LongBench v2 / 66f016e6821e116aacb25497 / If you are a compliance lawyer specialising in EU environmental law, in which of…

85
CHAPTER 5
BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM 
POLICY CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE 
DEVELOPMENT?
‘Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are 
sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone’.
Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote
RALPH FRINS
HENDRIK SCHOUKENS
1.
INTRODUCTION
Windmills appeared for the first time some 3000 years ago. First demonstrations of producing 
electricity from windmills took place during the 1880s. Despite these early advances, the en-
thusiasm remained relatively low up until the end of the 1980s. However, throughout the past 
decades, the positive impacts that go along with wind energy developments, alongside the in-
creasing query for national energy independence, have pushed many countries around the 
world to prioritize the construction of wind farms as one of the major targets of their energy 
policy. For instance, within the European Union (EU) it is assumed that wind energy devel-
opment will play a pivotal role in achieving the ambitious 20-20-20 target included in the 
2008 Climate Change and Energy Package.1
Yet, whilst at the outset wind energy was believed to be totally ‘clean’, that perception slowly 
altered. The rapid increase of the number of wind turbines is spurring additional concerns 
about its adverse environmental impacts. One of the most worrisome disadvantages is related 
to potential wildlife effects that wind farms are liable to create.2 The majority of wind farm 
proposals have been located in upland areas due to the high wind speeds occurring there and 
their isolation from centres of human population. Mostly such areas also happen to host avi-
fauna of high conservation importance.3 Although the mortality rates of birds and bats vary 
considerable depending on the specific location of a wind farm, the specific articulation be-
                                                          
 
1 More information about the Climate Change and Energy Package is available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm.
2 See recently Tabassum-Abbasi et al, ‘Wind Energy: Increasing Developments, Rising Environmental Con-
cerns’ (2014) 31 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 270. 
3 JW Pearce-Higgins et al, ‘International Importance and Drivers of Change of Upland Bird Populations’ in A 
Bonn et al (eds), Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands (Routledge 2009) 209.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
86
tween biodiversity law and wind energy development has undeniable come more to the fore-
front in recent years. It raises questions as to the compatibility of the green energy pledges 
with nature protection. 
Within the European context, the Birds4 and Habitats Directives5 spell out the specific rules 
as to nature conservation. Not only is the establishment of an EU-wide Natura 2000 Network 
envisaged, both directives urge the Member States also to enact strict protection rules for 
threatened species.6 Not surprisingly, EU biodiversity law increasingly clashed with wind en-
ergy developments which, in turn, spurred the debate forward on the alleged rigidity of the 
Birds and Habitats Directive. In recent legal literature, some argue that the rationale under-
pinning both directives comes down to ‘deathbed conservation’ or ‘nature gardening’, not 
capable of supporting sustainable land uses.7 By contrast, others have submitted that the legal 
issues that accompany the application of EU biodiversity law should not be regarded as in-
surmountable problems, nor as a trigger for relaxation of the Birds and Habitats Directives.8
That said, the stark rise in the number of legal challenges against the construction of new 
wind farms seems to underscore the aforementioned concerns and demonstrates the additional 
constraints that biodiversity law may pose for wind farm developments.9 Although these legal 
proceedings mostly do not succeed in definitively blocking the construction and operation of 
wind farms, they create a lot of frustration amongst wind developers because of the increased 
business risks. In light of the existing lacunae as regards the potential negative impacts of 
wind farms on wildlife, especially the rigid application of the precautionary principle in the 
applicable permitting procedures might lead to additional constraints from permit and consul-
tation conditions. In some cases, wind developers will see their proposals rejected. In order to 
overcome such obstacles, wind energy business is claiming to obtain a ‘green pass’ under the 
applicable biodiversity rules.10 Massive wind farm development will, at the end of the day, al-
so help to mitigate the effects of climate change, which is in the interests of all species. So 
why stick to the biodiversity rules for ‘green projects’ that are helping to reduce the harmful 
impacts linked to global warming? Are the potential negative effects that go along with wind 
farm developments not outweighed by the overall environmental benefits of wind power? 
                                                          
 
4 Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds [1979] OJ L103/1 (Birds Di-
rective). The initial Birds Directive has been codified in Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds [2010] OJ L20/7. 
5 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flo-
ra [1992] OJ L206/7 (Habitats Directive).
6 Art 12(1) Habitats Directive; Art 5(1) Birds Directive.
7 FH Kistenkas, ‘Rethinking European Nature Conservation Legislation: Towards Sustainable Development’ 
(2013) 10 Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 72.
8 ALR Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity: Policy Conflicts and the Future of Nature Conservation’ 
(2011) 21 Global Environmental Change 1195.
9 See for instance: H Schoukens, A Cliquet and F Maes, ‘Wind Farm Development in the Belgian Part of the 
North Sea: A Policy Odyssey without Precedent’ (2012) 10 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungs-
recht 304.
10 See, more extensively on the articulation between wind farm development and the US Endangered Species 
Act: JB Ruhl, ‘Harmonizing Commercial Wind Power and the Endangered Species Act Through Administrative 
Reform’ (2012) 65 Vanderbilt Law Review 1769. 


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
87
This article will address the leeway that EU biodiversity law leaves for wind power develop-
ment. After having treated the ‘green vs. green’ paradox more in depth (section 2), the 
articulation between Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, which lays down the basic protection 
scheme for the sites that are included in the Natura 2000 Network, and wind power develop-
ment will be explored (section 3). In this paper, it will be argued that, whilst the Court of 
Justice of the European Union (hereafter: the Court) has definitely opted for a high threshold 
when applying the protection rules for spatial projects, there still remains sufficient margin to 
harmonize wind energy developments with the precautionary approach that is present in exist-
ing EU biodiversity law. In addition, it will be submitted that mechanisms such as adaptive 
licensing, possibly combined with additional mitigation or compensatory measures, might al-
low to better balance the urgent need for addressing climate change with the protection of the 
EU’s most endangered habitats and species (section 4).
2.
THE DILEMMA: COMBATTING GLOBAL WARMING VS. NATURE 
CONSERVATION?
2.1.
Wind energy production on the rise…
It is widely known that the EU has promulgated some ambitious targets in the field of envi-
ronment and energy policy. Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from 
renewable sources,11 more in particular, has set national targets corresponding to a 20 per cent
share of renewable energies in overall EU energy consumption by 2020 and a mandatory 10
per cent minimum target to be achieved by all Member States for the share of renewable en-
ergy in transport consumption by 2020. Obviously, wind energy will play a key-role in the 
achievement of these objectives.
Overall, wind energy, which is widely seen as one of the most environmentally friendly ener-
gy resources,12 has witnessed a rapid growth during the past two decades. At the end of 2008, 
there were 65 GW of wind power capacity installed within the EU, meeting in total 4.2 per 
cent of the EU electricity demand.13 A 2009 report issued by the European Environmental 
Agency (EEA) concluded that wind energy could power Europe many times over. It was held 
that wind power’s potential in 2020 will be three times greater than Europe’s expected elec-
tricity demand, rising to a factor of seven by 2030,14 At present, the EU is a front-runner in 
wind energy and a lead player on the global market. In 2007 more than half of the global in-
stalled wind capacity was located in the EU and European wind turbine manufacturers 
                                                          
 
11 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of 
the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 
2003/30/EC [2009] OJ L140/16 (RES Directive).
12 R Saidur et al, ‘Environmental Impact of Wind Energy’ (2011) 15 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Re-
views 2423, 2424.
13 A Zervos and C Kjaer, Pure Power. Wind Energy Scenarios up to 2030 (European Wind Energy Association 
2008).
14 European Environmental Agency, Europe’s Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Potential, An Assessment of 
Environmental and Economic Constraints (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2009).


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
88
accounted in 2006 for around 75 per cent of the global market.15 Nevertheless, the EU is still 
lagging by 1.6 GW (-1.5 per cent) behind its 27 National Renewable Energy Action Plan 
forecasts.16 According to European Commission’s figures, more than two thirds of total EU 
wind capacity is installed in the three pioneering countries Germany, Spain and Denmark.17
As of today, Denmark satisfies more than 20 per cent and Spain more than 10 per cent of its 
electricity demand by wind energy. The figures are far less impressive for many other Mem-
ber States, underlining the stark need for additional efforts towards renewable energy. As a 
consequence, it is clear that many Member States will probably opt for massive investments 
in wind energy projects in the years to come.
2.2.
Rising biodiversity concerns
Despite offering concrete environmental benefits, biodiversity concerns place additional con-
straints on wind farm projects. Whilst wind farms might serve as refuges, at least if no 
fisheries or hunting are allowed within the wind farm area or, in the specific case of offshore 
wind farm constructions, as artificial reefs, their possible negative effects gained increased at-
tention throughout the past decade.18
In 2006, a German study on the impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy 
sources, drafted by the German Nature Conservation Office, concluded that ‘the main poten-
tial hazards to birds and bats from wind farms are disturbance leading to displacement or 
exclusion and collision mortality’.19 At the same time, it was noted that there was no evidence 
that birds generally became habituated to wind farms in the years after construction.20 Like-
wise, other research has revealed that, taking into account the sharp rise in the number of 
turbines in some regions, even low mortality rates per turbine could give rise to significant ef-
fects on some bird species, especially those with low reproductive rates. 
In 2009 the EEA, whilst acknowledging that the majority of studies of collisions caused by 
wind turbines revealed relatively low levels of mortality, held that, so far, there only had been 
conducted one sufficiently comprehensive study as regards the long term effects of wind 
farms on bird populations.21 The study referred to an analysis of the impact of a Californian 
wind farm project, which began in the 1970s and encompassed more than 7,300 operational 
windmills in 1993. Here, an estimated 35,000 – 100,000 birds, 1,500 – 2,300 of them being 
                                                          
 
15 European Commission, ‘Technical Background to Wind Energy’available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/eu/index_en.cfm?pg=research-wind-background.
16 J Wilkes and J Moccia, Wind in Power. 2012 European Statistics (European Wind Energy Association 2013).
17 European Commission, ‘Technical Background’. 
18 For a recent overview, see, amongst others, Tabassum-Abbasi et al, ‘Wind Energy’. 
19 H Hötker, K-M Thomsen and H Jeromin, Impact on Biodiversity of Exploitation of Renewable Energy 
Sources: The Example of Birds and Bats. Facts, Gaps in Knowledge, Demands for Further Research and Orni-
thological Guidelines for the Development of Renewable Energy Exploitation (Michael-Otto-Institut im
NABU 2006) 6.
20 Ibid.
21 European Environmental Agency, Europe’s Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Potential, 73.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
89
golden eagles, had been killed by collision during the past two decades.22 Population model-
ling demonstrated that the declining trend of the local golden eagle population could, at least 
partly, be ascribed to wind farm mortality.23
In recent years, also European studies pointed to similar outcomes. Norwegian surveys rec-
orded reduced breeding success in White-tailed eagle linked to wind farms,24 whilst Spanish 
studies showed that Spanish wind farms are causing many casualties amongst the Griffon vul-
ture.25
On a general note, we can conclude that the risk of significant effects is greater on or near ar-
eas regularly used by large numbers of feeding or roosting birds, or on migratory flyways or 
local flight paths.26 Especially, when rare, endangered and slow-to-reproduce birds are in-
volved, the impact of poorly sited and/or designed wind turbines can be decisive particularly 
in situations where cumulative mortality takes place as a result of multiple installations.27
Ironically, the only certainty upon which all scientists seem to agree as regards the impact on 
biodiversity of wind farms, is the lack of sufficient ecological surveys and studies.28
3.
SITE PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 6(3) AND (4) OF THE HABITATS 
DIRECTIVE: A STRICT APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE? 
Whereas the precautionary principle is often quoted as one of the main grounds for taking 
climate mitigation actions, it is also increasingly invoked by opponents of renewable energy 
projects. The strict implementation of the latter principle in the context of the site protection 
rules attached to the Natura 2000 Network partly helps to explain this alleged paradox. As of 
2013, this ecological network approximately covers 18 per cent of the Member States’ territo-
ry. Hence wind farm developers, in their quest for windy places, are increasingly confronted 
with the protection rules enshrined in the Habitats Directive. In light of the above featured un-
certainty as to the exact effects of wind farms on biodiversity, it becomes apparent that the 
concrete application of the precautionary principle within the context of aforementioned pro-
tection rules might present an important bottleneck for wind farm developments in the vicinity 
of a Natura 2000 site.
                                                          
 
22 CG Thelander and KS Smallwood, ‘The Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area’s Effects on Birds: A Case His-
tory’ in M de Lucas, GFE Janss and M Ferrer (eds), Birds and Wind Farms. Risk Assessment and Mitigation
(Quercus 2007) 25.
23 G Hunt, ‘Golden Eagles in a Perilous Landscape: Predicting the Effects of Mitigation for Wind Turbine 
Bladestrike Mortality, consultant report to the California Energy Commission (July 2002).
24 EL Dahl et al, ‘Reduced Breeding Success of White-Tailed Eagles at Smøla Windfarm, Western Norway, is 
caused by Mortality and Displacement’ (2012) 145 Biological Conservation 79.
25 M de Lucas et al, ‘Griffon Vulture Mortality at Wind Farms in Southern Spain, Distribution of Fatalities and 
Active Mitigation Measures’ (2012) 147 Biological Conservation 184.
26 See, in general, Tabassum-Abbasi et al, ‘Wind Energy’, 277.
27 Ibid. 
28 Ibid, but also European Environmental Agency, Europe’s Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Potential, 73.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
90
3.1.
The precautionary principle as cornerstone of international and EU environmental 
law
In order to grasp the essence of the current debate, it is appropriate to step back and succinctly 
address the background and origins of the precautionary principle. Since the beginning of the 
nineties, the precautionary principle, arguably one of the most renowned environmental prin-
ciples, has found its way through numerous international agreements and conventions, such as 
the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.29 At the European level, it was first in-
serted into the European treaties in 1992 at Maastricht. 30 Currently, the precautionary 
principles is one of the most debated concepts of current environmental law, which is further 
underscored by the many definitions it has.31 Generally, it is held that the precautionary prin-
ciple is comprised of three common elements, being (1) a threat of harm, (2) uncertainty, and 
(3) action.32 Authors, like Stewart,33 make a difference between ‘weak’ formulations of the 
precautionary principle, according to which activities should be limited below a margin of 
safety, and ‘strong’ formulations, according to which an uncertain potential for significant 
harm should be prohibited unless the proponent of the activity shows that it presents no ap-
preciable risk of harm. The latter is often qualified as the ‘prohibitive’ version of the 
precautionary principle and critized for creating ‘paralysis by precaution’.34 In that regard, it 
is interesting to note that the European Commission states in its 2000 Communication that 
‘where there is scientific uncertainty’ Member States should implement evaluation procedures 
and take appropriate preventive action in order to avoid damage to the environment.35 Pertain-
ing to the uncertainty-requirement, it is generally held that, while not a single category of 
uncertainty seems to fall outside of the scope of the precautionary principle, at least reasona-
ble grounds for concerns need to be present in order to apply the precautionary principle.36 At 
the same time, it should also be stressed that mere speculation is not a realistic and workable 
option and that risk reduction measures do not have to aim at zero risk.37
3.2.
Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive: in dubio pro natura!
Let us now turn to the implementation of the precautionary principle in the context of the 
Natura 2000 Network. In general, Article 6 of the Habitats Directive is seen as the most semi-
                                                          
 
29 Framework Convention on Climate Change (9 May 1992) 31 ILM 849 (1992).
30 V Heyvaert, ‘Facing the Consequences of the Precautionary Principle in European Community Law’ (2006) 
31 European Law Review 185.
31 See more extensively: A Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights and Duties of States (Brill 2006) 21–35.
32 Ibid 30. 
33 RB Stewart, ‘Environmental Regulatory Decision Making under Uncertainty’ (2002) 20 Research in Law and 
Economics 71, 76.
34 R Cooney, ‘A Long and Winding Road? Precaution from Principle to Practice in Biodiversity Conservation’ in 
E Fisher, J Jones and R von Schomberg (eds), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Pro-
spects (Edward Elgar 2006) 238.
35 European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle’ COM(2000) 1 
final.
36 Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights, 115.
37 European Commission, ‘Communication on the precautionary principle’ COM(2000) 1 final, 9 and 18.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
91
nal provision as to determining the relationship between nature conservation and land use.38
By setting out strict substantive and procedural requirements to be followed in respect of a 
plan or project which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a 
Natura 2000 site but which is likely to have a significant effect thereon, Article 6(3) and (4) 
seeks to pre-empt damage being done to the site or to minimise that damage. This begs the 
question to what extent this statutory framework minimizes an insurmountable burden for the 
construction of wind farms. Is the lack of scientific consensus on the collision risks that go 
along with wind farms sufficient to reject a permit application? Does the precautionary prin-
ciple only come into play when the threatened harm is to be considered significant, excluding 
minor or trivial risks? And, ultimately, is there some margin for the competent authorities to 
balance environmental, social and economic interests, under the general umbrella of the pro-
portionality principle? 
3.2.1. No general ban but strict assessment rules!
Contrary to popular belief, Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive does not put a general ban on 
the construction of wind farms within or in the vicinity of a Natura 2000 site. It merely lays 
down a specific assessment-procedure that needs to be observed by authorities when, amongst 
others, issuing planning permits to projects and plans. Such was also the view of the Court in 
its first-ever decision in a legal challenge concerning the articulation between wind farm de-
velopment and Natura 2000. In Azienda Agro-Zootenica Franchini Sarl the Court held that 
Italian legislation which outright prohibits the construction of new wind turbines not intended 
for self-consumption in Natura 2000 sites, is more stringent than the protection rules estab-
lished by the Birds and Habitats Directives.39 Thus, it cannot be submitted from beforehand 
that every single wind farm that is sited in (the vicinity of) a Natura 2000 site will face an out-
right refusal. In fact, this will only be the case whenever an individual assessment in 
accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, concludes that the given wind turbines 
are liable to put into jeopardy the integrity of a Natura 2000 site. This raises the question as to 
what activities can be deemed prone of ‘adversely affecting the integrity of a site’, as meant 
by Article 6(3). 
In order to understand the exact scope of the assessment rules laid down by Article 6(3), we 
first need to turn to the landmark ruling of the Court in Waddenzee.40 In this landmark ruling, 
the Court clearly tightened down the margin of discretion for the competent authorities when 
issuing permits for activities which might entail potential harmful effects for Natura 2000 
sites. As to the so-called ‘screening-stage’, the Court held that the requirement for an appro-
priate assessment of the implications of a plan or project is conditional on it being likely to 
                                                          
 
38 European Commission, Managing Natura 2000 Sites. The provisions of Art 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 
92/43/ECC (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2000) 8.
39 Case C-2/10 Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini Sarl v Regione Puglia [2011] ECR I-6561, para 46. 
40 Case C-127/02 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee en Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescher-
ming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij [2004] ECR I-7405.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
92
have a significant effect on the site.41 The Court concluded that a project or plan needs to be 
submitted to an appropriate assessment if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective in-
formation, that it will have a significant effect on that site, either individually or in 
combination with other projects or plans. 42 By reaffirming the precautionary approach 
throughout the screening process, the Court underscored the need for a precise and meticulous 
assessment of the potential effects of plans and projects. 
Arguably, the Court’s ruling in Waddenzee is most renowned for underscoring the application 
of the precautionary principle in the decision-making stage under Article 6(3) of the Habitats 
Directive. In this respect, the Court reasserted the seminal Opinion of Advocate General Ko-
kott43 by firmly holding that the authorisation criterion laid down in the second sentence of 
Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive integrates the precautionary principle. Hence competent 
national authorities are only permitted to allow projects or plans if they have made certain, in 
light of the appropriate assessment and the applicable conservation objectives, that they will 
not adversely affect the integrity of that site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific 
doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.44 Thus, it becomes clear that the Court, at 
first glance, has opted for a rather rigid interpretation of the precautionary principle, which 
was subsequently reasserted in its more recent case-law.45 By placing the burden of proof on 
the proponent of the potentially harmful activity, it opted for the ‘prohibitive’ formulation of 
the precautionary principle in the context of Natura 2000. In the end, it will be for the propo-
nent of an activity to put forward the necessary conclusive evidence as regards the absence of 
potential significant effects in order to enable the permitting authority to ascertain that the 
plan or project would not give rise to significant effects on a Natura 2000 site. 
In its seminal ruling in Sweetman, the Court further clarified that the integrity of a site is ad-
versely affected if the project is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive 
characteristics of the site concerned that are connected to the presence of a natural habitat type 
whose preservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site.46 If after an appro-
priate assessment the authority concludes that the plan or project could lead to the lasting and 
irreparable loss of the whole or part of a priority natural habitat type, the view should be taken 
that such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of that site.47 In lay man’s terms: 
the simple fact that, for instance, a wind farm is only liable to produce negative effects in one 
specific part of a Natura 2000 site, will not automatically entail that it is not prone to affect its 
integrity. 
                                                          
 
41 Ibid para 40. 
42 Ibid para 44.
43 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott.
44 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, para 59.
45 See, for instance, Case C-239/04 European Commission v Portugal [2006] ECR I-10183, paras 19 and 20; 
Case C-418/04 European Commission v Ireland [2007] ECR I-10947, paras 226, 228 and 258.
46 Case C-258/11 Peter Sweetman and others v An Bord Pleanála (ECJ, 11 April 2013). See more extensively H 
Schoukens, ‘The Ruling of the Court of Justice in Sweetman: How to Avoid a Death by a Thousand Cuts?’ 
(2014) elni Review 2.
47 Case C-258/11 Sweetman (ECJ, 11 April 2013), para 46.  


