Decision making eea (ue) usm working paper 2010

Working paper in Political and Decision-Making in European Union

1

Decision-making process regarding climate change regulation in

European Union 2009 - 2013: The role of European Environment Agency

Eduardo Oliveira*

School of Social Science |University Sains Malaysia

School of Economics and Management |University of Minho

Abstract

This working paper seeks to contribute to the debate about the role of The European

Environment Agency and it is argued that in order to capture a fuller picture of their functioning,

we need to go beyond a legal framework (legislation from European Commission as Green and

White papers), taking into account institutional features that involve both formal and informal

processes. The inception of the European Environment Agency (EEA) was in 1991. Over the

years the EEA has become a more loyal partner to the European Commission in the European

administrative system, balancing the ability to have a credible voice on the one hand and the

need for stability and a secure resource supply on the other. The Agency has also been able to

meet increasing demands for information without a similar scale of increase in resources, also

pointing to efficiency gains within the organisation. In the Agency we strive to give value for

money across an enormous environmental agenda. This is essential in today's climate of

increased financial pressure and the growing number of organisations working on environmental

issues.

To contribute directly to European Union (EU) policy developments on climate change impacts by

refining relevant indicators, producing assessments, combined with socio-economic factors in

Europe, using past trends, now casting, spatial analysis, forward looking assessments, and policy

effectiveness analysis including economic aspects.

Key-words: European Union; European Environment Agency; Climate change; Decision-making;


2

Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 1

Key-words: ........................................................................................................................... 1

Contents .............................................................................................................................. 2

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 3

2. Overview ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Climate Change ........................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1. Conflating weather and climate .................................................................................. 5

2.2. Climate Change: Risks and Opportunities for economy and communities ....................... 6

3. The European Environment Agency (EEA) ......................................................................... 9

3.1. Mission and values ...................................................................................................... 9

3.2. The aim of the European Environment Agency ............................................................ 10

3.3. The European Environment Agency strategy for 2009–2013 ........................................ 11

3.4. The strategic objectives ............................................................................................... 13

3.5. The Multi-Interpretable EEA Regulation ........................................................................ 14

3.6. The role and autonomy of the EEA ............................................................................... 16

3.7. Decision – making in process action (legislation) ......................................................... 17

3.7.1. White paper ............................................................................................................. 19

3.7.2. Green paper ............................................................................................................ 20

3.7.2.1. Green Paper on greenhouse gas emissions trading within the European Union ..... 20

4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 23

5. References .................................................................................................................... 25

5.1. URL references .......................................................................................................... 28


3

1. Introduction

The European Environmental Agency (EEA) is well placed to further develop its role as a provider

of independent and assured environmental information. This new strategy will continue to

support the aims of the Environment Action Programmes of the European Union (EU). This

climate change, nature and biodiversity, environment and health as well as natural resources and

waste will continue to be at the at the centre of the work of the EEA. The new Strategy will also

take forward the Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS).

Integrated environmental assessments and anticipating new thinking, especially about ecosystem

services, eco-efficiency and emerging technologies and innovations will play a key role in shaping

European environmental policies. Well designed environmental policies are necessary and

positive for our society and economy. The EEA will continue to work closely with neighbouring

countries, in particular the West Balkan region, as Croatia and Macedonia.

According with the EEA Strategy 2009–2013 — Multi-annual Work Programme, at the electronic

address of the European Commission Environment1 -> and the electronic address of the

European Environment Agency (EEA)2 (Martens 2010: 893), the EEA regulation came into force

in 1993 after it was decided to locate the organization in Copenhagen, Denmark. The regulation

also established the European environment information and observation network EIONET.

EIONET consists of the EEA itself and around 900 experts from 38 countries in national

environment agencies and other bodies dealing with environmental information.

The Management Board (Board) is formally the main decision-taker. It decides on the final

versions of the work programmes and budgets and approves annual reports. The Board is

composed of four senior officials from the European Commission and one from each Member

State in addition to two designated members who are independent scholars, reporting to the

environmental committee of the European Parliament. The chairperson of the Board, the four

vice-chairpersons, one Commission representative and one of the members designated by the

Parliament constitute the Bureau of the agency. The Bureau is entitled to make executive

decisions in between meetings of the Board. The EEA provides the secretariat of the Bureau. The

EEA has also a Scientific Committee whose main function is advisory. It comprises approximately

20 members, and it is consulted in quality control of the work programme and the different

reports of the agency.

1 URL:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm, October 2010. 2 URL:http://www.eea.europa.eu/ in the line of Martens (2010: 893).


4

The EEA has its own information centre that gives responses to external requests for information.

It was expanded in 2006 and receives about 500 requests monthly.

The EU may have a more important role to play in supporting voluntary agreements. It appears

that the most effective voluntary initiatives with industrial sectors have been underpinned by EU

framework legislation. If implementation of Directives could come about through voluntary or

negotiated agreements member states might be more willing to agree to more ambitious targets.

Industry may play a more constructive role if it has a greater say in implementation. Without the

regulatory framework, preferably at EU level, such agreements will be impossible to monitor and

are unlikely to deliver significant environmental change.

On this working paper we will start with a overview concerning the environment and the role of

the EEA, following the main issue concerning the climate change and finalize with the conclusion

about the practical action and policy making results of the interaction between EEA and the main

bodies of the European Union, as European Parliament and European Commission. The

framework is the years between 2009 and 2013 because of the last EEA Strategy 2009–2013 —

Multi-annual Work Programme.


5

2. Overview

The society at large does not appear to be deeply concerned with global warming, and as a

result, is not yet acting on the ever-more urgent warnings emanating from the science and

advocacy communities. Despite encouraging signs, ignorance, disinterest, apathy, and opposition

are still prevalent. The resulting frustration among climate scientists and advocates runs high.

