: 7385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 1996. ‘European Integration from the 1980s: State-centric v. multi-level governance’. Journal of Common Market Studies 34(3): 341–78.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2001. Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Jänicke, Martin, and Quitzow, Rainer. 2017. ‘Multi-level Reinforcement in European Climate and Energy Governance: Mobilizing economic interests at the sub-national levels’. Environmental Policy and Governance 27(2): 122–36.Google Scholar
Jegen, Maya. 2014. ‘Energy Policy in the European Union: The power and limits of discourse’. Les cahiers européens de Sciences Po 2: 222.Google Scholar
Jordan, Andrew, and Lenschow, Andrea. 2010. ‘Policy Paper Environmental Policy Integration: A state of the art review’. Environmental Policy and Governance 20(3): 147–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Michael. 2017. ‘Europe as a Multi-level Federation’. Journal of European Public Policy 24(4): 615–32.Google Scholar
Kelemen, Daniel R. 2007. ‘Built to Last? The durability of EU federalism’. The Past and Future of European Institutional Integration 14(25): 5166.Google Scholar
Kincaid, John. 1999. ‘Confederal Federalism and Citizen Representation in the European Union’. West European Politics 22(2): 3458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knodt, Michèle, Ringel, Mark, and Müller, Rainer. 2020. ‘”Harder” Soft Governance in the European energy union’. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 22(29):114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kona, Albana, Melica, Giulia, and Bertoldi, Paolo, et al., 2017. ‘Covenant of Mayors in figures: 8-year assessment’. Joint Research Centre. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC106725.Google Scholar
Kona, Albana, Melica, Giulia, and Koffi, Brigitte, et al., 2016. ‘Covenant of Mayors: Greenhouse gas emissions achievement and projections’. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2790/351463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krommendijk, Jasper. 2020. ‘It Takes Two to Tango: An introduction’. European Papers 5(2): 745–54.Google Scholar
Kulovesi, Kati, and Cremona, Marise. 2013. ‘The Evolution of EU Competences in the Field of External Relations and Its Impact on Environmental Governance Policies’. Transworld Working Paper 17.Google Scholar
Kulovesi, Kati, and Oberthür, Sebastian. 2020. ‘Assessing the EU’s 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework: Incremental change toward radical transformation?Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 29(2): 151–66.Google Scholar
Leruth, Benjamin, Gänzle, Stefan, and Trondal, Jarle, eds. 2019. Differentiated Integration and Disintegration in a Post-Brexit Era. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lorenzoni, Irene, and Hulme, Mike. 2009. ‘Believing is Seeing: Laypeople’s views of future socio-economic and climate change in England and in Italy’. Public Understanding of Science 18(4): 383400.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 1999. Questioning Sovereignty. Law, state and nation in the European Commonwealth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marcinkiewicz, Kamil, and Tosun, Jale. 2015. ‘Contesting Climate Change: Mapping the political debate in Poland’. East European Politics 31(2): 187207.Google Scholar
Mason, Henry. 1955. The European Coal and Steel Community: Experiment in supranationalism. Leiden: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Massey, Eric, Biesbroek, Robbert, Huitema, Dave, and Jordan., Andy 2014. ‘Climate Policy Innovation: The adoption and diffusion of adaptation policies across Europe’. Global Environmental Change 29: 434–43.Google Scholar
Massey, Eric, and Huitema, Dave. 2016. ‘The Emergence of Climate Change Adaptation as a New Field of Public Policy in Europe’. Regional Environmental Change 16: 553–64.Google Scholar
Melica, Giulia, Bertoldi, Paolo, Kona, Albana, et al. 2018. ‘Multi-level Governance of Sustainable Energy Policies: The role of regions and provinces to support the participation of small local authorities in the Covenant of Mayors’. Sustainable Cities and Society 39: 729–39.Google Scholar
Meyer-Ohlendorf, Nils. 2020. A European Climate Law: Analysis of the European Commission proposal. Berlin: Ecologic Institute.Google Scholar
Meyer-Ohlendorf, Nils, Duwe, Matthias, Umpfenbach, Katharina, and McFarlane, Keighley. 2014. The Next EU Climate and Energy Package: EU climate policies after 2020. Ecologic Institute. www.ecologic.eu/11045.Google Scholar