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
93
3.2.2. Article 6(4) derogation clause: a workable option?
So far, it has become apparent that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, if applied in a proper 
manner, will urge the proponents of wind farms to substantiate that there exists no reasonable 
risk of significant effects on Natura 2000 sites. However, Article 6(4) of the Habitats Di-
rective still leaves the competent authorities the possibility to authorize such a project which 
has been subject to a ‘negative appropriate assessment for the implications of the site’, albeit 
under very strict conditions. Under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, plans or projects 
may be authorized, by way of derogation, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications 
for the site, where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), there are 
no alternative solutions and all compensatory measures necessary to ensure the overall coher-
ence of Natura 2000 have been taken. A closer analysis of the 2007/2012 Guidance document 
produced by the European Commission as to Article 6(4)48 seems to indicate that the deroga-
tion conditions need to be interpreted in a restrictive manner, which also appears to be 
reaffirmed in the Court’s more recent jurisprudence.49
The first stage under Article 6(4) requires the competent authorities to examine the possibility 
of resorting to alternative solutions which better respect the integrity of the site. Admittedly, 
the search for alternatives can be quite broad and might involve, in the case of wind farm de-
velopment, alternative locations for the wind farm or an alteration of the size of the farm, but 
also alternative ways of producing energy whether renewable or not. Furthermore, the zero 
option has to be considered as well, as recently highlighted by the European Commission in 
its specific Guidance document on wind energy developments and Natura 2000.50 Additional-
ly, the European Commission stresses that during this stage other assessment criteria, such as 
economic criteria, cannot overrule ecological criteria. The priority that needs to be given to 
ecological criteria might urge wind farm developers, who aim for the construction of wind 
farms in the vicinity of a Natura 2000 site, to look for other, more appropriate locations.
Once it is satisfied that no alternative solutions exist, the authority should consider whether 
there are IROPI which may justify the wind farm development. As highlighted by the Europe-
an Commission in its Guidance documents, not every kind of public interest of a social or 
economic nature will be sufficient.51 In Solvay the Court held that an interest capable of justi-
fying the implementation of such a plan or project, must be both ‘public’ and ‘overriding’,
which means that it must be of such an importance that it can be weighed up against the Habi-
tats Directive objective of the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. In 
principle, works intended for the location or expansion of an undertaking satisfy those condi-
tions only in exceptional circumstances.52 In the aforementioned Guidance document on wind 
                                                          
 
48 European Commission, ‘Guidance Document on Article 6(4) of the “Habitats Directive” 92/43/EEC. Clarifica-
tion of the Concepts of: Alternative Solutions, Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest, Compensatory 
measures, Overall Coherence, Opinion of the Commission, 2007/2012’ available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdf.
49 See for instance Case C-239/04 European Commission v Portugal [2006] ECR I-10183.
50 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development in Accordance with the EU Nature Legis-
lation (Publications Office of the European Union 2011) 85–86.
51 Ibid 6 and 33. 
52 Case C-182/10 Marie-Noëlle Solvay and others v Région Wallonne (16 February 2012), paras 75 and 76.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
94
farm developments and Natura 2000, the European Commission underlined that ‘it is also rea-
sonable to assume that the public interest can only be overriding if it is a long-term interest; 
short term economic interests or other interests which would only yield short-term benefits for 
the society would not appear to be sufficient to outweigh the long-term conservation interests 
protected by the Habitats Directive. Overriding interests, as long-term, fundamental social in-
terests, may be properly identified beforehand by published policies, and land-use and other 
plans. Besides, in case the Natura 2000 site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type 
and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to 
human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the envi-
ronment or, further to an opinion from the European Commission, to other IROPI.53
Although the European Commission did not go that far in quoting ‘wind farm developments’
as a prime example of an IROPI, it is nevertheless clear that the positive climate mitigation 
benefits that are attached to wind farms, might help it to qualify as such. This will be especial-
ly the case for large scale and, possibly, trans-boundary energy infrastructure projects. 
Interestingly, in the recently adopted trans-European energy infrastructure Regulation (TEN-E
Regulation No 347/201354) it was stressed that so-called energy infrastructure projects of 
common interest55 should be considered by competent authorities as being in the public inter-
est. Pursuant to Article 7(8) of the latter Regulation, projects of common interest shall be 
considered as being of public interest from an energy policy perspective, and may be consid-
ered as being of overriding public interest, provided that all the conditions set out in the 
Habitats Directive are fulfilled. Also at the national level, increasingly efforts are put into 
stressing out that development projects that stimulate wind energy qualify as an IROPI.56
That said, before being able to deviate from Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, wind pro-
ject developers are also required to take appropriate compensatory measures to ensure that the 
overall coherence of the Natura 2000 Network is protected. The European Commission point-
ed out that compensatory measures are independent of the plan or project (as opposed to 
mitigation measures), should go beyond the normal/standard measures required for protection 
                                                          
 
53 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 89. See more extensively in this regard: 
L Krämer, ‘The European Commission’s Opinions under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive’ (2009) 21 Jour-
nal of Environmental Law 59. See also, extensively, D McGillivray, ‘Compensating Biodiversity Loss: The EU 
Commission’s Approach to Compensation under Art 6 of the Habitats Directive’ (2012) 24 Journal of Environ-
mental Law 417. 
54 Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines 
for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations 
(EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009’ [2013] OJ L115/39 (TEN-E Regulation).  
55 According to Art 2(4) of the TEN-E Regulation ‘project of common interest’ should be understood as a project 
necessary to implement the energy infrastructure priority corridors and areas set out in Annex I and which is part 
of the Union list of projects of common interest referred to in Art 3 of the latter Regulation.
56 See, for instance, the pending Dutch legislative proposal on Wind energy development at sea (Wet windener-
gie op zee). In the preparatory works it is underscored that wind energy project should, if necessary, be 
considered as an IROPI. More information on the pending legislative proposal, which project is subject to con-
sultation, is available at http://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wetwindenergieopzee. 


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
95
and management of Natura 2000 sites, and can be considered only after having ascertained a 
negative impact on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site.57
3.3.
A critical interim assessment: a bridge too far or merely a case of perception?
From the above presented research, it can be inferred that Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats 
Directive, whilst not laying down a general prohibition on the construction of wind farms 
within or in the vicinity of Natura 2000, still require additional scrutiny when considering ap-
plication for planning permits in this respect. The question now arises to what extent this 
should be seen as an insurmountable and unjustifiable obstacle for future wind farm develop-
ments.
3.3.1. No green pass for wind farms (and rightly so?)
Despite the overall benefits for all species that would be the result of an increase in wind en-
ergy, the case-law of the Court displays a great deal of reluctance in taking into account the 
general advantages that can be attached to wind farm developments. Accordingly, Member 
States are barred from exempting wind farm developments from the individual assessment 
procedure included in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.58 At the same time, referral to the 
climate mitigation benefits created by an increase of wind energy, seems, as such, incapable 
of shifting the balance in an appropriate assessment in favour of a wind farm. In the end, such 
an approach would require a quantification of the positive effects that the given wind turbines 
might create for each specific species or habitat.59
At first sight, one might submit that the strict stance of the Habitats Directive in this regard 
provides a striking example of its inability to adapt to modern day conservation strategies in 
light of the growing concerns on climate change. However, that criticism needs to be nuanced. 
In our view, a general exemption for wind farm developments would, in the first place, give 
rise to a great deal of practical difficulties.  It can hardly be substantiated in terms of measur-
able benefits. For instance, how to quantify the concrete trade-off that is created by wind 
farms in the long run for each specific bird species that would be present in a Special Protec-
tion Area (SPA)? How to trade off the general benefits wind farms might produce for the 
local harm it can cause to bird populations? 
                                                          
 
57 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 15.
58 See, to that effect: Case C-241/08 Commission v France [2010] ECR I-1697, paras 51–56.
59 See, by analogy, as regards the protection regime included in Section 7 and 9 of the US Endangered Species 
Act: Ruhl, ‘Harmonizing Commercial Wind Power’, 1791.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
96
Moreover, the deplorable state of the EU’s biodiversity (only a small margin of the EU pro-
tected habitats and species are, at present, at a favourable conservation status60) does not 
justify a reform of the Habitats Directive that would give wind farm developers a free pass to 
construct wind farms in the vicinity of areas which, for instance, host vulnerable bird popula-
tions. Or, in other words, the general benefits that might go along with wind energy are, as 
such, incapable of effectively underpinning the need for a relaxation of the site protection 
rules enshrined in the Habitats Directive. A similar line of thinking was also displayed by the 
Court in its afore-mentioned decision in Azienda Agro-Zootenica Franchini Sarl. Here, the 
Court held that, even in light of the EU Directive on Renewable Energy, which urges Member 
States to streamline and reduce administrative barriers applicable to plants for the production 
of renewable energy,61 Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive nor more stringent national pro-
visions, should not be seen as a major and insurmountable obstacle course for the pursuit of 
the EU energy policy’s targets.62 Also the European Commission, in its turn, does not seem to
believe that there is an apparent antagonism between the quest for renewable energy and the 
EU biodiversity goals as exemplified in its aforementioned 2010 Guidance document on wind 
energy developments and Natura 2000. 
3.3.2. The insurmountable burden of proof (a matter of belief or reality?)
Still, it cannot be denied that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive appears to be capable of 
giving rise to substantial additional delays and barriers in permitting procedures for wind 
farms. If correctly applied, the latter provision leaves little wiggle room for potentially harm-
ful projects. Taking into account the existing lacunae in relation to the effects of wind turbines 
on endangered species, it will indeed, in some instances, be cumbersome for wind farm de-
velopers to exclude the likelihood of significant effects. Also in recent literature it has been 
highlighted that the strict application of Article 6(3) and (4) may lead to additional delays, le-
gal issues and difficulties when applied strictly in the context of massive renewable energy 
projects, such as dam building and the construction of tidal barrages.63 However, arguably 
more fundamental are the allegations that a strict interpretation of the precautionary principle 
in the context of site protection seems to negate that ignorance and system unpredictability are 
inherent to the ecological and social system and cannot be eliminated through science.64
Yet, whilst the above featured comments might be well-founded in general, they need to be 
somehow nuanced in light of the following considerations. First and foremost, it must be re-
                                                          
 
60 European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Composite. 
Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Di-
rective’ COM(2009) 358 final.
61 See, for instance, Art 13(1) of the RES Directive which, amongst others, urges Member States to streamline 
administrative procedures in order to make them less burdensome for renewable energy projects.
62 Case C-2/10 Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini Sarl [2011] ECR I-6561, paras 63 and 75.
63 Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity’, 1198. This author treats the examples of the construction of the 
Sabor Dam (Portugal) and the Severn barrage (UK).
64 PFM Opdam, MEA Broekmeyer and FH Kistenkas, ‘Identifying Uncertainties in Judging the Significance of 
Human Impacts on Natura 2000 Sites’ (2009) 12 Environmental Science & Policy 912, 917.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
97
called that the Habitats Directive, as such, grants some, albeit limited, room for leverage in 
the context of wind farm development. The application of the precautionary principle does not 
require from the competent authority to refuse a permit whenever an assessment has indicated 
that only minor effects might be linked to a wind farm. For instance, in general, a wind farm 
project will not likely produce significant effects if the nearby Natura 2000 site has not been 
designated for birds, nor for bats. Ultimately, reviewing whether a wind farm may significant-
ly hamper the integrity of a Natura 2000 site remains, to a large extent, an ad hoc-matter. 
Hence it remains hard to draw general conclusions in this regard. Moreover, whilst it is often 
submitted that the strict application of the precautionary principle may lead to a complete pa-
ralysis, the practice on the ground does not seem to confirm this conclusion. The reliance on 
these ‘hard cases’ in the media and legal literature often blurs the fact that, besides cases of 
non-compliance, considerable numbers of spatial projects, including wind farms, are smoothly 
aligned with the rules on site protection for Natura 2000 sites. A recent analysis of the appli-
cation of the Habitats Directive in the UK has revealed that almost all port developments have 
passed the tests of the Habitats Directive. And, even for the projects that did not proceed, 
mostly economic and technical complications are to blame.65 In Flanders, the highly contested 
construction of a new tidal dock in the Port of Antwerp could, despite initial concerns on its 
compatibility with the Habitats Directive and a myriad of legal proceedings, still go along, al-
beit with some considerable delay.66 Even in the Netherlands, a country renowned for its 
relatively high number of law suits by which the Habitats Directive was enforced before 
courts, only a few plans and projects have been cancelled due to biodiversity legislation. 
However, still the prevailing idea among many Dutch actors is that European directives frus-
trate almost every development in the Netherlands.67
That said, when assessing the alleged rigidity of the assessment rules included in Article 6(3)
and (4), due regard should be given to the exact causes and nature of the resistance that is 
caused by the application of EU biodiversity law in the context of spatial projects, such as 
wind farms. Evidently, some of the troubles that were encountered can be linked to the poor 
compliance with the procedural requirements spelled out by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Di-
rective. 68 Only just recently, a research revealed that unsatisfactory compliance with the 
assessment rules throughout the decision-making process, limited participation and fait ac-
compli-scenarios seriously jeopardize the effectiveness of the Habitats Directive on the 
                                                          
 
65 RKA Morris, ‘The Application of the Habitats Directive in the UK: Compliance or Gold Plating?’ (2011) 28 
Land Use Policy 361. 
66 See more on this: H Schoukens, P De Smedt and A Cliquet, ‘The Implementation of the Habitats Directive in 
Belgium (Flanders)’ (2007) 4 Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 127, 134.
67 See more extensively: R Beunen and M Duineveld, ‘Divergence and Convergence in Policy Meanings of Eu-
ropean Environmental Policies: The Case of the Birds and Habitats Directive’ (2010) 15 International Planning 
Studies 321.
68 See, for instance: B Laffan and J O’Mahony, ‘“Bringing Politics Back In”. Domestic Conflict and the Negoti-
ated Implementation of EU Nature Conservation Law in Ireland’ (2008) 10 Environmental Policy Planning 175; 
F Ferranti, R Beunen and M Speranza, ‘Natura 2000 Network: A Comparison of the Italian and Dutch Imple-
mentation Experiences’ (2010) 12 Environmental Policy Planning 293; G Kûtting, ‘Nature Conservation Law in 
Context: The Limited Influence of European Union and Greek Designations on the Future of Cavo Sidero, Crete’ 
(2012) 15 Journal International Wildlfe Law & Policy 60. 