They see the problem of global warming as urgent, difficult but not impossible to address, and

needing immediate and substantial societal action. Yet their strategies to raise the sense of

urgency in the public and among policy-makers don’t seem to be working.

Well, some things are being done, but not nearly enough to be commensurate with the

magnitude of the problem. While the balance of available scientific evidence conveys an

increasing sense of urgency, society as a whole (Bostrom et al. 1994).

2.1. Climate Change

2.1.1. Conflating weather and climate

The weather is the state of the atmosphere at a definite time and place with respect to heat or

cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness; meteorological conditions.

The climate, is the average course or condition of the weather at a particular place over a period

of many years, as exhibited in absolute extremes, means, and frequencies of given departures

from these means, of temperature, wind velocity, precipitation, and other weather elements

Bostrom et al. (1994).

The evidence that people conflate weather and global climate change comes from a variety of

sources, including public opinion polls, focus groups, and cognitive studies. For almost two

decades, both national polls and in-depth studies of global warming perceptions have shown that

people commonly conflate weather and global climate change. Simply talking about climate

change in the way that has been done for the past few decades is not creating a sense of

urgency or effective action. Certainly, there is an important role still for making the science of

global warming accessible to the public. This function has served well in raising the issue to the

high level of awareness that it already enjoys. Providing more information or speaking more

loudly about climate change, is not enough.

Carbon dioxide is invisible and at atmospheric concentrations have no direct negative health

impacts on humans as do other air pollutants. Moreover, it has taken a while (in most places) for

impacts on the environment to be detected. Most people do not connect driving their cars or


6

flipping on a light switch with emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. As a social problem, then, it is

just not visible or experienced directly in the same way that job losses, obesity, or traffic

congestion, social issues in the communities.

The impacts of global warming are typically perceived as remote. Images of ice receding in the

Arctic and sea-level rise affecting distant tropical islands in the Pacific, while dramatic, do not

personally affect most of the world’s population (McCarthy et al., 2001; Rayner and Malone,

1998; O’Brien and Leichenko, 2000).

Current weather is treated as evidence for or against global climate change, with anecdotes more

common than not (Williams, 2005). In what might be seen by non-scientific audiences as only

subtly different from use of weather anecdotes, changes in the frequency or patterns of extreme

events have long been cited by climate scientists as evidence of global warming (Webster et al.,

2005).

The heat wave in Europe in the summer of 2003, and the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons

appear to have triggered a shift away from this public dissociation. Stott, Stone, and Allen (2004)

estimated the contribution of human-induced increases in atmospheric concentrations of

greenhouse gases and other pollutants to the risk of a heat wave surpassing a mean temperature

threshold: the mean summer temperature in 2003 exceeded their threshold, but no other year

on record did (records started in 1851). They estimated that it is very likely (with greater than 90

percent confidence) that human influence has at least doubled the risk of experiencing such an

extreme heat wave.

2.2. Climate Change: Risks and Opportunities for economy and communities3

I the line of Solana (2009), the climate change will not be addressed by international agreements

alone, like the last Climate Conference in Copenhagen (2009). The issues run much deeper than

that. This is a “man-made problem” which puts our very way of life in many uncertain questions.

Formulating a response requires many actors to come together –not just politicians and

diplomats, but scientists, business people, ecologists, students, entrepreneurs, young

entrepreneurs, and leaders in many other fields. The main goal of this essay is writing about the

key-factors of the climate change and the potential impact in society: environment; business;

3 This item 2.2 is an summarize of the essay – “Climate Change and Social Order: Risks and Opportunities for Business and the Economy? Bridging the gap between climate and society”, present by Eduardo Oliveira in the conference – ‘Challenge the Best’, an interdisciplinary conference on the topic of “Climate Change and Social Order - Evolution or Revolution”, held at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, 17th of May 2010.


7

economy; communities in the globalization context. The emergent phenomenon of climate

change – understood here simultaneously as physical transformation and social object, as a

mutating hybrid entity in which the strained lines between the natural and the social are

dissolving – therefore needs a new examination, or a new social order. “Geopolitics doesn’t stop

because climate change and other environmental pressures confront the global society” (Paskal,

2010).

The globalization has increased global shifts of resources, capital and people, and has intensified

the competition among places’, as countries, regions and cities, for attention, influence, markets,

investments, businesses, entrepreneurs, visitors, talents and significant events. This place

competition asks for long-term strategies in organizations’ and for the best strategies in order to

improve the local and regional development with respect of the human rights, the environment,

with peace and sustainable development of the resources not only in the present, but also for

future generations. “If we don’t take meaningful and farsighted action now to address climate

change, we are not only failing those who suffer today.

We are also putting at risk the well-being of our planet and future generations” (Robinson, 2009).

This long-term strategies must be implemented with a community participation. We cannot

pursue either in isolation; we need work in cooperation between top leaders, poor countries and

social actors. One of the fundamental questions in this topic – climate change and social order,

in my opinion, is the communities’ participation. For example, the Copenhagen Climate Council4

identifies the “Climate Community” as one chance to influence the climate agenda. The “Climate

Community” gives the necessary access to insights from and the ability to interact with high-level

climate experts, opinion makers, decision makers, and business innovators. All this key-actors,

this thinkers, the young fresh talents have to work together to find appropriate responses to the

consequences of a changing climate – natural disasters, changing livelihood prospects,

migration, political instability and the necessity of global acting.

The relationship between climate and society has been dynamic throughout human history and

pre-history, a relationship that has been variously elemental, creative and fearful. The relationship

has now taken a more intimate turn. Human actions, globally aggregated, are changing the

composition of the atmosphere which alters the functioning of the climate system.

