# LongBench v2 / 66f016e6821e116aacb25497 task_id: 37670f53-6729-57da-809b-335fdbe54d9d task_key: train--66f016e6821e116aacb25497 task_revision_id: 1 {"choice_A":"Your customer is preparing to build a wind farm near the Natura 2000 site and has hired a bird expert in advance to avoid disturbance.","choice_B":"As an emerging offshore renewable energy technology company, your client intends to exploit and commercialise marine renewable energy in the oceans off the coast of Portugal.","choice_C":"Your client, a man with many friends in Russia, is planning to take advantage of the low price of oil in Russia to switch back from electricity to fuel energy production for his factories and reduce costs","choice_D":"all above","context":"85\nCHAPTER 5\nBALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM \nPOLICY CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE \nDEVELOPMENT?\n‘Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are \nsails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone’.\nMiguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote\nRALPH FRINS\nHENDRIK SCHOUKENS\n1.\nINTRODUCTION\nWindmills appeared for the first time some 3000 years ago. First demonstrations of producing \nelectricity from windmills took place during the 1880s. Despite these early advances, the en-\nthusiasm remained relatively low up until the end of the 1980s. However, throughout the past \ndecades, the positive impacts that go along with wind energy developments, alongside the in-\ncreasing query for national energy independence, have pushed many countries around the \nworld to prioritize the construction of wind farms as one of the major targets of their energy \npolicy. For instance, within the European Union (EU) it is assumed that wind energy devel-\nopment will play a pivotal role in achieving the ambitious 20-20-20 target included in the \n2008 Climate Change and Energy Package.1\nYet, whilst at the outset wind energy was believed to be totally ‘clean’, that perception slowly \naltered. The rapid increase of the number of wind turbines is spurring additional concerns \nabout its adverse environmental impacts. One of the most worrisome disadvantages is related \nto potential wildlife effects that wind farms are liable to create.2 The majority of wind farm \nproposals have been located in upland areas due to the high wind speeds occurring there and \ntheir isolation from centres of human population. Mostly such areas also happen to host avi-\nfauna of high conservation importance.3 Although the mortality rates of birds and bats vary \nconsiderable depending on the specific location of a wind farm, the specific articulation be-\n \n \n1 More information about the Climate Change and Energy Package is available at \nhttp://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm.\n2 See recently Tabassum-Abbasi et al, ‘Wind Energy: Increasing Developments, Rising Environmental Con-\ncerns’ (2014) 31 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 270. \n3 JW Pearce-Higgins et al, ‘International Importance and Drivers of Change of Upland Bird Populations’ in A \nBonn et al (eds), Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands (Routledge 2009) 209.\n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n86\ntween biodiversity law and wind energy development has undeniable come more to the fore-\nfront in recent years. It raises questions as to the compatibility of the green energy pledges \nwith nature protection. \nWithin the European context, the Birds4 and Habitats Directives5 spell out the specific rules \nas to nature conservation. Not only is the establishment of an EU-wide Natura 2000 Network \nenvisaged, both directives urge the Member States also to enact strict protection rules for \nthreatened species.6 Not surprisingly, EU biodiversity law increasingly clashed with wind en-\nergy developments which, in turn, spurred the debate forward on the alleged rigidity of the \nBirds and Habitats Directive. In recent legal literature, some argue that the rationale under-\npinning both directives comes down to ‘deathbed conservation’ or ‘nature gardening’, not \ncapable of supporting sustainable land uses.7 By contrast, others have submitted that the legal \nissues that accompany the application of EU biodiversity law should not be regarded as in-\nsurmountable problems, nor as a trigger for relaxation of the Birds and Habitats Directives.8\nThat said, the stark rise in the number of legal challenges against the construction of new \nwind farms seems to underscore the aforementioned concerns and demonstrates the additional \nconstraints that biodiversity law may pose for wind farm developments.9 Although these legal \nproceedings mostly do not succeed in definitively blocking the construction and operation of \nwind farms, they create a lot of frustration amongst wind developers because of the increased \nbusiness risks. In light of the existing lacunae as regards the potential negative impacts of \nwind farms on wildlife, especially the rigid application of the precautionary principle in the \napplicable permitting procedures might lead to additional constraints from permit and consul-\ntation conditions. In some cases, wind developers will see their proposals rejected. In order to \novercome such obstacles, wind energy business is claiming to obtain a ‘green pass’ under the \napplicable biodiversity rules.10 Massive wind farm development will, at the end of the day, al-\nso help to mitigate the effects of climate change, which is in the interests of all species. So \nwhy stick to the biodiversity rules for ‘green projects’ that are helping to reduce the harmful \nimpacts linked to global warming? Are the potential negative effects that go along with wind \nfarm developments not outweighed by the overall environmental benefits of wind power? \n \n \n4 Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds [1979] OJ L103/1 (Birds Di-\nrective). The initial Birds Directive has been codified in Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and \nof the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds [2010] OJ L20/7. \n5 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flo-\nra [1992] OJ L206/7 (Habitats Directive).\n6 Art 12(1) Habitats Directive; Art 5(1) Birds Directive.\n7 FH Kistenkas, ‘Rethinking European Nature Conservation Legislation: Towards Sustainable Development’ \n(2013) 10 Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 72.\n8 ALR Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity: Policy Conflicts and the Future of Nature Conservation’ \n(2011) 21 Global Environmental Change 1195.\n9 See for instance: H Schoukens, A Cliquet and F Maes, ‘Wind Farm Development in the Belgian Part of the \nNorth Sea: A Policy Odyssey without Precedent’ (2012) 10 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungs-\nrecht 304.\n10 See, more extensively on the articulation between wind farm development and the US Endangered Species \nAct: JB Ruhl, ‘Harmonizing Commercial Wind Power and the Endangered Species Act Through Administrative \nReform’ (2012) 65 Vanderbilt Law Review 1769. \n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n87\nThis article will address the leeway that EU biodiversity law leaves for wind power develop-\nment. After having treated the ‘green vs. green’ paradox more in depth (section 2), the \narticulation between Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, which lays down the basic protection \nscheme for the sites that are included in the Natura 2000 Network, and wind power develop-\nment will be explored (section 3). In this paper, it will be argued that, whilst the Court of \nJustice of the European Union (hereafter: the Court) has definitely opted for a high threshold \nwhen applying the protection rules for spatial projects, there still remains sufficient margin to \nharmonize wind energy developments with the precautionary approach that is present in exist-\ning EU biodiversity law. In addition, it will be submitted that mechanisms such as adaptive \nlicensing, possibly combined with additional mitigation or compensatory measures, might al-\nlow to better balance the urgent need for addressing climate change with the protection of the \nEU’s most endangered habitats and species (section 4).\n2.\nTHE DILEMMA: COMBATTING GLOBAL WARMING VS. NATURE \nCONSERVATION?\n2.1.\nWind energy production on the rise…\nIt is widely known that the EU has promulgated some ambitious targets in the field of envi-\nronment and energy policy. Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from \nrenewable sources,11 more in particular, has set national targets corresponding to a 20 per cent\nshare of renewable energies in overall EU energy consumption by 2020 and a mandatory 10\nper cent minimum target to be achieved by all Member States for the share of renewable en-\nergy in transport consumption by 2020. Obviously, wind energy will play a key-role in the \nachievement of these objectives.\nOverall, wind energy, which is widely seen as one of the most environmentally friendly ener-\ngy resources,12 has witnessed a rapid growth during the past two decades. At the end of 2008, \nthere were 65 GW of wind power capacity installed within the EU, meeting in total 4.2 per \ncent of the EU electricity demand.13 A 2009 report issued by the European Environmental \nAgency (EEA) concluded that wind energy could power Europe many times over. It was held \nthat wind power’s potential in 2020 will be three times greater than Europe’s expected elec-\ntricity demand, rising to a factor of seven by 2030,14 At present, the EU is a front-runner in \nwind energy and a lead player on the global market. In 2007 more than half of the global in-\nstalled wind capacity was located in the EU and European wind turbine manufacturers \n \n \n11 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of \nthe use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and \n2003/30/EC [2009] OJ L140/16 (RES Directive).\n12 R Saidur et al, ‘Environmental Impact of Wind Energy’ (2011) 15 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Re-\nviews 2423, 2424.\n13 A Zervos and C Kjaer, Pure Power. Wind Energy Scenarios up to 2030 (European Wind Energy Association \n2008).\n14 European Environmental Agency, Europe’s Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Potential, An Assessment of \nEnvironmental and Economic Constraints (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2009).\n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n88\naccounted in 2006 for around 75 per cent of the global market.15 Nevertheless, the EU is still \nlagging by 1.6 GW (-1.5 per cent) behind its 27 National Renewable Energy Action Plan \nforecasts.16 According to European Commission’s figures, more than two thirds of total EU \nwind capacity is installed in the three pioneering countries Germany, Spain and Denmark.17\nAs of today, Denmark satisfies more than 20 per cent and Spain more than 10 per cent of its \nelectricity demand by wind energy. The figures are far less impressive for many other Mem-\nber States, underlining the stark need for additional efforts towards renewable energy. As a \nconsequence, it is clear that many Member States will probably opt for massive investments \nin wind energy projects in the years to come.\n2.2.\nRising biodiversity concerns\nDespite offering concrete environmental benefits, biodiversity concerns place additional con-\nstraints on wind farm projects. Whilst wind farms might serve as refuges, at least if no \nfisheries or hunting are allowed within the wind farm area or, in the specific case of offshore \nwind farm constructions, as artificial reefs, their possible negative effects gained increased at-\ntention throughout the past decade.18\nIn 2006, a German study on the impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy \nsources, drafted by the German Nature Conservation Office, concluded that ‘the main poten-\ntial hazards to birds and bats from wind farms are disturbance leading to displacement or \nexclusion and collision mortality’.19 At the same time, it was noted that there was no evidence \nthat birds generally became habituated to wind farms in the years after construction.20 Like-\nwise, other research has revealed that, taking into account the sharp rise in the number of \nturbines in some regions, even low mortality rates per turbine could give rise to significant ef-\nfects on some bird species, especially those with low reproductive rates. \nIn 2009 the EEA, whilst acknowledging that the majority of studies of collisions caused by \nwind turbines revealed relatively low levels of mortality, held that, so far, there only had been \nconducted one sufficiently comprehensive study as regards the long term effects of wind \nfarms on bird populations.21 The study referred to an analysis of the impact of a Californian \nwind farm project, which began in the 1970s and encompassed more than 7,300 operational \nwindmills in 1993. Here, an estimated 35,000 – 100,000 birds, 1,500 – 2,300 of them being \n \n \n15 European Commission, ‘Technical Background to Wind Energy’available at \nhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/eu/index_en.cfm?pg=research-wind-background.\n16 J Wilkes and J Moccia, Wind in Power. 2012 European Statistics (European Wind Energy Association 2013).\n17 European Commission, ‘Technical Background’. \n18 For a recent overview, see, amongst others, Tabassum-Abbasi et al, ‘Wind Energy’. \n19 H Hötker, K-M Thomsen and H Jeromin, Impact on Biodiversity of Exploitation of Renewable Energy \nSources: The Example of Birds and Bats. Facts, Gaps in Knowledge, Demands for Further Research and Orni-\nthological Guidelines for the Development of Renewable Energy Exploitation (Michael-Otto-Institut im\nNABU 2006) 6.\n20 Ibid.\n21 European Environmental Agency, Europe’s Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Potential, 73.\n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n89\ngolden eagles, had been killed by collision during the past two decades.22 Population model-\nling demonstrated that the declining trend of the local golden eagle population could, at least \npartly, be ascribed to wind farm mortality.23\nIn recent years, also European studies pointed to similar outcomes. Norwegian surveys rec-\norded reduced breeding success in White-tailed eagle linked to wind farms,24 whilst Spanish \nstudies showed that Spanish wind farms are causing many casualties amongst the Griffon vul-\nture.25\nOn a general note, we can conclude that the risk of significant effects is greater on or near ar-\neas regularly used by large numbers of feeding or roosting birds, or on migratory flyways or \nlocal flight paths.26 Especially, when rare, endangered and slow-to-reproduce birds are in-\nvolved, the impact of poorly sited and/or designed wind turbines can be decisive particularly \nin situations where cumulative mortality takes place as a result of multiple installations.27\nIronically, the only certainty upon which all scientists seem to agree as regards the impact on \nbiodiversity of wind farms, is the lack of sufficient ecological surveys and studies.28\n3.\nSITE PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 6(3) AND (4) OF THE HABITATS \nDIRECTIVE: A STRICT APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE? \nWhereas the precautionary principle is often quoted as one of the main grounds for taking \nclimate mitigation actions, it is also increasingly invoked by opponents of renewable energy \nprojects. The strict implementation of the latter principle in the context of the site protection \nrules attached to the Natura 2000 Network partly helps to explain this alleged paradox. As of \n2013, this ecological network approximately covers 18 per cent of the Member States’ territo-\nry. Hence wind farm developers, in their quest for windy places, are increasingly confronted \nwith the protection rules enshrined in the Habitats Directive. In light of the above featured un-\ncertainty as to the exact effects of wind farms on biodiversity, it becomes apparent that the \nconcrete application of the precautionary principle within the context of aforementioned pro-\ntection rules might present an important bottleneck for wind farm developments in the vicinity \nof a Natura 2000 site.\n \n \n22 CG Thelander and KS Smallwood, ‘The Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area’s Effects on Birds: A Case His-\ntory’ in M de Lucas, GFE Janss and M Ferrer (eds), Birds and Wind Farms. Risk Assessment and Mitigation\n(Quercus 2007) 25.\n23 G Hunt, ‘Golden Eagles in a Perilous Landscape: Predicting the Effects of Mitigation for Wind Turbine \nBladestrike Mortality, consultant report to the California Energy Commission (July 2002).