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
98
ground in many Member States.69 However, at the end of the day, project developers are, just 
as most humans, not eager to ‘take no for an answer’, even in cases where there are valid 
grounds to let biodiversity concerns prevail over economic concerns. Not surprisingly, project 
developers tried to gain political awareness for ‘their problem’ and, often in the absence of 
clear guidance on the interpretation of some of the key notions of the Habitats Directive, 
urged for relaxation of biodiversity law.70
As a matter of fact, also in relation to wind farm development, cases quoted as prime exam-
ples of the alleged rigidity of biodiversity law, often merely point out the delays that might be 
incurred whenever wind farm developers refuse to abide by the basic rules set out by biodi-
versity law. A succinct tour through the most notable ‘nature protection vs. wind farms’
jurisprudence seems to reassert this view. For instance, in the first federal lawsuit challenging 
an industrial wind energy project on environmental ground in the U.S., the competent court 
went to hold that, whilst wind development exemplifies a conflict between two  environmen-
tally minded policies, such a conflict would not have arisen in the case at hand, if the wind 
developer had utilized existing procedures under the U.S. biodiversity law.71 Likewise, in a 
recent ruling, the Scottish Court of Appeal noted that Scottish Ministers were entitled to re-
fuse a planning permission for a 14 wind turbine development within a SPA, since there was a 
risk of adverse effects on the site designated for golden eagles. In that respect, the court based 
its ruling, to a large extent, on the lack of an appropriate assessment of the potential collision 
and disturbance effects of the wind farm on the conservation objectives for the eagle popula-
tion.72
Lastly, it is important to note that the precautionary approach of the Court in the context of 
Article 6(3) does not amount to excluding all potential risks. Advocate General Kokott herself 
noted in her seminal Opinion in Waddenzee that the necessary certitude cannot be construed 
as meaning absolute certainty since that is almost impossible to attain.73 Moreover, there is an 
increasing tendency in national courts to apply the precautionary principle in a reasonable 
manner. Whilst, for example, in the aforementioned case the Scottish Court of Appeal found 
that a small (1 per cent) collision risk and a risk of the eagle displacement could reasonably 
amount to a risk of an ‘adverse effect on the site’s integrity’, such cases cannot be regarded as 
the ultimate proof of the inappropriateness of the Habitats Directive to deal with renewable 
energy projects. Indeed, there is considerable case-law which exhibits a more reasonable ap-
proach to the precautionary principle. For instance, in 2008 a Scottish court dismissed a claim 
against a wind farm located on Skye, nearby a SPA harbouring a breeding population of gold-
en eagles. Despite assuming that the evidence presented revealed considerable uncertainty as 
                                                          
 
69 See to that effect N de Sadeleer, C-H Born and M Prieur, ‘National Legislation and Practices Regarding the 
Implementation of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of 
Wild Fauna and Flora, in particular Art 6’ (European Parliament 2009) available at
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/200910/20091013ATT62399/20091013ATT62399EN.p
df.
70 Beunen and M Duineveld, ‘Divergence and Convergence’.
71 Animal Welfare Inst v Beech Rigde Energy LLC 675 F Supp 2d 540, 581 (D.Md 2009).
72 Bagmoor Wind Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2012] CSIH 93.
73 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, para 107.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
99
to the future trends of the population of golden eagles, the court finally concluded that the 
contested permit had sufficiently established that there existed ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’
as regards the impact of the wind farm.74 In a 2005 Belgian case relating to the construction 
of a massive offshore wind farm, the Council of State was of the opinion that the alleged gaps 
in knowledge as to the adverse effects on the bird populations present in the area were not suf-
ficient to quash the permit.75 Although there will be certainly examples that point to more 
rigidity, especially in the hypothesis where the affected protected nature finds itself already at 
an unfavourable conservation status, it cannot simply be maintained that the precautionary 
principle is, in itself, blocking the construction of the majority of wind farms throughout the 
EU.
3.3.3. The exception which appears to be no exception at all (Article 6(4) derogation as a 
scapegoat?)
Ultimately, the perceived rigidity of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive would matter little 
if, for wind farm developments, also application could be made of the derogation regime in-
cluded in Article 6(4). Originally, the inclusion of Article 6(4) was the immediate reaction of 
the Member States to the decision of the Court in Leybucht, where it had held that, under Ar-
ticle 4 of the Birds Directive, economic considerations could not be regarded as exceptional 
circumstances justifying the reduction in size of a designated SPA.76 At the time of the final 
negotiations, the inclusion of Article 6(4) was seen by many Member States as a safeguard for 
avoiding the ‘draconian consequences’ of a strict protection scheme.77 In fact, Article 6(4), 
which applies both to SACs and SPAs, overrules the earlier case-law of the Court on site pro-
tection.78
Interestingly, Article 6(4) is often invoked to justify the rigorous approach as regards the pro-
tection regime enshrined in Article 6(3). For example, in its Opinion in Waddenzee, Advocate 
General Kokott explicitly underlined that the disproportionate results that might be caused by 
the application of the precautionary principle are mitigated in connection with the derogating 
authorisation provided for in Article 6(4).79 In a similar vein, Advocate General Sharpston 
held in Sweetman that ‘whilst the requirements laid down in Article 6(4) are intentionally rig-
orous, it is important to point out that they are not insuperable obstacles to authorisation. The 
Commission indicated at the hearing that, of the 15 to 20 requests so far made to it for deliv-
                                                          
 
74 See Skye Windfarm Action Group Ltd v Highland Council [2008] CSOH 19. In legal literature the latter deci-
sion is critized for applying a too lax standard of judicial review, see: C Edwards, ‘Judicial Review and the 
Precautionary Principle’ in G Jones (ed), The Habitats Directive. A Developer’s Obstacle Course (Hart 2012) 
226.
75 Belgian Council of State, 30 June 2005 (Application No 147.047). See more extensively: Schoukens, Cliquet 
and Maes, ‘Wind Farm Development in the Belgian Part of the North Sea’, 307.
76 Case C-57/89 European Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-883, para 20. See more extensively: Krämer, 
‘The European Commission’s Opinions’. 
77 See more extensively: D Baldock, ‘The Status of Special Protection Areas for the Protection of Wild Birds’ 
(1993) 4 Journal of Environmental Law 139.
78 Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity’, 1197.
79 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, para 106.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
100
ery of an opinion under that provision, only one has received a negative response’.80 In recent 
legal literature, in which the opinions, issued by the European Commission under the second
subparagraph of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive were examined, it was even highlighted 
that economic factors are too often superseding a strict assessment of the intended compensa-
tory measures.81
In spite of the clear rationale that was underpinning the inclusion of Article 6(4) and the leni-
ent (some might even call it ‘lax’) application of the latter provision in the opinions issued by 
the European Commission, it is only rarely being invoked by Member States. In our view, this 
reluctance at the Member States’ level is in a certain way understandable, especially since Ar-
ticle 6(4) represents a last resort-option for projects or plans, that still must be carried out for 
reasons of overriding public interest. Considering the restrictive case-law by the Court and the 
strict Guidance documents issued by the European Commission in this regard, the scarce reli-
ance on Article 6(4) could hardly be seen as a surprise. By way of example, referral could be 
made to a 2009 ruling by the Dutch Council of State, where a permit was quashed that al-
lowed the construction of 17 wind turbines in the seaport of Eemshaven. 82 Whereas, 
according to the Council of State, the production of sustainable energy in general can be seen 
as a reason of overriding public interest, this also needed to be substantiated for the project at 
hand. Ultimately, the Council of State was not convinced that a reason of overriding public 
interest was served by the construction of these particular wind turbines. Seeing that, in gen-
eral, private projects do not qualify as ‘IROPI’, private wind farm developers will need to 
substantiate why they present an overriding public interest. In some scenarios, they will prob-
ably fail to meet that criterion. Additionally, it is being pointed out that, especially in the 
context of large scale renewable projects, such as dams and barrages, the requirement of ‘like 
for like’ compensation appears challenging.83 In general, the implementation of compensatory 
measures is often compounded or constrained by the lack of suitable sites which can be pur-
chased in a short term in order to offset the damage caused by spatial projects. 
However, despite all the possible hurdles that the derogation clause might pose, it is our belief 
that, especially for large scale public wind farms, more application of it should be made. As 
illustrated above, also the European legislator seems to adopt a similar stance in its recent 
TEN-E Regulation. At first glance, this might seem contradictory, since the application of a 
derogation clause will also be prone to giving rise to pitfalls and bottlenecks. However, in 
what follows, it will be established that such outcome might, at the end of the day, granting 
more legitimacy to public wind farm developments. First and foremost, issuing planning per-
mits for large scale public wind farms through Article 6(4) still remains a workable option 
considering the obvious climate benefits that go along with it and which could qualify as 
‘IROPI’. To some extent, this might also be the case for large scale private wind farms. 
                                                          
 
80 Case C-258/11 Sweetman (ECJ, 11 April 2013), Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, para 65.
81 N de Sadeleer, ‘Habitats Conservation in EC Law. From Nature Sanctuaries to Ecological Networks’ (2005) 5 
Yearbook of European Environmental Law 215; McGillivray, ‘Compensating Biodiversity Loss’, 449–50.
82 Dutch Council of State, 25 February 2009 (Application No 200709030/1).
83 Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity’, 1204. 


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
101
What is more, the very fact that the competent national authorities are required to consider 
other alternatives should be welcomed as an additional moment of deliberation before giving 
up ecological valuable tracts of lands to future massive scale wind farms. In that regard, we 
support the suggestions voiced by other authors, such as Jackson, to even broaden the scope 
of the alternative examination, to also include investing in end-use generation, energy conser-
vation initiatives and overall reduction in national consumption levels.84 More scrutiny on this 
level will enhance the sustainability character of large scale wind farm developments, which, 
in turn, will downplay possible legitimacy issues. Moreover, the fact that compensation is ob-
ligatory in such scenarios, will also enhance the sustainability claims attached to wind farm 
developments, since its possible negative outcome for local biodiversity is offset through res-
toration efforts that help to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 Network. Thus, 
the observance of the strict criteria spelled out by Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, might 
in the end be an appropriate way to reinforce the environmental claims attached to green en-
ergy projects. 
4.
TOWARDS A MORE PROGRESSIVE READING OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE 
HABITATS 
DIRECTIVE: 
THE 
ROAD 
TO 
NOWHERE 
OR 
A 
VIABLE 
ALTERNATIVE FOR WIND FARM DEVELOPMENTS? 
In the preceding sections it has been argued that, given the worrisome state of the EU’s pro-
tected habitats and sites, an outright relaxation of the rules of site protection would most 
certainly be a disproportionate answer to the recent demands for deregulation. Still, as noted, 
the restrictive interpretation of the precautionary principle might pose additional constraints, 
especially for private wind farm developments, which will probably not always meet the re-
quirements of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. Thus in recent years attention has shifted 
towards the inclusion of mitigation measures into the plan or project, to eliminate the potential 
negative effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, or, at least, to reduce them to a level 
where they will no longer affect the integrity of the site. In its 2011 Guidance document on 
wind energy developments and Natura 2000 the European Commission already provided us 
with some examples of mitigation measures in the context of wind farms, such as an alteration 
of the design of a wind turbine or the concrete siting of the turbines.85 In addition, the Com-
mission pointed to the (obvious) perks of strategic planning in the context of wind farm 
development. Such strategic planning should not only help to identify the most appropriate 
location and scale for wind farm development, but also helps to avoid and reduce the impacts 
on the environment at a very early stage in the planning process.86
Recently, a more progressive reading of mitigation has emerged in the context of wind farm 
development, which should allow to better align wind farm development with the high pre-
cautionary standard, laid down by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. This more 
                                                          
 
84 Ibid 1205.
85 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 84–85.
86 Ibid 47.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
102
progressive reading of Article 6(3) encompasses the implementation of risk management 
strategies at permit level and additional enhancement and restoration measures, aimed at 
strengthening the resilience of the affected nature.87 In the below part, it will be put forward 
that, whilst both approaches might grant permitting instances additional leeway for, amongst 
others, wind farm developments, it must be safeguarded that such practices do not undermine 
the mitigation hierarchy, which is underpinning EU biodiversity law.
4.1.
Adaptive management at permit-level: a more sensible implementation of the 
precautionary principle?
In recent literature, it has been argued that ignorance, system unpredictability and ambiguity 
in the science-policy interface, may cause difficulties in all steps of which the assessment pro-
cedure is comprised (setting of the sites objectives and conservation status; predicting the 
impact; assessing the significance of the effects). If one adds to that the current lack of scien-
tific consensus about the exact impacts of wind farms on biodiversity, which has been 
succinctly addressed earlier on, one ends up with a very explosive cocktail for decision-
making processes. Although, as argued above, the Court does not require a zero risk when ap-
plying the precautionary principle in the context of Article 6(3), it does still set a high 
standard by requiring that the competent authority must have ascertained that no reasonable 
scientific doubt remains as to the absence of effects on the integrity of a site. Whilst we have 
put forward that large scale wind farm developments still might avoid a rejection of a permit 
application through Article 6(4), this way out seems less straightforward for more small-scale 
private wind farm developments. 
So what other options are left? A more appropriate way to overcome the alleged static black-
and-white approach to the precautionary principle would consist in accepting that uncertainty 
is an inherent factor in the assessment process. Henceforth, permitting authorities are urged to 
focus more on the proper implementation of risk assessment tools and control measures in or-
der to further reduce residual effects linked to the operation of a wind farm.88 Such a strategy 
bears close resemblance to the adaptive management approach, which is generally described 
as a structured, iterative process of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an 
aim to reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring.89 It is defined as a flexible deci-
sion making process that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from 
management actions and other events become better understood.90 To that end, careful moni-
toring of the outcome of these actions and the implementation of strict control measures is 
deemed necessary, not only to advance scientific understanding, but also to adjust potential 
                                                          
 
87 Opdam, Broekmeyer and Kistenkas, ‘Identifying Uncertainties’, 919.
88 Ibid 920. See also: P Scott, ‘Appropriate Assessment: A Paper Tiger’ in G Jones (eds), The Habitats Directive 
– A Developer’s Obstacle Course (Hart 2012) 112.
89 See, amongst others: CS Holling, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (John Wiley & Sons 
1978).
90 See http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/adaptive_management.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
103
harmful operation as part of an iterative learning process.91 In that sense, it is often tagged as 
‘learning while doing’ instead of the common ‘trial and error’-process which is still predomi-
nantly used.92
In the context of the Habitats Directive an adaptive licensing approach might entail that, not-
withstanding lasting uncertainties, a project or plan could still be able to obtain a permit under 
Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, whenever the permit conditions impose strict monitor-
ing and, added to that, it is made obligatory to stop the operation of the activity whenever 
significant effects are detected. In its 2011 Guidance document on the implementation of the 
EU nature legislation in estuaries and coastal zones, the European Commission underlined 
that ‘adaptive management […] helps to address situations when, because of science limits or 
uncertainty about the functioning of complex and dynamic ecosystems, it is not possible for 
the competent authorities to fully ascertain the absence of adverse effects’.93 It went on stating 
that ‘an adaptive approach for the implementation of a plan or project or a compensation 
scheme may be particularly useful to address cases where, due to uncertainty associated with 
different contributory factors (location, confidence, unexpected delays), it is impossible to de-
fine all the effects of the plan or project or of a compensation scheme in sufficient details and 
if such uncertainty cannot be factored in through increased ratios. In such a situation, a rigor-
ous monitoring scheme and a pre-defined validated package of appropriate corrective 
measures must be foreseen.94
It is clear that the European Commission has not adopted a clear-cut position on the use of 
adaptive management measures as a way to scale down the rigid application of the precau-
tionary principle. Still, it seems to be willing to allow some leeway for implementing an 
adaptive management approach in the context of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Turn-
ing to the recent administrative practice in the Netherlands and Flanders, we may note an 
increased application of this approach in the context of plans or projects where, in principle, 
no absolute certainty had been reached as to the absence of significant effects. The legal pro-
ceedings surrounding a large scale gass-drilling project in the Waddensea served as an eye-
opener. In spite of the fact that no absolute certainty as to the absence of significant effects 
had been reached during the appropriate assessment, the project still was granted a permit by 
referral to adaptive management conditions that had to be observed throughout the operation 
of the project. Interestingly, the Dutch Council of State accepted the legality of the latter ap-
proach in its seminal 2007 ruling.95 Under the Council’s view, the mere existence of some 
uncertainty as regards the expected effects of the project, does not necessarily warrant an out-
right refusal of the permit, especially taken into account the compulsory monitoring and the 
strict operation conditions that applied in that case. In the permit, it had been provided that, 
                                                          
 
91 Taken from the definition of ‘adaptive’ management that is used by the US Department of the Interior (BK 
Williams, CS Szaro and CD Shapiro, Adaptive Management: The US Department of the Interior Technical 
Guide (Adaptive Management Working Group, US Department of the Interior 2007).
92 H Doremus, ‘Precaution, Science and Learning While Doing in Natural Resource Management’ (2007) 82 
Washington Law Review 547, 550.
93 European Commission, Guidance Document. The Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in Es-
tuaries and Coastal Zones with particular Attention to Port Development and Dredging’ (2011) 33–34.   
94 Ibid. 
95 Dutch Council of State, 29 August 2007 (Application No 200606028/1).


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
104
whenever soil subsidence or other effects might occur, entailing significant risks to the Natura 
2000 site, the gas exploration had to be temporarily halted, or, if deemed necessary, complete-
ly stopped. As to Flanders, a 2011 Guidance document on wind farm development and nature 
protection, promulgated by the Flemish Institute for Forest and Nature Research, promoted 
the adaptive licensing approach as an effective means to minimize the negative effects that 
might go along with wind farm developments. Not much later, the principle also emerged in 
the context of a highly contested permit application for the construction of 3 wind turbines in 
the Port of Antwerp, which were localized close to a SPA. Reiterating the above presented ra-
tionale, the Antwerp Provincial Authority gave green light to the operation of the wind 
turbines, amongst others, with reference to active monitoring obligations of possible residual 
negative effects which were included in the permit.96
We believe that the latter approach might offer competent authorities more leverage when 
considering wind farm developments. Seeing that the operation of wind farms can relatively 
easily be submitted to a monitoring protocol, adaptive licensing may rightly be regarded as a 
reasonable middle ground between unfettered development and nature protection. Recent 
Spanish research moreover held that an active monitoring approach, if linked to selective 
stopping techniques as regards turbines with the highest mortality, can effectively help to mit-
igate the impacts of wind farms on birds with a minimal effect on energy production.97 On the 
legal side, whilst the Court has not pronounced itself on the legality of an adaptive manage-
ment approach in light of Article 6(3), the rationale underpinning adaptive licensing does not, 
as such, seems to run counter to the Habitats Directive. Not only did the European Commis-
sion herself refer to adaptive management in the context of Article 6(3) of the Habitats 
Directive in its 2011 Guidance document on the implementation of EU nature legislation in 
estuaries and coastal zones, it did also point to the obvious link between mitigation and moni-
toring in its aforementioned 2010 Guidance document on wind energy developments and 
Natura 2000.98 Advocate General Kokott herself seemed to reaffirm the underlying rationale 
of adaptive management by stating that mitigation measures can also be of relevance in order 
to avoid an all too harsh application of the precautionary principle.99 Precisely where scien-
tific uncertainty remains, it is possible to gain further knowledge of the adverse effects by 
means of associated scientific observation and implementation of the plan or project accord-
ingly.100
However, at the same time, a wide-spread use of the adaptive licensing approach might also 
entail certain significant risks, which, in our view, should lead the competent authorities to a 
certain reluctance in this regard. The technique should not be used to justify the siting of mas-
sive wind farms next to protected areas that support population of species that are highly 
sensitive for fragmentation and disturbance. Submitting that adaptive licensing is no ‘one-
                                                          
 
96 Provincial Authority of Antwerp, Decision of 13 January 2010. However, since an administrative appeal has 
been launched against the latter permit, it still remains unsettled whether the Flemish government is also willing 
to adopt the latter approach on a more general scale.
97 de Lucas et al, ‘Griffon Vulture Mortality’, 188.
98 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 83.
99 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, para 106.
100 Ibid para 108.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
105
size-fits-all’ solution, in the end, merely amounts to stating the obvious. Indeed, in some cas-
es, it will be tempting for the competent authorities to pass on the exact determination of 
effects to a later stage, whilst, in the meantime, allowing the construction of wind energy pro-
jects on poorly sited locations. In order to avoid such fait accompli-scenarios, the approach 
should, in our opinion, stay confined to situations where residual non-permanent effects of a 
project can clearly be singled out, the monitoring is able of tackling them and there is no other 
option to exclude such risks.101 In other words, there is no point in using adaptive manage-
ment as a solution for the construction of wind farms within highly vulnerable SPAs. Added to 
that, it must be safeguarded that the operation conditions are drafted in a sufficient precise and 
strict way, in order to allow a strict surveillance by the competent national authorities. 
The latter also seems to be the viewpoint of the European Commission which, in its 2011 
Guidance document on the implementation of the EU nature legislation in estuaries and 
coastal zones, pointed out that the monitoring scheme and the package of corrective measures, 
‘must allow to adjust mitigation and/or compensatory measures to the reality of the impact 
and by that way, make sure that the initially unforeseen adverse effects are being neutral-
ized’.102 Accordingly, a full disclosure of the results of the monitoring results towards the 
wider public and environmental NGOs should be ensured. Ultimately, what our analysis sug-
gests is that adaptive management will only be able to achieve its environmental objectives, 
which include the reduction of the biodiversity effects linked to wind farms, if implemented 
and observed in a proper and sufficiently strict way. To that end, it must be ensured that adap-
tive management measures are not to be misused as a cover-up for granting permits for 
unsustainable renewable energy projects that merely focus on short term gains. If that were to 
be the case and the matter would ever end up before the Court, it can be expected that the use 
of the adaptive management-approach would be debunked by the Court.
4.2
Habitat enhancement measures as mitigation measure: towards more resilience? 
Whilst adaptive licensing might present itself as a possible go-between for some wind energy 
projects, it will certainly not serve as a solution in cases where long-term significant, possibly 
permanent, adverse effects can be expected for a Natura 2000 site. In situations where wind 
farms might give rise to collision risks for raptors, such as the White-tailed eagle or the Grif-
fon vulture, enhancement measures might be envisaged to avoid a wind farm of putting into 
jeopardy the integrity of a Nature 2000 site. For instance, one might propose the creation of 
additional foraging areas for affected birds on another location in a Natura 2000 site in order 
to reduce disturbance and collision risks.
In general, such measures are being increasingly used in order to manage the hurdle of Article 
6(3) of the Habitats Directive, without requiring the application of Article 6(4). Especially in 
                                                          
 
101 See also in this respect: Dutch Council of State, 27 February 2008 (Application No 20060755); Dutch Coun-
cil of State, 24 August 2011 (Application No 200900425/1/R2). 
102 European Commission, ‘Guidance Document. The Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in 
Estuaries and Coastal Zones’, 34. 