Future climates will not be like past climates. We have often worried about this possibility and

now the knowledge claims of science have offered new reasons to be concerned. Humanity is

4 URL: http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/, March 2010.


8

now firmly embedded within the functioning of the climate system, whilst at the same time the

idea of climate change is penetrating and changing society in novel ways (Hulme, 2007).

Michael Porter and Claas van der Lindeii wrote about the new conception of the environment-

competitiveness relationship. They conclude that relationship, between environmental goals

(Business and the Economy) and industrial competitiveness has normally been thought of as

involving a trade-off between social benefits and private costs.

Is imperative do this question – What is the challenge to the main countries? What is the

challenge to the world economic and business leaders? The world needs an evolution or

revolution? They need an entirely new way of thinking about the relationship between

environment, the climate change and economic and business reaction in competitiveness

dynamic perspective. The focus should be on relaxing the environment-competitiveness and

climate community with an orientation from pollution control to resource productivity.

The economic and business actors have in the hand an opportunity. They can build ecological

business models, and the way to the success, must involve innovation-based solutions that

promote both environmentalism and industrial competitiveness.


9

3. The European Environment Agency (EEA)

The EEA is not a regulatory agency. It is an information-gathering agency like most of the

European agencies created since 1990 (Dehousse, 2008 in Martens, 2010: 882).

However, the starting point for studying the EEA is that information provided by agencies may

influence political decision-making, and the informational role they play may have considerable

implications for their autonomy. Information is not neutral or apolitical since it “structures the

definition of problems, solutions and causal understandings” (Gornitzka and Sverdrup, 2008: 1 in

Martens, 2010: 882).

Several scholars who study European agencies have recently highlighted “the multifaceted nature

of their institutional surroundings in order to understand their creation and functioning”. They

point to different preferences of different actors at different levels of government, including the

Commission, the Council, Parliament, Member States and private actors, resulting in a

multiplicity of formal control mechanisms (Dehousse, 2008; Gehring and Krapohl, 2007;

Kelemen, 2002 in Martens, 2010: 882).

3.1. Mission and values

The European Environment Agency (EEA) is a European public body dedicated to providing

objective, reliable and comparable information on the environment. The mission of the EEA:

Ensure that decision-makers and the general public are kept informed about the state

and outlook of the environment.

The EEA also provides the necessary independent scientific knowledge and technical support to

enable the Community and member countries take appropriate measures to protect and improve

the environment as laid down by the Treaty and by successive Community action programmes on

the environment and sustainable development. The EEA works in partnership with government

departments and agencies, international conventions and United Nations (UN) bodies, the

scientific community, private sector and civil society.


10

The EEA undertakes a comprehensive range of integrated environmental and thematic

assessments. These include a five-yearly state and outlook of the environment report, thematic

and sectoral assessments, analyses of the effectiveness of policy measures, forward studies and

the impacts of globalisation on Europe's environment and resources. The EEA is an important

source and custodian of environment-related data and indicators and a key provider of

environmental knowledge and information services.

The EEA strategy 2009–2013 is the fourth Multi-annual Work Programme of the Agency; it was

adopted by the EEA Management Board through written procedure following its 52nd meeting on

26 November 2008 (EEA Strategy 2009–2013 — Multi-annual Work Programme, searched in

October 2010).

The working capacity of the EEA is enhanced by its five European Topic Centres:

Air and Climate Change;

Biological Diversity;

Land Use;

Spatial Information, Water and Sustainable Consumption and Production.

The topic centres are distributed across the EEA member countries. The EEA works with an

annual programme and an annual budget:

Year EU core subvention

Non EU members contribution

Total budget

2009 34 560 000 5 067 000 39 627 000 2010 35 251 000 5 101 173 40 352 173 2011 35 956 020 5 135 976 41 091 996 2012 36 675 140 5 171 415 41 846 555 2013 37 408 643 5 207 500 42 616 144 Source: EEA Strategy 2009–2013 — Multi-annual Work Programme, October 2010. URL: http://www.eea.europa.eu/, October 2010.

3.2. The aim of the European Environment Agency

The aim of the EEA is to provide European decision-makers and citizens with access to timely

and relevant information and knowledge to provide a sound basis for environmental policies, to

help answer their questions about the environment in their daily lives and to ensure that

environmental thinking and education is brought into the mainstream of decision-making. The

European Environment Agency wants achieve:


11

Continuing to support implementation of Europe's environmental legislation through

analyses and assessments of Europe's environment;

Ensuring continuous access to high quality environmental data, information and services;

Producing integrated environmental assessments and forward studies for Europe

increasingly in the global context;

Addressing critical environmental priorities as they arise on the policy agenda;

Improving communications and dissemination to decision-makers and citizens via

multi-media, user-friendly, multilingual information.

URL: http://www.eea.europa.eu/, October 2010.

The European citizens agree that the environment has a significant impact on their quality of life

and that global trends play a significant part in this. They want to see that the environment, as

well as economic and social needs, taken into account in decisions about transport, energy,

housing, agriculture, fish, food and health. Businesses are also seeking greater innovation and

eco-efficiency to achieve higher environmental standards and maintain their competitiveness in

the economy.

Over the past 30 years, according with EEA, the Europeans citizens have seen emissions of air

pollutants significantly reduced, production of ozone-layer damaging chemicals cut by 95%,

creation of a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Green Paper as policy-action

instrument), an innovative scheme for carbon trading and offset markets, protection of animals

and plants, improvements in the quality of fresh water and coastal seas and universal access to

safe drinking water.

3.3. The European Environment Agency strategy for 2009–2013

“The European Environment Agency is the most efficient way to deliver the products and services

required by the stakeholders. It is difficult to see how the provision of impartial and reliable

information, could be performed through any of the possible other mechanisms available for

European organizations”5.