\n24 EL Dahl et al, ‘Reduced Breeding Success of White-Tailed Eagles at Smøla Windfarm, Western Norway, is \ncaused by Mortality and Displacement’ (2012) 145 Biological Conservation 79.\n25 M de Lucas et al, ‘Griffon Vulture Mortality at Wind Farms in Southern Spain, Distribution of Fatalities and \nActive Mitigation Measures’ (2012) 147 Biological Conservation 184.\n26 See, in general, Tabassum-Abbasi et al, ‘Wind Energy’, 277.\n27 Ibid. \n28 Ibid, but also European Environmental Agency, Europe’s Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Potential, 73.\n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n90\n3.1.\nThe precautionary principle as cornerstone of international and EU environmental \nlaw\nIn order to grasp the essence of the current debate, it is appropriate to step back and succinctly \naddress the background and origins of the precautionary principle. Since the beginning of the \nnineties, the precautionary principle, arguably one of the most renowned environmental prin-\nciples, has found its way through numerous international agreements and conventions, such as \nthe 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.29 At the European level, it was first in-\nserted into the European treaties in 1992 at Maastricht. 30 Currently, the precautionary \nprinciples is one of the most debated concepts of current environmental law, which is further \nunderscored by the many definitions it has.31 Generally, it is held that the precautionary prin-\nciple is comprised of three common elements, being (1) a threat of harm, (2) uncertainty, and \n(3) action.32 Authors, like Stewart,33 make a difference between ‘weak’ formulations of the \nprecautionary principle, according to which activities should be limited below a margin of \nsafety, and ‘strong’ formulations, according to which an uncertain potential for significant \nharm should be prohibited unless the proponent of the activity shows that it presents no ap-\npreciable risk of harm. The latter is often qualified as the ‘prohibitive’ version of the \nprecautionary principle and critized for creating ‘paralysis by precaution’.34 In that regard, it \nis interesting to note that the European Commission states in its 2000 Communication that \n‘where there is scientific uncertainty’ Member States should implement evaluation procedures \nand take appropriate preventive action in order to avoid damage to the environment.35 Pertain-\ning to the uncertainty-requirement, it is generally held that, while not a single category of \nuncertainty seems to fall outside of the scope of the precautionary principle, at least reasona-\nble grounds for concerns need to be present in order to apply the precautionary principle.36 At \nthe same time, it should also be stressed that mere speculation is not a realistic and workable \noption and that risk reduction measures do not have to aim at zero risk.37\n3.2.\nArticle 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive: in dubio pro natura!\nLet us now turn to the implementation of the precautionary principle in the context of the \nNatura 2000 Network. In general, Article 6 of the Habitats Directive is seen as the most semi-\n \n \n29 Framework Convention on Climate Change (9 May 1992) 31 ILM 849 (1992).\n30 V Heyvaert, ‘Facing the Consequences of the Precautionary Principle in European Community Law’ (2006) \n31 European Law Review 185.\n31 See more extensively: A Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights and Duties of States (Brill 2006) 21–35.\n32 Ibid 30. \n33 RB Stewart, ‘Environmental Regulatory Decision Making under Uncertainty’ (2002) 20 Research in Law and \nEconomics 71, 76.\n34 R Cooney, ‘A Long and Winding Road? Precaution from Principle to Practice in Biodiversity Conservation’ in \nE Fisher, J Jones and R von Schomberg (eds), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Pro-\nspects (Edward Elgar 2006) 238.\n35 European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle’ COM(2000) 1 \nfinal.\n36 Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights, 115.\n37 European Commission, ‘Communication on the precautionary principle’ COM(2000) 1 final, 9 and 18.\n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n91\nnal provision as to determining the relationship between nature conservation and land use.38\nBy setting out strict substantive and procedural requirements to be followed in respect of a \nplan or project which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a \nNatura 2000 site but which is likely to have a significant effect thereon, Article 6(3) and (4) \nseeks to pre-empt damage being done to the site or to minimise that damage. This begs the \nquestion to what extent this statutory framework minimizes an insurmountable burden for the \nconstruction of wind farms. Is the lack of scientific consensus on the collision risks that go \nalong with wind farms sufficient to reject a permit application? Does the precautionary prin-\nciple only come into play when the threatened harm is to be considered significant, excluding \nminor or trivial risks? And, ultimately, is there some margin for the competent authorities to \nbalance environmental, social and economic interests, under the general umbrella of the pro-\nportionality principle? \n3.2.1. No general ban but strict assessment rules!\nContrary to popular belief, Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive does not put a general ban on \nthe construction of wind farms within or in the vicinity of a Natura 2000 site. It merely lays \ndown a specific assessment-procedure that needs to be observed by authorities when, amongst \nothers, issuing planning permits to projects and plans. Such was also the view of the Court in \nits first-ever decision in a legal challenge concerning the articulation between wind farm de-\nvelopment and Natura 2000. In Azienda Agro-Zootenica Franchini Sarl the Court held that \nItalian legislation which outright prohibits the construction of new wind turbines not intended \nfor self-consumption in Natura 2000 sites, is more stringent than the protection rules estab-\nlished by the Birds and Habitats Directives.39 Thus, it cannot be submitted from beforehand \nthat every single wind farm that is sited in (the vicinity of) a Natura 2000 site will face an out-\nright refusal. In fact, this will only be the case whenever an individual assessment in \naccordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, concludes that the given wind turbines \nare liable to put into jeopardy the integrity of a Natura 2000 site. This raises the question as to \nwhat activities can be deemed prone of ‘adversely affecting the integrity of a site’, as meant \nby Article 6(3). \nIn order to understand the exact scope of the assessment rules laid down by Article 6(3), we \nfirst need to turn to the landmark ruling of the Court in Waddenzee.40 In this landmark ruling, \nthe Court clearly tightened down the margin of discretion for the competent authorities when \nissuing permits for activities which might entail potential harmful effects for Natura 2000 \nsites. As to the so-called ‘screening-stage’, the Court held that the requirement for an appro-\npriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project is conditional on it being likely to \n \n \n38 European Commission, Managing Natura 2000 Sites. The provisions of Art 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive \n92/43/ECC (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2000) 8.\n39 Case C-2/10 Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini Sarl v Regione Puglia [2011] ECR I-6561, para 46. \n40 Case C-127/02 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee en Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescher-\nming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij [2004] ECR I-7405.\n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n92\nhave a significant effect on the site.41 The Court concluded that a project or plan needs to be \nsubmitted to an appropriate assessment if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective in-\nformation, that it will have a significant effect on that site, either individually or in \ncombination with other projects or plans. 42 By reaffirming the precautionary approach \nthroughout the screening process, the Court underscored the need for a precise and meticulous \nassessment of the potential effects of plans and projects. \nArguably, the Court’s ruling in Waddenzee is most renowned for underscoring the application \nof the precautionary principle in the decision-making stage under Article 6(3) of the Habitats \nDirective. In this respect, the Court reasserted the seminal Opinion of Advocate General Ko-\nkott43 by firmly holding that the authorisation criterion laid down in the second sentence of \nArticle 6(3) of the Habitats Directive integrates the precautionary principle. Hence competent \nnational authorities are only permitted to allow projects or plans if they have made certain, in \nlight of the appropriate assessment and the applicable conservation objectives, that they will \nnot adversely affect the integrity of that site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific \ndoubt remains as to the absence of such effects.44 Thus, it becomes clear that the Court, at \nfirst glance, has opted for a rather rigid interpretation of the precautionary principle, which \nwas subsequently reasserted in its more recent case-law.45 By placing the burden of proof on \nthe proponent of the potentially harmful activity, it opted for the ‘prohibitive’ formulation of \nthe precautionary principle in the context of Natura 2000. In the end, it will be for the propo-\nnent of an activity to put forward the necessary conclusive evidence as regards the absence of \npotential significant effects in order to enable the permitting authority to ascertain that the \nplan or project would not give rise to significant effects on a Natura 2000 site. \nIn its seminal ruling in Sweetman, the Court further clarified that the integrity of a site is ad-\nversely affected if the project is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive \ncharacteristics of the site concerned that are connected to the presence of a natural habitat type \nwhose preservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site.46 If after an appro-\npriate assessment the authority concludes that the plan or project could lead to the lasting and \nirreparable loss of the whole or part of a priority natural habitat type, the view should be taken \nthat such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of that site.47 In lay man’s terms: \nthe simple fact that, for instance, a wind farm is only liable to produce negative effects in one \nspecific part of a Natura 2000 site, will not automatically entail that it is not prone to affect its \nintegrity. \n \n \n41 Ibid para 40. \n42 Ibid para 44.\n43 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott.\n44 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, para 59.\n45 See, for instance, Case C-239/04 European Commission v Portugal [2006] ECR I-10183, paras 19 and 20; \nCase C-418/04 European Commission v Ireland [2007] ECR I-10947, paras 226, 228 and 258.\n46 Case C-258/11 Peter Sweetman and others v An Bord Pleanála (ECJ, 11 April 2013). See more extensively H \nSchoukens, ‘The Ruling of the Court of Justice in Sweetman: How to Avoid a Death by a Thousand Cuts?’ \n(2014) elni Review 2.\n47 Case C-258/11 Sweetman (ECJ, 11 April 2013), para 46. \n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n93\n3.2.2. Article 6(4) derogation clause: a workable option?\nSo far, it has become apparent that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, if applied in a proper \nmanner, will urge the proponents of wind farms to substantiate that there exists no reasonable \nrisk of significant effects on Natura 2000 sites. However, Article 6(4) of the Habitats Di-\nrective still leaves the competent authorities the possibility to authorize such a project which \nhas been subject to a ‘negative appropriate assessment for the implications of the site’, albeit \nunder very strict conditions. Under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, plans or projects \nmay be authorized, by way of derogation, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications \nfor the site, where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), there are \nno alternative solutions and all compensatory measures necessary to ensure the overall coher-\nence of Natura 2000 have been taken. A closer analysis of the 2007/2012 Guidance document \nproduced by the European Commission as to Article 6(4)48 seems to indicate that the deroga-\ntion conditions need to be interpreted in a restrictive manner, which also appears to be \nreaffirmed in the Court’s more recent jurisprudence.49\nThe first stage under Article 6(4) requires the competent authorities to examine the possibility \nof resorting to alternative solutions which better respect the integrity of the site. Admittedly, \nthe search for alternatives can be quite broad and might involve, in the case of wind farm de-\nvelopment, alternative locations for the wind farm or an alteration of the size of the farm, but \nalso alternative ways of producing energy whether renewable or not. Furthermore, the zero \noption has to be considered as well, as recently highlighted by the European Commission in \nits specific Guidance document on wind energy developments and Natura 2000.50 Additional-\nly, the European Commission stresses that during this stage other assessment criteria, such as \neconomic criteria, cannot overrule ecological criteria. The priority that needs to be given to \necological criteria might urge wind farm developers, who aim for the construction of wind \nfarms in the vicinity of a Natura 2000 site, to look for other, more appropriate locations.\nOnce it is satisfied that no alternative solutions exist, the authority should consider whether \nthere are IROPI which may justify the wind farm development. As highlighted by the Europe-\nan Commission in its Guidance documents, not every kind of public interest of a social or \neconomic nature will be sufficient.51 In Solvay the Court held that an interest capable of justi-\nfying the implementation of such a plan or project, must be both ‘public’ and ‘overriding’,\nwhich means that it must be of such an importance that it can be weighed up against the Habi-\ntats Directive objective of the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. In \nprinciple, works intended for the location or expansion of an undertaking satisfy those condi-\ntions only in exceptional circumstances.52 In the aforementioned Guidance document on wind \n \n \n48 European Commission, ‘Guidance Document on Article 6(4) of the “Habitats Directive” 92/43/EEC. Clarifica-\ntion of the Concepts of: Alternative Solutions, Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest, Compensatory \nmeasures, Overall Coherence, Opinion of the Commission, 2007/2012’ available at \nhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdf.\n49 See for instance Case C-239/04 European Commission v Portugal [2006] ECR I-10183.\n50 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development in Accordance with the EU Nature Legis-\nlation (Publications Office of the European Union 2011) 85–86.\n51 Ibid 6 and 33. \n52 Case C-182/10 Marie-Noëlle Solvay and others v Région Wallonne (16 February 2012), paras 75 and 76.