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
106
the Netherlands, recent administrative practice has shifted towards the inclusion of the posi-
tive effects linked to proactive habitat enhancement and restoration measures in the 
appropriate assessment for spatial projects that entailed negative effects on some parts of a 
Natura 2000 site.103 Even more so, the Dutch Council of State rendered a seminal ruling, back 
in 2010, in which it held that the creation of no less than 132 hectares of new mussel beds, 
needed for the conservation of the affected birds, could qualify as a mitigation measure for the 
construction of a housing zone in the IJmeer.104 In 2012, the Dutch Council of State reasserted 
this stance again by accepting the construction of 22 hectares of foraging and resting area as a 
mitigation measure in the context of Article 6(3).105 Also in the United Kingdom, rulings have 
been handed down in which it was accepted that a habitat enhancement scheme could be tak-
en into account in the screening stage under Article 6(3), thereby even rendering the carrying 
out of a full fletched appropriate assessment superfluous.106 This begs the question: to what 
extent can enhancement measures help to offer additional leeway for wind farm developments 
in light of the Habitats Directive?
At first sight, the progressive reading of Article 6(3), under which habitat enhancement 
measures qualify as mitigation rather than compensation, might offer additional leeway for 
wind farm projects, especially when located close to sites that are harboring vulnerable bird 
populations. It is believed that such measures might indeed strengthen the resilience of the af-
fected Natura 2000 site and, additionally, also lower the mortality rate by providing 
alternative foraging opportunities for vulnerable birds species, which are located at a greater 
distance from the projected wind farm.
Here, however, it is submitted that such approach, whilst arguably encouraging the proponents 
of plans and projects to incorporate mitigation measures at the earliest possible stage in the 
evolution of their plan or project, will probably not offer the deregulatory advantages craved 
for in the context of wind farm developments. In our view, the main reason for this is that, un-
der such approach, one is required to take for granted the positive outcome linked to the 
proposed enhancement or restoration measures. However, in reality, such measures are de-
pendent on many factors and often do not achieve the results that were hoped for. In line with 
the Commission’s point of view,107 recent Dutch and Belgian case-law rightly held that the 
effectiveness of proposed enhancement measures should, at any rate, further be assessed 
throughout the appropriate assessment.108 Indeed, the lack of sufficient knowledge on the ad-
                                                          
 
103 See more extensively: J Zijlmans and H Woldendorp, ‘Compensation and Mitigation: Tinkering with Natura 
2000 Protection law’ (2014) 10 Utrecht Law Review 172. 
104 Dutch Council of State, 21 July 2010 (Application No 200902644/1/R2). See in this regard also the provi-
sional judgment in this case, to the same effect: Chairman of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the 
Dutch Council of State, 31 August 2009 (Application No 200902644/2/R2).
105 Dutch Council of State, 8 February 2012 (Application No 201100875/1/R2).   
106 Hart District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Luckmore Ltd. and Bar-
ratt Homes Ltd [2008] EHWC 1204. More extensively on this case: D McGillivray, ‘Mitigation, Compensation 
and Conservation: Screening for Appropriate Assessment under the EU Habitats Directive’ (2011) 8 Journal for 
European Environmental and Planning Law 336.
107 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 64.
108 See, for instance, Dutch Council of State, 7 May 2008 (Application No 200604924/1) and Belgian Council of 
State, 21 December 2010 (Application No 209.330).


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
107
equacy of the enhancement measures seems to rule out its use as a bypass for the duty to carry 
out an appropriate assessment, as also evidenced by the aforementioned decision of the Scot-
tish Court of Appeal on the legality of the refusal of a planning permit for a 14 wind turbine 
development within a SPA.109 It is no coincidence that in that case one of the major issues 
was the alleged adequacy of the enhancement measures, which were not deemed sufficient in 
providing alternative foraging area for an affected pair of eagles.
Yet, the precautionary principle also represents one of the major hurdles for accepting the in-
clusion of enhancement measures as mitigation measures within the context of an appropriate 
assessment for wind farms. As indicated above, the precautionary principle also plays a key-
role in determining whether or not a plan or project may hamper the integrity of a site. Al-
ready in its 2000 Guidance document on Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, the European 
Commission drew a clear distinction between so-called mitigation measures, on the one hand, 
and compensatory measures sensu strictu, on the other hand. There it was noted that while 
mitigation measures are an integral part of the specifications of a plan or project, compensato-
ry measures sensu strictu are independent of the plan or project (including any associated 
mitigation measures). Under the Commission’s view, the latter measures are intended to off-
set the negative effects of the plan or project so that the overall ecological coherence of the 
Natura 2000 Network is maintained.110
In recent years, national case-law emerged in which the creation of new habitats in one part of 
a Natura 2000 area were tagged as compensatory measures. This was for instance the case in 
the Flemish Region, were proactive habitat management measures in order to offset the im-
pact of a new by-pass cutting through a Natura 2000 site, were ruled out as mitigation under 
Article 6(3).111 Also in Sweetman, the Court hinted to a strict precautionary approach when 
interpreting the second part of Article 6(3), thereby excluding the view according to which 
significant local effects could still be deemed not relevant in view of the wider integrity of a 
Natura 2000 site.112
The reluctance echoing from these elements can also be retrieved in the recent Opinion of 
Advocate General Sharpston, delivered on 27 February 2014, in the Dutch case concerning 
the broadening of a part of the motorway A2 between the cities of Eindhoven and Den Bosch, 
which would affect an area of molinia meadows in one part of the nearby Natura 2000 site.113
Here, the Court was asked to indicate whether measures with a view to ensuring the creation 
of new meadows elsewhere in the same site, to replace or augment those affected, could quali-
fy as mitigation under Article 6(3). In her Opinion, the Advocate General aligned herself with 
                                                          
 
109 Animal Welfare Inst v Beech Rigde Energy LLC 675 F Supp 2d 540, 581 (D.Md 2009).
110 European Commission, ‘Communication on the precautionary principle’ COM(2000) 1 final, 37. See also, 
more recently, European Commission, ‘Guidance Document on Article 6(4) of the “Habitats Directive” 
92/43/EEC’ point 1.4.1. 
111 Belgian Council of State, 29 March 2013 (Application No 223.083). See more extensively: H Schoukens, 
‘Mitigation and Compensation under EU Nature Conservation Law in the Flemish Region: Beyond the Deadlock 
for Development Projects?’ (2014) 10 Utrecht Law Review 207. 
112 Case C-258/11 Sweetman (ECJ, 11 April 2013).
113 Case C-521/12 TC Briels and others v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu (ECJ, 15 May 2014), Opinion of 
Advocate General Sharpston.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
108
the stricter stance of the Belgian Council of State, in appraising the scope of the expression 
‘adversely affecting the integrity of a Natura 2000 site’. Whilst accepting that measures which 
form part of a plan or project and which effectively minimize its impact may be taken into ac-
count when assessing whether that plan or project adversely affects the integrity of a site, the 
Advocate General refused to qualify the creation of new meadows as mitigation measures be-
cause they do not lead to an adequate reduction of the pollution.114 Instead, such measures 
basically seek to counterbalance the unavoidable negative impacts that go along with the pro-
ject. 
Given the absence of the expression ‘mitigation’ and ‘compensation’ in Article 6(3), the Ad-
vocate General did not stop her analysis at the semantic difference between ‘mitigation’ and 
‘compensation’, but further elaborated on the exact scope of the notion of ‘integrity of a site’.
However, only to conclude that the same strict precautionary approach, as spelled out in Wad-
denzee, should be applied to predictions of success for planned new areas of created ‘natural’
habitat. The simple fact that there cannot be no guarantee of success for the new artificially 
created habitat, turned out to be the true obstacle for allowing a more progressive reading of 
Article 6(3).115 Still, the Advocate General did acknowledge that the creation of new habitats 
may well be regarded as a compensatory measure, provided that it is specifically linked to the 
project in question and would not otherwise be implemented in the context of the ordinary 
management of a site, as required by Article 6(1) or (2).116
Again, it might be contended that the strict stance of the Advocate General, if reasserted by 
the Court, serves as yet another illustration of the inability of the Habitats Directive to support 
more progressive approaches towards biodiversity offsetting. Still, the Advocate General’s 
approach does make sense. Indeed, there are no easy fixes for nature. In comparison with the 
adaptive licensing-approach, under which, at the end of the day, the operation of a wind farm 
can still be halted if entailing severe collision risks, a progressive approach to enhancement 
schemes under Article 6(3) lacks such clear-cut guarantees. That is not to say that enhance-
ment measures are completely useless in the context of Article 6(3). If the enhancement 
measures have been already carried out before the project is constructed and, subsequently, 
proved to be effective in, for instance, keeping raptors away from their previous foraging are-
as, there indeed seems to be some leeway. Yet, such approach would presuppose a more long-
term strategic planning approach towards wind farm development. 
Arguably, allowing (future) habitat creation as mitigation also risks to undermine the mitiga-
tion hierarchy that is underpinning Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (prevent, mitigate, 
compensate). The creation of new habitats should indeed be seen as a last resort, in order to 
offset unavoidable damages. Hence it should be reviewed under Article 6(4) of the Habitats 
Directive. However, whilst the creation of new habitats and other enhancement measures can-
not be invoked in the context of Article 6(3), it might in the long run lead to more resilient 
Natura 2000 sites which, in its turn, might create more leverage for future spatial projects, 
                                                          
 
114 Ibid paras 36 and 37.  
115 Ibid paras 42 and 43.
116 Ibid para 46.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
109
such as wind farms. Arguably, spatial projects will be easier to reconcile with more resilient 
Natura 2000 sites, in which most of the natural habitats and species are at a favourable con-
servation status. At present, most legal issues surrounding the articulation between Natura 
2000 and spatial projects stem from the unfavourable conservation status of many of the af-
fected natural habitats and species. In such a scenario, every additional impact might give rise 
to significant effects (‘death by a thousand cuts’), as was displayed by the above addressed 
Dutch case. Hence the allegedly strict view of Advocate General Sharpston on mitigation 
should, in our view, not be seen as another proof of the alleged rigidity of Article 6(3), but 
more as an encouragement for taking more robust proactive habitat management measures, 
also outside the context of concrete spatial development projects.117
5.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The EU is currently witnessing a major shift in policy towards renewable energy, which urges 
the Member States, amongst others, to opt for massive investments in wind farms and the as-
sociated infrastructure. By requiring the same amount of scrutiny for ‘green’ projects as for 
‘brown’ projects, EU biodiversity law appears unwilling to take into account the global bene-
ficial effects for biodiversity tied to wind farms. Whilst not effectively prohibiting wind farm 
developments in the vicinity of Natura 2000 sites, it does put forward a strict scrutiny ap-
proach. In the US, the impediments spurred by the stringent application of the Endangered 
Species Act in the context of wind energy, have recently prompted the Obama administration 
to allow some companies to kill or injure bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without 
penalty, in an effort to spur development and investment in green energy while balancing its 
environmental consequences.118
In the EU, both the Court and the European Commission are more reluctant in deviating from 
the strict assessment rules enshrined in the Birds and Habitats Directives in order to boost 
wind energy initiatives. In this paper, it has be submitted that, in spite of the strict examina-
tion requirement which is laid down by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, wind farms are, 
in principle, compatible with the precautionary approach which is underpinning EU biodiver-
sity law. There is no total deadlock on the ground. Moreover, even in the current time-frame, 
where the push towards renewable energy has become part of the dominant policy discourse, 
it would be unwise to let wind power take precedence over protecting endangered bird and bat 
species. Despite all good intentions, such an approach could do away with many of the con-
servation efforts that have been put into the recovery of protected species during the past 
decades. At the same time, it would also significantly hamper the sustainability credentials of 
wind energy. After all, how ‘green’ is a wind farm that is decimating a local population of en-
dangered griffons? Whilst it remains sensible to consider the long-term benefits that will be 
created by wind farm developments for many species and think about ways of quantifying 
                                                          
 
117 See also in this direction: Opdam, Broekmeyer and Kistenkas, ‘Identifying Uncertainties’, 920.
118 See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/06/obama-administration-will-let-some-wind-companies-
kill-or-injure-eagles.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
110
those benefits, such argumentation does not, as such, imply that wind power should take prec-
edence over more short-termish protection efforts for imperiled species. 
Yet it cannot be neglected that the ever-more ambitious renewable energy targets are putting 
more pressure on the European Commission to take further initiatives to facilitate wind pro-
jects in the context of EU biodiversity law. The inclusion of the Birds and Habitats Directives 
in the recently published REFIT programme of the European Commission, might be seen as a 
token for future regulatory burden relief.119 However, in our opinion, a relaxation of the exist-
ing protection rules, even in the specific context of wind farm developments, would, in itself, 
not be desirable, especially given the predicament of many European habitats and species. 
This article has amply illustrated that emerging administrative practices at Member States 
level, such as the inclusion of selective stopping protocols and control measures in permits, 
might already considerably ease the administrative burden for wind project developers whilst 
also enabling an effective reduction of the possible biodiversity risks attached to wind farm 
developments. Unfortunately, as witnessed by the reluctance of some national courts and the 
Advocate General towards the use of habitat creation as mitigation, there are no ‘one-size-fits-
all’ solutions. Still, at the end of the day, there are no quick wins for nature protection, also 
not in the renewable energy-context. Genuine sustainable development requires deliberation 
and caution, for instance, in order to find out the better options, both for biodiversity and re-
newable energy purposes. By urging the Member States to take a step back when opting for 
massive scale wind farm developments, Article 6 allows for that additional moment of reflec-
tion. It is our belief that, in the long run, the Habitats Directive will be praised for that. 
                                                          
 
119 European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; Regulatory Fitness and Perfor-
mance (REFIT): Results and Next Steps’ COM(2013) 685 final.




lhj1e Chaire
It; t1tctotn
itte (lIiitC
IS
lit svcirlds tIC’,IteSt eltvlroiiilleliiiI
C IilleTilO.
It jet)p:iceS
flg._t
liii CCIII i( )iiii(
lIlt
lio)ilt Cii St .II0I1Ey
1(1055
I lt
!oIti.
I IS
I iC ti Ott ci ieoi 0
tiitl tlisitiitv
Ittlil
iitdt- Illicit ever (oiifroliktl liy St)lltti(S past or
IL
iiile
ttLi’y (ltSir(i
,ll)Ottt
IC
I ItlilSitS’
itici (list rtlttt[iott of elittlale din il(
jets but (in Ihirope
it least) sonic thois ate 110W (OttttiiiittlV it eeptecl
IS tact.
• oiihrtitt.d
iii thc 5di Report of the
ittcroVri itnientil Panel on (:liiilate
ne (IP( ‘(
there is
1
)
per
ent scientin consensus that iiiaii-in;e
ions iii rceiiIiouse iases (C
i l( s)
ire eutsilit; dobil tt iiipe alto-es to risc
i unprec diitedlv s[ec-p liclnic. Under bitsitiuss as tisuti
c treUtitsCailC es the
-
net could heat op by noire thiot h tlet;rees (elsins by tlii
CIUI ohtc CeillttiS
1o e1teratc btu a itntifstl of tile noire ittaclysnnc iieciTttet, tonsec]ttettees uI liii
tess as tisttal sceitirto: polar ictt ips wIll melt; iiiaiiy isliiich State will be fl:ped
he fiec of the tart!); Cviii
note
t ilnItiles Wdl lost s;;tti[ieittt land tiios to
‘;Sea levels;
. I nii;e6
t nititolo;iiil tottd ttons will e\:ti erbitc liiiidttt
aitd
;er more e’trintt \teitlidt events; and nsitt; telilpelatttre’ w II have tirimatti
iCtS On
etC s3’stC ins
ttttle,tsh tin; a
51: tant of towennt;
1 lIlleires to
itt nut
tatioti, lilod vCTSIV protect tot
t’;rnttltttre, 11)11 stry
1 it! ltshitnes.
hirnate chiiie will leave iii) CorneT of the pIuiiet coil
[CU hot tilt tilipirt
1 be very totevenly distrbtttect. In a cittel Rsist of fite, the pootest
oniltries
Ill the snt;tllest cat hon both
ilts are ltkely to be thi
till)
I lit ivtlv
fteeiid
1w 2007 ‘teriI Res iew’ estnuttetl that, iii thi event o; the
tie; s s
U ni:n ii
tore rise, clitititt
t ltan;e \t’ill icStlIt ni
lolitl Cd )P hiss 0! in levi iii
cent
nit!
U per cent.2 Rec tilt reports su:2;est that tills estinlite
1113 well bc
too con
citive. l\/ltny of lii
c itjes that ire evpeetet to set tile fastest lilt reasi
to C1 )P
over the c oitnn
ileeic]es itlcilitni:- I )liiki iii
atitl:cesli
toil i\’ftnnb.i
itt linhi
Ire at an etreinc re Is ot climate c llali;e. A their :iro2<iiiTcCn Iuf’;lobtI ( d 31’ rises,
%11 wil [151 nnp.n
1 1)1
1 Intlitc
C liii ti
(11) t;lnbal (
P 3
t’t:t_.
\i/iCiitlI
1
1(1111)
I,
I linijit
C lilnc;c- 2t113:
I Ii
lIi itil Scitlit t
13.151%
IA’\V’(
I hmatei ft.ll)t -t it
S
Ci
‘ICtiOlHS Sic iii,
I In
Li’nt’i,nt •
I
/iTlltCfr
(
iiflit’i ((inihi d’e
I_Inn t rsitv Urn,
20(1(1
(“the Stern Revn ss).
oUflt lies
it ehiiii,iti i-isk to
11)1(1 ii tort (
t )t
‘, 3(1 C )tohct 21)1 3: ss. ww.i3lobtlpost. 0(0/ills
latch/news cit1
)3)°
‘i
iLtittrtt
tO-C unite-risk hold niore—tdp.