The strategy since 2009 until 2013 of the European Environment Agency is:

Continuing to support the information needs set down in EU and international

environmental legislation and especially its 6th Environment Action Programme;

5 URL: http://www.eea.europa.eu/, October 2010.


12

Providing more timely assessments on how and why the environment is changing and

whether environmental policies, including the 6th Environment Action Programme, the

EU Sustainable Development Strategy and those in related areas have been effective;

Improving the coordination and dissemination of environmental data and knowledge

across Europe.


Membership of the EEA is comprised of EU Member States; it is also open to countries that are

not Member States of the European Union. There are now 32 member countries: the 27 EU

Member States together with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. Albania,

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and

Serbia have applied jointly for membership and have already been cooperating with the EEA for

several years.



13

3.4. The strategic objectives

The core objective of the EEA will be to produce European, pan-European and regional integrated

environmental data and indicator sets, assessments and thematic analyses in order to provide a

sound decision basis for environmental policies in the EU and Member countries and for

cooperation with candidate and potential candidate countries and those covered by the European

Neighbourhood Policy.

The core objectives, according with the EEA strategy 2009–2013 is the fourth Multi-annual Work

Programme of the Agency:

Play a key role in the development and implementation of European environment;

Monitor the effectiveness of environmental policies of EU and member countries of the

EEA and in candidate and potential candidate countries;

Support the monitoring of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (through assistance

for the Sustainable Development Indicators) focusing on core environment-related issues;

Undertake integrated environmental assessments and analyses of the 6th Environment

Action Programme and EU Sustainable Development Strategy;;

Provide access to more regularly updated information and where possible near real-time

data to improve timeliness of environmental information;

Anticipate new ideas and thinking, especially about ecosystem services, resource use

and emerging technologies and innovations;

Develop new web-based services for environmental educational needs;

Help ensure, through effective communications and information services, that

environmental thinking is brought into the mainstream of decision-making and the daily

lives of European citizens.


The EEA, will continue to work intensively with EIONET, cooperating countries and a wide range

of partner institutions, including European Commission, government departments and agencies,

international conventions and UN bodies, the scientific, technical and research communities,

private sector and civil society, in order to quality assure relevance and quality of the data,

analyses and information that we provide.


14

In this line, the core actions will be:

In 2001:

Support environmental reporting within the European Neighbourhood Policy;

Complete a cost of inaction related valuation of damage to ecosystems services and

human welfare.

In 2012:

Produce an assessment of Europe's ecosystem services — Eureca 2012;

Support the EU-wide review of the status of water and groundwater environments;

In 2013:

Support the review of the environmental outcomes of the 6th Environment Action

Programme and the EU Sustainable Development Strategy.


The European Environment Information and Observing Network (EIONET), covering 39 member

and cooperating countries — is the unique partnership between the EEA and its member

countries and is central to the EEA's networking activities. In all there are nearly 400 people

involved in EIONET.

3.5. The Multi-Interpretable EEA Regulation

The regulation establishing the EEA gives few answers with regard to the role the EEA is

supposed to play in the EU system. The potential field of work includes factual data gathering as

well as analyzing and assessing effectiveness of policies and supporting specific policy initiatives.

The potential constituency includes the Commission, the Council, Parliament, Member States,

interest groups and the general public, and the regulation does not provide consistent guidance

on the relative importance that the EEA should attach to each possible constituency (Martens,

2010: 884).

EEA required a meeting of will between actors of various types; each with their own interests,

making the final regulation multi-interpretable. In the words of Simon (1953: 228) there were

several «claimants to parenthood».

“Yet, upon its launch, the EEA in fact had many tasks to fulfill because, rather than choosing

between tasks, the Member States and Commission simply added all the tasks that were

mentioned during the negotiations’” (Martens, 2010: 884).


15

In the line of Martens (2010: 884) the roles of the EEA might develop. Such roles may include

enhancing the ideal of accountability, auditing EU decision-makers and “assuring that citizens

know what officials are doing” (March and Olsen, 1995: 161–162). “As new arguments and

information are introduced to political discussion, citizens are led to revise not only their choices

but also their perceptions of themselves, other citizens, and their situation” (March and Olsen,

1995: 84).

This quotation from Hoornbeek (2000:148 in Martens, 2010: 885) is very curious –

“Democracies have never developed a stable solution to the problems involved in balancing the

information requirements of effective accountability with the confidentiality requirements of

effective action”. In this line the states that environmental agencies may seek to develop

information for two broad purposes:

The first type of information effort seeks primarily to inform public debate on

environmental issues. It does not focus on any particular audience, but rather informs

many audiences in an effort to clarify the nature of different environmental problems,

participate in the environmental discourse and enhance accountability through name and

shame;

The second type of information effort seeks primarily to create environmental information

that will direct or justify particular political decision-making, serving certain actors within

a specific decision-making process, in an effort to achieve specific results.

(Hoornbeek, 2000 in Martens, 2010: 885).

The environmental information may differ with regard to how closely it is connected and adjusted

to the interests and programmes of relevant policy-makers, how instrumental the information is

provided and used. To state it somewhat bluntly, an information agency may seek to play the role

as a barking watchdog or the role as a loyal lap dog vis-à-vis the political masters. Applying this

broad distinction as a starting point for our analysis of the role of the EEA, it is possible to claim

that the two questions presented in the introduction are interlinked. The EEA becoming an

insider, becoming a vehicle or tool in the EU decision-making system, would imply a closer link

and dependence upon specific policy-makers, and less freedom to act autonomously and make

decisions on its own terms.


