Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- 11 Smart Mixes, Non-State Governance and Climate Change
- 12 Private Control of Public Regulation: A Smart Mix?
- 13 Smart Mixes of Civil Liability Regimes for Marine Oil Pollution
- 14 Regulatory Mixes in Governance Arrangements in (Offshore) Oil Production
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
14 - Regulatory Mixes in Governance Arrangements in (Offshore) Oil Production
Are They Smart?
from Part III - Climate Change and Oil
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2019
Book contents
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Cambridge Studies on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Governance
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Part I Conceptual Approaches to Smart Mixes
- Part II Fisheries and Forestry
- Part III Climate Change and Oil
- 11 Smart Mixes, Non-State Governance and Climate Change
- 12 Private Control of Public Regulation: A Smart Mix?
- 13 Smart Mixes of Civil Liability Regimes for Marine Oil Pollution
- 14 Regulatory Mixes in Governance Arrangements in (Offshore) Oil Production
- Part IV Concluding Remarks
- References
Summary
This chapter describes and explores the effectiveness of regulatory mixes in different governance arrangements in (offshore) oil production. The changing role of states has resulted in the coexistence of state-based, market based and hybrid governance arrangements at different levels that have the authority to evoke compliance from those who are ruled. This chapter discusses the regulatory mixes in three oil production governance arrangements, which differ in forms of authority and levels of governance: first, the development of market-based arrangements of Dutch offshore oil platforms; second, the development of Social Licence to Operate arrangements in the Arctic; and third, the development of benefit-sharing arrangements between oil companies and indigenous communities. This chapter not only gives insight in the coexistence of governance arrangements governing the offshore oil production in different institutional settings, but also the different regulatory mixes within these arrangements. For each of these governance arrangements the regulatory mixes (policy instruments) are described and their effectiveness is evaluated. In other words, are the regulatory mixes in these governance arrangements smart? Do they contribute to changes in the behaviour of public and private actors (outcome), and do they contribute to the solution of environmental problems (impact)?
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Smart Mixes for Transboundary Environmental Harm , pp. 309 - 326Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Ansell, C. 2000. ‘The Networked Polity: Regional Development in Western Europe’. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 13(3), 303–333.Google Scholar
Arts, B. J. M. & Van Tatenhove, J. P. M. 2006. ‘Political Modernisation’. In Arts, B. & Leroy, P. (eds.), Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance. Dordrecht, Springer, 21–43.Google Scholar
Beck, U. 2005. Power in the Global Age: A New Global Political Economy. Cambridge, Polity Press.Google Scholar
Blaauw, R. 2013. ‘Oil and Gas Development and Opportunities in the Arctic Ocean’. In Berkman, P. A. & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (eds.), Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Dordrecht, Springer, 175–184.Google Scholar
Carter, C. & Smith, A. 2008. ‘Revitalizing Public Policy Approaches to the EU: “Territorial Institutionalism”, Fisheries and Wine’. Journal of European Public Policy 15, 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, K. N. 2009. ‘Oil and Gas Development in the Arctic: Softening of Ice Demands Hardening of International Law’. Natural Resources Journal 49(3/4), 825–882.Google Scholar
Castells, M. 1996. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Volume I, The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford UK/Malden USA, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chhotray, V. & Stoker, G. 2009. Governance Theory and Practice. A Cross-Disciplinary Approach. New York, Palgrave/Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, G. 2017. ‘Social License, Corporate Social Responsibility and Coal Seam Gas: Framing the New Political Dynamics of Contestation’. Energy Policy 101, 427–435.Google Scholar
Hall, N., Lacey, J., Carr-Cornish, S. & Dowd, A. M. 2015. ‘Social License to Operate: Understanding how a Concept has been Translated into Practice in Energy Industries’. Journal of Cleaner Production 86, 301–310.Google Scholar
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. & Perraton, J. 2000. Global Transformations. Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge, Polity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, L. A., Nisten-Haarala, S., Tulaeva, S. & Tysiachniouk, M. 2016. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and the Oil Industry in the Russian Arctic: Global Norms and Neo-Paternalism’. Europe and Asia Studies 68(8), 1340–1368.Google Scholar
Hossain, K., Koivurova, T. & Zojer, G. 2014. ‘Understanding Risks Associated with Offshore Hydrocarbon Development’. In Tedsen, E., Cavalieri, S. & Kraemer, R. A. (eds.), Arctic Marine Governance. Opportunities for Transatlantic Cooperation. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London, Springer, 159–176.Google Scholar