25
CUrni’ Chririgi
ICI)flLl II IIllSc’IlsIIS
IlIlIBI
Ill’ I’\ISIIll(c’ ,iiiil Ill)’ 511 IlfilSik 55 III (illIllIl
lI.ilIt,
tIi(lt
IS buIld
ll’l(L’llit’flI
\\‘Iiiliil
lu’
i’llKlilIIIl t(iioii
liii
ISS
111,1 II’5lll,l[I0ll
iii
IIIIp(lit.ilIt
LIII
to
LIIV
III
IIlIItiiitilir
.0
iCSlI)lI.t
III
[IllS
(II
IctilOlilt
li.iiho
c
IlL
I
Ioi
ii
[[15
Ill CII
Ill
ItILISI
01)111 1151’
U\c’I Ilfilot’
c’fl,IIIIL’ ill
o’ S
Sb
III
I
(lii
I’
155111’
II
CI iii l
I
1 11,11111,
55 iii
ii
(II
I
I 5, II’I)Il
I toIl
LOIS
00111
\‘t’iI I’jLiii
iii
plitsilib
ool
Iint,
lt.iIIiI
IiIliiil(ioii
‘0111k
I).kk to bile itc
I ‘Clbs III (.1115
‘(‘II (
t
15
I
Ill)
I
I
itt i\’IIV
LII
IiTIi.bb(’
ii.iio
11.15
t’iieiatc’Ll
.1
511,110 II
Ill
I&cCloi,II1OI1’
i)ire
llvc s
II’
sbus. ‘oil
lw iolsbitiliieitis
hf1
cUBIT
iltii:’
fll IltS(IlSSil Oil
ui [lB
loot 11111
1111)1 I,ISiIV (ill its 115511 d’ Io 11111 book
II Lt’p till
III\”tl
011001 ( Lull, this LII ojuoul
olleillilil
fey
io,olieiir
I )iitilIhlI III!’
lit
I
I
I
IS
.1
I C ioi.
Ill) III
loss
ioid
III 1101
liii’
I
11111
I IIIISLI’:IL(
(Isv
ll0I’.’Isi0I0S
ill
1,1,1
11111111
I
coin’’ iI’iiSI,[bI
II
11111
1151
ISv II’I,ol’
II tlies
[,IliI’iIiI’S
I ito V ire:
•
Io7cicrshiI)
tilt toflili’
I hnitcje;
•
Uie 0CJpfl O oofl’iIc:
hIlIgi’ ftqUCtiIO(1
din cite
C
‘Pi,)i as a
ruth-level governance dtll ntje, and
•
I,SIiiiicIfltt.
1 r’Vbtl,ilc,0).l)I’,1( Il,tI’1
13c’iore
:II\oSti:’.tblItiy ciii
CII ilieso’
Il1,IhII’II1Is
ill IIItlil.
tiii’
iI(’S1
St c’
loch
Ii1t1i,lt(
I iI,llIlc
‘jtIijii
till
IkJs
I
01’ its
I,I\I’Il
OIlIltlOiI’lbo1S
.111)1
lIit_titlf/
III
tvays iii whin Ii uliiii.oti IlcioicC’
I colIllilIc
II cs ire disillil I 10)111 (Ithc’t lU eiiVit’oi
111(1 III Po5S’c’i
(‘aoe of the furopein Union with Regard to C)irnate Chiir
iiu
I U
C(IIIijlu[IIii
0
II) ruICIIaiC’ ibir cilui.oil’ l’hl.IIUI’ ioiltt,ltioIi iiStS On si;iI°
1OIIIICI,IIIII1IS5
liito,otc’
I lt,IlIic
LS, 1VI(II’iltl, a i1t:ijI)i thou
LI) thi’
. IIVltOltilloI’
A Ltdit’c to i’c’SlolU Will iliorcuihly dc.:’il ti
iisi;i:i,ible tIC’VI upment of Ltioo
sviich, ;ic:corcliiu; to Article .3(3) oltiit
fRIlLy UI) Iiirope:tn Ltiiiiin (‘l’PU), lilt
he heed oiti
lI,IIIIIIL I tI c’(’UilI)Illic iI I)WtI) ,nid p011
St olnIlbv
.1 hi hiy conipetol
soiiI niarket et’olioiii, .iiII1lIii’ it
LIII CIiOLIIcyIiiellL nid 5(11 iii PrOi’ess, IlflCfl liu
level 1)1 proiec Uoil .iticl lfliLl”c)VC’ilIC’liL of thu i1ti,ih[y of the
I ilvUoiiiiieiit’. Art.
3(5) TI.U adds trot the LU sonltl uphold its s’,iliies
hId Interests In its rekItlollo
with the Wlclei wc)rici, sshitc’li iiiiltiilc ni ,iSiiI.ltiI)n it) c’oiiir bute to tlio’ sUStatn
llc’veloplnelil
cit the barth. Mtsrc over, In
115 pI’C1i’lStOl)5 on lU
e!lSirflflhlio:ohlaI
ptiluy, Article 1I
of: the
intl’,
oil thu l’onictionini of the ku ropo’an Un
(TI LI.]) sII]glcs out donate chan1_o
and states that EU invroionoental
pIo}
should an;i
to> contribute It)
plt)Iflh1tIIlL I)le.iSCIIu
It iIItuni;otjo)Ii,oI level
tO dr,of
E<a
Killovesi,
i’Jis,o
Monrc’u.I
liii
MiI(IIO’I
MUIII)7,
‘INS iIOInIlIllLII
fIu’irao:obo
N/iu iii Iceic
1
11111 IiI,IIIIIB,cl
)IIILcIl-,L,io1s Ol IU t .iw’:
(iopao knit’
Ic
FL_i’
20t)9
(:111
and lIi1i’t\ RucLiru’ (2111 1) 18
C
0110I0110III J,ith
I 1)111’ Ro’Il.Io’ X2’)
8°) I.
ii 85).
Ri ,III1I’I, If
‘ I Ill
II’IIIIOI’IiIo] 1,1))’
51)8


(4 ) ‘S
,t1A
II
Il3t(I )\
(IL 1.IlIS IU Itfll(1flS
13(11’
J(’t( )t7I)[(idfli,(tjl
‘,)1SI.(1d1t1,) A)31JI
11()L1i’llI’ll\
t U •Il
11131J1.Rld ( II.; 11(11
SIL
(l1
II()Iit(1lLL() I
LII
15.1130111
.)l1l7II(.IlI.(C1
(III )IILJI1)(
SlIOtII(J
1o1’,)lh).hll
113
)Ilj I 3[L1S1.t(.I.I)1S(ILl
51
11 ‘.).)1I3[_.1
‘[)L( [)l’i.tl
(1.1 ,7S( 55 St
( ,..{ .)(ji )J (Ilj 55 III Sl’,).II
311’ •(‘.)1j
J
A(LI1l.)
101’
71I1IILli’j1I
)(
1)13)5
SI
Ij.)11\
.\)Ij0d
.)t)53tI110
Jo
sI’33U
7,51)1511(5
Aj5I)0th1)UI
130
Ij3IiOI 0)
5).)11(IItIl .‘I\[)t(lll 1)5(j)
1j(13’.I 713(1(I)
3.5I’Ij 0)
.Sj
1’J
(I0tW3d1’j)
.1(1)
IlI’jIl.(l ‘.)5.7J0J,\j
(j l0ll1;1J
p3sIIlOItIjrI1 t JO .)(ll\ ppI’ np .5133577
11)
j11’Ij
11 •1’’’
)
)‘)iHH.)..l
)113 ‘11jJ
‘1)IlI’jIIl.
‘.11(j)
II
LIl’lp .7)01(7 Aj4iiiptSII)
IIrdcç s.1.dn3 loud lI01)l’.)(JII.llS.)j) jli()t131001
1)01’
.1tjiIIol.1j) IilI(7j
JO
)3(ISOJd
“NV ‘loll jjt’\ )IJ1’.II\/ 031111({1III’I ‘p ‘,.7.)I ljji’(j3
73)113.1 iu’to’j.
Jo i.n
t .nuJ o
1.)) (,)(IX,)
ApI)
l(IIp’l)
JO ‘.U).)llIUJl)j JH)<)’L lj()/({\
“13.7311 OOllIdj)I’ Jll.7331j
5.1.3,5
.).\l’lj
511)1
lI’7
).11.)J,ftJ
‘3.(ItIl’j)
.71))
1)11)0(11
o)3
_l.)13,U)
lit
.‘1.tl11I
3111111)
1) ‘.1 )I’ III
3))’) Ji 1)7(1)
131
I III ‘5.
IllS)
II
(101 11)1 (j) ‘‘535
.7))
)Il.3L111(
331)133_I_LI.) 10)53.11 (11
IlOI)I’Iillli SItiJilj/7j\ ‘plLl1t)_t’i i.1l’JI’(jS III) 3_lI) ‘jUl 1_t1j)
tIll ‘s.3.SIlrt)IlIt IIOIII)d(’pI’ .);lII’lI.)
lil’lttlj.)
‘j .J’ 51133)110.) A1l.tIIpI5(jI15 1.3/SC) 3j
11171(5 03 5j,)’
III! .511’
,.).lI(5I’,)l)I (I1II1i’1I (III) .l31Ii’1j
I 3)(’()llj ) ‘(jO) 1_I
A_I
jUI(7I)CjS1IIS
1)!
‘5
5II(l)’,,ll(I
lhij)h11
Al) p 757’3
III 710,1j
j1’(j19
U
7)1j113)’
A.lIj)
‘‘ ,1.L3
Al.
.O’tj)(Sjfl’. .7(j) SOd 5It))3lJ) .150111 311’lj
Citlj.1 11(1 SJ.1.(1.1 .)\I)95i3.7 I ‘“
,ft)tlIl
P.1_1I’tIs_Jo
j)
hoho)1(’S\ lII
j’ I)’1)(.hItIhbuhI.511
7
II.)
I )t)1.)5l
.3(1
.7!))
II
l(j) .I.3.’\ ) “H) S.) )I II’)
III
7)11(1
II .0)17
III
.7 HIlt)’) .7’
I’pll.);l’ .1AIlI)jSI;3) .717) )75 0) ‘III )1tI))Ij.tI1j ttl’3d0.tII’
3113
7111’ )l1)tSSIIlltllll ) III)3d01).
‘5.) )A)’jd j(’IItliI)’t(l’.kII Is .535) 5) I’I
31j)
.1)1) 53111111111()dd0
.11)1
))1(j
HIt.3tj1)(I.1
)AI’lj
511(1 A3Ijcld .3711)1)
))i’)Wj ) 5)1
0 5)33015!’ jI.1Ii’).)I
A5I,)II.1
7(j) II) )_(I’;3.( (p.
.\)l_l(ltj)Il(
I’)3j Sj’3’j .7(7) ‘3(11)11
S](I.)1lli(.i.)A0’3 ,))())
I.)l))Il.))AJ •I1IJ
(((1110.) .t31l1,i11 F
s.3 5(75)_I
13711
)l7.)1(ll’lj_H’)p
I((’,3_jO.(It’
.71)1
1)
111111(1 .1(j) 5.5)7(j) 7_I
I).)71J.S5
‘t.7.lflp.3.”
I11)l)I))Il(51Io1.)3I)))).II7j)7.)O.I3Ai1I)jSl7.3I )I)I.).)1I5I))iIIrl1SIIRIj3.)Bl1)J)1’SI\\1)jAl.I0
J,{
53.I[1Sl)3t11 A.)1j70.I J1)tI31ho(1h(i5I1)
77)1) 7,31fl51),71l
13)11)01 11713)111 ((3 )5I’.tllt
Ll
s.131((05,).(
\.l.Ut,
71(111 )I’l(
II
(k)I)l1)I))joic3 .1(ji
.l1)}
S(lOiIij)It1).)
.7(j)
((II NI1)
\7.(3tI3 .)i)5311(0)) .71))
(7 (lO)ltSCOitltl).) .))jI 3llI((t.(.3)3j( ) .1 \l)Ik),(.7.Id ,s3)l)).l.7j(I)
7(j)
S.)11[.13j(((I7
(I
.711(1)
(11(1’,
.)ljI
(I
)Il(j
I.)Sj_Il’tlt Ai.I,Itl3
1hl_J0
5)110.1,75
.71)) JIll
.5 IjIl (‘((It)’
IS 3Ij)’(l(I)UI)3lI1ij
l
1)01115 .7(j)
5a II .7(j) SIIl.l[)Jt (“I’ll L
It
I 3H’)1V ‘3.t 351)151115 j1j((j A[p’lto))tll (1)111 .)jltA\ 01 511101
A.)tjOd Sj,7d11’
.).Iitt{.) .)Il’t((Ij
1 ((113 S.1(ISIISIIJjI 1).J1)
I
A,7(l’.I(5 .)3(Lttj.) .))I)IIlIj.) 111)3(10)
1(j)
JO
).13)(1j3.fl’
((((‘Ill
.113
SI’
1l(II’j3
y.j
.1(j)
0315j1)1j
UOISI/5o]1)
A3tjod Af,iia..
.55311 Jt)
I
‘IMOj.7Cj
‘(is) .);I’j3tl) .5lJiIIi
p111’ 3)1101(j) 5) ‘J’ I 31jI_J0 S.lIjjld (3M) Ijil’
J)lI(I(lS.)i_II)
1 Aj).I.).I1J) SIlOISSIltI .1’.31jJ
‘53.1.11105 Ai.LitI.) .)jjI’A\311.7.( pItt Mill
Jo
111.1)1
(I0J 7.5(j) .)lj)
13)11’ ‘7t(IAI’5 A
.11(3 ‘A (((1(11 )j.) Ai.IilI,) .7)1(11(11.1(1 1)1
11011 I( Ill.)))
1(j)
S311)j)III’lII
.\)()lIjtlS.
‘S.3AI)_)311j
.1.31)10
1II1)III(’
‘(j111j.55
tf.31101cI
SL,’III,l
III)
.1).).)
5151)11
(‘101
It
5.Itji.IIl_Il’IS.)
) Eli.)
‘(I
‘SItliIllpIIiIIII’ AIu.uj
II(H)’l
)
.71j3
l;HI.s\0jj17)
.1)113
111,73.7.1
J11
SI
))3I)
Slip
Ill
.).)l1.lJJIItlIo
I
(‘((III IJ SflJ iI
‘Ailjod
S,l,1ll.)
110
) 7(111111
) 1.3.1113
U
.)Al)Ij
S3A131)l)llll
iJII1’Ij.)
.))IlIlllj:)
AiIl’J.\7
.)‘.)tttI)l.I)l)(Il)j1
II’(jlILO
I il’J((
II ii’d III jlIll’ ‘SllI.ljCjII.Rl jIIIIIJIIIIIII.IIAII.( .1j)lM)j.l1ls\ .10) jI’IIOIl.l.l
1(11
6S
(101141 U(!3(I0 1)5] .)1)) Jo
J)(’plItjAJ


260
Climaic Change
urn deed.7 Tue Sti
eeys
HIll) I,mets art’ Lu
rOlllOL(’ ,IcI;iut,ititii
ii
he Mt’iiihi
Slate li’vul, to
cliititte- prool
id] polities such
is
Hilt tilt Hut
10 tilTisport h1
iisiiii
lic’
t,d
,u t ciOUt
it .iLiit
[lii
tt)H(eHlS,
intl
iti
ii iiuibiite
Li)
0114
kiiosvli’tle
,iltiitii
iptItlo
licids
hilt
soltilTT)TiS
t;irotiifi
c’St’il’c Ii.
lb
ilit,itiiii ,ipjioa
Ii is iilCii,ihly hut LISt
ill
St
t Hunt polltit II clnii:ite u
‘eiilc’spih’.l(l
!.iiiti
‘ c
‘[a nut
tiP ntvousiit’ss
tittitil the Irapilitv
Ill
h’CtTllOHti
[t’(’C)Vt’l’
\\t[llu .tHtl t)eVtiiitI tilt
HIlt) ‘it’
lii
Ii,
loncier run,
hosvt’vc’i,
tlt’
s’ill very likely ‘ace
usSuri’s
Lii
lIlt’IiSIi/
Its
dli
.1
‘incitE wiih
tiliflili
11,11,
,H,tI,tLliiIl.
Iii.’ 1)15
‘iii’
t4’iiIt
Ti
,
,itllt’’Eet,
I
tllI’iI,’hiIi’IiI,ttion 0)
JiIlti l”t,ti oils fri it, scott
K
ittlvc,tiitltl on
i:n;ite (
lLlHuc
(I JNI( ( C),
S tiTlitilt
i.tllC,t
Itiipt;iiloti
is a sey
uKc.tl ol
tltit’IIl,ilithtil) <lunate
1351’.
,iltiiIi’siCle
11th
atlor iiid t lmiitC
ici’, As a siiçu;itoy niP ciiitt prithiloter oltit’
li. LU viil
It (‘dl Lu
Tlti :1
al.ipt: loll
11011
ptth Iii it
It l In
Ii
liii 114 ,haii’’i
ttilic I’”;, LV 01’,
541 , th)ltl tt’H.iii
III
1,11 I, tHai
ItCH ‘I a
ui
t’rplnt
ni cans’
light
‘sI
ill ill’,
‘illS 15010 a
vidnily 1h
ru
whIr iiiii’hhtsnrin
Menibur States shut
iutttirai HsOtlrcCS,
iltit as over basins or ‘t tin,it,nn r.lfl5c’:
but boa. julius
ii ,ldJ )Luttlo) can
hiso
itt.Tr bile, nate at roe
[lu ) i by, ft
tllst!ll(u,
‘ii cli
i0’’:6)’
.t its
ol
his utilt’,
rutnltls.
PtlL,’ltiiII,
lOCatti
ltnC(liitI’l)lltcl
lI11fl,luts
0
eIIlll,ite ciiinu’,u
c octici constitute major ht,iith, safei.
nit1
St
HILLy
isl s
[II ii
cii rtIfL
I ti tritlc
intl Jt t)h
idi
tht
I Jiliflil S
It C thOu
I-
Ilitli,
il st ihiiitv, liii
it, pitt tin cltt’s[tcni thus iihlstihit’s cult’ Ui tile pt’reflfl]t
cllleinll I’ th,ll COllh’olIt tilt’ LU a a ovt’tnaticu
re’iullc: is:.:ut dti’ tilt’ remit ot
r
i ti poltc’ics towards donhistuc,Iliy seihsltlvt’ areas raises i.unc urns ol lileLKltifllai
dtllinetuiItt creep”
alIt, [tic’ urtssjoil of
I’t:ol’i
SOV”rt lilly bt’ynnci 1reat
li,Isedl lnn;ts.
Howc ser,
hint dollIs
Sc) cotlici t tlt),i!tilSt’
till’ elict tiVeiless
Wit)
whIch [tie EU tuliPs
[s eon
rob’ of
ti
tKratlnS the marktt
Old
,lrt titiieniiu
1 1
the Meiither St,ituP Cc onoitite tt’vr IoUmt’il[. P’Sis, too, totiid east a shadow cit
the legItlluIac’y oitlit’ LU.
C’ it’ LU, it Stelils, e,btl’utt avoid le’ptiiiiacy ehallenpi.
‘:
but raiSer oust cart’Iully
tavigite httwii tlicsn
Hiqh Siakn
The Challenqe of Chmte Change Leadership
I e ito opt’iii LJiiioii is It the
urerf)itt Of climate change law cliP nohey. it is tir
tiluilil di’iser
oetuiou
llle’ctatit)iISi
c tort
IC)
iflaihitaiti
lilt. c’nhlalc e
a
hincd
I
citierllatlohlal legal regime equipped
to respond
to
ever iiioo
pressing glob
iic’t’ds
101’ ehiiiuitt’
c’Ii IH’’c’
il1tiI;hti0hl
11111
tempt. [toil.
Internally, the LU h
I
t)flhilt]SSjOt) f,omniunit,Ituon in nit’
tlCCii’ill1 Pariiinienu
ilit
Council, the Europe’
ic onoinie md Soc’i:ii
1
011)111 [Icc
md 11w (
01 ninitile of the [Kco otis, ‘An EU Stratc
till Ati,i’’i
I ciii to (Itiict (Iiaiigc’’, 16 Auril 21)13, (.( )M(2EE13)2 If, p. 5.
H
[‘ins (I 1.111Cc)
13 L)tt cnihti 2(115,
iii toni’ 2.ovutnb 2016. aviIbt” at http:/!ti’
tCC 1111
“ New Yolk (USA)
‘) May 1’)02, in fm
,
21 Marc I it
.iv,tilihlu
ci
iittp//unfo
.Ini.
‘Stc’[iIicll ‘iXi ,tli, till.
‘C oiiijictc’hi
C
c
p nil ( ollipuWilue 1 oiin’oi’ IiiIt)4t
[3 ‘t’’tiihciot
idtiipi ut Liit’ 1—55,