16

3.6. The role and autonomy of the EEA

The EEA, as an information agency may seek to inform public debate, shed light on what policy-

makers are doing and enhance accountability through name and shame. Or it may seek to create

information that will direct or justify particular political decision-making, serving certain actors

within a specific decision-making process. “As we recall, an information agency may seek to play

the role of a barking watchdog or the role of a loyal lap dog within a political system”, wrote

Martens (2010: 893).

Still is essential to the EEA to have a salient voice that might make a difference with regard to

how people assess and think about environmental issues in Europe. Producing information to the

general public – to students, to researchers, to everyone – is part of the core, the essence of the

EEA’s identity. EEA has become involved both in policy formulation and in implementation

reflecting to a large extent the policy agenda of DG Environment. In the words of one Commission

official: “that gives positive motivation for the agency and gives them a very concrete role” in

Martens (2010: 893).

The EEA employees have been and still are aware that they are not part of the Commission

service. They pursue issues they find important, and they have in many ways strengthened their

public voice and visibility. Informing the general public in an effort to clarify the nature of

environmental issues has been, and still is, part of their role and mission. At the same time, they

have gradually become a more predictable, stable and loyal partner to the Commission, and they

contribute substantially both in the drafting and in the implementation phase (Martens 2010:

893).

The EEA and Climate Change According with the EEA Strategy 2009–2013 — Multi-annual Work

Programme, the human activities are expected to continue despite strong action to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions. Even if the EU target of limiting temperature increase to not more

than + 2 °C is achieved, it still means that there will be many impacts. Climate change is an

additional pressure on natural and human systems, which are already under increasing

pressures from globalisation and rising consumption patterns across the world.

In 2008, the EEA in partnership with the Joint Research Centre and World Health Organisation

Europe produced its climate impacts report based on more than 40 indicators covering physical,

biological and health impacts. The conclusions were that in every aspect, the changes associated

with climate change were widespread and increasing. Data from the various global observing and


17

in-situ measurement programmes also show that we are experiencing conditions outside the

most pessimistic estimates from the IPCC 2007 report.

3.7. Decision – making in process action (legislation)

European environmental policy is currently undergoing a major transition. At the supranational

level, both the Maastricht treaty and the Fifth Environmental Action Programme herald a new era

dominated by the search for more flexible and efficient instruments to replace traditional forms of

regulation. At the national level, this search has been under way for some time in many of the

respective member states of the European Union.

The European Commission proposed its carbon/energy tax. The government published its first

White Paper on the environment, This Common Inheritance (Department of the Environment

1990). In the face of all these developments, opposition parties and environmental groups were

compelled to face up to the changing agenda.


18

Following approval by the European Commission of the proposal for a Council Directive

introducing a tax on carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions and energy (European Commission 1992),

the debate in Italy about environmental taxation was fuelled by the presentation of the White

Paper on Fiscal Reform by the finance minister in December 1994 (Ministero delle Finanze

1994). A few days later the government resigned. Consequently, there has been no official

discussion within Parliament of this document, but none the less the White Paper represents the

climax of a lengthy political and cultural debate, and can be considered an effective basis for a

fruitful discussion about the future of the Italian fiscal system—even if the structure of the

proposed reforms is sometimes controversial (Fossati and Giannini 1996). This remark is

particularly true when environmental.

The European Community is a full Party to the UNFCCC and a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol,

and is one of the 39 Parties5 that have accepted a quantitative absolute limit on emissions and

may therefore participate in international emissions trading under the Protocol. In May 1999, the

Commission adopted a Communication on climate change that highlighted the need for a

“sustained policy response”. The Communication states that observed data show that carbon

dioxide emissions are increasing, and that “Unchecked, this trend means that the requirement of

Article 3(2) of the Kyoto Protocol to show “demonstrable progress” by 2005 and the EU

commitment of –8% will not be met”.

A major challenge is to ensure that emissions trading complements and is compatible with other

policies and measures. In the international negotiations, the EU insists on the need for the

industrialised world to put in place domestic policies and measures as the main means of action.

Within the EU many such measures, such as energy taxes, regulatory or technical standards and

environmental agreements are already in place.


19

3.7.1. White paper

The White Paper accepts the suggestion put forward in the Commission’s proposal of introducing

a carbon/energy tax with revenue amounting to about L10 trillion. This additional revenue could

be put back into the economy by cutting the level of other tax rates in order to exploit a double

dividend in the manner outlined by the Delors Report: the first dividend is provided by the curbing

of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, the second by the diminution of the deadweight.

Commission’s White Paper in environmental issues:

European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide;

Strategy for a future chemicals policy;

Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action.

The White Paper’s as the tree above embraces the idea of recycling the revenue through a cut in

personal income-tax rates. Hence, households will be compensated for the increase in energy

taxation, while firms will be obliged to face the increased burden of the new taxes targeted at

enhanced environmental protection. The political motivation behind this choice—which explains

why the European suggestion to use the revenue for cutting rates of social security contributions

has not been adopted—is probably linked to the fact that the White Paper has been prepared by

the Ministry of Finance, which is not responsible for the social-security contributions and wanted

to exploit the political dividend of cutting income-tax rates.

Since the early 1990s there has been an increase in the use of environmental levies and charges

in the member states, for example on fertilisers, pesticides, packaging, and batteries. This

increase has in many ways led to a substantial improvement in attaining environmental

objectives.

At national level, there are interesting initiatives, along the lines proposed in the 1993 White

Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, advocating a reduction of indirect labour

costs (about 1–2% of GDP), to be financed by other taxes like carbon and energy taxation, or

energy taxes in general.

The sense or otherwise of negotiated environmental agreements should be analysed in the

context of a number of logical requirements of effective environmental policy:

It enforces transparency and accountability.

It ensures that market forces work for you.

It provokes creativity.


20

It creates flexibility.

It exhibits coherent design.

First, improving the environmental performance of industry demands transparency and

accountability.