\n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n94\nfarm developments and Natura 2000, the European Commission underlined that ‘it is also rea-\nsonable to assume that the public interest can only be overriding if it is a long-term interest; \nshort term economic interests or other interests which would only yield short-term benefits for \nthe society would not appear to be sufficient to outweigh the long-term conservation interests \nprotected by the Habitats Directive. Overriding interests, as long-term, fundamental social in-\nterests, may be properly identified beforehand by published policies, and land-use and other \nplans. Besides, in case the Natura 2000 site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type \nand/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to \nhuman health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the envi-\nronment or, further to an opinion from the European Commission, to other IROPI.53\nAlthough the European Commission did not go that far in quoting ‘wind farm developments’\nas a prime example of an IROPI, it is nevertheless clear that the positive climate mitigation \nbenefits that are attached to wind farms, might help it to qualify as such. This will be especial-\nly the case for large scale and, possibly, trans-boundary energy infrastructure projects. \nInterestingly, in the recently adopted trans-European energy infrastructure Regulation (TEN-E\nRegulation No 347/201354) it was stressed that so-called energy infrastructure projects of \ncommon interest55 should be considered by competent authorities as being in the public inter-\nest. Pursuant to Article 7(8) of the latter Regulation, projects of common interest shall be \nconsidered as being of public interest from an energy policy perspective, and may be consid-\nered as being of overriding public interest, provided that all the conditions set out in the \nHabitats Directive are fulfilled. Also at the national level, increasingly efforts are put into \nstressing out that development projects that stimulate wind energy qualify as an IROPI.56\nThat said, before being able to deviate from Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, wind pro-\nject developers are also required to take appropriate compensatory measures to ensure that the \noverall coherence of the Natura 2000 Network is protected. The European Commission point-\ned out that compensatory measures are independent of the plan or project (as opposed to \nmitigation measures), should go beyond the normal/standard measures required for protection \n \n \n53 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 89. See more extensively in this regard: \nL Krämer, ‘The European Commission’s Opinions under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive’ (2009) 21 Jour-\nnal of Environmental Law 59. See also, extensively, D McGillivray, ‘Compensating Biodiversity Loss: The EU \nCommission’s Approach to Compensation under Art 6 of the Habitats Directive’ (2012) 24 Journal of Environ-\nmental Law 417. \n54 Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines \nfor trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations \n(EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009’ [2013] OJ L115/39 (TEN-E Regulation). \n55 According to Art 2(4) of the TEN-E Regulation ‘project of common interest’ should be understood as a project \nnecessary to implement the energy infrastructure priority corridors and areas set out in Annex I and which is part \nof the Union list of projects of common interest referred to in Art 3 of the latter Regulation.\n56 See, for instance, the pending Dutch legislative proposal on Wind energy development at sea (Wet windener-\ngie op zee). In the preparatory works it is underscored that wind energy project should, if necessary, be \nconsidered as an IROPI. More information on the pending legislative proposal, which project is subject to con-\nsultation, is available at http://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wetwindenergieopzee. \n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n95\nand management of Natura 2000 sites, and can be considered only after having ascertained a \nnegative impact on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site.57\n3.3.\nA critical interim assessment: a bridge too far or merely a case of perception?\nFrom the above presented research, it can be inferred that Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats \nDirective, whilst not laying down a general prohibition on the construction of wind farms \nwithin or in the vicinity of Natura 2000, still require additional scrutiny when considering ap-\nplication for planning permits in this respect. The question now arises to what extent this \nshould be seen as an insurmountable and unjustifiable obstacle for future wind farm develop-\nments.\n3.3.1. No green pass for wind farms (and rightly so?)\nDespite the overall benefits for all species that would be the result of an increase in wind en-\nergy, the case-law of the Court displays a great deal of reluctance in taking into account the \ngeneral advantages that can be attached to wind farm developments. Accordingly, Member \nStates are barred from exempting wind farm developments from the individual assessment \nprocedure included in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.58 At the same time, referral to the \nclimate mitigation benefits created by an increase of wind energy, seems, as such, incapable \nof shifting the balance in an appropriate assessment in favour of a wind farm. In the end, such \nan approach would require a quantification of the positive effects that the given wind turbines \nmight create for each specific species or habitat.59\nAt first sight, one might submit that the strict stance of the Habitats Directive in this regard \nprovides a striking example of its inability to adapt to modern day conservation strategies in \nlight of the growing concerns on climate change. However, that criticism needs to be nuanced. \nIn our view, a general exemption for wind farm developments would, in the first place, give \nrise to a great deal of practical difficulties. It can hardly be substantiated in terms of measur-\nable benefits. For instance, how to quantify the concrete trade-off that is created by wind \nfarms in the long run for each specific bird species that would be present in a Special Protec-\ntion Area (SPA)? How to trade off the general benefits wind farms might produce for the \nlocal harm it can cause to bird populations? \n \n \n57 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 15.\n58 See, to that effect: Case C-241/08 Commission v France [2010] ECR I-1697, paras 51–56.\n59 See, by analogy, as regards the protection regime included in Section 7 and 9 of the US Endangered Species \nAct: Ruhl, ‘Harmonizing Commercial Wind Power’, 1791.\n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n96\nMoreover, the deplorable state of the EU’s biodiversity (only a small margin of the EU pro-\ntected habitats and species are, at present, at a favourable conservation status60) does not \njustify a reform of the Habitats Directive that would give wind farm developers a free pass to \nconstruct wind farms in the vicinity of areas which, for instance, host vulnerable bird popula-\ntions. Or, in other words, the general benefits that might go along with wind energy are, as \nsuch, incapable of effectively underpinning the need for a relaxation of the site protection \nrules enshrined in the Habitats Directive. A similar line of thinking was also displayed by the \nCourt in its afore-mentioned decision in Azienda Agro-Zootenica Franchini Sarl. Here, the \nCourt held that, even in light of the EU Directive on Renewable Energy, which urges Member \nStates to streamline and reduce administrative barriers applicable to plants for the production \nof renewable energy,61 Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive nor more stringent national pro-\nvisions, should not be seen as a major and insurmountable obstacle course for the pursuit of \nthe EU energy policy’s targets.62 Also the European Commission, in its turn, does not seem to\nbelieve that there is an apparent antagonism between the quest for renewable energy and the \nEU biodiversity goals as exemplified in its aforementioned 2010 Guidance document on wind \nenergy developments and Natura 2000. \n3.3.2. The insurmountable burden of proof (a matter of belief or reality?)\nStill, it cannot be denied that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive appears to be capable of \ngiving rise to substantial additional delays and barriers in permitting procedures for wind \nfarms. If correctly applied, the latter provision leaves little wiggle room for potentially harm-\nful projects. Taking into account the existing lacunae in relation to the effects of wind turbines \non endangered species, it will indeed, in some instances, be cumbersome for wind farm de-\nvelopers to exclude the likelihood of significant effects. Also in recent literature it has been \nhighlighted that the strict application of Article 6(3) and (4) may lead to additional delays, le-\ngal issues and difficulties when applied strictly in the context of massive renewable energy \nprojects, such as dam building and the construction of tidal barrages.63 However, arguably \nmore fundamental are the allegations that a strict interpretation of the precautionary principle \nin the context of site protection seems to negate that ignorance and system unpredictability are \ninherent to the ecological and social system and cannot be eliminated through science.64\nYet, whilst the above featured comments might be well-founded in general, they need to be \nsomehow nuanced in light of the following considerations. First and foremost, it must be re-\n \n \n60 European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Composite. \nReport on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Di-\nrective’ COM(2009) 358 final.\n61 See, for instance, Art 13(1) of the RES Directive which, amongst others, urges Member States to streamline \nadministrative procedures in order to make them less burdensome for renewable energy projects.\n62 Case C-2/10 Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini Sarl [2011] ECR I-6561, paras 63 and 75.\n63 Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity’, 1198. This author treats the examples of the construction of the \nSabor Dam (Portugal) and the Severn barrage (UK).\n64 PFM Opdam, MEA Broekmeyer and FH Kistenkas, ‘Identifying Uncertainties in Judging the Significance of \nHuman Impacts on Natura 2000 Sites’ (2009) 12 Environmental Science & Policy 912, 917.\n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n97\ncalled that the Habitats Directive, as such, grants some, albeit limited, room for leverage in \nthe context of wind farm development. The application of the precautionary principle does not \nrequire from the competent authority to refuse a permit whenever an assessment has indicated \nthat only minor effects might be linked to a wind farm. For instance, in general, a wind farm \nproject will not likely produce significant effects if the nearby Natura 2000 site has not been \ndesignated for birds, nor for bats. Ultimately, reviewing whether a wind farm may significant-\nly hamper the integrity of a Natura 2000 site remains, to a large extent, an ad hoc-matter. \nHence it remains hard to draw general conclusions in this regard. Moreover, whilst it is often \nsubmitted that the strict application of the precautionary principle may lead to a complete pa-\nralysis, the practice on the ground does not seem to confirm this conclusion. The reliance on \nthese ‘hard cases’ in the media and legal literature often blurs the fact that, besides cases of \nnon-compliance, considerable numbers of spatial projects, including wind farms, are smoothly \naligned with the rules on site protection for Natura 2000 sites. A recent analysis of the appli-\ncation of the Habitats Directive in the UK has revealed that almost all port developments have \npassed the tests of the Habitats Directive. And, even for the projects that did not proceed, \nmostly economic and technical complications are to blame.65 In Flanders, the highly contested \nconstruction of a new tidal dock in the Port of Antwerp could, despite initial concerns on its \ncompatibility with the Habitats Directive and a myriad of legal proceedings, still go along, al-\nbeit with some considerable delay.66 Even in the Netherlands, a country renowned for its \nrelatively high number of law suits by which the Habitats Directive was enforced before \ncourts, only a few plans and projects have been cancelled due to biodiversity legislation. \nHowever, still the prevailing idea among many Dutch actors is that European directives frus-\ntrate almost every development in the Netherlands.67\nThat said, when assessing the alleged rigidity of the assessment rules included in Article 6(3)\nand (4), due regard should be given to the exact causes and nature of the resistance that is \ncaused by the application of EU biodiversity law in the context of spatial projects, such as \nwind farms. Evidently, some of the troubles that were encountered can be linked to the poor \ncompliance with the procedural requirements spelled out by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Di-\nrective. 68 Only just recently, a research revealed that unsatisfactory compliance with the \nassessment rules throughout the decision-making process, limited participation and fait ac-\ncompli-scenarios seriously jeopardize the effectiveness of the Habitats Directive on the \n \n \n65 RKA Morris, ‘The Application of the Habitats Directive in the UK: Compliance or Gold Plating?’ (2011) 28 \nLand Use Policy 361. \n66 See more on this: H Schoukens, P De Smedt and A Cliquet, ‘The Implementation of the Habitats Directive in \nBelgium (Flanders)’ (2007) 4 Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 127, 134.\n67 See more extensively: R Beunen and M Duineveld, ‘Divergence and Convergence in Policy Meanings of Eu-\nropean Environmental Policies: The Case of the Birds and Habitats Directive’ (2010) 15 International Planning \nStudies 321.\n68 See, for instance: B Laffan and J O’Mahony, ‘“Bringing Politics Back In”. Domestic Conflict and the Negoti-\nated Implementation of EU Nature Conservation Law in Ireland’ (2008) 10 Environmental Policy Planning 175; \nF Ferranti, R Beunen and M Speranza, ‘Natura 2000 Network: A Comparison of the Italian and Dutch Imple-\nmentation Experiences’ (2010) 12 Environmental Policy Planning 293; G Kûtting, ‘Nature Conservation Law in \nContext: The Limited Influence of European Union and Greek Designations on the Future of Cavo Sidero, Crete’ \n(2012) 15 Journal International Wildlfe Law & Policy 60. \n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n98\nground in many Member States.69 However, at the end of the day, project developers are, just \nas most humans, not eager to ‘take no for an answer’, even in cases where there are valid \ngrounds to let biodiversity concerns prevail over economic concerns. Not surprisingly, project \ndevelopers tried to gain political awareness for ‘their problem’ and, often in the absence of \nclear guidance on the interpretation of some of the key notions of the Habitats Directive, \nurged for relaxation of biodiversity law.70\nAs a matter of fact, also in relation to wind farm development, cases quoted as prime exam-\nples of the alleged rigidity of biodiversity law, often merely point out the delays that might be \nincurred whenever wind farm developers refuse to abide by the basic rules set out by biodi-\nversity law. A succinct tour through the most notable ‘nature protection vs. wind farms’\njurisprudence seems to reassert this view. For instance, in the first federal lawsuit challenging \nan industrial wind energy project on environmental ground in the U.S., the competent court \nwent to hold that, whilst wind development exemplifies a conflict between two environmen-\ntally minded policies, such a conflict would not have arisen in the case at hand, if the wind \ndeveloper had utilized existing procedures under the U.S. biodiversity law.71 Likewise, in a \nrecent ruling, the Scottish Court of Appeal noted that Scottish Ministers were entitled to re-\nfuse a planning permission for a 14 wind turbine development within a SPA, since there was a \nrisk of adverse effects on the site designated for golden eagles. In that respect, the court based \nits ruling, to a large extent, on the lack of an appropriate assessment of the potential collision \nand disturbance effects of the wind farm on the conservation objectives for the eagle popula-\ntion.72\nLastly, it is important to note that the precautionary approach of the Court in the context of \nArticle 6(3) does not amount to excluding all potential risks. Advocate General Kokott herself \nnoted in her seminal Opinion in Waddenzee that the necessary certitude cannot be construed \nas meaning absolute certainty since that is almost impossible to attain.73 Moreover, there is an \nincreasing tendency in national courts to apply the precautionary principle in a reasonable \nmanner. Whilst, for example, in the aforementioned case the Scottish Court of Appeal found \nthat a small (1 per cent) collision risk and a risk of the eagle displacement could reasonably \namount to a risk of an ‘adverse effect on the site’s integrity’, such cases cannot be regarded as \nthe ultimate proof of the inappropriateness of the Habitats Directive to deal with renewable \nenergy projects. Indeed, there is considerable case-law which exhibits a more reasonable ap-\nproach to the precautionary principle. For instance, in 2008 a Scottish court dismissed a claim \nagainst a wind farm located on Skye, nearby a SPA harbouring a breeding population of gold-\nen eagles. Despite assuming that the evidence presented revealed considerable uncertainty as \n \n \n69 See to that effect N de Sadeleer, C-H Born and M Prieur, ‘National Legislation and Practices Regarding the \nImplementation of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of \nWild Fauna and Flora, in particular Art 6’ (European Parliament 2009) available at\nhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/200910/20091013ATT62399/20091013ATT62399EN.p\ndf.