Ihe Clttilieiige ni Cli iiate Clldflqt’ LHit)H[Silii)
261
-
1111
((hI 1 (‘Ii
.1
(I I(’ of ul lull u
ti i’ iws
ii ul si
iii H’, II ft’S, lies lit,
i
I Ii
IS
of’
t ale ai of
a ii
(II
lo lsldelslhiy exiec’d
ill se
oh
c’
I ooi side
if’
he
‘1
‘loll
ho-
iiopeaii Union’s progrc’ssive stuwe on i’liii,,iie (‘hill
t
ills HOidi’
[U uhinaic tYianie hiss’ a model and
t 5t1011t’, polili of rc’teie,ne for law not poloy
i-velttpiiic’iit titoss the world.
liniat,’
iiiaiipc’
lt’a(ut’rSlllp
ti11cis
the
I’iiroi)c’.ni
limimomi
iidt’i:thI,’
l’,)IIIi’eS1 hhic’ 1.1 is c’t’ntral
III ifltt’flIitlOll.Ii (lnfliit’ Cliaiii’,e ii(’COii,l
IllS 1’iV(’S ii ((l)lH))iiiliiiIc’S it) control the ,iciitI.i. and tl,t,s coiitijIl the i,sI ihi,ti
L
ny eilsiiliii’,
,
qeellielit would favon,’ stl.It(gles 01’ tecilntioiiit’s thu
rti,t (OllIlitI
tt he Us (‘(OliOlliH, ei)viloI)iot’ot,ll
111(1
Ci hIlH)I01( .ih (lIlt rests Syuiiiiohii,ihi.
fit.’
Ltuvo1’t’,iii ijii,oiis roic’
iii (liuliatu
ci1.lit((
Is
a
lvitposI
of
ts
unutlIrItv
as
•Iiyer in (i(ttlIlitloulil
10111(1
•ii,tl tli iioiiiic’’, ((115(11 Oh
111 IIH_ ‘.niIe l)le(ihI
1,
‘‘rid w is such as the UsA, ( liiiuu iiid ( enhliny. Its e1igc’tneIit ss ith ehnrite
(ii
C Scieli
e
lItil Its IltusihIt (t1,uIl ,I(’ehi(il that is eriiuiui hot <‘nlv (or l’al0)11
(0
III (ISO (or global SiStiIhlill)ilty grog (IS Ill liO,IL’t’ (i tlic’ LU .i
1
Ill \‘Vn(l-tlHhilS IIuç
tI huninntaimnt lorCi’
‘(‘his rc’pIeseiltitlon clil Iw ,i weh owe ,iiltld.tc to
lie
(.1111.0(111’ 11(11(1 L.J
IS a IS0hll()(’)ItS
-‘iijdist’ (OliCel’lii’ih with tile I iitlii’ss
,dt,ctioii ol titlc
101
iii,
‘,lke
1 tI pHI;tt)o1 that ptirsiues tite
I I.
iii both its
-uern,I
111(1 etetiiii (s!(t-oIC
eel heatlelslil) (((ilk-s with
a hefty pric’e tl.
t’iic 1ttnie
il tile ioterii,,titttiuI
‘no’ to (((‘(1 eli. to ((‘15’
1
(ii
recubie
(I Isto (I (ellIs ((II’ t’Iob.ul uoos’te its
I ecilki 10115
iild tniclo intt,d O
hill!
lit
U’s
‘c piitatioii
.15
a i’(t(lh,lI
poseur hotisi t
)ieinmssiooolli’,ut;,ihys.iuelt
hepoasiieb(.ttoititc’iisc’pic’sstiiesontiue
ole
i’onL
ft
is
ihro\’TIiu,
‘((1 rllsi)iiiy (hIhililt
to ic-el) .h
i\’
obei
ht,iic’s,
Oh h,i\’t’ WIi lt’ly \)V -I If (0111(11(111 ((‘I it
to
I
Ii
I
Ill (C’ oh c’hii,,ttc’ (‘11,11 lie ab,ite
‘Itt and uxpl’uI to In’ clihit
(‘1111/ 11111(0 ted by 1)11th
C lliil,i[e (ii,iIlt’
‘(Ill (hlnitt
ft
II
1111(11
(lii (IllS
I
1 h1
clii
I
I
1111,1
1 otIol (ii
chr 1
111(11
uit
thu
atur thii
nsk thit
11)1’
Ii J c’hlo(k
tOSV.ilCbs eliiii,iti
CII,tlii’c’ ,‘.hitc’iiieiti
Ire
Cinc’eliect out by
I 5Iiil
ClIOSSIOnS
u lsewhctc
inch have as the,,’ ciI
ieal (lc’u t
r
‘ thick tii (Iitopu’hm) l’(i)ilOliiIC toIIIihtl,t(V’n,’’s. liii’ ilitu’lt,t1tt
tdeiite hi’R,’eeii
the extelIi,.I
alich
litteulull pillar’
of eliii,ite tii,ttu’’ 1,i.,i h,j’
ouk. cody trip
nate ehiut
)OiI(3( ill a Vii
(illS 10(11’, snice
(((V ..1’i,d that
lit LU is iusiiig its
the with the Member Stitc S to stay cmii n,[tecl to an
Hl1Ih’tt)ll’,
hto,utc’
I li,uui’
ft. 1)aniei Kc-hinc’ii.
hoist.
n-
no(jn’,iIl
Uii,ctmi
ilI-tiOnIIt( iii,ii Polity’ UUit)) 17(3)
1
I
IlUtitIlI ttl Lu (‘JIll(tl P111(15 Pi’bij’ .i.iS---34’),
It .013 -3!
.
‘
‘t’basnui
( )itcithinm
inch
C lii)
ftctchit’ Kelly, ‘i-U
I I’.,,it’ lip n
I,iie,uiatu’uu.uh
I ‘hiitiau
t’oiIcy:
Ac biit’vc (11(1(0
111(1
1 hi.iiit’ii s’
( Iit it 43ftt)
Its
lulu’;u,u,t’iial
,hjtolti,’e
IIuIi,,I
flttuIhliit (f I,Ilt’(Il,-iit’tt,Il
/111)1’ (3
)It.
<uiiovc’s, ci
ui.. ‘l-m,sirttntuic tii.tl 1IIII”’IaIIoII
Intl tVlnhiit,u (1(11 lIleril ,i’on,tb
I inn-tisitt’, ol
OU
h..iss’’, (((it
14
Shins Avurulic iIhov.l
,imici
S.n,iiui-hu
It,issm, ‘ilt’ timid
limc’ i’.Irgc’ts:
.“s-,.essimu, IhC’ i’ti,tiu
1
I redibiiiiv
ot
Pbecht’,c’s
lot the
i’.imis
Amec 110111’
(I’olmrv lint
ot
till
t
,.ItHllutn
(&t’sthrl I,
iIisnIttIu’ om
C
1(111(0’
i hiampi’
inch uhc’ knu mioilniemlt.
I ,-hru,u 21)h1, .i),,ili,th(I
tt:
ittp:
-‘c-poll
is,-.,,. .iik’05i,7i1: I /Avc’m’uhI’lhl-ovu’- umicl--(t,issm-.’i) I t’pdi
%c’e e.g. Wcty mccli Koc, ‘Pohsit “No” tc,
l,lIc-l 001 Ch,miuatc- Aiiitsiioii ton 2tt3iI’, 1’ND.S
(aIro;ac, Itt (V. I’ll 3tu 6.


iiiitiiticiii
iIcti;liHhilC
(thud
iilrTIi
tiut
I
‘5
liltidS’
lict
1111111.
IiittihittioIial
ic.idtttiip
I)clSLtlt)il
lilt, tliti, )pUtlist
tilt
ltld))til)ii nid uiui1)lCiiitiilitiOi
ol
(.1
ii it i II
II titti
Ii lii III 11 ici Its
It
oliciwhulo
lit
c
oil (Ills
iiivst
[lIt
U’s
tilt
ill
hit
Hit
in Hilci iiil out!
ttii liiincs\oil tI)i
illiittc
iliiit, Hid h))tFI lii it
tiVtI sicts
h
lilt
Hilt lit Stak
1)1 i)lIyuuuittttiII.itlt)itili\t. AitdIt’IhillihiIipilthtttliiiitliIiiciISittiidtl
lit
Us
built
t liiuitt
it itit rslilti
tilt
st-c 11011
[Hills to tilt
iilijact ot hiiiiu tll;uipi
p ui
lit itliot
it t ss tin t ic ciii it
ii \ ci iliti it.uc
itici idut tics thc
iciii sti.ctclpcS iciioytil iii Hiltticc the uc:tti
ui
a
Hiltcci,
p11)11 lIst
slhlICt
Oil
hiiiiic
c hiuit’c stitli
tiiit clii
I)hcflhi
lit tlitc
I iiii tltc
1
II lilhIhIlill
hd)iul[lt[i
is tIics5
lit) \Vti ii
c ills
cli
liii II
d!iili ciii
It loll.
liii
huh
StY 11)11 jiliistt;itct
tOIII
tiic’
t’titfiili
itiJ
lcruii
tilllitiiltlhi
if
to
iluililt
tilhiut
Lideushi1t
iiilieiit tllldlli’ji III
I Oiltthivc iS oh ttUiSSld)Ii
11(01
lIt
iVittittli
iii&’
‘ ;U’,riCI t)n ui 15/0/1 0/ ‘urn
C ‘Yitn’j’ Ct acfr i:ch
LliiSiticChcit lilt stilt ci
iilt tiillIliic
tic I)d)tiy iii tlY.ity 1151 (edit itid ti) c iun;it
h
III
Hi itt
i
ili Ci
HId) kst - It cit hit H io:5
I Sc dl
)llitiiilt
Ihihtitlit ictiiai
itzee
nit_ills: tin
I )2 UniitcI Nittcis
(AmisS
ti k ( eiiiviiutitilu liii
lhiliAt(
(
il1HIl
(iJl\JI.((()
iuicl
iii
iPP7
lKyc)to
PIOtI.tctll
(1KP),
uud tin
clii iiouis of dn
titittictic
c
of tilt
°hIIIC, ( c)
illd)iltcdi diinitt the itispicts ci liii Ut) (Uk
hue 2111%
-
nis Ac’rtcmieiit (PA) ;oHlcdl tiiissctoh dil)(IillleHt
Ill Novc tuli)c;12))l(c
I i
I nit
ciii t )nuon
us wtli as
In IV)t-uuiher )t,iit’s iiutiivicliidiy i;cscpmitoric:
it tilt kJ1”ii((C, thu lv’ Hid tiic PR
jilt tiitttorc Stil))ttt it) thOm Pl0’i5iH
intl the
tic t))iipItlvifli ( ( )P tlct tAunt
i’OrtlliyilIt the .IJ
IS mi-lily stibjict It)
iinuate
11:111-c’ lis
liost’evet,
i(fli ittiitly utttlctii:iys tilt nistitittittils lciuiiuativt
iolt
ni its
ic tuiicit. t iiiiite cliautte nit :id)b.ii wtrtuuic uuitcrc-tl iUt)lk
COO
0 idiUSiiCSS
hltOilldl the nun
I kills,
111 Liret’ ii
thiuii-
ti)
iW:tlchieS5
Ilsiiie Cain
)piiS by *iciiiuiit ccttIIll5ltioIi:
tilt1 ( liSle
lid
tIll! tiltiliulltS
Slit)
is thu Worh
Metetirulc’-iu it ()-pmisa[ucni (\VM( ))
/kirlioiiili tilIte a few scueittuhc SUI1IHIII
were led svuthiui itU ten
tory, LU bodies kept
i rIlttiVtl low piode oil elitit
• until tilt
cud
oh the tietutle
his
us ui0tsurlrl-uui:
iii the Wlkc of it
5tH Cl 55th
TIc
otlillioul ot tile \j’tcuuuil Convention Oil Stibst 1HCCS hilt I )c plete Iii
)zolle Lmycr,’7 tI)UHLIL(S ld)Ok(tl to the USA lot :loblI tulV:rflItticfltti !eadet
SIllj). Morcovcr, we should recall ihut the Luropean Pinion only achieved foninc
ioiileteiltt lii t’uivuronulieuitll policy k)llt)Wil]g the Stuitic Ltnsipeiui Act, which
cii tered ii [dl force in
I P88
-
I lit LU so n idtptecI
1 uhilit- assei t is’e stance A pivotal niouncnt chIle by tim
ttuu ii of tile decade, when it itieed on a (then) L(-wide ioaI 01 tilbilisAlL CC)
CHiisSii)iiS
at
I )Pll iuvei’
by tht
yeai
21111)1
IilVi0i
macic
toe
cc)i)IllItiUt in
I)micl Ecd:cutstss
,
I he Unutccl Nations
II luteworL
I ouuVcuulictui on
C humatc tutu
A ( ttniini IltIry’ ( i)l)5) IS ‘kill JcclI)lsil Ill hntitttiiciiiiI Liii
IA I
- )liS, ci LOs.
i7
Vucoilcc
C
tiivc ilnul
till ulie tidbO CCCIII cit uilC ()ncntc
I
cvtr, Vut-nui.i 22 Mitch
1085
ii
loot 22 St pieuiihcr I)XO
513 UN IS 2)3; (10*) VIS 21
20 ([VI 13251(151157).
252
Climntutnt Changu


nultlliy,
I
Ii
1
) itcIlille
lU RId
t
lllI)llttcI mi tile tlOi):lf ilioftttoll of hiittltiw
Issitois ttriets
\VIlttil Coiitiivtiitci tile US preference for ti mUtt’ tiet titillilSed
I fItxiltie
ctlit
tilti iC’\ie\V
tjtcliitclt IC) CiiilSSiOIls leciti
IOns. lilt rsvui
tIetlCC’ I)et’veCIl It.) tilCi L.JS
lii)Ittt(ilt’S to
CillIhIte eihltltçe comititil chof not
i!jtfctl
[Ill’
lJt’sJi(
(
(
tsuhiuh
Ill
llIl’t
event
()il1llils
lit) ltIfloItlll tlilctS
for
lISsIlilts lctllktlctll), bcit
it
nnst ter[;lllilv
illeoteci the course ol thi’ I\V(ttt
t’itttoeoI Jilt1 tilt
PIT IS Aii teIllelIt lleiotl;lt Ions.
U lilststeflet’ III) and US
i
Stalne to qttaIltlt ted tetittt 11011 talit’tS for devel—
cci to itt ties tltt(itt k Vt it
),
1101 tIlt
lilt flee of (orlespi )fldtlt[ olthpt coits lot
Velo1tlmfl States iltIn iiey over tile
ISO tltS 1)1 1KVt)tt) Pttttot ol iie
OtTJtiOfls
i))2-—
I )ef).
St VIrti
ltIetIlptS
\Vele
Ifllt’
ttt Lee
Aitieitet
Oil hotrti, lot
i:Ltllee tfittttlil tilt
IlIttocitit ticiji III tilt’ text of tue I’totoccti ot ilextbie iteeliati
Ills tot eiliistotts t(till(ttOli
.111 lpproleh that US llecoti,ltor tttoltcit’ tttv’te;tttci.
Ivertlltiess, tilt
ISA \VttllIIteW 11(1111 kottt titti titUS, tIOllIc lily, the tlttttt[tt)llS
‘I 551011 lillY 550ff he k,oto 110151 ttttilIilll’ lC5lt , tile jltOllLtlütii 1)1
ittFl et
std tpprtac lies tic ettvtrotttlietttlI tguiatcoct,
hIti 110 pJl1 lIt Its littpleltllnt;ltloll
lIe [Kyitto Protocol, ;ltfcfteli
lii
I o)o)7
ttltltttltc iy entered Into elleet
iii
hen Rctsstt rItifieci tile clot ttttttot. i<ttsstt’s ita:ti-ssott sttppolt was the restlt of
ittensive rottltfis tiff ttlctfietil cilpIclIlItty
mci petstttslotl Ii sets Rc ttitieJ
It tilt
ItIC 1St
III of tile [US tttivti Ill tilt
lIttettl,it
111011 ,ltel,t1
Thu potivotois of tile t.IN.C(
(
.
tile I’ Voto
>tlttttecll titti tile
ins Atieetttetit
‘te expertly cut nsstli
Ill
Ill,lltV pithieitiittts.
5(1
.1 sittrt sttlttltltrV suflict
hero
he UN
C
C
itt
till It itt1 tic
ti
ttttlver
li tIltilli)t rho attci eali
ti
Is sUIt
les lit
Ike ltleiSttIes tttVvIttIS tilt
sttl)tlls,Itiott ccl cteeltitcltist oases (Ci
U’) iii
ftc ;lttttttspitt it
It levels titIt votiiti prevc itt tLlllperocts
IcttiSttlpttcelliC ititerfer
tlC itt tilt
cilItilte sylt it
I
(Art. 2), witIc h stitce tilt
21 It) Clileolli /titeellletJt
is tlfldersttlttci US
1 etllltlttlttt.eltt to Let p ofichIf tecil5tet-ttdte rtse to l)eiow 2 deiree
tisltts. Artit Ic 2(i) ol tie PIns Acreemimuimi restates tics
ccli s:
I tiiitoq
tItr—
ltCtC5C
ti Ili t1ittiot JVCdtjt
li)lt)—I :Ittts
it
V cii Itch
toS/ 1°C
t ve pi—tittlustrtaf lecici
IOU ptJrstttrtc tiul
to
fetiti fft
teITlpoliterl
it c wit
to
1 5°C
71)05; it
tflUusIri.ii levels, tetoqot ;ii Ig that
I his would
tittltcantly reduce the risks and impacts of CIII1IJLC change
ice UNIt
1
C
mips clot a broad
illLC of tasks titit olemmlher countries sitonid
tnderttkt
tIISV,ltCiS
t hiit1t
Cil,lllct
Ittittclt:tot
TclTlO1iiL
from
tllvel)torVtmic
I f-lU
(IctIlleStIC
emtttssiori,
1111(1
ldOpt;llc
IlitInlIll
lnmtmtatmnml
ilItte’,,
to
ttStenhlr edut itlin
lilt1
ISS lrelless-rlistnc’
c lTlif)llc’tis It lIpti tIes oit tile prim)
iple (ct
eOlt)Illllll ictit tilict It lltll[ed utslcttctslltliytmes,
\S lmtc1i resonites ifi tilt
(itV)S]oll hetweeii (clevelepeth Allmil’\ I eotnttttt
md (dveIopint) Annex Ii
(‘tIltIrle, and lIon Allilexed eeveioplns eottltttlt5. as Well
is tile expel t;li)oTt
the ChaUenge of Climate Change Leadership
263
l
urIc
I. lU
111(1
1
firtstcr
K.lrlsson
‘(IlIllItI (‘hmnt
intl thu
Ilcrn:lettl
I littOn’
I e;,tftr
III
Pit
Ill
tI
lIlt
ltColtStllltlil
1 ttitit’ (ttfttt
1’(1)
IldTllttl/ If
C ,llttlltHll
ticllktt
S/lltItt
121 ‘tI I
Ii 1))
1


