The evolution of emissions trading in the European Union – The role of policy networks, knowledge and policy entrepreneurs

This paper starts with a recapitulation of how emissions trading became a cornerstone of the European Union’s climate policy. While a whole bouquet of reasons can be identified the major reasons why the EU Commission decided to pursue the establishment of an emissions trading scheme within the EU are: (1) the integration of international emissions trading into the Kyoto Protocol; (2) the failure of the 6th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the withdrawal of the United States from the Kyoto Protocol negotiations; and (3) the unsuccessful attempt to introduce an EU-wide CO2-tax. Other reasons were the fact that emissions trading did not need unanimity in the European Council like the CO2-tax; the economic efficiency of emissions trading which appealed not only to the Commission but also to industry and Member States; the danger of a fragmented carbon market as the United Kingdom and Denmark had already set up domestic emissions trading schemes that were incompatible; the incentive a European emissions trading scheme would be for the formation of a global carbon market; and the possibility to influence investment strategies of power companies towards a sustainable modernisation of the EU’s power generation infrastructure. Drawing upon these preconditions, this paper analyses the development of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Based on the fact that the EU is embedded in a multi-level policy-making architecture which encourages the emergence of policy networks it is argued that the EU ETS has been shaped by an (informal) issue-specific policy network established by some staff members from DG Environment, including individuals knowledgeable on emissions trading – such as experts from consultancies, environmental NGOs and the business sector. It is argued that within this European policy network on emissions trading the European Emissions Trading Directive – as adopted on 13 October 2003 – has been negotiated and developed. It is concluded that the sharing of knowledge about this relatively new and largely unknown regulatory instrument and about design options for a potential European emissions trading scheme was the key momentum for the establishment and continuity of this policy network and that the ability of managing knowledge generation processes was the main factor to allow for a few staff members from DG Environment to play a dominant role as policy entrepreneurs in developing the European Emissions Trading Directive, even beyond their formal role of proposing the scheme as representatives from the EU Commission.

[1]  Michael Grubb,et al.  The Kyoto Protocol: A Guide and Assessment , 1999 .

[2]  W. Wessels An Ever Closer Fusion? A Dynamic Macropolitical View on Integration Processes† , 1997 .

[3]  Frank J. Convery,et al.  The European Carbon Market in Action: Lessons from the First Trading Period Interim Report , 2008 .

[4]  P. Capros,et al.  The Economic Effects of EU-Wide Industry-Level Emission Trading to Reduce Greenhouse Gases: Results from PRIMES Energy Systems Model , 2000 .

[5]  D. MacKenzie Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets , 2009 .

[6]  Margo A. Bienert Organisation und Netzwerk , 2002 .

[7]  Ian Bache,et al.  Themes and Issues in Multi-level Governance , 2004 .

[8]  David G. Victor,et al.  BP's emissions trading system , 2006 .

[9]  V. Schneider Business in Policy Networks:: Estimating the Relative Importance of Corporate Direct Lobbying and Representation by Trade Associations , 2006 .

[10]  Tanja A. Börzel,et al.  What's so Special About Policy Networks? An Exploration of the Concept and its Usefulness in Studying European Governance , 2002 .

[11]  G. Klaassen Acid rain and environmental degradation , 1996 .

[12]  Jrgen Wettestad,et al.  The Making of the 2003 EU Emissions Trading Directive: An Ultra-Quick Process due to Entrepreneurial Proficiency? , 2005, Global Environmental Politics.

[13]  S. Sorrell,et al.  Pollution for Sale , 1999 .

[14]  L. Hooghe,et al.  Multi-Level Governance and European Integration , 2001 .

[15]  J. B. Skjærseth,et al.  Climate change and the oil industry , 2004 .

[16]  N. Roberts,et al.  Policy Entrepreneurs: Their Activity Structure and Function in the Policy Process , 1991 .

[17]  Graham D. Burchell,et al.  The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality , 1991 .

[18]  L. Hooghe,et al.  European integration from the 1980s: State-centric v. multi-level governance , 1996 .

[19]  THE EUROPEAN CARBON MARKET IN ACTION , 2008 .

[20]  M. Vainio,et al.  Pathways to European Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading History and Misconceptions , 2002 .

[21]  M. Mintrom,et al.  Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation , 1997 .

[22]  Erik-Hans Klijn,et al.  Analyzing and Managing Policy Processes in Complex Networks , 1996 .

[23]  B. Rost,et al.  International Accounting Standards Board , 2010 .

[24]  J. Dales,et al.  Pollution, Property, and Prices , 1969 .

[25]  A. Cook Emission rights: From costless activity to market operations , 2009 .

[26]  D. Stone Learning lessons, policy transfer and the international diffusion of policy ideas , 2001 .

[27]  E. Haas Turbulent fields and the theory of regional integration , 1976, International Organization.

[28]  S. Agrawala,et al.  Leaders, pushers and laggards in the making of the climate regime , 2002 .

[29]  Fritz W. Scharpf,et al.  Die Handlungsfähigkeit des Staates am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts , 1991 .

[30]  Richard L. Ottinger,et al.  Compendium of Sustainable Energy Laws: Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading Within the Community and Amending Council Directive 96/61/EC , 2005 .

[31]  W. Pizer,et al.  GREENHOUSE GAS TRADING IN EUROPE: The New Grand Policy Experiment , 2004 .

[32]  P. Kenis,et al.  Policy networks and policy analysis : Scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox , 1991 .

[33]  F. Scharpf Negative and positive integration in the political economy of European welfare states , 1998 .

[34]  Atle Christer Christiansen,et al.  The EU as a frontrunner on greenhouse gas emissions trading: how did it happen and will the EU succeed? , 2003 .

[35]  Colin J. Bennett,et al.  The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change , 1992 .

[36]  A. Michaelowa,et al.  Climate policy and development: flexible instruments and developing countries , 2000 .

[37]  J. Dales Pollution, property and prices;: An essay in policy-making and economics , 1970 .

[38]  Renate Mayntz,et al.  Policy-Netzwerke und die Logik von Verhandlungssystemen , 1993 .

[39]  D. Puchala OF BLIND MEN, ELEPHANTS AND INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION , 1971 .

[40]  C. Streck,et al.  Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work , 2005 .

[41]  W. Sterk,et al.  Options and implications of linking the EU ETS with other emissions trading schemes : note , 2008 .