\n70 Beunen and M Duineveld, ‘Divergence and Convergence’.\n71 Animal Welfare Inst v Beech Rigde Energy LLC 675 F Supp 2d 540, 581 (D.Md 2009).\n72 Bagmoor Wind Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2012] CSIH 93.\n73 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, para 107.\n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n99\nto the future trends of the population of golden eagles, the court finally concluded that the \ncontested permit had sufficiently established that there existed ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’\nas regards the impact of the wind farm.74 In a 2005 Belgian case relating to the construction \nof a massive offshore wind farm, the Council of State was of the opinion that the alleged gaps \nin knowledge as to the adverse effects on the bird populations present in the area were not suf-\nficient to quash the permit.75 Although there will be certainly examples that point to more \nrigidity, especially in the hypothesis where the affected protected nature finds itself already at \nan unfavourable conservation status, it cannot simply be maintained that the precautionary \nprinciple is, in itself, blocking the construction of the majority of wind farms throughout the \nEU.\n3.3.3. The exception which appears to be no exception at all (Article 6(4) derogation as a \nscapegoat?)\nUltimately, the perceived rigidity of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive would matter little \nif, for wind farm developments, also application could be made of the derogation regime in-\ncluded in Article 6(4). Originally, the inclusion of Article 6(4) was the immediate reaction of \nthe Member States to the decision of the Court in Leybucht, where it had held that, under Ar-\nticle 4 of the Birds Directive, economic considerations could not be regarded as exceptional \ncircumstances justifying the reduction in size of a designated SPA.76 At the time of the final \nnegotiations, the inclusion of Article 6(4) was seen by many Member States as a safeguard for \navoiding the ‘draconian consequences’ of a strict protection scheme.77 In fact, Article 6(4), \nwhich applies both to SACs and SPAs, overrules the earlier case-law of the Court on site pro-\ntection.78\nInterestingly, Article 6(4) is often invoked to justify the rigorous approach as regards the pro-\ntection regime enshrined in Article 6(3). For example, in its Opinion in Waddenzee, Advocate \nGeneral Kokott explicitly underlined that the disproportionate results that might be caused by \nthe application of the precautionary principle are mitigated in connection with the derogating \nauthorisation provided for in Article 6(4).79 In a similar vein, Advocate General Sharpston \nheld in Sweetman that ‘whilst the requirements laid down in Article 6(4) are intentionally rig-\norous, it is important to point out that they are not insuperable obstacles to authorisation. The \nCommission indicated at the hearing that, of the 15 to 20 requests so far made to it for deliv-\n \n \n74 See Skye Windfarm Action Group Ltd v Highland Council [2008] CSOH 19. In legal literature the latter deci-\nsion is critized for applying a too lax standard of judicial review, see: C Edwards, ‘Judicial Review and the \nPrecautionary Principle’ in G Jones (ed), The Habitats Directive. A Developer’s Obstacle Course (Hart 2012) \n226.\n75 Belgian Council of State, 30 June 2005 (Application No 147.047). See more extensively: Schoukens, Cliquet \nand Maes, ‘Wind Farm Development in the Belgian Part of the North Sea’, 307.\n76 Case C-57/89 European Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-883, para 20. See more extensively: Krämer, \n‘The European Commission’s Opinions’. \n77 See more extensively: D Baldock, ‘The Status of Special Protection Areas for the Protection of Wild Birds’ \n(1993) 4 Journal of Environmental Law 139.\n78 Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity’, 1197.\n79 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, para 106.\n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n100\nery of an opinion under that provision, only one has received a negative response’.80 In recent \nlegal literature, in which the opinions, issued by the European Commission under the second\nsubparagraph of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive were examined, it was even highlighted \nthat economic factors are too often superseding a strict assessment of the intended compensa-\ntory measures.81\nIn spite of the clear rationale that was underpinning the inclusion of Article 6(4) and the leni-\nent (some might even call it ‘lax’) application of the latter provision in the opinions issued by \nthe European Commission, it is only rarely being invoked by Member States. In our view, this \nreluctance at the Member States’ level is in a certain way understandable, especially since Ar-\nticle 6(4) represents a last resort-option for projects or plans, that still must be carried out for \nreasons of overriding public interest. Considering the restrictive case-law by the Court and the \nstrict Guidance documents issued by the European Commission in this regard, the scarce reli-\nance on Article 6(4) could hardly be seen as a surprise. By way of example, referral could be \nmade to a 2009 ruling by the Dutch Council of State, where a permit was quashed that al-\nlowed the construction of 17 wind turbines in the seaport of Eemshaven. 82 Whereas, \naccording to the Council of State, the production of sustainable energy in general can be seen \nas a reason of overriding public interest, this also needed to be substantiated for the project at \nhand. Ultimately, the Council of State was not convinced that a reason of overriding public \ninterest was served by the construction of these particular wind turbines. Seeing that, in gen-\neral, private projects do not qualify as ‘IROPI’, private wind farm developers will need to \nsubstantiate why they present an overriding public interest. In some scenarios, they will prob-\nably fail to meet that criterion. Additionally, it is being pointed out that, especially in the \ncontext of large scale renewable projects, such as dams and barrages, the requirement of ‘like \nfor like’ compensation appears challenging.83 In general, the implementation of compensatory \nmeasures is often compounded or constrained by the lack of suitable sites which can be pur-\nchased in a short term in order to offset the damage caused by spatial projects. \nHowever, despite all the possible hurdles that the derogation clause might pose, it is our belief \nthat, especially for large scale public wind farms, more application of it should be made. As \nillustrated above, also the European legislator seems to adopt a similar stance in its recent \nTEN-E Regulation. At first glance, this might seem contradictory, since the application of a \nderogation clause will also be prone to giving rise to pitfalls and bottlenecks. However, in \nwhat follows, it will be established that such outcome might, at the end of the day, granting \nmore legitimacy to public wind farm developments. First and foremost, issuing planning per-\nmits for large scale public wind farms through Article 6(4) still remains a workable option \nconsidering the obvious climate benefits that go along with it and which could qualify as \n‘IROPI’. To some extent, this might also be the case for large scale private wind farms. \n \n \n80 Case C-258/11 Sweetman (ECJ, 11 April 2013), Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, para 65.\n81 N de Sadeleer, ‘Habitats Conservation in EC Law. From Nature Sanctuaries to Ecological Networks’ (2005) 5 \nYearbook of European Environmental Law 215; McGillivray, ‘Compensating Biodiversity Loss’, 449–50.\n82 Dutch Council of State, 25 February 2009 (Application No 200709030/1).\n83 Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity’, 1204. \n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n101\nWhat is more, the very fact that the competent national authorities are required to consider \nother alternatives should be welcomed as an additional moment of deliberation before giving \nup ecological valuable tracts of lands to future massive scale wind farms. In that regard, we \nsupport the suggestions voiced by other authors, such as Jackson, to even broaden the scope \nof the alternative examination, to also include investing in end-use generation, energy conser-\nvation initiatives and overall reduction in national consumption levels.84 More scrutiny on this \nlevel will enhance the sustainability character of large scale wind farm developments, which, \nin turn, will downplay possible legitimacy issues. Moreover, the fact that compensation is ob-\nligatory in such scenarios, will also enhance the sustainability claims attached to wind farm \ndevelopments, since its possible negative outcome for local biodiversity is offset through res-\ntoration efforts that help to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 Network. Thus, \nthe observance of the strict criteria spelled out by Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, might \nin the end be an appropriate way to reinforce the environmental claims attached to green en-\nergy projects. \n4.\nTOWARDS A MORE PROGRESSIVE READING OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE \nHABITATS \nDIRECTIVE: \nTHE \nROAD \nTO \nNOWHERE \nOR \nA \nVIABLE \nALTERNATIVE FOR WIND FARM DEVELOPMENTS? \nIn the preceding sections it has been argued that, given the worrisome state of the EU’s pro-\ntected habitats and sites, an outright relaxation of the rules of site protection would most \ncertainly be a disproportionate answer to the recent demands for deregulation. Still, as noted, \nthe restrictive interpretation of the precautionary principle might pose additional constraints, \nespecially for private wind farm developments, which will probably not always meet the re-\nquirements of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. Thus in recent years attention has shifted \ntowards the inclusion of mitigation measures into the plan or project, to eliminate the potential \nnegative effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, or, at least, to reduce them to a level \nwhere they will no longer affect the integrity of the site. In its 2011 Guidance document on \nwind energy developments and Natura 2000 the European Commission already provided us \nwith some examples of mitigation measures in the context of wind farms, such as an alteration \nof the design of a wind turbine or the concrete siting of the turbines.85 In addition, the Com-\nmission pointed to the (obvious) perks of strategic planning in the context of wind farm \ndevelopment. Such strategic planning should not only help to identify the most appropriate \nlocation and scale for wind farm development, but also helps to avoid and reduce the impacts \non the environment at a very early stage in the planning process.86\nRecently, a more progressive reading of mitigation has emerged in the context of wind farm \ndevelopment, which should allow to better align wind farm development with the high pre-\ncautionary standard, laid down by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. This more \n \n \n84 Ibid 1205.\n85 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 84–85.\n86 Ibid 47.\n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n102\nprogressive reading of Article 6(3) encompasses the implementation of risk management \nstrategies at permit level and additional enhancement and restoration measures, aimed at \nstrengthening the resilience of the affected nature.87 In the below part, it will be put forward \nthat, whilst both approaches might grant permitting instances additional leeway for, amongst \nothers, wind farm developments, it must be safeguarded that such practices do not undermine \nthe mitigation hierarchy, which is underpinning EU biodiversity law.\n4.1.\nAdaptive management at permit-level: a more sensible implementation of the \nprecautionary principle?\nIn recent literature, it has been argued that ignorance, system unpredictability and ambiguity \nin the science-policy interface, may cause difficulties in all steps of which the assessment pro-\ncedure is comprised (setting of the sites objectives and conservation status; predicting the \nimpact; assessing the significance of the effects). If one adds to that the current lack of scien-\ntific consensus about the exact impacts of wind farms on biodiversity, which has been \nsuccinctly addressed earlier on, one ends up with a very explosive cocktail for decision-\nmaking processes. Although, as argued above, the Court does not require a zero risk when ap-\nplying the precautionary principle in the context of Article 6(3), it does still set a high \nstandard by requiring that the competent authority must have ascertained that no reasonable \nscientific doubt remains as to the absence of effects on the integrity of a site. Whilst we have \nput forward that large scale wind farm developments still might avoid a rejection of a permit \napplication through Article 6(4), this way out seems less straightforward for more small-scale \nprivate wind farm developments. \nSo what other options are left? A more appropriate way to overcome the alleged static black-\nand-white approach to the precautionary principle would consist in accepting that uncertainty \nis an inherent factor in the assessment process. Henceforth, permitting authorities are urged to \nfocus more on the proper implementation of risk assessment tools and control measures in or-\nder to further reduce residual effects linked to the operation of a wind farm.88 Such a strategy \nbears close resemblance to the adaptive management approach, which is generally described \nas a structured, iterative process of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an \naim to reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring.89 It is defined as a flexible deci-\nsion making process that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from \nmanagement actions and other events become better understood.90 To that end, careful moni-\ntoring of the outcome of these actions and the implementation of strict control measures is \ndeemed necessary, not only to advance scientific understanding, but also to adjust potential \n \n \n87 Opdam, Broekmeyer and Kistenkas, ‘Identifying Uncertainties’, 919.\n88 Ibid 920. See also: P Scott, ‘Appropriate Assessment: A Paper Tiger’ in G Jones (eds), The Habitats Directive \n– A Developer’s Obstacle Course (Hart 2012) 112.\n89 See, amongst others: CS Holling, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (John Wiley & Sons \n1978).\n90 See http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/adaptive_management.\n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n103\nharmful operation as part of an iterative learning process.91 In that sense, it is often tagged as \n‘learning while doing’ instead of the common ‘trial and error’-process which is still predomi-\nnantly used.92\nIn the context of the Habitats Directive an adaptive licensing approach might entail that, not-\nwithstanding lasting uncertainties, a project or plan could still be able to obtain a permit under \nArticle 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, whenever the permit conditions impose strict monitor-\ning and, added to that, it is made obligatory to stop the operation of the activity whenever \nsignificant effects are detected. In its 2011 Guidance document on the implementation of the \nEU nature legislation in estuaries and coastal zones, the European Commission underlined \nthat ‘adaptive management […] helps to address situations when, because of science limits or \nuncertainty about the functioning of complex and dynamic ecosystems, it is not possible for \nthe competent authorities to fully ascertain the absence of adverse effects’.93 It went on stating \nthat ‘an adaptive approach for the implementation of a plan or project or a compensation \nscheme may be particularly useful to address cases where, due to uncertainty associated with \ndifferent contributory factors (location, confidence, unexpected delays), it is impossible to de-\nfine all the effects of the plan or project or of a compensation scheme in sufficient details and \nif such uncertainty cannot be factored in through increased ratios. In such a situation, a rigor-\nous monitoring scheme and a pre-defined validated package of appropriate corrective \nmeasures must be foreseen.94\nIt is clear that the European Commission has not adopted a clear-cut position on the use of \nadaptive management measures as a way to scale down the rigid application of the precau-\ntionary principle. Still, it seems to be willing to allow some leeway for implementing an \nadaptive management approach in the context of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Turn-\ning to the recent administrative practice in the Netherlands and Flanders, we may note an \nincreased application of this approach in the context of plans or projects where, in principle, \nno absolute certainty had been reached as to the absence of significant effects. The legal pro-\nceedings surrounding a large scale gass-drilling project in the Waddensea served as an eye-\nopener. In spite of the fact that no absolute certainty as to the absence of significant effects \nhad been reached during the appropriate assessment, the project still was granted a permit by \nreferral to adaptive management conditions that had to be observed throughout the operation \nof the project. Interestingly, the Dutch Council of State accepted the legality of the latter ap-\nproach in its seminal 2007 ruling.95 Under the Council’s view, the mere existence of some \nuncertainty as regards the expected effects of the project, does not necessarily warrant an out-\nright refusal of the permit, especially taken into account the compulsory monitoring and the \nstrict operation conditions that applied in that case. In the permit, it had been provided that, \n \n \n91 Taken from the definition of ‘adaptive’ management that is used by the US Department of the Interior (BK \nWilliams, CS Szaro and CD Shapiro, Adaptive Management: The US Department of the Interior Technical \nGuide (Adaptive Management Working Group, US Department of the Interior 2007).