264
Climate Change
hit tin iontier hid
t
tier lintilens itt
ii
tie
iitiipe i1ntlgitlon, ii1dt
teeittioltuy li.tlti(is
mci itliet
It
.tiiitti
Hsisttnci
lit
lc’vloiiti
tttliitrleS.
indeed,
1)1k
Ut the
111051
s
inli,int rts)tIis iii
IN I’(
(
(
)tt)jil’Hlt Itt)
15 the
‘o.ihtlisln lIctit
1
.t
I
ten
( butte
nod.
)tvc loped
toiltitiles piedel
it) I)tlltt)H ii Ott us tilt
loin1
iii
hi
ti iu di
It
it Id, vit h
t 1)titi
term
oil ol I i Iii)) Hilhou
ut yc , Ity dUtt
itt’ (IEIIf (d
Is titcitisive, expail
sti, )ti).ittuttll
tot1, 1t’i tt,
taiieI5
a i’’
tv:’eittti
tic’ not
uti
a
IIJILUS’ to hind Its
)ettoIic’s 0) spicilie mitipitioti
mlii
c’I1tisstittl rctliitt.nnt tesulto l,yt’tt
ii iht’y \seie. tile
utilvuntlol]
ttlita)liS Ott
tlttV)’lttO’
Ott
( list))
lttt’ilt ileytitIci tht it
1
lilt
hictt provisions
dispute
‘i iicu ti
i)tO,’tti
tin
tot n’. W lIthe
etC ott
eitiiu
ct tent, the
ltN!’( (
5,
itO\1c’V’, tic
‘,iut)ti ott lilst)tutu))l)I)nlldiilld
1
auvtslotis
cijited the i’st thh’ittttc’tn cO
a ittilt’ titlr,istitttintc
thu
laS St
Vi d
as
t lurtitu fiat
- ‘it bob
I
j,tt’
lit -‘c
Ittlit ne’
ii it
>101 ti’, till
itt Ittt mit nil ,ttiilitatiOil
tietv l)e iott,ttt’du InC. liii tin
tij-,tttittttn,ii ‘,t,iujltt
nttvitli ii by
it’
INI tC(’
I in
nit
Ii
liv in ls
itt
it
t ittetit
hut ut
ot
it
bit.
2111 Ci ii rout
iterioiis iii politteal it is tttrit y nit
u’
nit note ii ri ,tiititt y
it
k yo0
1011)1 ol set’, htttdtut”
(
lI
tInissIuitIS ic’iiti tHin
tt12i’tS, to
.ithi’’c d
ut
tIc’
net hid
ittt)i
do Id (‘Phase
I ) ,ue,,nnst
j C0(O ha’,elint’.
Enget
iii.
tiittitii’ti tttt tie tlttltttflc’S listed itt Aittit N 13, s-vhit, iii loud brushstrokes,
ovt’rs htirope, North Ainerte,t, t\nstr,ilta. New /,ç ,jl,i)iil ,tlic ).ip.ni ..yott) doe
lInt
ji,tnci,tte how i)0t55OitS O’citiCtlOItS sbuijit he ,icljtt-ved, but tt does prost
tn
ttieuori: bojitit letiti’iittttttitttnnt’ti lbl’Nibihnttcii,tnt’,i’ts:oittsi)ottstradiflt
jittitt
topic
tietitat lilt) ntd tile clean ck veiopnn’Ilt nii’iii.tnuni, ,iniSSn)tS tracuit
is dtsciisseii tiiote
e\IeiiSlVc+5
wilier
iii
tile
eti.tptt
I
3titnt
iiiiubeiit’iitattoit
itrielly, relers to tlic’ tt’tctn or I\nnes 13 eoutitt wi to ,otd tlteo’ total tlbo\\;abI,
c’lntsiionS
tilt)
ic leese their icspeetive caps juinitly
The
( heui
I )estlo’amejit
Mecunsiti,
ii turn, enables Atiie B countries to meet then tildetu by invesOn
in clean
i
utiitiusy itt develnpnip countries tti5te,ic
tI
iIc)UCii litc a! tb,tteinettt
!wittcVeniettt
1)1
tile
titi;ets
15
titltltO12ll
2110,
in
tutbie
rontr;tst
to
til
LJN
Nt’C,
‘lie Protocol
stabltshes
a
ilon-eutttplieiic’e
nec taitisill that h
been ;ic liv ely cisect to sctpport ,nicl compel Attic
13 eittititrles to
ii)
1 CSS toward
then eflh1:S1OI1Stedt1etI0n 1ancts.
\X’lt its dhuantiheci niaxintcntt eitiissions perec’ittat;es, cpeethed tintelne at
‘iO)\’.S,ltiO Oil Nnheil)c 0,1000 atic)
t
i2ctiecttte’tt, the ynttt lintoeol is a mm
more harct-tioseci, ‘hard law’ document than the UN R CC, Yet tlis strenl
proved stintitt;ittentisly its cg’eatest weakness.
hiic’ ELI encountered dIlic’ulty it
dettitl) the )iotiiecii p,ist the t’tii:c ation thiesbiold ,iiki tile USA iS notably absc
ti )itt 1)112 K ycttc) fold.
I he C ,il( etitisiotis reduction targets were binding, but tb
were also very tiitt.lest and, eonsecitteiith
, itlc’OiflfllCiISul-atC to tilt’ deg;’ce of changt
I lii USA 0,0 lit Itt bound by it’, turet lime It
jill tint only Kvuit. Ait’,tiii,t i,utcitc
it
2mt7
211 A:iti.
I 1ticytis, ‘l’hc’
I )esur,ibihty cti
I )c’poliiiizttion:
( twiphant e in tb’ iiutiatu
:hiittn H
tti0
I tt I ii —It I’ ‘lrattittttnttutl ttit’titintti teal Liii
hi —12,1


11w Challenge of Climate Change Leadership
265
I IC(lli)I\
1(1 slay ttitliio lIlt
lvtrail 2 derees (
liOnS rIse by 2PhL MOSI
llllm1l’(’
PIl.ISC
I ol IKpolt C\IlIrCCl Jt liii
‘11(1 1)12(112, without lIly ,I1rcC1i1C lit CIII
IICCISSOF lIlsIlIIIIICIII or .irt1s.2
hit
iiil:III1C)IIs f
1tIiI1l’e II
C
, lilerellte oftiw
P
tIes of 2O(.)) W1IS OtI1t1-:IllV lillIClpatccl to be the ioniiii (ni a iitii;ii liretIUcl1t on
‘(ItO 11, 1)111
It tll(Il:(l III (liSlrr.l5’.
It 1(111k
liii )1l1ct SIX years belort tht Iliterihitlolill eOlIlI’ltlIIlty iigeecl on a new
‘lItlilIl’ lllstrCIOlt’IIt to HI tile ‘oith left by
t he
C llpt’I(llJeI1 ktiliirc. As wil Ii the
yott) llrotocoi, tlit
iI.) piiyt’d a
Vt’ry prollllllelll
rolt’
ill brilipIlIp the
I’r.s
It’t’IlIlIit II) lrll:tll)II, but tile dliiert’IItCs i)et\(’e Cli Pans .nd icyoto tar OiItWt’iiI
(I’ slIllIkurilit’s. IIIStt’,ICi 1)1 ii 1105111” tOp
(105511 ci IlISslolls rt’ClliC t0l1 COIllOlItlilelItS
II developed totilitries, tilt’ Paris Açreetiueuit eIubr.Iees a bulttoIll—tip
tr,itey ttl.it
uIres Ill senuitory
1Ir( IC’S, whether dc VelC)peCI or (]eveiopillp. to iiLe Ilatioll
ny Ck it
I Wilt tIC 01111 lIlt to
is (NI )( s) tow ii ds (11111 itt chiti
C
C Olitlo
I I
C
I
iii
lreeIl1eu1t Is ilitreloit IlillIt flexIble III lppn)aeil, ,lIld plates relttr elIll
lasit (III
lf—dIflt’reIItl:ltltlll
(11,111 oil (I1l11111(lIl but tllflereliti;1[etl rC’SpOltSlbllItll’
(CIU )Rst
I t\IC sscd till tlii
Ii dl(IC till Ito
C hiS lOll
It CIW tioll
111
C ts l\4ost ol thit it
i
Ilte th tht P IllS A
ICC lilt III
I CCitlC 5 III it
ill (ICC C Cli iI O(\
510115
II1CII11)C I Cot II
CS
11111
1
lip(i
IC
lIlt1
1(11111 11111 lId itt
I
I )(
C Vt I
I
SC
YC
15
I lit
P
itt lilt lit
IC lttt
Ill
C \t it 111(111 cii P
(1
1 CS
SC
Ill i),tlOll III cloint St
C
1
1111 Itt chiii
t
tu
Ci
tgeS,
lIlt1 ilIlIOCItICt S CS teilsI Vt
illiOl’llhlLOiI provisioiis io all pirtit’s ho ellibie
ackiii of proptess OIl i\il )( s,hIl(I support Cdiereti to .111(1 ieteivi’tl by dew ioplpt
otmtrles.
Tht
1111
A
ItC
Ill Ill
II
t ibly
iliiii
I
lii
I
((lilt
1111111
liii 11)11 lilt
C
I
I citni Itt
liii
it Itit I
but Its Cl IC \ 1CC tt diV loll
lilt1 tilbIt i It
CSt It till
Wit it
1
ICOCIShy illiCit
SC 1)0
liii
Ii
I
lily
1)1 it ICIC I sh
iV o
Ci I’ 0
ttul
silt ti ssl ii p
(I VitleIl
ui lilt
I 1111 1111111)11 11
( liii ItI
C
I III
C
Ii C bitt C tilt t It is
C (IlIlt
it tlit tc 1st o
1 st’nfit lilt ioss uI 1(111111)1
tiC C
51011
iii ii iii
oiui
C iIhiSSlCittt Itt tic 1,011 t
I
C ts Ii is
sSt litI illy
I1CC II Itt hllliitd by
111111)11 ii
1lVt
11111 Ills
If (“.tl)( s
iil]tt tts t i
I Ill
hoit of dt liii
Ill
tlit Ii ‘,t I III IllIti
111011
C tltllli]t II ill iti
vitii tlii
15011
110115 (II
/ 111th
‘ri) ol
tilt
Pin
A
it 11111 Ill
IS
IS
ill C
C lIlly
till
C
151
I it
P IllS
Aireenitiil lilly
I ii,ible the 1Oct11 cOcolil
C IlItIIIllIIht\
tii 1,etel t the SilOIt’.lil, 11111
It does not tiler
11 cli 11115015 tO Police Or rectify tHe jtroiiIi Iii
Hi
uisloihitU Ill.IV
.1150 IlilliC t CIII tIlt iii’s ablilty tO 111 II lt,lIil JIl ,lI1ibLOCIS. CohesIve
C lmrite
lies’ Illit’i 11,1115’.
11115 15 Iiirtiier t’xiiicired Ill
lit
SeetICtIl iit’iOS\
-
21
A
IltIlIlIlCI
t)f
AIlIlIX II Ci)IllIItl1’ IlIVI
11111111(1k
,ut1rtCd
tc( tttulittitIi
.,L’1i
.1
.01111(1
_CIiCl,IIlttll
III ilIlISSICtIlS
11(1111 111111 lIFt Is. s\llli Ii
Ire
11(1)1111
ttt tht
intt [1111 IlIs,tt Ii
expiry Ott’II.lSl
I lItCIthiC’ 111111
111th
totet’ III 2 lit_tV IIillhlil.CtI. I 1(1411 tltSIllIlIIt-Iil
01) WI
IC
pItlo PIll0 II
till ‘IllellIll jih,ts
Il.IVe (iOhltllilItC d to .111 (11 1)111 CIII [CHIlI 11(111 1)5 211211, ss III
tIll Its S]I.Ii(’ ]t 21)111:
Cclii. (
IICII1I, Aiusti
111,1. iCCISSI. iitd
-pill
ilcIwIvet, 111(1 tltihiut ti
t
to RC 011111,11
22 kiidosl,’ S.
I )llisltrol
,
IlItlIlt
C oplIIh214en:
I lit’ ‘ttate of ( 1111120
C ,ovIrll;ulitt
‘ (2111 i It)
(2) ( ,hlI’,lI I llI’IHIhltII IltII l’ClIlIt
I 11
N
23
Kr,iTIier, Id
‘ LlIl’mIllllInthlI I lIl
.11 I.
2
24
Qtltrtll 5(1111 1110(1,
C Ol,(billitl C itntiit_ l’lt’diIes of 14(u NItiolls liii 51100 1)12 “C
I .iot
\‘iillul\’rlloc
1) 1)11 ttbti 0)15.


266
Climate Citanqe
It )l I
III.’
1_tIlt’
)( )s,
lit’
ttt&tit’ iii
bin ii ,ilojo l
.i p III
II
eXallipli’
oil
1011.10
t li.iIii1
llI1lIlil1
Its 1InIl,i[cl,iI ,issiintpiioii ol
,liiil)l[IOI!
Intl m.k tt\u
litilill
(lI.liiIl
Ills,
Ill
t
Itt)pc\ to ht’st1 tlw ilnusholtl h
Inuil
OlIllilics
Ii
lolIlIss suIt intl. thus, to ovt’ut oun
liii
Li ristilt
ohk’ctit.
Ito’ ttoIslt’tti liii llit
lllh,Il i’hTuitlt
.iLtItti
I t.itliIii liv t’\.tiiiplt
isa In not .ir’,ii.iblv optiltil’!
sti.iltg tltit
cites a rut
p
In tin
hllhltItIl
iii
lit
I t
is a i.isviii.ILIIIt
intl
tt’IiiitolV ,iIIlhiOnIs
It
IlliitiiIllhg
ii s tnt liii to o ilIenibl’I
liii It’ithilI lt I\ttliple
huh
\tt moth
II Itt
It)
lit
.110,115
itl\ktfl Ii 1105100 st.itcltIt’Itl
ct
llvnoliiitc ittI pohits
lvi.iII\ It
l’ti\lIOhllItl I1II. ilitisiltt’S
lV1’uilii
155th
. (nun
11_nil .tls to tItdtlt
‘intl 5p1tt,
Itch Ii to ,iiltIcVc’ .1 Itttli
cs (I 1)1 cilsIuoniinlIt
1 puttht’etlon all.
to
hittilu tIn’ lni lioiini’
tth
lilt ‘nil ln.IILt t. In’ ht’i,ilniit OIcfl tttvtl’
lii tiii iiii
ct iti i
dqi
t I S
s suit iii I
.1 ‘1 ii tic’
I cgtl II
s
Ii in WInk his b1_ ei i c’alIt
otto ejitchitin hit hnst.Ine
ili \S’iitniiV
‘.n’gc tni
hit tliviioiihlle’lttIl lcI’oteetcoi
1115
tt’iiihIy hiLt’
11111
(tctctIllt
Ittit
is pl’Ittn till
ctil)ti\’iliil
to
tilt
iiark
l,ltiOlitlt’ (ii III i’t151h1ltttltl.
lb1
iii.thhtlttl’ oh itItlni’ by t.x.tiitpit
OhtIs
1 Inrtlit
I.i ci
1)’
C Out
uNity
(0
h1_’ ,Ihii’tCl
putt ti’ioits bilitrint
itt
luetss’eun itteiltipl
pitbhc polo y otl’. ut
I utitIitioii. hKitlovsu, l\’loutt ri intl Mttiioi tletitPy tih
tubtin
(
iptlire
intl Storage
((
( S)
I )tn
live
is
a
ilolt t’ullti
liuntewod
eltsiiteti to m’pire itt’ tlevelopnient id both lltteuiIition,ti
nit
tlnhilc’stlc
law.’
‘f.
I htv sIit;içesi
Iii
lu
I )iutt tiLt
svlnt h ttihlishis
:t ltgiI Innest n’k hr tilt
eitvlflhlllttt’llttlly Sib
‘eoltitit ii st(irarçe oh’
il miii tlitr:itht
(Cc ) ),
t tine
lot
beni
1101
l)ti’,tlbSt’
id
i
1_h(’fliCHII
butt’ bi,n’ntttinst’tl
t othtiitloiis to lit ilit.tte
LIt
ehe’vt’lopi itii(
(Il
(lit
it t Ititithitty
iii
kciropt’, bttt It e,itise
bostet tii
C CS
in
I eti’ope 51/011111 lecitniitsu the
‘1. l’s itteliipts to hive (( S t’teOglllSC’tl tiiithti’ tilt
(‘atti l)evdlopttttii( MCc’lliiltSlll,\’Ilic’II wtiticliiittirneitibletittintrotleuetionol
Cf S in ilevc lo;in tollIltuIc, Ilso, this t otild uxpItIli shy liii (( S I )iret’tive hr
been
t’rippit’ci by
1tIiIIs1iill
lnti;
litt2lutit( itititcil delays
toil
its restilted
itt
pit/i
OIlS httle f CS lilnoVatItni
So
far.
t
ias lilortover butii
iS, ted diit tit
(CS
I )iret’ttvt ofltt’sii rut c’\tlliplt of hit oii oh uiotrktt htirnionistiitili hem’
1_ttIcloIi by the pursuIt
of
cxc essiVe’ tIeiii.tllclnt
cIIVII’OlhilltiltiI c’oiidttions,
lit4u i’t’itiLitory hurdles irtutibly deter
llVe,tliic
ti
in CCX
tistalhttitnis and,
hente, the Ve’r
otihtattoil (I
au
illttillil itarket fin’ CCX. Relatedly, the iosenrc
of aettial examples of (‘CS regulation itt itUelui erodes th
I )Ireutivc”s t’xcnipla x
101Cc’
26 Set’ ( ‘hapter 13.
‘(6
Kiulovc’sc ct ii,, ‘1’,uiVI!OhtlIlCIii.iI liinti,iiucm intl Micltifi( c’teti Init’i’iuiconib
I )iiiut’utsions (II
(it Liw’. 872.
(tt’iur )&ttIt il
Robin lions anti (-(ins St hlot’uiull.ikl’rs, ‘Too 1.11 lv or
Ccitt [‘(it’ lot (XS
Whit
I’c4ccls to Br
I )ottt
to
( )vc’I’uOnic
in’ V.tlk’y ol t)eatlu I’or
,iu’httn c’aplon’ intl
Stou,no
In l’tn’opt5’ (2(1(3) 37 !u u,’y Il,ctIw 6(8) i2tl(
ti (‘I’)’)
.6 Zen A Mkii’h, Slisiuta 7, tctttl’ctlt’l;I cot1 t(chidt:tit ( )riuc
MII’,’,nit,liC. ‘I ,itltoii (‘dItto’
intl StttI’,ttt
I uibdiey’ III Kart’n I,, Mnttn ii intl Ricrt1o l’iruur,i (t’ds.)
I C’tl;’ctutt’i’LlI aiit
IWO’)’ bitt’
I Wilt’yi3tickwtlI, 2(112), 273.
The Internal Diii ccs/on of climate C/tange Leadership