Joyce, S. & Thomson, I. 2000. ‘Earning a Social License to Operate: Social Acceptability and Resource Development in Latin America’. Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin 93(1037), 49–53.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O. 1995. ‘“Hobbes” dilemma and institutional change in world politics: sovereignty in international society’. In Holm, H. H. & Sorensen, G. (eds.), Whose World Order?. Boulder, Westview Press, 165–186.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O. & Victor, D. 2011. ‘The Regime Complex for Climate Change’. Perspectives on Politics 9(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivurova, T. 2013. Gaps in International Regulatory Frameworks for the Arctic Ocean’. In Berkman, P. A. & Vylegzhanin, A. N. (eds.), Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean. Dordrecht, Springer, 139–155.Google Scholar
Morrison, J. 2014. The Social License. How to Keep Your Organization Legitimate. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mossop, J. 2016. The Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles. Rights and Responsibilities. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newton, K. & Van Deth, J. W. 2016. Foundations of Comparative Politics. Democracies of the Modern World, 3rd edn. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, R., Lacey, J. & Moffat, K. 2014. ‘Maintaining Legitimacy of a Contested Practice: How the Minerals Industry Understands its ‘Social License to Operate’. Resources Policy 41, 83–90.Google Scholar
Pierk, S. & Tysiachniouk, M. 2016. ‘Structures of Mobilization and Resistance: Confronting the Oil and Gas Industries in Russia’. The Extractive Industries and Society 3, 997–1009.Google Scholar
Prno, J. 2013. ‘An Analysis of Factors Leading to the Establishment of a Social License to Operate in the Mining Industry’. Resources Policy 38, 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raustiala, K. & Victor, D. 2004. ‘The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources’. International Organization 58(2), 277–309.Google Scholar
Rosenau, J. N. 2006. The Study of World Politics: Globalization and Governance (Vol. 2). London/New York, Routledge.Google Scholar
Rosenau, J. N. 1997. Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier; Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sassen, S. 2006. Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2011. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annex. Montreal, UNEP. . Available at: www.cbd.int/abs/.Google Scholar
Smits, C. C. A., Van Leeuwen, J. & Van Tatenhove, J. P. M. 2017. ‘Oil and Gas Development in Greenland: A Social License to Operate, Trust and Legitimacy in Environmental Governance’. Resources Policy 53, 109–116.Google Scholar
Smits, C. C. A., Van Tatenhove, J. P. M. & Van Leeuwen, J. 2014. ‘Authority in Arctic Governance: Changing Spheres of Authority in Greenlandic Offshore Oil and Gas Developments’. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 14(4), 329–348.Google Scholar
Thomson, I. & Boutilier, R. G. 2011. Modelling and Measuring the Social License to Operate: Fruits of a Dialogue between Theory and Practice. Available at: https://socialicense.com/publications/Modelling%20and%20Measuring%20the%20SLO.pdf.Google Scholar
Tysiachniouk, M. 2016. ‘Benefit Sharing Arrangements in the Arctic: Promoting Sustainability of Indigenous Communities in Areas of Resource Extraction’, The Many Faces of Energy in the Arctic, Arctic and International Relations Series, Fall 2016, Issue 4, Seattle, WA, Jackson School of International Relations, University of Washington, Canadian Studies Center, 18–21. Available at: https://jsis.washington.edu/arctic/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2016/05/AIRS-Issue-4.pdf.Google Scholar
Tysiachniouk, M. S., Henry, L. A., Lamers, M. & Van Tatenhove, J. P. M. 2018. ‘Oil Consortia and Indigenous Peoples in Sub-Arctic Russia: Partnership for Equity in Benefit Sharing Arrangements’. Energy Research & Social Sciences 37, 140–152.Google Scholar
USGS. 2008. ‘Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle’, U.S. Geological Survey. Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, J. 2010. Who Greens the Waves? Changing Authority in the Environmental Governance of Shipping and Offshore Oil and Gas Production. Wageningen, Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, J. & Van Tatenhove, J. P. M. 2010. ‘The Triangle of Marine Governance in the Environmental Governance of Dutch Offshore Platforms’. Marine Policy 34(3), 590–597.Google Scholar
Van Tatenhove, J. P. M. 2016. ‘The Environmental State at Sea’. Environmental Politics 25(1), 160–179.Google Scholar
Van Tatenhove, J. P. M. 2013. ‘How to Turn the Tide: Developing Legitimate Marine Governance Arrangements at the Level of the Regional Seas’. Ocean & Coastal Management 71, 296–304.Google Scholar
Van Tatenhove, J., Arts, B. & Leroy, P. (eds.). 2000. Political Modernisation and the Environment: The Renewal of Environmental Policy Arrangements. Dordrecht/Boston/London, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Van Tatenhove, J. P. M. & Goverde, H. J. M. 2002. ‘Strategies in Environmental Policy – A Historical Institutional Perspective’. In Driessen, P. P. J. & Glasbergen, P. (eds.), Greening Society. The Paradigm Shift in Dutch Environmental Politics. Dordrecht/Boston/London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 47–63.Google Scholar