\n92 H Doremus, ‘Precaution, Science and Learning While Doing in Natural Resource Management’ (2007) 82 \nWashington Law Review 547, 550.\n93 European Commission, Guidance Document. The Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in Es-\ntuaries and Coastal Zones with particular Attention to Port Development and Dredging’ (2011) 33–34. \n94 Ibid. \n95 Dutch Council of State, 29 August 2007 (Application No 200606028/1).\n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n104\nwhenever soil subsidence or other effects might occur, entailing significant risks to the Natura \n2000 site, the gas exploration had to be temporarily halted, or, if deemed necessary, complete-\nly stopped. As to Flanders, a 2011 Guidance document on wind farm development and nature \nprotection, promulgated by the Flemish Institute for Forest and Nature Research, promoted \nthe adaptive licensing approach as an effective means to minimize the negative effects that \nmight go along with wind farm developments. Not much later, the principle also emerged in \nthe context of a highly contested permit application for the construction of 3 wind turbines in \nthe Port of Antwerp, which were localized close to a SPA. Reiterating the above presented ra-\ntionale, the Antwerp Provincial Authority gave green light to the operation of the wind \nturbines, amongst others, with reference to active monitoring obligations of possible residual \nnegative effects which were included in the permit.96\nWe believe that the latter approach might offer competent authorities more leverage when \nconsidering wind farm developments. Seeing that the operation of wind farms can relatively \neasily be submitted to a monitoring protocol, adaptive licensing may rightly be regarded as a \nreasonable middle ground between unfettered development and nature protection. Recent \nSpanish research moreover held that an active monitoring approach, if linked to selective \nstopping techniques as regards turbines with the highest mortality, can effectively help to mit-\nigate the impacts of wind farms on birds with a minimal effect on energy production.97 On the \nlegal side, whilst the Court has not pronounced itself on the legality of an adaptive manage-\nment approach in light of Article 6(3), the rationale underpinning adaptive licensing does not, \nas such, seems to run counter to the Habitats Directive. Not only did the European Commis-\nsion herself refer to adaptive management in the context of Article 6(3) of the Habitats \nDirective in its 2011 Guidance document on the implementation of EU nature legislation in \nestuaries and coastal zones, it did also point to the obvious link between mitigation and moni-\ntoring in its aforementioned 2010 Guidance document on wind energy developments and \nNatura 2000.98 Advocate General Kokott herself seemed to reaffirm the underlying rationale \nof adaptive management by stating that mitigation measures can also be of relevance in order \nto avoid an all too harsh application of the precautionary principle.99 Precisely where scien-\ntific uncertainty remains, it is possible to gain further knowledge of the adverse effects by \nmeans of associated scientific observation and implementation of the plan or project accord-\ningly.100\nHowever, at the same time, a wide-spread use of the adaptive licensing approach might also \nentail certain significant risks, which, in our view, should lead the competent authorities to a \ncertain reluctance in this regard. The technique should not be used to justify the siting of mas-\nsive wind farms next to protected areas that support population of species that are highly \nsensitive for fragmentation and disturbance. Submitting that adaptive licensing is no ‘one-\n \n \n96 Provincial Authority of Antwerp, Decision of 13 January 2010. However, since an administrative appeal has \nbeen launched against the latter permit, it still remains unsettled whether the Flemish government is also willing \nto adopt the latter approach on a more general scale.\n97 de Lucas et al, ‘Griffon Vulture Mortality’, 188.\n98 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 83.\n99 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, para 106.\n100 Ibid para 108.\n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n105\nsize-fits-all’ solution, in the end, merely amounts to stating the obvious. Indeed, in some cas-\nes, it will be tempting for the competent authorities to pass on the exact determination of \neffects to a later stage, whilst, in the meantime, allowing the construction of wind energy pro-\njects on poorly sited locations. In order to avoid such fait accompli-scenarios, the approach \nshould, in our opinion, stay confined to situations where residual non-permanent effects of a \nproject can clearly be singled out, the monitoring is able of tackling them and there is no other \noption to exclude such risks.101 In other words, there is no point in using adaptive manage-\nment as a solution for the construction of wind farms within highly vulnerable SPAs. Added to \nthat, it must be safeguarded that the operation conditions are drafted in a sufficient precise and \nstrict way, in order to allow a strict surveillance by the competent national authorities. \nThe latter also seems to be the viewpoint of the European Commission which, in its 2011 \nGuidance document on the implementation of the EU nature legislation in estuaries and \ncoastal zones, pointed out that the monitoring scheme and the package of corrective measures, \n‘must allow to adjust mitigation and/or compensatory measures to the reality of the impact \nand by that way, make sure that the initially unforeseen adverse effects are being neutral-\nized’.102 Accordingly, a full disclosure of the results of the monitoring results towards the \nwider public and environmental NGOs should be ensured. Ultimately, what our analysis sug-\ngests is that adaptive management will only be able to achieve its environmental objectives, \nwhich include the reduction of the biodiversity effects linked to wind farms, if implemented \nand observed in a proper and sufficiently strict way. To that end, it must be ensured that adap-\ntive management measures are not to be misused as a cover-up for granting permits for \nunsustainable renewable energy projects that merely focus on short term gains. If that were to \nbe the case and the matter would ever end up before the Court, it can be expected that the use \nof the adaptive management-approach would be debunked by the Court.\n4.2\nHabitat enhancement measures as mitigation measure: towards more resilience? \nWhilst adaptive licensing might present itself as a possible go-between for some wind energy \nprojects, it will certainly not serve as a solution in cases where long-term significant, possibly \npermanent, adverse effects can be expected for a Natura 2000 site. In situations where wind \nfarms might give rise to collision risks for raptors, such as the White-tailed eagle or the Grif-\nfon vulture, enhancement measures might be envisaged to avoid a wind farm of putting into \njeopardy the integrity of a Nature 2000 site. For instance, one might propose the creation of \nadditional foraging areas for affected birds on another location in a Natura 2000 site in order \nto reduce disturbance and collision risks.\nIn general, such measures are being increasingly used in order to manage the hurdle of Article \n6(3) of the Habitats Directive, without requiring the application of Article 6(4). Especially in \n \n \n101 See also in this respect: Dutch Council of State, 27 February 2008 (Application No 20060755); Dutch Coun-\ncil of State, 24 August 2011 (Application No 200900425/1/R2). \n102 European Commission, ‘Guidance Document. The Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in \nEstuaries and Coastal Zones’, 34. \n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n106\nthe Netherlands, recent administrative practice has shifted towards the inclusion of the posi-\ntive effects linked to proactive habitat enhancement and restoration measures in the \nappropriate assessment for spatial projects that entailed negative effects on some parts of a \nNatura 2000 site.103 Even more so, the Dutch Council of State rendered a seminal ruling, back \nin 2010, in which it held that the creation of no less than 132 hectares of new mussel beds, \nneeded for the conservation of the affected birds, could qualify as a mitigation measure for the \nconstruction of a housing zone in the IJmeer.104 In 2012, the Dutch Council of State reasserted \nthis stance again by accepting the construction of 22 hectares of foraging and resting area as a \nmitigation measure in the context of Article 6(3).105 Also in the United Kingdom, rulings have \nbeen handed down in which it was accepted that a habitat enhancement scheme could be tak-\nen into account in the screening stage under Article 6(3), thereby even rendering the carrying \nout of a full fletched appropriate assessment superfluous.106 This begs the question: to what \nextent can enhancement measures help to offer additional leeway for wind farm developments \nin light of the Habitats Directive?\nAt first sight, the progressive reading of Article 6(3), under which habitat enhancement \nmeasures qualify as mitigation rather than compensation, might offer additional leeway for \nwind farm projects, especially when located close to sites that are harboring vulnerable bird \npopulations. It is believed that such measures might indeed strengthen the resilience of the af-\nfected Natura 2000 site and, additionally, also lower the mortality rate by providing \nalternative foraging opportunities for vulnerable birds species, which are located at a greater \ndistance from the projected wind farm.\nHere, however, it is submitted that such approach, whilst arguably encouraging the proponents \nof plans and projects to incorporate mitigation measures at the earliest possible stage in the \nevolution of their plan or project, will probably not offer the deregulatory advantages craved \nfor in the context of wind farm developments. In our view, the main reason for this is that, un-\nder such approach, one is required to take for granted the positive outcome linked to the \nproposed enhancement or restoration measures. However, in reality, such measures are de-\npendent on many factors and often do not achieve the results that were hoped for. In line with \nthe Commission’s point of view,107 recent Dutch and Belgian case-law rightly held that the \neffectiveness of proposed enhancement measures should, at any rate, further be assessed \nthroughout the appropriate assessment.108 Indeed, the lack of sufficient knowledge on the ad-\n \n \n103 See more extensively: J Zijlmans and H Woldendorp, ‘Compensation and Mitigation: Tinkering with Natura \n2000 Protection law’ (2014) 10 Utrecht Law Review 172. \n104 Dutch Council of State, 21 July 2010 (Application No 200902644/1/R2). See in this regard also the provi-\nsional judgment in this case, to the same effect: Chairman of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the \nDutch Council of State, 31 August 2009 (Application No 200902644/2/R2).\n105 Dutch Council of State, 8 February 2012 (Application No 201100875/1/R2). \n106 Hart District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Luckmore Ltd. and Bar-\nratt Homes Ltd [2008] EHWC 1204. More extensively on this case: D McGillivray, ‘Mitigation, Compensation \nand Conservation: Screening for Appropriate Assessment under the EU Habitats Directive’ (2011) 8 Journal for \nEuropean Environmental and Planning Law 336.\n107 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 64.\n108 See, for instance, Dutch Council of State, 7 May 2008 (Application No 200604924/1) and Belgian Council of \nState, 21 December 2010 (Application No 209.330).\n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n107\nequacy of the enhancement measures seems to rule out its use as a bypass for the duty to carry \nout an appropriate assessment, as also evidenced by the aforementioned decision of the Scot-\ntish Court of Appeal on the legality of the refusal of a planning permit for a 14 wind turbine \ndevelopment within a SPA.109 It is no coincidence that in that case one of the major issues \nwas the alleged adequacy of the enhancement measures, which were not deemed sufficient in \nproviding alternative foraging area for an affected pair of eagles.\nYet, the precautionary principle also represents one of the major hurdles for accepting the in-\nclusion of enhancement measures as mitigation measures within the context of an appropriate \nassessment for wind farms. As indicated above, the precautionary principle also plays a key-\nrole in determining whether or not a plan or project may hamper the integrity of a site. Al-\nready in its 2000 Guidance document on Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, the European \nCommission drew a clear distinction between so-called mitigation measures, on the one hand, \nand compensatory measures sensu strictu, on the other hand. There it was noted that while \nmitigation measures are an integral part of the specifications of a plan or project, compensato-\nry measures sensu strictu are independent of the plan or project (including any associated \nmitigation measures). Under the Commission’s view, the latter measures are intended to off-\nset the negative effects of the plan or project so that the overall ecological coherence of the \nNatura 2000 Network is maintained.110\nIn recent years, national case-law emerged in which the creation of new habitats in one part of \na Natura 2000 area were tagged as compensatory measures. This was for instance the case in \nthe Flemish Region, were proactive habitat management measures in order to offset the im-\npact of a new by-pass cutting through a Natura 2000 site, were ruled out as mitigation under \nArticle 6(3).111 Also in Sweetman, the Court hinted to a strict precautionary approach when \ninterpreting the second part of Article 6(3), thereby excluding the view according to which \nsignificant local effects could still be deemed not relevant in view of the wider integrity of a \nNatura 2000 site.112\nThe reluctance echoing from these elements can also be retrieved in the recent Opinion of \nAdvocate General Sharpston, delivered on 27 February 2014, in the Dutch case concerning \nthe broadening of a part of the motorway A2 between the cities of Eindhoven and Den Bosch, \nwhich would affect an area of molinia meadows in one part of the nearby Natura 2000 site.113\nHere, the Court was asked to indicate whether measures with a view to ensuring the creation \nof new meadows elsewhere in the same site, to replace or augment those affected, could quali-\nfy as mitigation under Article 6(3). In her Opinion, the Advocate General aligned herself with \n \n \n109 Animal Welfare Inst v Beech Rigde Energy LLC 675 F Supp 2d 540, 581 (D.Md 2009).