Monti, Alessandro, and Romera, Beatriz Martinez. 2020. ‘Fifty Shades of Binding: Appraising the enforcement toolkit for the EU’s 2030 renewable energy targets’. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 29(2): 221–31.Google Scholar
Oberthür, Sebastian. 2019. ‘Hard or Soft Governance? The EU’s climate and energy policy framework for 2030’. Politics and Governance 7(1): 1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberthür, Sebastian and Kelly, Claire Roche. 2008. ‘EU leadership in international climate policy: achievements and challenges’. The International Spectator 43(3): 3550.Google Scholar
Palermo, Francesco. 2019. ‘Federalism and the European Union: Asymmetry, policies and some recurring federal dilemmas’. In A Research Agenda for Federalism Studies, ed. Kincaid, John: 198208. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Parker, Charles, and Karlsson, Christer. 2010. ‘Climate Change and the European Union’s Leadership Moment: An inconvenient truth?Journal of Common Market Studies 48(4): 923–43.Google Scholar
Peeters, Marjan, and Athanasiadou, Natassa. 2020. ‘The Continued Effort Sharing Approach in EU Climate law: Binding targets, challenging enforcement?Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 29(2): 201–11.Google Scholar
Pérez, Mata, Scholten, Daniel, and Stegen, Karen Smith. 2019. ‘The Multi-speed Energy Transition in Europe: Opportunities and challenges for EU energy security’. Energy Strategy Reviews 26. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2019.100415.Google Scholar
Phelan, William. September 2012. ‘What is Sui Generis about the European Union? Costly international cooperation in a self-contained regime’. International Studies Review 15(3): 367–85.Google Scholar
Piattoni, Simona. 2010. The Theory of Multi-Level Governance. Conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, Tim, and Jordan, Andrew. 2016. ‘Climate Change Policy in the European Union’. Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Climate Science.Google Scholar
Ringel, Mark, and Knodt, Michèle. 2018. ‘The Governance of the European Energy Union: Efficiency, effectiveness and acceptance of the Winter Package 2016’. Energy Policy 112:(112) 209–20.Google Scholar
Russel, Duncan, den Uyla, Roos M., and de Vito, Laura. 2018. ‘Understanding Policy Integration in the EU: Insights from a multi-level lens on climate adaptation and the EU’s coastal and marine policy’. Environmental Science and Policy 82: 4451.Google Scholar
Duncan, Russel, Castellari, Sergio, and Capriolo, Alessio, et al., 2020. ‘Policy Coordination for National Climate Change Adaptation in Europe: All process, but little power’. Sustainability 12(13): 118.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Vivien. 2016. ‘The New EU Governance: New intergovernmentalism, new supranationalism, and new parliamentarism’. IAI Working paper 16(11): 116.Google Scholar
Schreurs, Miranda A., and Tiberghien, Yves. 2007. ‘Multi-level Reinforcement: Explaining European Union leadership in climate change mitigation’. Global Environmental Politics 7(4): 1946.Google Scholar
Smismans, Stijn. 2011. ‘From Harmonization to Co-ordination? EU law in the Lisbon governance architecture’. Journal of European Public Policy 18(4): 504–24.Google Scholar
Steurer, Reinhard, and Clar, Christoph. 2015. ‘Is Decentralisation Always Good for Climate Change Mitigation? How federalisation has complicated the greening of building policies in Austria’. Institute of Forest, Environmental and Natural Resource Policy. Discussion Paper 4-2015.Google Scholar
Szulecki, Kacper, Fischer, Severin, Gullberg, Anne Therese, and Sartor., Oliver 2016. ‘Shaping the Energy Union: Between national positions and governance innovation in EU energy and climate policy’. Climate Policy 16(5): 548–67.Google Scholar
Schütze, Robert. 2009. From Dual to Cooperative Federalism: The changing structure of European law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, Philipp, and Pakalkaite, Vija. 2020. ‘Governance through Real-Time Compliance: The supranationalisation of European external energy policy’. Journal of European Public Policy 28(2): 208–28.Google Scholar
Walker, Neil. 2012. ‘The European Union’s Unresolved Constitution’. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, eds. Rosenfeld, Michel and Sajó, András: 1185–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, Helen, and Wallace, William, eds. 2000. Policy-making in the European Union, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wettestad, Jorgen, Eikeland, Per Ove, and Nilsson, Måns 2012. ‘EU Climate and Energy Policy: A hesitant supranational turn’. Global Environmental Politics 12(2): 6786.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×