3.7.2. Green paper

3.7.2.1. Green Paper on greenhouse gas emissions trading within the

European Union

The Green Paper on greenhouse gas emissions trading within the European Union is intended to

launch a discussion on greenhouse gas emissions trading within the European Union, and on the

relationship between emissions trading and other policies and measures to address climate

change.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the European Community committed itself to reducing its emissions of

greenhouse gases by 8% during the period 2008-2012 in comparison with their levels in 1990. In

practice, this will require an estimated reduction of 14% compared to “business as usual”

forecasts1. Emissions trading, both internally within the Community and externally with other

industrialised countries, will help reduce the cost to the Community of respecting its

commitments. Together with other polices and measures, emissions trading will be an integral

and major part of the Community’s implementation strategy. It is the Commission’s belief that

the Community as a whole will need to use all the tools at its disposal to respect its international

commitments, and the sooner concrete steps are taken the better. The EU is currently preparing

for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, which it wishes to see enter into force by 2002.

Emissions trading, whether domestic or international, is a scheme whereby entities such as

companies are allocated allowances for their emissions. Companies that reduce their emissions

by more than their allocated allowance can sell their “surplus” to others who are not able to

reach their target so easily. This trading does not undermine the environmental objective, since

the overall amount of allowances is fixed. Rather, it enables cost-effective implementation of the

overall target and provides incentives to invest in environmentally sound technologies.

Emissions trading are a new instrument for environmental protection within the EU, it is

important to gain experience in its implementation before the international emissions trading

scheme starts in 2008. There is a good case for the European Community and its Member


21

States to prepare them selves by commencing an emission trading scheme within the

Community by 2005.

The Commission believes that a coherent and co-ordinated framework for implementing

emissions trading covering all Member States would provide the best guarantee for a smooth

functioning internal emissions market as compared to a set of unco-ordinated national emissions

trading schemes.

The Commission believes that a Community approach is necessary to ensure competition is not

distorted within the internal market. Different national emissions trading systems could raise

serious difficulties concerning state aid and new companies entering into the market.

The European Commission, after the information from EEA, made the Green Paper:

Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action;

This situation would raise uncertainty both for Member States and firms. Moreover, those

problems are likely to worsen further in the context of the enlargement of the Community. The

strength and environmental integrity of any emissions trading regime will largely depend upon its

compliance provisions and a robust enforcement regime. An effective functioning of such a

regime requires a certain degree of harmonisation of the rules of monitoring, reporting and

verification.

This Green Paper constitutes the start of a process of exploring these issues. Succinct reactions

and opinions are requested, focused on the questions contained in this document. These are

invited to be made by 15 September 2000 so that the Community’s implementation strategy can

be developed in the light of these opinions immediately after the Sixth Conference of the Parties

that will take place in The Hague, the Netherlands, from 13 to 24 November 2000.

This Green Paper is the start of a consultation process which will allow all stakeholders, both

governmental and non-governmental, to give their opinions on how the EU should strike the right

balance in the use of emissions trading.

The Kyoto Protocol has put emissions trading on the EU agenda. This is a new instrument for

European climate change policy. Emissions trading, both within the EU and between the EU and

the rest of the industrialised world, will become an important element of the Community’s

implementation strategy for the Kyoto Protocol.

Member States and the Community need to prepare their strategies for implementing the Kyoto

Protocol, and reflect further on how emissions trading fit into their climate strategies. In this


22

context, a debate should be started on the European Community dimension in emissions trading,

including the potential impact on the internal market. In particular the involvement of companies

will inevitably raise issues related to state aid and fair competition in respect of which the

Community unquestionably has a role to play. It should also be ensured that Member State

initiatives do not also create undue barriers to the freedom of establishment within the internal

market.

Consultation on the basis of this Green Paper, even if focused on starting emissions trading

within the European Union before the year 2008, may provide valuable insights that can be fed

into the United Nations negotiating process. Better understanding of the key issues and

interactions with domestic policies and measures will help ensure realistic expectations for

decisions on emissions trading at the 6th Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention

on Climate Change (COP6), which will take place in The Hague from 13 to 24 November 2000.


23

4. Conclusion

For almost two decades both national polls and in-depth studies of global warming perceptions

have shown that people commonly conflate weather and global climate change. Not only are

current weather events such as heat waves, droughts, or cold spells treated as anecdotal

evidence for or against global warming, but weather changes such as warmer weather and

increased storm intensity and frequency are the consequences most likely to come to mind to

most people when thinking about climate change.

Distinguishing weather from climate remains a challenge for many. The problem with this

weather ‘‘framing’’ of global warming is that it may inhibit behavioral and policy change in

several ways. Weather is understood as natural, on an immense scale, not subject to human

influence. These attributes contribute to perceptions that global warming, like weather, is

uncontrollable. In this chapter we presented a synopsis of the evidence for these perceptions

from public opinion polls, focus groups, and cognitive studies regarding people’s mental models

of, and ‘‘frames’’ for, global warming and climate change, and the role weather plays in these.

The available research suggests that priming people with a model of global warming as being

caused by a ‘‘thickening blanket of carbon dioxide’’ that ‘‘traps heat’’ in the atmosphere solves

some of these communications problems and makes it more likely that people will support

policies to address global warming (Bostrom and Lashof 2007: 40).

The public, policy-makers, the scientific community and politicians are all benefactors of work

carried out by the Agency, and this trend is set to increase; climate change, biodiversity loss,

water and air quality are all issues that invoke heated debate.

I appreciate that this will only continue if at its heart is a forward-looking EEA, which over the next

5 years is providing innovative information which is timely, relevant and robust.