\n110 European Commission, ‘Communication on the precautionary principle’ COM(2000) 1 final, 37. See also, \nmore recently, European Commission, ‘Guidance Document on Article 6(4) of the “Habitats Directive” \n92/43/EEC’ point 1.4.1. \n111 Belgian Council of State, 29 March 2013 (Application No 223.083). See more extensively: H Schoukens, \n‘Mitigation and Compensation under EU Nature Conservation Law in the Flemish Region: Beyond the Deadlock \nfor Development Projects?’ (2014) 10 Utrecht Law Review 207. \n112 Case C-258/11 Sweetman (ECJ, 11 April 2013).\n113 Case C-521/12 TC Briels and others v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu (ECJ, 15 May 2014), Opinion of \nAdvocate General Sharpston.\n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n108\nthe stricter stance of the Belgian Council of State, in appraising the scope of the expression \n‘adversely affecting the integrity of a Natura 2000 site’. Whilst accepting that measures which \nform part of a plan or project and which effectively minimize its impact may be taken into ac-\ncount when assessing whether that plan or project adversely affects the integrity of a site, the \nAdvocate General refused to qualify the creation of new meadows as mitigation measures be-\ncause they do not lead to an adequate reduction of the pollution.114 Instead, such measures \nbasically seek to counterbalance the unavoidable negative impacts that go along with the pro-\nject. \nGiven the absence of the expression ‘mitigation’ and ‘compensation’ in Article 6(3), the Ad-\nvocate General did not stop her analysis at the semantic difference between ‘mitigation’ and \n‘compensation’, but further elaborated on the exact scope of the notion of ‘integrity of a site’.\nHowever, only to conclude that the same strict precautionary approach, as spelled out in Wad-\ndenzee, should be applied to predictions of success for planned new areas of created ‘natural’\nhabitat. The simple fact that there cannot be no guarantee of success for the new artificially \ncreated habitat, turned out to be the true obstacle for allowing a more progressive reading of \nArticle 6(3).115 Still, the Advocate General did acknowledge that the creation of new habitats \nmay well be regarded as a compensatory measure, provided that it is specifically linked to the \nproject in question and would not otherwise be implemented in the context of the ordinary \nmanagement of a site, as required by Article 6(1) or (2).116\nAgain, it might be contended that the strict stance of the Advocate General, if reasserted by \nthe Court, serves as yet another illustration of the inability of the Habitats Directive to support \nmore progressive approaches towards biodiversity offsetting. Still, the Advocate General’s \napproach does make sense. Indeed, there are no easy fixes for nature. In comparison with the \nadaptive licensing-approach, under which, at the end of the day, the operation of a wind farm \ncan still be halted if entailing severe collision risks, a progressive approach to enhancement \nschemes under Article 6(3) lacks such clear-cut guarantees. That is not to say that enhance-\nment measures are completely useless in the context of Article 6(3). If the enhancement \nmeasures have been already carried out before the project is constructed and, subsequently, \nproved to be effective in, for instance, keeping raptors away from their previous foraging are-\nas, there indeed seems to be some leeway. Yet, such approach would presuppose a more long-\nterm strategic planning approach towards wind farm development. \nArguably, allowing (future) habitat creation as mitigation also risks to undermine the mitiga-\ntion hierarchy that is underpinning Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (prevent, mitigate, \ncompensate). The creation of new habitats should indeed be seen as a last resort, in order to \noffset unavoidable damages. Hence it should be reviewed under Article 6(4) of the Habitats \nDirective. However, whilst the creation of new habitats and other enhancement measures can-\nnot be invoked in the context of Article 6(3), it might in the long run lead to more resilient \nNatura 2000 sites which, in its turn, might create more leverage for future spatial projects, \n \n \n114 Ibid paras 36 and 37. \n115 Ibid paras 42 and 43.\n116 Ibid para 46.\n\n\nSUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN \nENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION\n109\nsuch as wind farms. Arguably, spatial projects will be easier to reconcile with more resilient \nNatura 2000 sites, in which most of the natural habitats and species are at a favourable con-\nservation status. At present, most legal issues surrounding the articulation between Natura \n2000 and spatial projects stem from the unfavourable conservation status of many of the af-\nfected natural habitats and species. In such a scenario, every additional impact might give rise \nto significant effects (‘death by a thousand cuts’), as was displayed by the above addressed \nDutch case. Hence the allegedly strict view of Advocate General Sharpston on mitigation \nshould, in our view, not be seen as another proof of the alleged rigidity of Article 6(3), but \nmore as an encouragement for taking more robust proactive habitat management measures, \nalso outside the context of concrete spatial development projects.117\n5.\nCONCLUDING REMARKS\nThe EU is currently witnessing a major shift in policy towards renewable energy, which urges \nthe Member States, amongst others, to opt for massive investments in wind farms and the as-\nsociated infrastructure. By requiring the same amount of scrutiny for ‘green’ projects as for \n‘brown’ projects, EU biodiversity law appears unwilling to take into account the global bene-\nficial effects for biodiversity tied to wind farms. Whilst not effectively prohibiting wind farm \ndevelopments in the vicinity of Natura 2000 sites, it does put forward a strict scrutiny ap-\nproach. In the US, the impediments spurred by the stringent application of the Endangered \nSpecies Act in the context of wind energy, have recently prompted the Obama administration \nto allow some companies to kill or injure bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without \npenalty, in an effort to spur development and investment in green energy while balancing its \nenvironmental consequences.118\nIn the EU, both the Court and the European Commission are more reluctant in deviating from \nthe strict assessment rules enshrined in the Birds and Habitats Directives in order to boost \nwind energy initiatives. In this paper, it has be submitted that, in spite of the strict examina-\ntion requirement which is laid down by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, wind farms are, \nin principle, compatible with the precautionary approach which is underpinning EU biodiver-\nsity law. There is no total deadlock on the ground. Moreover, even in the current time-frame, \nwhere the push towards renewable energy has become part of the dominant policy discourse, \nit would be unwise to let wind power take precedence over protecting endangered bird and bat \nspecies. Despite all good intentions, such an approach could do away with many of the con-\nservation efforts that have been put into the recovery of protected species during the past \ndecades. At the same time, it would also significantly hamper the sustainability credentials of \nwind energy. After all, how ‘green’ is a wind farm that is decimating a local population of en-\ndangered griffons? Whilst it remains sensible to consider the long-term benefits that will be \ncreated by wind farm developments for many species and think about ways of quantifying \n \n \n117 See also in this direction: Opdam, Broekmeyer and Kistenkas, ‘Identifying Uncertainties’, 920.\n118 See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/06/obama-administration-will-let-some-wind-companies-\nkill-or-injure-eagles.\n\n\nCHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY \nCONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?\n110\nthose benefits, such argumentation does not, as such, imply that wind power should take prec-\nedence over more short-termish protection efforts for imperiled species. \nYet it cannot be neglected that the ever-more ambitious renewable energy targets are putting \nmore pressure on the European Commission to take further initiatives to facilitate wind pro-\njects in the context of EU biodiversity law. The inclusion of the Birds and Habitats Directives \nin the recently published REFIT programme of the European Commission, might be seen as a \ntoken for future regulatory burden relief.119 However, in our opinion, a relaxation of the exist-\ning protection rules, even in the specific context of wind farm developments, would, in itself, \nnot be desirable, especially given the predicament of many European habitats and species. \nThis article has amply illustrated that emerging administrative practices at Member States \nlevel, such as the inclusion of selective stopping protocols and control measures in permits, \nmight already considerably ease the administrative burden for wind project developers whilst \nalso enabling an effective reduction of the possible biodiversity risks attached to wind farm \ndevelopments. Unfortunately, as witnessed by the reluctance of some national courts and the \nAdvocate General towards the use of habitat creation as mitigation, there are no ‘one-size-fits-\nall’ solutions. Still, at the end of the day, there are no quick wins for nature protection, also \nnot in the renewable energy-context. Genuine sustainable development requires deliberation \nand caution, for instance, in order to find out the better options, both for biodiversity and re-\nnewable energy purposes. By urging the Member States to take a step back when opting for \nmassive scale wind farm developments, Article 6 allows for that additional moment of reflec-\ntion. It is our belief that, in the long run, the Habitats Directive will be praised for that. \n \n \n119 European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the \nEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; Regulatory Fitness and Perfor-\nmance (REFIT): Results and Next Steps’ COM(2013) 685 final.\n\n\n\n\nlhj1e Chaire\nIt; t1tctotn\nitte (lIiitC\nIS\nlit svcirlds tIC’,IteSt eltvlroiiilleliiiI\nC IilleTilO.\nIt jet)p:iceS\nflg._t\nliii CCIII i( )iiii(\nlIlt\nlio)ilt Cii St .II0I1Ey\n1(1055\nI lt\n!oIti.\nI IS\nI iC ti Ott ci ieoi 0\ntiitl tlisitiitv\nIttlil\niitdt- Illicit ever (oiifroliktl liy St)lltti(S past or\nIL\niiile\nttLi’y (ltSir(i\n,ll)Ottt\nIC\nI ItlilSitS’\nitici (list rtlttt[iott of elittlale din il(\njets but (in Ihirope\nit least) sonic thois ate 110W (OttttiiiittlV it eeptecl\nIS tact.\n• oiihrtitt.d\niii thc 5di Report of the\nittcroVri itnientil Panel on (:liiilate\nne (IP( ‘(\nthere is\n1\n)\nper\nent scientin consensus that iiiaii-in;e\nions iii rceiiIiouse iases (C\ni l( s)\nire eutsilit; dobil tt iiipe alto-es to risc\ni unprec diitedlv s[ec-p liclnic. Under bitsitiuss as tisuti\nc treUtitsCailC es the\n-\nnet could heat op by noire thiot h tlet;rees (elsins by tlii\nCIUI ohtc CeillttiS\n1o e1teratc btu a itntifstl of tile noire ittaclysnnc iieciTttet, tonsec]ttettees uI liii\ntess as tisttal sceitirto: polar ictt ips wIll melt; iiiaiiy isliiich State will be fl:ped\nhe fiec of the tart!); Cviii\nnote\nt ilnItiles Wdl lost s;;tti[ieittt land tiios to\n‘;Sea levels;\n. I nii;e6\nt nititolo;iiil tottd ttons will e\\:ti erbitc liiiidttt\naitd\n;er more e’trintt \\teitlidt events; and nsitt; telilpelatttre’ w II have tirimatti\niCtS On\netC s3’stC ins\nttttle,tsh tin; a\n51: tant of towennt;\n1 lIlleires to\nitt nut\ntatioti, lilod vCTSIV protect tot\nt’;rnttltttre, 11)11 stry\n1 it! ltshitnes.\nhirnate chiiie will leave iii) CorneT of the pIuiiet coil\n[CU hot tilt tilipirt\n1 be very totevenly distrbtttect. In a cittel Rsist of fite, the pootest\noniltries\nIll the snt;tllest cat hon both\nilts are ltkely to be thi\ntill)\nI lit ivtlv\nfteeiid\n1w 2007 ‘teriI Res iew’ estnuttetl that, iii thi event o; the\ntie; s s\nU ni:n ii\ntore rise, clitititt\nt ltan;e \\t’ill icStlIt ni\nlolitl Cd )P hiss 0! in levi iii\ncent\nnit!\nU per cent.2 Rec tilt reports su:2;est that tills estinlite\n1113 well bc\ntoo con\ncitive. l\\/ltny of lii\nc itjes that ire evpeetet to set tile fastest lilt reasi\nto C1 )P\nover the c oitnn\nileeic]es itlcilitni:- I )liiki iii\natitl:cesli\ntoil i\\’ftnnb.i\nitt linhi\nIre at an etreinc re Is ot climate c llali;e. A their :iro2 contribute It)\nplt)Iflh1tIIlL I)le.iSCIIu\nIt iIItuni;otjo)Ii,oI level\ntO dr,of\nEtlttttecll titti tile\nins Atieetttetit\n‘te expertly cut nsstli\nIll\nIll,lltV pithieitiittts.\n5(1\n.1 sittrt sttlttltltrV suflict\nhero\nhe UN\nC\nC\nitt\ntill It itt1 tic\nti\nttttlver\nli tIltilli)t rho attci eali\nti\nIs sUIt\nles lit\nIke ltleiSttIes tttVvIttIS tilt\nsttl)tlls,Itiott ccl cteeltitcltist oases (Ci\nU’) iii\nftc ;lttttttspitt it\nIt levels titIt votiiti prevc itt tLlllperocts\nIcttiSttlpttcelliC ititerfer\ntlC itt tilt\ncilItilte sylt it\nI\n(Art. 2), witIc h stitce tilt\n21 It) Clileolli /titeellletJt\nis tlfldersttlttci US\n1 etllltlttlttt.eltt to Let p ofichIf tecil5tet-ttdte rtse to l)eiow 2 deiree\ntisltts. Artit Ic 2(i) ol tie PIns Acreemimuimi restates tics\nccli s:\nI tiiitoq\ntItr—\nltCtC5C\nti Ili t1ittiot JVCdtjt\nli)lt)—I :Ittts\nit\nV cii Itch\ntoS/ 1°C\nt ve pi—tittlustrtaf lecici\nIOU ptJrstttrtc tiul\nto\nfetiti fft\nteITlpoliterl\nit c wit\nto\n1 5°C\n71)05; it\ntflUusIri.ii levels, tetoqot ;ii Ig that\nI his would\ntittltcantly reduce the risks and impacts of CIII1IJLC change\nice UNIt\n1\nC\nmips clot a broad\nillLC of tasks titit olemmlher countries sitonid\ntnderttkt\ntIISV,ltCiS\nt hiit1t\nCil,lllct\nIttittclt:tot\nTclTlO1iiL\nfrom\ntllvel)torVtmic\nI f-lU\n(IctIlleStIC\nemtttssiori,\n1111(1\nldOpt;llc\nIlitInlIll\nlnmtmtatmnml\nilItte’,,\nto\nttStenhlr edut itlin\nlilt1\nISS lrelless-rlistnc’\nc lTlif)llc’tis It lIpti tIes oit tile prim)\niple (ct\neOlt)Illllll ictit tilict It lltll[ed utslcttctslltliytmes,\n\\S lmtc1i resonites ifi tilt\n(itV)S]oll hetweeii (clevelepeth Allmil’\\ I eotnttttt\nmd (dveIopint) Annex Ii\n(‘tIltIrle, and lIon Allilexed eeveioplns eottltttlt5. as Well\nis tile expel t;li)oTt\nthe ChaUenge of Climate Change Leadership\n263\nl\nurIc\nI. lU\n111(1\n1\nfirtstcr\nK.lrlsson\n‘(IlIllItI (‘hmnt\nintl thu\nIlcrn:lettl\nI littOn’\nI e;,tftr\nIII\nPit\nIll\ntI\nlIlt\nltColtStllltlil\n1 ttitit’ (ttfttt\n1’(1)\nIldTllttl/ If\nC ,llttlltHll\nticllktt\nS/lltItt\n121 ‘tI I\nIi 1))\n1\n\n\n264\nClimate Change\nhit tin iontier hid\nt\ntier lintilens itt\nii\ntie\niitiipe i1ntlgitlon, ii1dt\nteeittioltuy li.tlti(is\nmci itliet\nIt\n.tiiitti\nHsisttnci\nlit\nlc’vloiiti\ntttliitrleS.\nindeed,\n1)1k\nUt the\n111051\ns\ninli,int rts)tIis iii\nIN I’(\n(\n(\n)tt)jil’Hlt Itt)\n15 the\n‘o.ihtlisln lIctit\n1\n.t\nI\nten\n( butte\nnod.\n)tvc loped\ntoiltitiles piedel\nit) I)tlltt)H ii Ott us tilt\nloin1\niii\nhi\nti iu di\nIt\nit Id, vit h\nt 1)titi\nterm\noil ol I i Iii)) Hilhou\nut yc , Ity dUtt\nitt’ (IEIIf (d\nIs titcitisive, expail\nsti, )ti).ittuttll\ntot1, 1t’i tt,\ntaiieI5\na i’’\ntv:’eittti\ntic’ not\nuti\na\nIIJILUS’ to hind Its\n)ettoIic’s 0) spicilie mitipitioti\nmlii\nc’I1tisstittl rctliitt.nnt tesulto l,yt’tt\nii iht’y \\seie. tile\nutilvuntlol]\nttlita)liS Ott\ntlttV)’lttO’\nOtt\n( list))\nlttt’ilt ileytitIci tht it\n1\nlilt\nhictt provisions\ndispute\n‘i iicu ti\ni)tO,’tti\ntin\ntot n’. W lIthe\netC ott\neitiiu\nct tent, the\nltN!’( (\n5,\nitO\\1c’V’, tic\n‘,iut)ti ott lilst)tutu))l)I)nlldiilld\n1\nauvtslotis\ncijited the i’st thh’ittttc’tn cO\na ittilt’ titlr,istitttintc\nthu\nlaS St\nVi d\nas\nt lurtitu fiat\n- ‘it bob\nI\nj,tt’\nlit -‘c\nIttlit ne’\nii it\n>101 ti’, till\nitt Ittt mit nil ,ttiilitatiOil\ntietv l)e iott,ttt’du InC. liii tin\ntij-,tttittttn,ii ‘,t,iujltt\nnttvitli ii by\nit’\nINI tC(’\nI in\nnit\nIi\nliv in ls\nitt\nit\nt ittetit\nhut ut\not\nit\nbit.\n2111 Ci ii rout\niterioiis iii politteal it is tttrit y nit\nu’\nnit note ii ri ,tiititt y\nit\nk yo0\n1011)1 ol set’, htttdtut”\n(\nlI\ntInissIuitIS ic’iiti tHin\ntt12i’tS, to\n.ithi’’c d\nut\ntIc’\nnet hid\nittt)i\ndo Id (‘Phase\nI ) ,ue,,nnst\nj C0(O ha’,elint’.\nEnget\niii.\ntiittitii’ti tttt tie tlttltttflc’S listed itt Aittit N 13, s-vhit, iii loud brushstrokes,\novt’rs htirope, North Ainerte,t, t\\nstr,ilta. New /,ç ,jl,i)iil ,tlic ).ip.ni ..yott) doe\nlInt\nji,tnci,tte how i)0t55OitS O’citiCtlOItS sbuijit he ,icljtt-ved, but tt does prost\ntn\nttieuori: bojitit letiti’iittttttitttnnt’ti lbl’Nibihnttcii,tnt’,i’ts:oittsi)ottstradiflt\njittitt\ntopic\ntietitat lilt) ntd tile clean ck veiopnn’Ilt nii’iii.tnuni, ,iniSSn)tS tracuit\nis dtsciisseii tiiote\ne\\IeiiSlVc+5\nwilier\niii\ntile\neti.tptt\nI\n3titnt\niiiiubeiit’iitattoit\nitrielly, relers to tlic’ tt’tctn or I\\nnes 13 eoutitt wi to ,otd tlteo’ total tlbo\\\\;abI,\nc’lntsiionS\ntilt)\nic leese their icspeetive caps juinitly\nThe\n( heui\nI )estlo’amejit\nMecunsiti,\nii turn, enables Atiie B countries to meet then tildetu by invesOn\nin clean\ni\nutiitiusy itt develnpnip countries tti5te,ic\ntI\niIc)UCii litc a! tb,tteinettt\n!wittcVeniettt\n1)1\ntile\ntiti;ets\n15\ntitltltO12ll\n2110,\nin\ntutbie\nrontr;tst\nto\ntil\nLJN\nNt’C,\n‘lie Protocol\nstabltshes\na\nilon-eutttplieiic’e\nnec taitisill that h\nbeen ;ic liv ely cisect to sctpport ,nicl compel Attic\n13 eittititrles to\nii)\n1 CSS toward\nthen eflh1:S1OI1Stedt1etI0n 1ancts.\n\\X’lt its dhuantiheci niaxintcntt eitiissions perec’ittat;es, cpeethed tintelne at\n‘iO)\\’.S,ltiO Oil Nnheil)c 0,1000 atic)\nt\ni2ctiecttte’tt, the ynttt lintoeol is a mm\nmore harct-tioseci, ‘hard law’ document than the UN R CC, Yet tlis strenl\nproved stintitt;ittentisly its cg’eatest weakness.\nhiic’ ELI encountered dIlic’ulty it\ndettitl) the )iotiiecii p,ist the t’tii:c ation thiesbiold ,iiki tile USA iS notably absc\nti )itt 1)112 K ycttc) fold.\nI he C ,il( etitisiotis reduction targets were binding, but tb\nwere also very tiitt.lest and, eonsecitteiith\n, itlc’OiflfllCiISul-atC to tilt’ deg;’ce of changt\nI lii USA 0,0 lit Itt bound by it’, turet lime It\njill tint only Kvuit. Ait’,tiii,t i,utcitc\nit\n2mt7\n211 A:iti.\nI 1ticytis, ‘l’hc’\nI )esur,ibihty cti\nI )c’poliiiizttion:\n( twiphant e in tb’ iiutiatu\n:hiittn H\ntti0\nI tt I ii —It I’ ‘lrattittttnttutl ttit’titintti teal Liii\nhi —12,1\n\n\n11w Challenge of Climate Change Leadership\n265\nI IC(lli)I\\\n1(1 slay ttitliio lIlt\nlvtrail 2 derees (\nliOnS rIse by 2PhL MOSI\nllllm1l’(’\nPIl.ISC\nI ol IKpolt C\\IlIrCCl Jt liii\n‘11(1 1)12(112, without lIly ,I1rcC1i1C lit CIII\nIICCISSOF lIlsIlIIIIICIII or .irt1s.2\nhit\niiil:III1C)IIs f\n1tIiI1l’e II\nC\n, lilerellte oftiw\nP\ntIes of 2O(.)) W1IS OtI1t1-:IllV lillIClpatccl to be the ioniiii (ni a iitii;ii liretIUcl1t on\n‘(ItO 11, 1)111\nIt tll(Il:(l III (liSlrr.l5’.\nIt 1(111k\nliii )1l1ct SIX years belort tht Iliterihitlolill eOlIlI’ltlIIlty iigeecl on a new\n‘lItlilIl’ lllstrCIOlt’IIt to HI tile ‘oith left by\nt he\nC llpt’I(llJeI1 ktiliirc. As wil Ii the\nyott) llrotocoi, tlit\niI.) piiyt’d a\nVt’ry prollllllelll\nrolt’\nill brilipIlIp the\nI’r.s\nIt’t’IlIlIit II) lrll:tll)II, but tile dliiert’IItCs i)et\\(’e Cli Pans .nd icyoto tar OiItWt’iiI\n(I’ slIllIkurilit’s. IIIStt’,ICi 1)1 ii 1105111” tOp\n(105511 ci IlISslolls rt’ClliC t0l1 COIllOlItlilelItS\nII developed totilitries, tilt’ Paris Açreetiueuit eIubr.Iees a bulttoIll—tip\ntr,itey ttl.it\nuIres Ill senuitory\n1Ir( IC’S, whether dc VelC)peCI or (]eveiopillp. to iiLe Ilatioll\nny Ck it\nI Wilt tIC 01111 lIlt to\nis (NI )( s) tow ii ds (11111 itt chiti\nC\nC Olitlo\nI I\nC\nI\niii\nlreeIl1eu1t Is ilitreloit IlillIt flexIble III lppn)aeil, ,lIld plates relttr elIll\nlasit (III\nlf—dIflt’reIItl:ltltlll\n(11,111 oil (I1l11111(lIl but tllflereliti;1[etl rC’SpOltSlbllItll’\n(CIU )Rst\nI t\\IC sscd till tlii\nIi dl(IC till Ito\nC hiS lOll\nIt CIW tioll\n111\nC ts l\\4ost ol thit it\ni\nIlte th tht P IllS A\nICC lilt III\nI CCitlC 5 III it\nill (ICC C Cli iI O(\\\n510115\nII1CII11)C I Cot II\nCS\n11111\n1\nlip(i\nIC\nlIlt1\n1(11111 11111 lId itt\nI\nI )(\nC Vt I\nI\nSC\nYC\n15\nI lit\nP\nitt lilt lit\nIC lttt\nIll\nC \\t it 111(111 cii P\n(1\n1 CS\nSC\nIll i),tlOll III cloint St\nC\n1\n1111 Itt chiii\nt\ntu\nCi\ntgeS,\nlIlt1 ilIlIOCItICt S CS teilsI Vt\nilliOl’llhlLOiI provisioiis io all pirtit’s ho ellibie\nackiii of proptess OIl i\\il )( s,hIl(I support Cdiereti to .111(1 ieteivi’tl by dew ioplpt\notmtrles.\nTht\n1111\nA\nItC\nIll Ill\nII\nt ibly\niliiii\nI\nlii\nI\n((lilt\n1111111\nliii 11)11 lilt\nC\nI\nI citni Itt\nliii\nit Itit I\nbut Its Cl IC \\ 1CC tt diV loll\nlilt1 tilbIt i It\nCSt It till\nWit it\n1\nICOCIShy illiCit\nSC 1)0\nliii\nIi\nI\nlily\n1)1 it ICIC I sh\niV o\nCi I’ 0\nttul\nsilt ti ssl ii p\n(I VitleIl\nui lilt\nI 1111 1111111)11 11\n( liii ItI\nC\nI III\nC\nIi C bitt C tilt t It is\nC (IlIlt\nit tlit tc 1st o\n1 st’nfit lilt ioss uI 1(111111)1\ntiC C\n51011\niii ii iii\noiui\nC iIhiSSlCittt Itt tic 1,011 t\nI\nC ts Ii is\nsSt litI illy\nI1CC II Itt hllliitd by\n111111)11 ii\n1lVt\n11111 Ills\nIf (“.tl)( s\niil]tt tts t i\nI Ill\nhoit of dt liii\nIll\ntlit Ii ‘,t I III IllIti\n111011\nC tltllli]t II ill iti\nvitii tlii\n15011\n110115 (II\n/ 111th\n‘ri) ol\ntilt\nPin\nA\nit 11111 Ill\nIS\nIS\nill C\nC lIlly\ntill\nC\n151\nI it\nP IllS\nAireenitiil lilly\nI ii,ible the 1Oct11 cOcolil\nC IlItIIIllIIht\\\ntii 1,etel t the SilOIt’.lil, 11111\nIt does not tiler\n11 cli 11115015 tO Police Or rectify tHe jtroiiIi Iii\nHi\nuisloihitU Ill.IV\n.1150 IlilliC t CIII tIlt iii’s ablilty tO 111 II lt,lIil JIl ,lI1ibLOCIS. CohesIve\nC lmrite\nlies’ Illit’i 11,1115’.\n11115 15 Iiirtiier t’xiiicired Ill\nlit\nSeetICtIl iit’iOS\\\n-\n21\nA\nIltIlIlIlCI\nt)f\nAIlIlIX II Ci)IllIItl1’ IlIVI\n11111111(1k\n,ut1rtCd\ntc( tttulittitIi\n.,L’1i\n.1\n.01111(1\n_CIiCl,IIlttll\nIII ilIlISSICtIlS\n11(1111 111111 lIFt Is. s\\llli Ii\nIre\n11(1)1111\nttt tht\nintt [1111 IlIs,tt Ii\nexpiry Ott’II.lSl\nI lItCIthiC’ 111111\n111th\ntotet’ III 2 lit_tV IIillhlil.CtI. I 1(1411 tltSIllIlIIt-Iil\n01) WI\nIC\npItlo PIll0 II\ntill ‘IllellIll jih,ts\nIl.IVe (iOhltllilItC d to .111 (11 1)111 CIII [CHIlI 11(111 1)5 211211, ss III\ntIll Its S]I.Ii(’ ]t 21)111:\nCclii. (\nIICII1I, Aiusti\n111,1. iCCISSI. iitd\n-pill\nilcIwIvet, 111(1 tltihiut ti\nt\nto RC 011111,11\n22 kiidosl,’ S.\nI )llisltrol\n,\nIlItlIlt\nC oplIIh214en:\nI lit’ ‘ttate of ( 1111120\nC ,ovIrll;ulitt\n‘ (2111 i It)\n(2) ( ,hlI’,lI I llI’IHIhltII IltII l’ClIlIt\nI 11\nN\n23\nKr,iTIier, Id\n‘ LlIl’mIllllInthlI I lIl\n.11 I.\n2\n24\nQtltrtll 5(1111 1110(1,\nC Ol,(billitl C itntiit_ l’lt’diIes of 14(u NItiolls liii 51100 1)12 “C\nI .iot\n\\‘iillul\\’rlloc\n1) 1)11 ttbti 0)15.\n\n\n266\nClimate Citanqe\nIt )l I\nIII.’\n1_tIlt’\n)( )s,\nlit’\nttt&tit’ iii\nbin ii ,ilojo l\n.i p III\nII\neXallipli’\noil\n1011.10\nt li.iIii1\nllI1lIlil1\nIts 1InIl,i[cl,iI ,issiintpiioii ol\n,liiil)l[IOI!\nIntl m.k tt\\u\nlitilill\n(lI.liiIl\nIlls,\nIll\nt\nItt)pc\\ to ht’st1 tlw ilnusholtl h\nInuil\nOlIllilics\nIi\nlolIlIss suIt intl. thus, to ovt’ut oun\nliii\nLi ristilt\nohk’ctit.\nIto’ ttoIslt’tti liii llit\nlllh,Il i’hTuitlt\n.iLtItti\nI t.itliIii liv t’\\.tiiiplt\nisa In not .ir’,ii.iblv optiltil’!\nsti.iltg tltit\ncites a rut\np\nIn tin\nhllhltItIl\niii\nlit\nI t\nis a i.isviii.ILIIIt\nintl\ntt’IiiitolV ,iIIlhiOnIs\nIt\nIlliitiiIllhg\nii s tnt liii to o ilIenibl’I\nliii It’ithilI lt I\\ttliple\nhuh\n\\tt moth\nII Itt\nIt)\nlit\n.110,115\nitl\\ktfl Ii 1105100 st.itcltIt’Itl\nct\nllvnoliiitc ittI pohits\nlvi.iII\\ It\nl’ti\\lIOhllItl I1II. ilitisiltt’S\nlV1’uilii\n155th\n. (nun\n11_nil .tls to tItdtlt\n‘intl 5p1tt,\nItch Ii to ,iiltIcVc’ .1 Itttli\ncs (I 1)1 cilsIuoniinlIt\n1 puttht’etlon all.\nto\nhittilu tIn’ lni lioiini’\ntth\nlilt ‘nil ln.IILt t. In’ ht’i,ilniit OIcfl tttvtl’\nlii tiii iiii\nct iti i\ndqi\nt I S\ns suit iii I\n.1 ‘1 ii tic’\nI cgtl II\ns\nIi in WInk his b1_ ei i c’alIt\notto ejitchitin hit hnst.Ine\nili \\S’iitniiV\n‘.n’gc tni\nhit tliviioiihlle’lttIl lcI’oteetcoi\n1115\ntt’iiihIy hiLt’\n11111\n(tctctIllt\nIttit\nis pl’Ittn till\nctil)ti\\’iliil\nto\ntilt\niiark\nl,ltiOlitlt’ (ii III i’t151h1ltttltl.\nlb1\niii.thhtlttl’ oh itItlni’ by t.x.tiitpit\nOhtIs\n1 Inrtlit\nI.i ci\n1)’\nC Out\nuNity\n(0\nh1_’ ,Ihii’tCl\nputt ti’ioits bilitrint\nitt\nluetss’eun itteiltipl\npitbhc polo y otl’. ut\nI utitIitioii. hKitlovsu, l\\’loutt ri intl Mttiioi tletitPy tih\ntubtin\n(\niptlire\nintl Storage\n((\n( S)\nI )tn\nlive\nis\na\nilolt t’ullti\nliuntewod\neltsiiteti to m’pire itt’ tlevelopnient id both lltteuiIition,ti\nnit\ntlnhilc’stlc\nlaw.’\n‘f.\nI htv sIit;içesi\nIii\nlu\nI )iutt tiLt\nsvlnt h ttihlishis\n:t ltgiI Innest n’k hr tilt\neitvlflhlllttt’llttlly Sib\n‘eoltitit ii st(irarçe oh’\nil miii tlitr:itht\n(Cc ) ),\nt tine\nlot\nbeni\n1101\nl)ti’,tlbSt’\nid\ni\n1_h(’fliCHII\nbutt’ bi,n’ntttinst’tl\nt othtiitloiis to lit ilit.tte\nLIt\nehe’vt’lopi itii(\n(Il\n(lit\nit t Ititithitty\niii\nkciropt’, bttt It e,itise\nbostet tii\nC CS\nin\nI eti’ope 51/011111 lecitniitsu the\n‘1. l’s itteliipts to hive (( S t’teOglllSC’tl tiiithti’ tilt\n(‘atti l)evdlopttttii( MCc’lliiltSlll,\\’Ilic’II wtiticliiittirneitibletittintrotleuetionol\nCf S in ilevc lo;in tollIltuIc, Ilso, this t otild uxpItIli shy liii (( S I )iret’tive hr\nbeen\nt’rippit’ci by\n1tIiIIs1iill\nlnti;\nlitt2lutit( itititcil delays\ntoil\nits restilted\nitt\npit/i\nOIlS httle f CS lilnoVatItni\nSo\nfar.\nt\nias lilortover butii\niS, ted diit tit\n(CS\nI )iret’ttvt ofltt’sii rut c’\\tlliplt of hit oii oh uiotrktt htirnionistiitili hem’\n1_ttIcloIi by the pursuIt\nof\ncxc essiVe’ tIeiii.tllclnt\ncIIVII’OlhilltiltiI c’oiidttions,\nlit4u i’t’itiLitory hurdles irtutibly deter\nllVe,tliic\nti\nin CCX\ntistalhttitnis and,\nhente, the Ve’r\notihtattoil (I\nau\nillttillil itarket fin’ CCX. Relatedly, the iosenrc\nof aettial examples of (‘CS regulation itt itUelui erodes th\nI )Ireutivc”s t’xcnipla x\n101Cc’\n26 Set’ ( ‘hapter 13.\n‘(6\nKiulovc’sc ct ii,, ‘1’,uiVI!OhtlIlCIii.iI liinti,iiucm intl Micltifi( c’teti Init’i’iuiconib\nI )iiiut’utsions (II\n(it Liw’. 872.\n(tt’iur )&ttIt il\nRobin lions anti (-(ins St hlot’uiull.ikl’rs, ‘Too 1.11 lv or\nCcitt [‘(it’ lot (XS\nWhit\nI’c4ccls to Br\nI )ottt\nto\n( )vc’I’uOnic\nin’ V.tlk’y ol t)eatlu I’or\n,iu’httn c’aplon’ intl\nStou,no\nIn l’tn’opt5’ (2(1(3) 37 !u u,’y Il,ctIw 6(8) i2tl(\nti (‘I’)’)\n.6 Zen A Mkii’h, Slisiuta 7, tctttl’ctlt’l;I cot1 t(chidt:tit ( )riuc\nMII’,’,nit,liC. ‘I ,itltoii (‘dItto’\nintl StttI’,ttt\nI uibdiey’ III Kart’n I,, Mnttn ii intl Ricrt1o l’iruur,i (t’ds.)\nI C’tl;’ctutt’i’LlI aiit\nIWO’)’ bitt’\nI Wilt’yi3tickwtlI, 2(112), 273.\nThe Internal Diii ccs/on of climate C/tange Leadership\n\n\n[he Challenge of Climate Change Leadership\n267\nI citItisiup hv txiiiiplc stilitis or fills wuli tlic trediltility of [lit’\nUs intcnial\nliiii:itt’ t li;inii’ eoloiiiiliiiciits\nPhis lucius hit the 1t.t Joust pcisuulc\nits Meiiihc’r\ntates\nill tweiiiyeiilit lnui\ntllflt’It’l(t eeoiiouut tilt iiinsi:iutcs, liivuii difler\nut niterests\nintl tlifferen\ns’icss’s\nfill [lit best\nippiotth\nto the\nc lunate tluuiiic\nh:tlItnc\n(C)\niclopt liarinotitsed, iiiiiiirious\nintl potentially costly iiieasures.\nA noniiatr oistrateiçies hive been tlc’vtlopeci (it .icilititc Menibcr St:ite illeiiio\nif) the ]t. Js tlnii;ite tltiiice icendi. Inst. to bridcc [lit clifierenees iii\n‘ealth\nmd\nossil fuel tiepenchenty between Menilier States, IiU\nlilnite tliaiit imw deploys\neffort sliiriii.\nIn\niii iniiieineut\nd.tn Jo the iltciis:thnaistti GlI(\netiussions\ntedut tion o;ils lr Annt’ It eoiini vies under the IKyoto Protocol, tbe 20U) hithtrt\nI )eeisitiii\n(VS ciosvo tuitional emissions lmumits hr tile 20]\n202t) pertt1.\n,mcimt ironi ,i maxmimmcmnm mmmere:mse of2t) ptreent ftttmii ;m .7005 itiselnie Ow BIlirmt\nin a iununmctimi teclciitu)n by 21) per cent\nI )emntiri:\nmd freinitl’\nl’1ic l’firi\nShirni\nDecision niti\ndci\nsdmfirentiumon htim\nit tliesiiuc’ tiiie ailtiwsa cleree\nof\nfit \\mb lity by\nilhiiwni\nMc nmb\nT\nSt itt\nto\nit lit\nm\nc my\nno lii ii\ncii\nhum!\npereeiitipe of their tiuwil eiiii.siomis illoettittil. At the time\nof’ wotimi, tin\nonnnmssiomi\ni.s dralnii ,i jimpo.s.d Oar a tctllnss -up ‘I Ilort Shumni, Rctmlatioii\nwhich svli tilocite eiiussiolis rc’tiiitIicn t,ut ts hctss it u Meniber ‘states Oar\nlit\n9)2t) to itUU pt riot!.\nA second strati c; to bitttst the icc eptihi]ity olunhit ions tiunite c hane tireis\ns’is-\nsos the Mendttr Stiles consists\nof idt’omifyni: sectors at os]. of\nt arbttn\nieakm!’e\nnit! ultrcclncii]c spent! trtt1mit nients\ntm safciiiiicf theni. ( arhon leik;i:c\nocCurs when\ndmum1smons recimictioiis ui tine mepioli\ncaimsc\ncu mssicus\nt lst’whc’rc to\nmdc\nsc\ncii llistultc\n(\n( )\nii (Ott tit\nm\nt n\nt ts\nui ioscd on thc\nI uitipc m stcti\nector oiikc\nI.cmropeni steel costlier toct\nt Hoc\ncoi)s[rnctmi)iI\nC timpititc’s tt) sotircc\nmheirsipples imiereasiin1v ittu Unnl cottony snp’ilccrs\nibis tniers a rise iii\nhum-ti\n000im\nstct I mttocltic lion\nirni\nif\n( C)\nis It s\nti\ni\nc\nmiii\nit\nit1 tIc ci\nibm it in\niii\nnet c isc\nui\nc nnssictns tim it nu hi csc n ontst imp tlic\nc n boo loot ii lilt of\nI ni opt in\n‘tee] itmancilaettmrtis befOre [lie rechitctmon trce[s tOok et}’t. tJmtder the I ,lnissmi)us\ncadin\nI )mrctt:ve (I’!])). sectors\nhit ire theenit i! ‘at\nl1uitdi)t ri’]5 of cubit\nlt’a()’t\nieccivc’\n.1 I1i1Ik t\nI)Opotttili\ncit\nc’iilisSIfiils\ntllosxmuees,\nwO can uahc\nreater use of cirison tf[smrs.\nustirnrisiii’lv\nthis itoulcuin mottle the terimi\n‘stenjfie,uit risk of\nc imbon ledcace\na hotly coiitested etuiiumot2ty.\nIn respoiisc\nlie itmct)pc an\nt nintilissic n has chravvii up a\nt arlicum list. xsIiicil is\nc tiretmth\niii\n“ l)eci’ittn\nNo.\ntIlt\n2ttili\nI\nol\nthe Itupcin\nl’,irli.iuient\nand\not\nbc\n( onin\n1\n23 April 2iH)) oit mlii\nttttrt it ticuihr Si i’ to\ni\nlu te mh’ ir 1recnlioiict’ sis tu)msstt)iis to\nnicc’t iii\nI oiniiicinmtys\ntittictis’ t’is tillmssions it tlticiittii\ntiiunitnuts i\nJo 2tmo\n2(190 1.\nt -tt)j t (t.\nurit) tin\n( titiiiitssit it\nt’rt’ss Rtlcmse,\n‘( tnnatt Actntu:\nI uropt\nrtidies\nnext cits\nttt\nniptcuic iii Ott\n‘iris Aeretnieni’, 2 Mitch 211 t 6, aviflabfe alt http\n/etirnpctemt rtptt [\n—rc’Irst\nIt’\n1 ic sit’\neli. loin\nf]\nPitlmiitr mci\nttk Utt’t Pttlit, ‘Carbon\nI tilcic, thi Crt’t’,t P ir:mt]n\nintl Pirtit\nFutno t\\4irti’\n‘ (2911) a((3) hmititOitntttt Iti’imtijuit Rri’toi’ (7—f)tt.\n0 76’\n/60.\n0 Art,\nI Oct [IS 20(19 Set, turmlicr below\n\n\n23\nClimate Clmrtgtt\nits sctwiiei itcr.itlini\nititi\ni11)l1Ls\ntn ilit\nVIIUS\nlii tt\n1)31\nIn\nnlpk’,\n.111\ntitinstutal 511 101\nIS\nc ovcreil it tiit\nittittillill\ni t>sts 11111111 he\nIii\niii\nhineiltitillu\nI tlic\nII ) old\nit List 5\n1.\ntIlt tci in ,tit II\n0\no’ts,. od\nlit\nutensil y of imid\nwith dillil\notnitri”\nIs\n.1l)t)VI’ itt iti\niclil.\nti\nw.litil i\nI\n111)1111 itikait\n51(1(0\ntilt ititle ntis\nlie EU’s non i\nt .ntin Ln.l\nndttst\ns\nII 1chlthni tn it ni, mUlti\ntiitl tillittli ninitllIl tint. titiiiiifit\nlilt\ni’d ehIllIlti t’t1llIplilcnt\n11111,\nII the\neli\n(It\nI\nltI)i1ll( 5\n1 VtIV0htiI,\n5(0111\n)tthitilfitllt.\n1\nithoti k tLii stri[ciics\ntlptIsne 0)1\n1111111\nII Il)U1l)Ctitietlll’sS is\n1 restlIt\nof tliinitt\nUhitiltI\nititihitoti\n1)111\nit\nhc\nsinic\nhuh\n.\nI\n111)1 iiflk\nitt\n10\nquu(i\nto\n1111.151St\ntlti\nyiiii’i’s\nbetween\nlinitti\natilon\n11111\n1 oilipentiveuies\nIi\n.1\nhIp\nlii I et\nit ltSSit) I,\n11111111\nIIIV\nIS I 0111\nH\nlspt)llSt\n,i win svin\nhaIti\nlet ifi.it j)hlittlS\ne\nUtlift’\nhlilIV\nIS .1 tittlySt ti) tiiinItIiiIl\nnoT\ni Lilt1heC’ to\nSet tb\nEU\nOil\n1\nft 110\nte,wi.e:\n,tlSiiillli)ll\n[110th\nHilT\nil)Il1l\n‘rein\nIt\nI IinolniU.tt\nI\nitii hip.\n‘Pt\nPt he .PtPt, tin\nolmiisshcltS f,itithii:irk\nlotte polIcy papei\nwi:ni ,nhtn ci\ntith)pcS f\nfitii.tc\niiiii\nt Hlflclt/i’tlt/)’\nIhi .Ioption of\n1\nStill\nSill)\nillitl’o’Illk,\nIOU,\nIS\na\nsEt iteiy\nCtt’ilillyC1\n((I\nIt Ileilt\nidci:iance\nti\nliii lU’s\ni iiitiit olitnu i1plIh tilt, ItithS,\nc OtitSellIciltU its 11111\ntIll fu.tsfersliip.\nYct 1Pt1t,it on\nliii\n1\nit suit\ni\nit l)t tit ott iou\nc\n111011 ol\n.ipe anti\n1\npOsit\nVt\ndtiO)lnit\no[ the’\nelliltItI\n10 (tll0llt\ntiynnnii\nlilly not\n1)i’ i’itonth ti\n,.ik’nnh tin\nlU’s lcadt’rsiitp he\ntX1fl11)tc.\nIII the first post\nKyotes\nieiiod\ntiC\nt) I\nPUt)\ntile LU\n0[li)iiiilii tsP\ntel\na 21)\nicr it lit tnltS,lOil:\nrtcmcnon and\nlitdlc.ltecf\nIs\ns\nIi\n‘lit’s’, to thop to .3(1\nier Cclii\nI\nit; ePOCH; were\nttched b;\niiiiipar.ihie\ni’itltSSlOil\nit oltiitioit\nt oilliitttilIc OtS\n111)111 oth’ ohtVtlOflt(f\nii;ttlons\nti iii hy l(letftiiie\nhi it I lliiitlOIlS\nI\nI liii\nI\n0\nthou) Ii d\nlilh)lt\nitlvi: it U)\noft ‘it 1rpm\nnIlielils,\nact 0111111’\nto\nt:heur\niepottsthilitt\ns\nold\nospICtIve\n(lllih)i]itlCS.\nI ho\ntoOtlItloildI Ilihlirt\nof this\n(1)1 trititil tilt\nwas\nhr\nthy a step reiiioved frui’\n1 purl ‘Ieole;ilttp by eiimiplt\nethos. ‘tin’ ( oititt\nSoil’s 2t)li (Prt.’n ‘‘tper oil\nlinlttc\nno! rio r’y policy\n11)1 20.31)\n( oii.3nuis that tin\nEU’s\nlttttat:u eackap\nshould lie suhon lilly sitthttoiis to\niisi ire Chit it is ‘ott track to meet h)nger tent\nt 111111(1\nobjet\ntves’, but ;tnhiiedt:ltie\nlet:; ChIt it\nS’.hlLl!d\nreHert\n1 ntimber cit\nIliportlilt UlalipeS that have taen\nilatt\nsiutce 21)00,\nticitttos the\nc conomi\nrt c essiort\nnit! the soy ii tlit tcbt isis\nNeSS’ OiUVlfOpOllllfs oo\n15t1CO)Ctiti\nhill)\nf\ntllilltiiSSlOhi\na\n1001 of.?’) 1)icelliiitl .?t)(t1t lIrttfltliillli. pltlstilnl to\nC )irtsnve 200:3/8/\nof the liireiiteiit\n‘ii lilluleuli\n111(1 of the C ouiiiiI, .i fist\n1)1 SeliotS\n1101 stilisec top which at\ndoLllicd Iii be\nt Spilsud it) a stgnitn lot risk of enbon leikIpo, ( )J 2(110 H 1/10.