It is of particular importance in the period 2009–2013 that the Agency, with the help of its

Scientific Committee members, continues to investigate emerging issues for future research

planning and identifies scientific gaps and foresight on environmental research both at a

European and national level, which could be having implication for the future of the diverse

environmental challenges Europe is facing today.

As future steps the will support the:

Eurostat's work on the Sustainable Development Indicators;

Monitor progress towards policy targets;

Undertake regular effectiveness evaluations of the EEA;


24

Expand the EEA's communications to the public, policy-makers and experts via

multi-media, user friendly, multilingual information particularly in the areas of climate

change, biodiversity, ecosystems and the greening of the economy.


The EEA has learned from experience during almost 15 years in the EU business. It has gradually

developed standard procedures of processing and providing information, and the actors involved

have been learning to know each other and co-operate – over time. The EEA on the other hand

has gradually learned to play the role of an insider, it has learned the logic of appropriateness of

the EU decision-making system, and gradually adjusted its public tone and performance. Hence,

the two institutions have built a relationship based on confidence and partnership – over time.

The “EEA has searched for its own mission, role and identity and gradually developed standard-

operating procedures of processing and providing information, as well as developing stable

patterns of inter-institutional co-operation” (Martens 2010: 898).

The EEA on the other hand has gradually learned to play and enjoy the insider role, and

developed into an important and viable institution in the EU administrative system, balancing and

mediating the ability to have a credible voice on the one hand and the need for stability,

partnership and a secure resource supply on the other.

“Robust, far-sighted policy requires better, more detailed information. We have made a lot of

progress in this direction. But we are only beginning to realise the full potential of environmental

information. The EEA seeks to drive technology, particularly the internet, in new directions in

terms of its interaction with the environment through the Shared Environmental Information

System for Europe (SEIS)” Professor Jacqueline McGlade, EEA Executive Director, 2010.


25

5. References6

Allison, G.T. (1971), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little,

Brown).

Andersen, A. (2000), ‘Evaluation of the EEA and the EIONET 1994–2000’. Consultant’s Report

to the Commission, December.

Arena, Maria Martens (2010), “Voice or Loyalty? The Evolution of the European Environment

Agency (EEA)”, Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Vol. 48, N.º 4: pp. 881–901

Auditors’. JCMS, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 251–68.

Bostrom, Ann (2007), “Weather or climate change?”, Georgia Institute of Technology, Daniel

Lashof Natural Resources Defense Council, pp.31-43 in Moser, Susanne C. and Dilling, e Lisa

(2007), Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social

Change, Cambridge University Press.

Checkel, J.T. and Zürn, M. (2005), ‘Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constructivism and

Rationalism, Europe and the Nation State’. International Organization, Vol. 59, Fall, pp. 1045–

79.

Chiti, E. (2000), ‘The Emergence of a Community Administration: The Case of European

Agencies’. Common Market Law Review, Vol. 37, pp. 309–43.

Cini, M. (1996), The European Commission (Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress).

Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, Vol. 2, pp. 145–87.

Dehousse, R. (2008), ‘Delegation of Powers in the European Union: The Need for a Multi-

Principals Model’. West European Politics, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 789–805.

EIPA and IEEP (2003), ‘Evaluation of the European Environment Agency. Report to DG

Environment’. Study by EIPA and IEEP, Brussels and Maastricht.

European Environment Agency (2009), EEA Strategy 2009–2013 Multi-annual Work Programme,

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 42 pp.

Feldman, M.S. and March, J.G. (1981), ‘Information in Organizations as Signals and Symbol’.

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 171–86.

Gehring, T. and Krapohl, S. (2007), ‘Supranational Regulatory Agencies between Independence

and Control: The EMEA and the Authorization of Pharmaceuticals in the European Single Market’.

Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 208–26.

6 With related references about European Union, European Development Agency and Climate Change.


26

Geradin, D., Muñoz, R. and Petit, M. (2005), Regulation through Agencies in the EU: A New

Paradigm of European Governance (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).

Goodin, R.E. and Klingemann, H.-D. (1996), ‘Political Science: The Discipline’. In Goodin, R.E.

and Klingeman, H.-D. (eds) A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Blackwell).

Gornitzka, Å. and Sverdrup, U. (2008), ‘Who are the Experts? The Informational Basis of EU

Decision-Making’. ARENAWorking paper, No. 14/08, University of Oslo.

Guzmán, José Miguel; Martine, George; McGranahan, Gordon; Schensul, Daniel; Tacoli, Cecilia

(2009), “Population Dynamics and Climate Change”. International Institute for Environment and

Development, Expert Group Meeting on Population Dynamics and Climate Change, London,

England.

Hayward, J. and Menon, A. (2003), Governing Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Hoornbeek, J. (2000), ‘Information and Environmental Policy: A Tale of Two Agencies’. Journal of

Hoffman, Andrew J. (2004), “Climate Change Strategy: The Business Logic behind Voluntary

Greenhouse Gas Reductions”, Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan,

Working Paper Series, 905.

Hulme, Mike (2007), “Geographical Work at the Boundaries of Climate Change”. Transactions of

the Institute of British Geographers, School of Environmental.

Kelemen, D.R. (2002), ‘The Politics of “Eurocratic” Structure and the New European Agencies’.

West European Politics, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 93–118.

Laffan, B. (1999), ‘Becoming a “Living Institution”: The Evolution of the European Court of

Majone, G. (1997), ‘The New European Agencies: Regulation by Information’. Journal of

European Public Policy, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 262–75.

March, J.G. (1999), ‘A Learning Perspective on the Network Dynamics of Institutional

Integration’. In Egeberg, M. and Lægreid, P. (eds) Organizing Political Institutions. Essays for

Johan P. Olsen (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget).

March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of

Politics (New York: Free Press).

March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1995), Democratic Governance (NewYork: Free Press).