\n1 IlYVilti\n‘( ,l)Vttltt iii’ Climate\nC :lne’, 817. Set\nalso dir 203t) Green Piper ‘A 2031\nIi hulitwork for ( iiniite\n11101 hiergy Policies’, t\n1 )M(20 13)161) fool.\nI ollllntlulucitioli [‘rum the ( ouuuiossioil to tbt\nPu opcuu P.iriianieuit, the (Zotilucli, tli’\n(it )IiUll felillOllith\nhOt Social ( :\nIlillititee’ iiiei ihe C olllliltiel’\nif iht’ ;t’1lOfl5, 2t) 20 ti\n2ft2tt Ltiropts CliiiltlU chiil1fO mlporilnitty, 23 Ti111t/ 2ttttP.\nC\nI, I ott(2ttttP)Ptt boil.\nlb\nPhliiiIii( iii and Cotiiucif I )eeis:nn ttto/2tttt),\n.\n: on eP\netrerr o\nMember Still\nto I’ (jolt their\ni ic i housr\n515 cIllisilOliS II) full rite C tlrilfltlltltt/\nS Ztt’IiihiiOtSe gas redue\n111)1)\n1 Oitltllll;lci)t\n11(3\ntO\n2t1?tt, )i\n2(1)0\nI\n14k’\njo.\nSee’\nalso\nj!’;cL\nI\nOflhituIsSI(tc\nI Itlllmotullh\n111011 on 20 20 by 202tt: Potleipt’s i Ittiali\nciiaiul;e Opj)eitttlfltl\n1\nt1eoi t>.ip;r. ‘P 2t)%tt\nI itliolliP\nciii\ntint ,lt\nclot Pu cr lolIe Its\n1\n1 tM) 113)169 lintit\nI\n\n\nI lie ChilIencjn of (iiinutr Change Leadership\n269\nlobal c’nety llIltLtI’., (elk Cr11. clVer fuel\nvet ly md the tifot dthihty of\nwrpy\n1rh1isiilcss\n111(1 tiit\n\\‘itVlIl! levels of tolllIllltllliilI iitd .1101)1)1011 of iiu)trti,itioii.iI\n;Ittll<1s in d<\nI-It;\nSiibs1tst th)iihlelh\niii the\nf).mst lilt yeais, and\nit\ntieR to e’xptfltt\nIjirlftem’ iii the tte\\I tet] yeats to ec’l1 tilt’ iU on\n.iet\nEtc its 2(127 Int’l. It also\n‘efmiit’i s\na\nstiinht,timt dt14t’ee\nof cic’hhe’ratr\nimit’tvetiitott\nitt the oiam’ket;\noittier\nttosnic”;s\na’\nisii,tt\n15,111 0)t:tHls, tOe’ sh.ii otl&t\nin\n9055 111111 e’tn’ny ettnttmoii\nwoilt! hiavi’ Ileen\n‘enfiteel It) rise to\n2.7 pit’ tent by 2((2(),5t\nlien’ is sonic e.ttise’\n(IF optfotisin rezardiog tile\nHelslSc’ctS of 1&i iii itirope\nlIe’ 1.1\n1 is ninetahly (lit ttt I. to meet\nIs 21)2(3 tar2\nI\nMon over, the’ exp.nttiiiip\nI,tttltit Ito\nanti list’ of :&1’, ttiiy serve\nmore’ thait Meither State’s’ t’tivirtttititc’ittIl\nIttitten. ‘nicetitc’\n)t)(ts,[ittaicttttttnt has ht’rtt\niii ;uw’teiiiytho toiefdition\n(I) tt’tlllt itt (1 it\netuttsstotls, RE e itt ft.ilmic’ss etierw see ttrtty kid tO Jell) tt’c’,ltit)li\nft\n,,\ntttios’ttoti ttthtittt)95’s\nlOti\nItliI)ttii’e cc 01)01010 conipetItvetlcss\nthese\narc’\nhi hi\nitt\nti tot\ne\nIto\nh1\nct titt\nt to the\nlb ii o\ntin\nis inn kt\nlttt lit ci b\nlilt ii\nI tb)\nitt poi tic\nI\n1 of tic\nii\ntic liili\ni\nit\nii\nj Ott S\niii\n1 We UI\nii\nII\nIt\nflit)\nii sit\nii] tile\n)ttht\nstilt\nItS in ti\nMite Ii\ntsl\n1i sc pill tile tile ut)\nt lien\nin tt\ntote tottst\nii\n51\nc ii if tt\nt\nt itt\nI ttttick\nIi\nlii\nste nt\ntile t\nLi Is ot thc\nIt Ii iii\ntOOt lilt\nI\nt\nI\nI h\nt\nit\nI,\n1\nttt\nt\nIc\nIt\ntI\nitt\n1\nI\nt\nVt\nt\ne\nC itt\ni s it 0\nthe\nI\ni).tc’Lthiehiilp\nhIlt ree’esslç)tt\nlilt, ittIw\nthe\nlily .iiitl stIll vtt’\n1110,) ittttc’itaiIt\nthallenres renreselitihi by [lie UK’s titteticled dc’ptrtttre II’t)tll th’ fU, have ntadt\ne’iitployitn’iit .100 e ttmtlp<’tilmeeless tile’ lmte’omilrtsVtt I ble’\ntitOtitte ‘t WitilnI and aniuti’,\nEU\n,t.tte S.\n“it\nIhiLi I tell.)\nlit\nc’ilt’n:lEttti heiire’s\nlilt1 ih\nan,trtilt sytierEy\nFt’tv’tt 111’,, eIlert7y Sec cirity 0th) Cc e)Iielnltc’\nt’tt\\ttl\n101151 3 loIre e’o;i’tie.eiehty.\nhletEv pttitt’y in the ETJ ‘eei(ltre’s tile cue\ni1 tllellesti.it0tI e)f lU 01(1 ttOtloitti rote’\nintl\nii .ptostbdmtics to he able’ to ,leiljt.’vc\nits ti’tpit\ntt1it’e(ive 0!\n1 ltttl;ttc chany\nlltitII’ittttti,\ne’licty\n‘;t’eett’tiV atiti\ne’eotiottiic’\nt ompetittVt heSS, It\niS\n.111\ne’opresslv\n‘3\nexample\nOf\niliulteheVel\n9lvetmattt;c’\nill aettem, alit)\n,i!tist’,ites hoth\n[ii e’ti’e flgth\nittel cilalletles th.tm c’ottlpLe\nregimes lace,\nAo inlportailt eoilsicterilt0.1 here,\nis tiilt\n[hit ish br litilOvatitIn\niii enet,’\nstllmreimlg ;lappc ns 10 0 market that was bi’trnierfy\ni State\nticitonoiy and that sttlI\nRrpettts, Report EUR 2040 I (EN), 2(11 3, 7 ,.tv’.t ttl Ii’\nti 0 tp:\nut itt it\nt’tti t)p.t.c’ti/remcshi\nsit, i/t’c’tite’,t!flte/ii\n3’tttCteSS\nin en 27 20(ta 2tLt) otiiittt\nhottptlt,\nLot Obsrv’\n11,\n‘110\nShut’ ttJ lt’tit’ttnib1t’ litteru’.i\nitt\nEtttvjtt’ (21)15\nhIlt Ittli), as tibEt\nti\nwws.’. ito obstrv’-tt nt’cI/ I 511) —,t rtn nal—nvul’vmcw—b,lroillc’tcr,\nSt\nRliOi’ll’\nI\nIt nt\nt ititithItS ‘VI,tt7(ts,\n,e’oiuRt l:trctcto,, Ntkotaos Itsios, Cur Kiassen\nttt,i\nToni Van frrt,ttid, ‘Aimaiys’ oftfie ktJ’ttdmey Rtc karc on Chtim;tti’ ( ‘liattc’ intl &,ntwtbt’\n(2011) 39, I4trriy Itttlity\nI 47t\nI 4145,\ntI 1177\nCnininmssion Rent’ W,thhe’ C’ nergy I ttogicss kt’port,\n1 5] nttt 21)1 5, Cf IM (21)1 S)2t)3 final\nCnninimssmon Energy i&tt;telmap 205(1, 15\n1 )t’t’enihe’r 2011, COM(2t) 11)1485 fitilti, 9.\nI&ogc’t\nliitllli4’ soil,\nJttiibnnt’s\nStrpttic\nand\nAtietre s\nJordlo,\n‘ P.,ctmtev,tbic’\nLout’\nA\n( ontlilolilg I1il;ni’im ig Act\nIn\nAndrc’w\nJortCm,\nI )ave’\nI ltniem.t,\n1-I arm\nvan Ass\nI\nI itii K .t50t\ntile1\n11,015 lit ‘15)1 tOt\n(cclii.),\nC %ittiitt\nC %itt’r Pttlit’y\ntim tht’\nI itmpt ott\ntltte\nI Ot’[ttttt/tt?”\ntIlt\n3 )ttttttt\nut\nit/\nAhti,,i/tcii\ntilt]\n,:tltlttchlicct.\n•\nIt ‘.itmiht”de\nt tnivt’tiity\nItt, is,\n21(11), 1014.\nViiniss,i Mor.,. ‘EU. l&itsi,t. I,,Oihflt’ to Mcci clii\nitetg’ Sc, ltr:ty; (ntiS in Ucraio hs\nS1nnktd I e’.mrs ihout the Setpplv tIt (IS it’ t’,tltOl’t\nIt tilt .SItr( Jt’it t,t’, 2’i ttcltlit 2014,\nI\n\n\nRenewable tnt’rgy\n277\n(01 U ipolist U\nfeat tires.\nMoreover, energy is a\nUil)Il( pcicitl,\nI tc ‘iippiv\nti toiiiiiiijit Oil of whit ii\nire pivotal to\ntile Icini tionni\nof e.ieli\ncolIntr\\\nmoiily. ‘i’hese factors, totc’iliei with tlic need for enerty sc’c only, nic’.ni thai\nre\nclevelopIllelIt (if\niii ntern,’I tt.ikt for eliencty. whiIi isa key eOnll)Onelit of\n‘he EU’s i oiiipe itiveness and 5rowth strat y, needs to be striientired as\n1 ir,ichi,iI\nii ‘l’\nP’ Unfettered Iiber.tlis.itioii may not tllle,iten ener\nsecur\nI\nty hoot\niii LU peispeetive, but it certainly does so from a nttioli.il ponit of view,\nas it entails\nlie nsf that doincstii\neneigv sctpfdil’is will be oiitcoiiipetc’tf 1w\nflp.lnlIes iii nei hbcnii’nit’ l.SU St,ltes\nlit,’ th same token, the cctnloniic\n,niil\ntatet’it\nilllporiaiice of\nlie eiic’r5y seeto lilty\nsuppress Mciiib r Sttes’ will\nness to siti tip to iiuindatory t:trc\nmci ilariilontseil\nipproltiles ttiW,iic\nthe\nl))]lOIlt(i1 1)1 P. 1.\nMoreover, the Ji]lpieiiieiit;tttt)ii of Ri\ntarets is hilily ptditic;iIly sensiti Ic.\nveil the eitc’igy sector’s\ni c’itr.iiity\nto\nthe eeoooi iy,\niiid the eonceii’r;ttech\niterests at stake, shifts in c Ileicty pohey repieselit touth political ehtalieiit,ex for\nSemlser State povernilielits\nI’hey\n111Cc\nto halatic e the sttoil’-tei-itt itoch often\n5\neaI15Ccl cltsrttptloil caused by\nc iii1fet ,(1 eoei5y ief5tilatiott\niiici support .iamst\nlie lciiit\ntent),\nfeneral\nhi oci its of eilel5y\ntllItOVSLioti. Unsust,iiiiable eiiert,\n1 )dttctioll ittay still bc susta tint’, ioel coilitounites,\n,iiid there\nis\noften\nito\naviotis\nc ilolfseits.iilciil\nhir then\nlosses ni tile\n‘511111\nI o\na\ni c.i iii\nI\netoltotIty\na\n)lil,lrly, lot, I pttcsts .it,tiist fie\nc tabIsitiiieit of\n\\,‘ittc power\niilst(fi,j’iC)ii\niitiit\nbc\nbrushed\ncdl\nas\nsit\ne’15Ol)c’iIt\nof\n, not\ni- toy hsc\niiiettt:tlitv\nlM] Y si\nbit t;te’ also\ni c)ll’Seiit\nserious\n,tnt\nIC’ ,,titli,ite\nloiteerns\n(1)1)111\ne.to hens tilt\ncoSts\nlilt: who reaps tIle lew;irc,s ;\ntiv.rcttiiitiitsl\n(1)11(0 itiolt.\n010 this\ntive,\nJ U cc’nesy,ihle etier’y stilcy can have sIinltfielitt unpIn\notis hw eiivitooiiietital josh\nflits ecittstittntes a\nirdier\nactor c(tili’shic,ih,il’ tlic\nt\n5\n‘ilopticin of’,’ltiotis and liuinioinseci Itf ta:’cts it the El I es el\n‘itl,hci\nthu (OUSt Id\ni’nercw sect I’’\ntilt, attrn csU :V ci\n(ci\n‘SL IC\n.555” [tOO\nxcessive ref t in e oii ldssil hid, but it clot’\n11)1 neecssan]v litre [lielli tow,ircls\n.\nnewables. RI’, c oni{wtes with other alte il;its’e cncrtv si ‘nrc es, such as shale as\nad 0th leai c’nert,’, ss lot Ii rc plcsellt\ncli fd’nc itt\nt mob\n11:11 on ii\nifs\ntic\nho nell\nII)\nocc’ty fiotti\n.111 c’l(VliO ilent.il sc(speetiVc\nan enerfy sei Iii iiv peiSpcc hiVe,\nIS\ntill as a trowtlt uer;peetivc\n‘he sttraetveiws of P. s.\ni-c 1st\nSc’ to that 0111011\nenew.thle ,tltc’ ii,ttlve iuel e1iery sources, cIt pc nds on\nii ,‘nt,\nfactors, lilt filch IV\nI t.it.oi iii\nc’ to psi ph y and\nI\nI id lit v of n still’’]\nresci ci rees, the p\nto cola r co\nieeds of the\nt ounti\n‘s ooiiti\nitt ,ndnstric s atacl sc vii c’s\ntistoic l cii” i lo’snic\nit\nnid even cultural pnfcrc’nc i s.\ni.tncc’, lc\ne ,r).t)Ic\n, is well known\nr lcnikint\n‘.6 or c \\.U!ljlli’, inertly oipiiti’is ire c!’jftit\nIt. lii on\niCi l’Ss io tto’ Itnict. .i phvsit ii nt’isvort, ol\ntt,lUSllilS’Ittil Iiiii’s, st:hi.ti,n’,, iriiis5tlll\nsoil niOti\n111,11 illiSly\n1\n‘i Wi itv iront (hi\nI\niilini 10 C’llterpnsis intl hoiisuliotcls. ici cttidtu I dir it\n‘ ;ldni;so\nI c’t al, ‘Rent’w,hle :hicrtlir’., Itt\n(‘iiniitiissioji\nI aic’igy {rt.dni.ip\n‘Stt\nC ‘I let (.1(1 t\nt Ott\nfin ii\nI 10 V\nI Ill hen M.oIdo t\n-\nRi’spoitctin\nto the\n1tnvate Rt’’ni 111110 of I )ssi’nt\n(1110:1k\nC hut\n‘\nAction\nPttpuli\nliii\nI\n(lOt I’ P ifii tO\nItttcSt (2t0.ti ‘at) fI’IInUIII a! LIic’n,llUHt’fli,tl tim’.°) “ t4\nii 210,\n\n\nl,i\\oiii.Il)ly oii\ninc Lii eilt:icy\n( eioi,iiiy, on die oilier liiiid, cleciclici ,i(tei the\nI cikiislniii.i clis,isiei ii) disc ccIiliiiilc\nIt\niiivesi iiiecii iii\nliii Ic\nii c’Iieie,y ptcccltcei\ncii\nI lecice, eVen tlltcici’Il\nIi\ncits olclnn,iO’ cli.cne iiiiii,iticcii, cflt u scciniv iicd\nCi olloilIli\nInc\netiti\\eoi5s\niii sli,iri d, Meiiibei Stitt’s’ views oii (lie liest\nOlIN of\nii ilti\nIS .otcl\nt IWO 115 then\n.11 lIieVc’i I hut\nc liluci\nhI\noplicct is cliii, •cltlic,lc there ire s(roii chivecs ttcu.iccls tile lihei,clis.itioci,\nli.cittcoiiis,ctiicic\nthu\n110010\niiii cit 1(1’, it (lie KU level, Iced developciieicK ire kept\niii\nliec Ic liv cc.itcccii,cl interests (cc Felon a hiih clet;ree ol control 0Cc F eicc igv l,isv acid\nhi v\nI lie\nesicltitcc need fun lc,ihccic e lceiweeii ILl ude ith)eecive md Member\nStile\nclmlI:ceimti,iitccii\n5515\nie.tclih\n.ippIleot\nin\nthe\ntIl)\ni7\nt:li’irets slio\nItt hI’\niIiI[)t)St’CI (iii the hIS\nector’, Ilus itt’s itt’ t(’flSlOT), Alilittiicli\ntiitrihuitiit. to tltiitate chtii,\nLou, the coilteril\n55 is rued hit chit leiny si,iiuthirds wttiild tiest,tliillst’ he ni,irket\nor eniissioiis ,LlloW;lIl( c’s anti should\nlierefoit’ itt\nivctidecl,\n“ It appears that the\nhoice liii’ the iiiatke\nliiIV\nli1VC’\n1\nseverely\nrestrictive\niiiiitit\nOil\nrecuihttoiy\ncite ri iut iv e\n‘4anag/ng a /?egu)tion-Based lf4arket\nic\nhit l,ttter oissers’;itic)iis hiiik to tl)e 51100(1,\niiiiahly iiiost ieSOiiiidiflB\nlCSSOii\nImptrtetl ;iiter ,i cleenle ol the\n‘.11 IsIS: iui.irLets est.Ilslishtetl\nhr\ncccli relil.itioii\nire loch\nll],tiiuieii:Iiiee toot ‘tutlittlis. [‘roiii the tiitSei,\nhit’ hid t,crhttii iii:irket mis\nbeen pl;i:itecl by tleticieiutu c’\nnid itut(heil)C iltttIit.iiit e. lhiihluii it buck froiii tIle\nlion!.: of ohl,inc’ :uppe.urc ti he a cttltst;tiut lecoh,itttiy Ut\neavctiii’. [Ins is\nirlciisicic\nonce nile ot the tuitiehi viitt’it\neiiehts of iit:irkei--h,tsetl o’ciil:itltto over\nciiui\n‘i\ntnand—aiid eoiiti’cil is\nfLit thit’ ltn’iitei’ ‘trodiit c’s hiss nt1 tapt\n: recul:ttot’s\nu-c’ iee to\n:OCUS oii the Iiui\nslttilre whihc’ tin’ m,tcbei sst)tks\nCOlt the\ntt chiu:e:ti tfet,itls.t\nl\n)ever,ui f;itiin’s of the t’I’h iii its tsricutu;uf tle-cicit help to expliin the puvvle.\nrhe A/location olAllowance’\nlVaiiv 01 th\nkey e:itisc-s\nill\ncit\nsIiiccisli\n‘U tahiti\ni\ntii.iiket\nire traceable in\ntLstritiitttto:tl tilolem utu:lthu’\nit tile\nIct’fitc(tit of tilt’ hI ), l\\/etst\n:icriiifii’;iiirfv, thc\nOetlsicuii 55:15 iliacle to\n,lll(O21c’ tiit tivec’whieliniuit uocforlts/ of ,tiioss :iiic’es\nI Phase\n•\n1 dii tIll\nft\n111th Uhti,\nit\nI ht\nii OSf’tC\nt)f lit t\niihtisv tict\nS itt\ntic\nliii 050\nHi ctc ci by\nit\nt\n) hibu\nhl’1\nIt)\nC sHill itt\n151\n1\nu sisso ii\nvoin nc\n55 hit h\nifcu tcd\nfit\niii tiil\nC tic ii)\n1101)5 Ito tht\novti tIb\nC\n[5\nitt\nt 5(11k tI\niii dir\novc\n]ot\nlit’ i\nof\nitios ,tttt t\nI\nmisc gilt itl\ndir\nc\nw us litthi\nSi C 5501 C\nOil thc\n1 s\nLctois to\nC itlic I\ntc cliii\nc\niliSsin is hi 5/ond btisiuii 55—0\n051111 P\n(iou\n(it\ntu\nDC\nCli\ni\nicIt itiofl ii\nhltts\n110(5\nii tict\nm lily to Itt (\n11it\nttc ipt of\nhis in wl\ntie tc d issc t\nis\ni\ntiittl ill\ntii\nC ct tn wh cli ss IS P1555t1 (ii) to thit\nC Oflstimrr\nI\n‘I’he trade --supprc’ssm! ilup:tet ot r’:td,t ei’uib was exaeerbateo by the rcgiiiic in\npCe liii’ the LI)- s’-’ichc’ ,ilh)Ccut0O (ii .IIIC)tvatiet” dni’i iV Phases I (f)(f5 dt)(t7)\nintl\nii f2(RRt\n7(11.7) of tIe\nCi’L, It was up it) the IV:c’tohc’r St,iic’s to draw tip Natioii:ti\nJdioc’,itiou P]ans (NA Ps) s-.’iticli sc’t out both an\ncvii LI estonatu’ of euitissioos and\nhe tiiitoh ,tblot,ttttiii oh; floss’\ncit Cs iaer CeUtOi, tiowtu to the\niiiSt,lhfatt(ii\ninvolved, lii tfi s task of estciii,it(oli\nml ,thlcie,itoi i, ‘Ioo:cl\nt tint ellis oh chiii;tt\ni hahn’ ;iiicf iiatioiiaf c’ohicet’ns tec’,u’cfiiic the c’olilpetiflvei:ess of the ETS Set;toi’s\ni:ltenhi:ticiecf. C oiisetpieiiLv, NAPs telldteo to cli Oil the sick ofu’neotsitv. this\n25 ]--Irs suIt ‘I ttvt’niouc ( ‘hiio,tt-\nt ‘h-nit”,\n26 Brute A, At’kt’rnt,un\nintl iCut’lrt,’rl B. ‘twirl\n‘ltc(ttiiiliit,’\n‘its ic’tiuits iii,il I,,tw\n((9(15) 37\nS1tu/tl I,,uut’ Rt’u’it’u\n233--f 1(5,\nut ‘II in\n1337 ,uid (212\n(.i I\n27\nhue;t l&ubiiti nut trt’7;tI bc’’nu\nWhio’ii Stttp tilt\ntl.,tiitP /tl!ttc,uit\nLiunsoon Athctv’,mct’s\nfor Free:\n1,nsirtiniu,t’ni,iI\nPtihit ,\n‘ ttt\nitt,\ntill Wit I\n‘iuuNttl5\nt,,iw’ (20(2)\n1(2)\niI’titi2litlfi’ul -I t tui’ttt’teutt iii\nI I tilt’\n179— 5’t\n\n\n234\nClimate Change\njestilieti,\nlint,\nit\n,lttiittitliitttt’, cliSltti[(4 l)t’tWteIt\ntltc\nfVlcilIi)t.’t Stilt,\n111(1\nIuiC’\nti) 11ms’,Ioi i, ss lilt. Ii wi’, t,i’Lc ii tvii ,ijttt oviit\nstiltii\nIt cli N AIS ,iitd.\nti\n4)44,1—\n51011, Withltcili this\ntlr)Itt\\’ ii\nS\ntttill. tl’\n‘c tilt tIlt’, c’,iIilI.ttc’S itiiilit.t colt\nit ll)ttlc’Cl iii owl ,tlit)t ito tti.\nlVIt’tnhci\nSt.itc\n,ilhto\nthou\nlii’, nov\nhect\nteUlt,illsc’cl .ttici\nIS,\nitt\n,l\nSit’iiilk\nliii\ntlc’tiec,\n55sicI.i,iit’,4’{!\nthitttttthi\nlilt\n,ittilti,tI\ntiilttcitiltl\nitt\nhit.’ tt\\(i,tIl\n,If\ni)y\nI il\n)c\nCr111\nttl tct 2i121i.\n,i,ttttlt,iilut. IIuI4,\nill\n(11111,\nis t;i.ttltitlfv tei)liCetl by\nltttittit, \\Vltlc It kilt i S ito\nI.\nS\n,c\nttti it) nitcruiliSc-\nlit\n051’, ot (1 it\nc’tins\niitttS tIltt, tints, cioUtlics 14 14311\nI nt,irLI’t ‘,it,il tii Sti))1tttti idc’itiiss,tttis it’cillc timi\nand\ntitttav,tllttii. 1v 201\n1, slt:;IitIs ttsc r It) ptu ceult cli ttttisslctIts llIftw,tltces were\ntilt (ittuleti.\nO\\\\tVt’C.\na\ntill \\VltCh\n(it .uutttl(tlult:\nis prilvill:’\ntttTitt’ithitttis\n:15\nl\\sIc’iithç Stiles tic Itt’rvtlcis ,i[ttttll ilie hitilpic\n1 1)1\nC tisi ti1tt’iiIItutttl,lIl,Ittt)ul oh\nliii’\nlttlt,th Cithlt’tc’tl(lVc tic vs tO\nbc\nIS sc c\nttrs. ( )rt’’tti,til ‘,cltt unit U to 1w itotipiriecl\nht\n2))\ntIlt!\ntttslt\ntitsVjtt\n,ttttttitIltIit\nlit)’,’,’\nittoks hl(l5\nlit\nite sttspeuicletb\nI lie I tohtc 2))\n1\n1: Cl\n. 1011(1 ktt)Itttti)li alliruiit’cI tloit:\nIrecallo 44)01 will not ‘xpiic; existim. nicarurc\nwill cort)inut’,tftct 2020 tt) pievt’nt (0\nri’,k of c4iibnti IaIoqt’ lite to Cii ld. ciIict\n115 lung us\nit. (00J3r.id. II (iiOtk art\ntinder\nken in other in. ijor economics, with the ohjt cOve of providing ipproprial\nlevels\nof\nsuppor\nfor\nsectors\nat\nrisk\nof\ncOng\nintemat:onal\ncotnprtitivel to\nThe wnc hcnarkr for free altar, lion\nvaIl he pr rirdicIhy eviewed in lint vaith iechtt\nlogical pmgiess in the\nspec live irdustrystctois Both clint aid indinc Ic n0on cot\nwill hi’\ni:e\nrib\n(Coot), in\nre with the\nU\nit: aid wIt\nSO 115 tO t’uuit’ a It\npityittc unIt)\nlit order tI) nlOintait\nifltetflObOiial coinpet:iivc’’iess, the\nlint) cHic\nunst.sltt’o’it in thur\n;nrtnt,\nautO not I\ntu\nmUon taitbuti costs tetdng In cart,’\nloakaqc\n1)0\nHie cihst!rvatH)i]s\nil-C\n1111 tiui:)tirt,i)t ftiiilittlc\nthat itiiti:ttoiy tb\ntees\nIre detei\ntubed by tunic titan c ()ttsideiatiohts ol ctsiciney. As clnu’lnU the st.irt-tip phase, tilt\nsntc ess of the lU hIS is uO lily denntc (‘tiC Ott tile \\CtlIlhittleSS\n1)1 ilit’ Metiibi\nSlairs Cc’ snbport iirb repttnc\nIntl 01 tIle eliergy—tutc’listve Sec 1cn$ to c oiulply Wtth it’\nprc’sc rlpilollu;.\nlii :ciil:It;iit\nmd\nrekwuuutiu:; tIle his. the 1U\nitlttsi\nnuantin\na cltlfiectit b,tlattcc\nIlttWc’eul citvifl)iiutieiiial etiectiveutiss,\ncc OtIOtttIC\ntIticients\nnmd poiittcal acec’ptability.\nRecession