March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations (NewYork: JohnWiley & Sons).

Messner, Wayne; Bray Dennis; Germain, Guy C. & Stehr, Nico (1992), “Climate change and

social order: Knowledge for action?”, Journal Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 5(4).


27

Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth

and Ceremony’. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, No. 2, pp. 340–63.

Michael Porter & Claas van der Linde (1995), “Toward a New Conception of the Environmental-

Competitiveness Issue”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9 (4), pp. 97-118.

Moe, T. (1987), ‘Interests, Institutions and Positive Theory: The Politics of the NLRB’. Studies in

American Political Development, Vol. 2, pp. 236–99.

Moser, Susanne C. and Dilling, e Lisa (2007), Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating

Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change, Cambridge University Press.

Majocchi, A. (1996), “Green fiscal reform and employment: a survey”, Environmental and

Resource Economics, pp.375–97.

Olsen, J.P. (1983), Organized Democracy (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget).

Olsen, J.P. (1991), ‘Political Science and Organization Theory. Parallel Agendas but Mutual

Disregard’. In Windhoff-Heritier, A. and Czada, R.M. (eds) Political Choice, Institutions, Rules and

the Limits of Rationality (Campus: Westview).

Olsen, J.P. (1997), ‘European Challenges to the Nation State’. In Steunenberg, B. and van Vught,

F. (eds) Political Institutions and Public Policy (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

Olsen, J.P. (2007), Europe in Search of Political Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Paskal, Cleo (2010), Global Warring - How Environmental, Economic, and Political Crises Will

Redraw the World Map. Palgrave Macmillan, United Kingdom.

Peters, G.B. (1999), Institutional Theory in Political Science – the New Institutionalism (London:

Pinter).

Robinson, Mary (2009), “Key Points on Climate Justice, Working paper of the Global

Humanitarian Forum”, Global Humanitarian Forum, Geneva URL:

http://www.ghfgeneva.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=V2dqmPFl9WU%3d&tabid=725

Schout, A. (1999), ‘The European Environment Agency (EEA): Heading Towards Maturity?’ In

Majone, G., Everson, M., Metcalfe, L. and Schout, A. (eds) The Role of Specialised Agencies in

Decentralising EU Governance. Report to the Commission (Brussels: Commission).

Schout, A. (2008), ‘Inspecting Aviation Safety in the EU’. In Vos, E. (ed.) European Risk

Governance. Its Science, its Inclusiveness and its Effectiveness (Mannheim: Connex Report

Series).

Selznick, P. (1984), Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation (Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press).


28

Shapiro, M. (1997), ‘The Problems of Independent Agencies in the United States and the

European Union’. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 276–92.

Simon, H. A. (1953), ‘Birth of an Organization: The Economic Co-operation Administration’.

Public Administration Review, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 227–36.

Simon, H.A. (1953), ‘Birth of an Organization: The Economic Co-operation Administration’. Public

Administration Review, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 227–36.

Solana, Javier (2009), “Climate Change and Security”. URL:

http://www.denmark.dk/en/menu/Climate-Energy/COP15-Copenhagen-2009/Selectedblog-

posts/Climate-Change-and-Security.htm

Vorgelegt von, Diplom-Kaufmann, Naser Hekmat (2005), Assessment of the Economy of Iran and

Statistical Analysis of the most important Indicators especially during the Past Three Decades

with special focus on Foreign Trade along with short term Forecast of some Economic Indexes.

Vos, E. (2000), ‘Reforming the European Commission: What Role to Play for EU Agencies?’

Common Market Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 1113–34.

Yataganas, X. (2001), ‘Delegation of Regulatory Authority in the European Union: The Relevance

of the American Model of Independent Agencies’. Jean Monnet Working Paper, No. 1.

5.1. URL references

URL :http://www.climatechange.eu.com

URL: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/

URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

URL: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1498/1729.full

URL: http://www.challengethebest.org

URL: http://www.denmark.dk/

URL: http://www.eea.europa.eu

URL: http://www.ghf-geneva.org

URL: http://www.ghfgeneva.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=V2dqmPFl9WU%3d&tabid=725

URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen

URL:http://www.denmark.dk/en/menu/Climate-Energy/COP15-Copenhagen-

2009/Selectedblog-posts/Climate-Change-and-Security.htm


29

Working paper by,

My name is Eduardo Oliveira. I am 28 years old and I am from Portugal. I am doing a MSc. in

Marketing and Strategic Management in the School of Economics and Management, University of

Minho, final year. My dissertation is about “Networks and Place Branding: Minho as International

Brand”. Until December, I will stay in Malaysia as exchange student in University Sains Malaysia

(USM) with a scholarship from the European Union. In USM, I attend courses in International

Political Economy and Political and Decision Making in European Union and also courses in

Marketing. I reserved my free time to do some research in destination marketing and place

branding, my favourite topics, and to improve my skills in global issues, like climate change,

sustainable development and explore the most controversial topics in the international political

economy context. My main goal is to understand the economic and local markets, the

consumers’ needs in the global economy and search for new ways to achieve a sustainable

world.

Email address: [email protected]

URL: http://www.eduardoo.pt.vu

In Malaysia: +601 25 792 867

In Portugal: +351 91 70 60 153

Title of the present working paper:

“Decision-making process regarding climate change regulation in European Union 2009 - 2013:

The role of European Environment Agency”.

Supervisor: Professor Dr.ª Noreha, School of Social Science, University Sains Malaysia.

Date: October 2010.

Host Institution: School of Social Science, University Sains Malaysia, Malaysia.

Home Institution: School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, Portugal.

Programme: ERASMUS Mundus programme, European Union;

Decision making eea (ue) usm working paper 2010

Technology

Transcript of Decision making eea (ue) usm working paper 2010