[he Challenge of Climate Change Leadership
267
I citItisiup hv txiiiiplc stilitis or fills wuli tlic trediltility of [lit’
Us intcnial
liiii:itt’ t li;inii’ eoloiiiiliiiciits
Phis lucius hit the 1t.t Joust pcisuulc
its Meiiihc’r
tates
ill tweiiiyeiilit lnui
tllflt’It’l(t eeoiiouut tilt iiinsi:iutcs, liivuii difler
ut niterests
intl tlifferen
s’icss’s
fill [lit best
ippiotth
to the
c lunate tluuiiic
h:tlItnc
(C)
iclopt liarinotitsed, iiiiiiirious
intl potentially costly iiieasures.
A noniiatr oistrateiçies hive been tlc’vtlopeci (it .icilititc Menibcr St:ite illeiiio
if) the ]t. Js tlnii;ite tltiiice icendi. Inst. to bridcc [lit clifierenees iii
‘ealth
md
ossil fuel tiepenchenty between Menilier States, IiU
lilnite tliaiit imw deploys
effort sliiriii.
In
iii iniiieineut
d.tn Jo the iltciis:thnaistti GlI(
etiussions
tedut tion o;ils lr Annt’ It eoiini vies under the IKyoto Protocol, tbe 20U) hithtrt
I )eeisitiii
(VS ciosvo tuitional emissions lmumits hr tile 20]
202t) pertt1.
,mcimt ironi ,i maxmimmcmnm mmmere:mse of2t) ptreent ftttmii ;m .7005 itiselnie Ow BIlirmt
in a iununmctimi teclciitu)n by 21) per cent
I )emntiri:
md freinitl’
l’1ic l’firi
Shirni
Decision niti
dci
sdmfirentiumon htim
it tliesiiuc’ tiiie ailtiwsa cleree
of
fit \mb lity by
ilhiiwni
Mc nmb
T
St itt
to
it lit
m
c my
no lii ii
cii
hum!
pereeiitipe of their tiuwil eiiii.siomis illoettittil. At the time
of’ wotimi, tin
onnnmssiomi
i.s dralnii ,i jimpo.s.d Oar a tctllnss -up ‘I Ilort Shumni, Rctmlatioii
which svli tilocite eiiussiolis rc’tiiitIicn t,ut ts hctss it u Meniber ‘states Oar
lit
9)2t) to itUU pt riot!.
A second strati c; to bitttst the icc eptihi]ity olunhit ions tiunite c hane tireis
s’is-
sos the Mendttr Stiles consists
of idt’omifyni: sectors at os]. of
t arbttn
ieakm!’e
nit! ultrcclncii]c spent! trtt1mit nients
tm safciiiiicf theni. ( arhon leik;i:c
ocCurs when
dmum1smons recimictioiis ui tine mepioli
caimsc
cu mssicus
t lst’whc’rc to
mdc
sc
cii llistultc
(
( )
ii (Ott tit
m
t n
t ts
ui ioscd on thc
I uitipc m stcti
ector oiikc
I.cmropeni steel costlier toct
t Hoc
coi)s[rnctmi)iI
C timpititc’s tt) sotircc
mheirsipples imiereasiin1v ittu Unnl cottony snp’ilccrs
ibis tniers a rise iii
hum-ti
000im
stct I mttocltic lion
irni
if
( C)
is It s
ti
i
c
miii
it
it1 tIc ci
ibm it in
iii
net c isc
ui
c nnssictns tim it nu hi csc n ontst imp tlic
c n boo loot ii lilt of
I ni opt in
‘tee] itmancilaettmrtis befOre [lie rechitctmon trce[s tOok et}’t. tJmtder the I ,lnissmi)us
cadin
I )mrctt:ve (I’!])). sectors
hit ire theenit i! ‘at
l1uitdi)t ri’]5 of cubit
lt’a()’t
ieccivc’
.1 I1i1Ik t
I)Opotttili
cit
c’iilisSIfiils
tllosxmuees,
wO can uahc
reater use of cirison tf[smrs.
ustirnrisiii’lv
this itoulcuin mottle the terimi
‘stenjfie,uit risk of
c imbon ledcace
a hotly coiitested etuiiumot2ty.
In respoiisc
lie itmct)pc an
t nintilissic n has chravvii up a
t arlicum list. xsIiicil is
c tiretmth
iii
“ l)eci’ittn
No.
tIlt
2ttili
I
ol
the Itupcin
l’,irli.iuient
and
ot
bc
( onin
1
23 April 2iH)) oit mlii
ttttrt it ticuihr Si i’ to
i
lu te mh’ ir 1recnlioiict’ sis tu)msstt)iis to
nicc’t iii
I oiniiicinmtys
tittictis’ t’is tillmssions it tlticiittii
tiiunitnuts i
Jo 2tmo
2(190 1.
t -tt)j t (t.
urit) tin
( titiiiitssit it
t’rt’ss Rtlcmse,
‘( tnnatt Actntu:
I uropt
rtidies
next cits
ttt
niptcuic iii Ott
‘iris Aeretnieni’, 2 Mitch 211 t 6, aviflabfe alt http
/etirnpctemt rtptt [
—rc’Irst
It’
1 ic sit’
eli. loin
f]
Pitlmiitr mci
ttk Utt’t Pttlit, ‘Carbon
I tilcic, thi Crt’t’,t P ir:mt]n
intl Pirtit
Futno t\4irti’
‘ (2911) a((3) hmititOitntttt Iti’imtijuit Rri’toi’ (7—f)tt.
0 76’
/60.
0 Art,
I Oct [IS 20(19 Set, turmlicr below


23
Climate Clmrtgtt
its sctwiiei itcr.itlini
ititi
i11)l1Ls
tn ilit
VIIUS
lii tt
1)31
In
nlpk’,
.111
titinstutal 511 101
IS
c ovcreil it tiit
ittittillill
i t>sts 11111111 he
Iii
iii
hineiltitillu
I tlic
II ) old
it List 5
1.
tIlt tci in ,tit II
0
o’ts,. od
lit
utensil y of imid
with dillil
otnitri”
Is
.1l)t)VI’ itt iti
iclil.
ti
w.litil i
I
111)1111 itikait
51(1(0
tilt ititle ntis
lie EU’s non i
t .ntin Ln.l
ndttst
s
II 1chlthni tn it ni, mUlti
tiitl tillittli ninitllIl tint. titiiiiifit
lilt
i’d ehIllIlti t’t1llIplilcnt
11111,
II the
eli
(It
I
ltI)i1ll( 5
1 VtIV0htiI,
5(0111
)tthitilfitllt.
1
ithoti k tLii stri[ciics
tlptIsne 0)1
1111111
II Il)U1l)Ctitietlll’sS is
1 restlIt
of tliinitt
UhitiltI
ititihitoti
1)111
it
hc
sinic
huh
.
I
111)1 iiflk
itt
10
quu(i
to
1111.151St
tlti
yiiii’i’s
between
linitti
atilon
11111
1 oilipentiveuies
Ii
.1
hIp
lii I et
it ltSSit) I,
11111111
IIIV
IS I 0111
H
lspt)llSt
,i win svin
haIti
let ifi.it j)hlittlS
e
Utlift’
hlilIV
IS .1 tittlySt ti) tiiinItIiiIl
noT
i Lilt1heC’ to
Set tb
EU
Oil
1
ft 110
te,wi.e:
,tlSiiillli)ll
[110th
HilT
il)Il1l
‘rein
It
I IinolniU.tt
I
itii hip.
‘Pt
Pt he .PtPt, tin
olmiisshcltS f,itithii:irk
lotte polIcy papei
wi:ni ,nhtn ci
tith)pcS f
fitii.tc
iiiii
t Hlflclt/i’tlt/)’
Ihi .Ioption of
1
Still
Sill)
illitl’o’Illk,
IOU,
IS
a
sEt iteiy
Ctt’ilillyC1
((I
It Ileilt
idci:iance
ti
liii lU’s
i iiitiit olitnu i1plIh tilt, ItithS,
c OtitSellIciltU its 11111
tIll fu.tsfersliip.
Yct 1Pt1t,it on
liii
1
it suit
i
it l)t tit ott iou
c
111011 ol
.ipe anti
1
pOsit
Vt
dtiO)lnit
o[ the’
elliltItI
10 (tll0llt
tiynnnii
lilly not
1)i’ i’itonth ti
,.ik’nnh tin
lU’s lcadt’rsiitp he
tX1fl11)tc.
III the first post
Kyotes
ieiiod
tiC
t) I
PUt)
tile LU
0[li)iiiilii tsP
tel
a 21)
icr it lit tnltS,lOil:
rtcmcnon and
litdlc.ltecf
Is
s
Ii
‘lit’s’, to thop to .3(1
ier Cclii
I
it; ePOCH; were
ttched b;
iiiiipar.ihie
i’itltSSlOil
it oltiitioit
t oilliitttilIc OtS
111)111 oth’ ohtVtlOflt(f
ii;ttlons
ti iii hy l(letftiiie
hi it I lliiitlOIlS
I
I liii
I
0
thou) Ii d
lilh)lt
itlvi: it U)
oft ‘it 1rpm
nIlielils,
act 0111111’
to
t:heur
iepottsthilitt
s
old
ospICtIve
(lllih)i]itlCS.
I ho
toOtlItloildI Ilihlirt
of this
(1)1 trititil tilt
was
hr
thy a step reiiioved frui’
1 purl ‘Ieole;ilttp by eiimiplt
ethos. ‘tin’ ( oititt
Soil’s 2t)li (Prt.’n ‘‘tper oil
linlttc
no! rio r’y policy
11)1 20.31)
( oii.3nuis that tin
EU’s
lttttat:u eackap
should lie suhon lilly sitthttoiis to
iisi ire Chit it is ‘ott track to meet h)nger tent
t 111111(1
objet
tves’, but ;tnhiiedt:ltie
let:; ChIt it
S’.hlLl!d
reHert
1 ntimber cit
Iliportlilt UlalipeS that have taen
ilatt
siutce 21)00,
ticitttos the
c conomi
rt c essiort
nit! the soy ii tlit tcbt isis
NeSS’ OiUVlfOpOllllfs oo
15t1CO)Ctiti
hill)
f
tllilltiiSSlOhi
a
1001 of.?’) 1)icelliiitl .?t)(t1t lIrttfltliillli. pltlstilnl to
C )irtsnve 200:3/8/
of the liireiiteiit
‘ii lilluleuli
111(1 of the C ouiiiiI, .i fist
1)1 SeliotS
1101 stilisec top which at
doLllicd Iii be
t Spilsud it) a stgnitn lot risk of enbon leikIpo, ( )J 2(110 H 1/10.
1 IlYVilti
‘( ,l)Vttltt iii’ Climate
C :lne’, 817. Set
also dir 203t) Green Piper ‘A 2031
Ii hulitwork for ( iiniite
11101 hiergy Policies’, t
1 )M(20 13)161) fool.
I ollllntlulucitioli [‘rum the ( ouuuiossioil to tbt
Pu opcuu P.iriianieuit, the (Zotilucli, tli’
(it )IiUll felillOllith
hOt Social ( :
Ilillititee’ iiiei ihe C olllliltiel’
if iht’ ;t’1lOfl5, 2t) 20 ti
2ft2tt Ltiropts CliiiltlU chiil1fO mlporilnitty, 23 Ti111t/ 2ttttP.
C
I, I ott(2ttttP)Ptt boil.
lb
PhliiiIii( iii and Cotiiucif I )eeis:nn ttto/2tttt),
.
: on eP
etrerr o
Member Still
to I’ (jolt their
i ic i housr
515 cIllisilOliS II) full rite C tlrilfltlltltt/
S Ztt’IiihiiOtSe gas redue
111)1)
1 Oitltllll;lci)t
11(3
tO
2t1?tt, )i
2(1)0
I
14k’
jo.
See’
also
j!’;cL
I
OflhituIsSI(tc
I Itlllmotullh
111011 on 20 20 by 202tt: Potleipt’s i Ittiali
ciiaiul;e Opj)eitttlfltl
1
t1eoi t>.ip;r. ‘P 2t)%tt
I itliolliP
ciii
tint ,lt
clot Pu cr lolIe Its
1
1 tM) 113)169 lintit
I


I lie ChilIencjn of (iiinutr Change Leadership
269
lobal c’nety llIltLtI’., (elk Cr11. clVer fuel
vet ly md the tifot dthihty of
wrpy
1rh1isiilcss
111(1 tiit
\‘itVlIl! levels of tolllIllltllliilI iitd .1101)1)1011 of iiu)trti,itioii.iI
;Ittll<1s in d<
I-It;
Siibs1t<ii ( oiin(ii Reseltitinhls
(eIltllIi(t
to cndor’cc a ioossive
c hiii:itc iIitiic fioIiCv, hot ilicit tolic too
IS clc’cidtdk
(UtiOlls. lhcy place a SItOilp cnipliiiis Oil tift OVc1tIdlIIp
I
iptrOivc of ((0110100
rowtli, on
tile
ICed to iflotcl Meituleet States flcsuhiluty m ,l<Ili<-viic’ eliin;I(c
IiIl1(
IatiçetS,
:111(1
(iii
tiIc
II Ilpoi1ilkt
pt0teeti)
I’ititclii
itcitistric.
%ailis1 the ttsk of cailion lctktic. Iii a siiinlii cclii,
I lie 21)14 liii gum
Council
csoluitotiouiaLoiiereiit kiiiopcaii Utuioit
imc’mgymttdLliiiitte leIi’’tiiIclcT
ores tlt.tt LU poles’ sliotild ensure ffordihlc c’neriy poe cs
:iiciiislrI.II coiiipcl;
vencss
SeclilYty <if supply
tmiel
iCIlICVCitiCOt of
0111
chlill3l(
aIIiI (IiVitoIiiiIUIlt3l
‘h1ecuves. (llinitc’ intl citviomiittcut;tl colIcc’rils ate ptc’seiit, hot their list plice
Ositioll betrays a Ll(tof)c:Iii (ottittil elispositlolt
1 itt
lppc’mr. mole pIc-o(clIpccl
‘ih ecoiionuc thait ciiiIi;Lc leicietsitip.
ftc siiccesshil tuticItisicili of the Paris
ecreeiiieit
it the end 012(115 (015(11 5011W 1esut%c’iice cit ci(iliiisiisil( for (he LI
I
rang
lip its <IlIlkite clullic :uiloiIs beyond estiblisId 202)) to 2(13)) t;irrcts,
ut litole coil—dc’peitdeitt McItftcI States sticli
IS l’nI.iitu ieee stated tlic it Iiiio
iltelitioti not to o iiIr)liti titan f)1e\ ously ipreed
ItS cniicietc tel
its, tue 1.U (0(111(11
its itidoisud
t 2)1%)) ieiltSVli)lC5 huge) (II
7 per cciii,
iii uiIery cfrcic-ilcy po;ei ciP 3)) pet
ceiil,
nid
iii o’ir<ll
c
utissicot
e cluction taipeI <if 1(1 P<’ Cr11), with 13 per cell) Ic (111< tools fir
cc lots covered by
111550)115 ti,tdni
- Altliti15ii
efIcively
icsS pOli h-taint; iltin ilic 2(12)) tirpets.
ins is still
iii itihitiotis tectlci
/ct the
It on
hitters
clinitte
1 liinçc hctc’ti
:
2
I te o]clc
e
(\4c nihc t
t itt s ttid
t ilnilhlic
i
of the
0)51
))) 4
I U
11(1
11)11
I
Ic
I
iott in
I
ti
I Ok i typic iiiy c \{tIcSS
ISO <in
p1 dc 1(11cc
(UI
lii 1110 ceiiif) 01105111
I lStCtic c 011
dr lOt oc ty
it the
mciii
t on il
ic iii
(<u lilcic
USe 0\(i III iic1 i)ot
ii
et, hi
Ii Ic Vc]
of 0 itintI ii fir
utility
tiC1 0 s<iltitc
P
Usc
ntc 15< OLlcui to
ivtet carbon ied.i”e
these c:irentllsttltees dci
lot tiecessarily spell the cud lot I U
Innite eliaiipe le:tcIeislip, hut thee ccr1 only represent a Cnilstc!cralsie chitIleilit
the c/i I/rut
oh / cudei hi1’ I
c mpIifrr’
lit case of / t’l i/O/i
viatoil contrihiitcs ioproainmiteiy
P<i
Ccl))
IC) plohh (-(
emissions md its
hare is haicuectedt to rite cive
on
lhe sector WiS
101 0tcldlcc(l iii the first silte of
he nitssoits .110010 Systctti (il’S), the EU’s itluiu CO ciItSsioiIs r chuiUoii
lstmilieuit, bitt was ad<1-d iii tie 200<)
IlteliclileltI IC) tie ETI), svllli
t I1e t loin
3(12. ‘the Lit) xc ill bc ana!y51ci in incite detil itt -ther in the cit;ipte’ htit, for tIn:
ti-poses c tlits ciisen.seul, tht- icy huts are titi’ %dloxs
isp.’ tom
1)11
onwIici,
-ny fliplit 1inims’ in or deartitp ironi tile
orciieaii Utticeit
was tc’ct(l;tedl to
;tltcgc.iIl
:eencul Loiichisioies 2)1,2) Much
2(111
hUCC) 7/I
II I&CV
I CO
1-) 1k 2
CONCI I,?
Ste t-uropc
ii lie Iiuiue’iei
tcsoltitit,e
i 2.3 tune 201 Ic On Cur reiuwahlc encr(p pntgrc-
repoti (2)1)11)20;) IN)
1
IC Ko.c ‘RIbs
Ne
it
I
‘lot i-U I
(tell
cc Anu)neii fin 2(i.’elC.


270
Climate Change
stihiiiii eiiiissitiiis ,iIloWillteSi(
tile rite tif
0111
.lilu\t,illI
c’
I
1011111
ut ()
tiiitotl tI11iIlii’ (lit
uiiiiiuy. iiçiilit.iii(iv, ,iiluv\,inCtS WCII leelell
ui the entire
IIIitiit,(i(((ttllIVI0t iliCCiIii’ lOHstlt.i(Ii.ippt’tillliii tiiigic’iiiiiisp.ue Iiitiiestiri
lij)
V1.1FS, up to i—iS
ii
teili ol illiiviiues
510(1111 hc’ liiiiileil to
1111011’S ItCC
1)1
liii
‘t’,
lilt
1)5 (‘I
(H
it
ill
liii I1’,isliii
(ei(eii(U’C
55(1111(1
I11’(’11
1(1
[it’ j)[ii(IiiSe(I
iilii us
lilt1 In’
lIt Cl
it
ill
ii Jiiii’ Iti
I
it
Lii
11111
iii
(
ui
ii iissiui i, thet
SeCT e
.iitcit Iv
‘ohji-t
(0
liii
ul lOt
5
[151 iii to iiis
it
Cli iV.ilci it
iii [lIlt
tI
lie I,
)
tiei1,
ol tIn
II il0iiii,iiluii,ii .5 l,ilitiii
,iilSetl
.1
Ii)I).il titiltiy
Ni iii
‘
I
Hill
I its Vol diV
iii,it ‘.1 ti1 .!I.i( I lit 551 III
tilt \
S,I\V ,iS.I liii VI
itl\V,ii (I
IIC,I\’5
il.iiilh(I llIli[.(tC.(Il’iH il lit Iiiili[tl.iii iliiiciii. Ii W,lS.li’tic(l iIi,0 .iVhitl()H
Ii
II
Hi
It
& Is lit
H Ii
11111
I
tli&
11th
1011)1 itt
I
11151
ii
55
iS
I
It I
I
It till
I
liii
it 1(550)1(5 ll lilt (
Ii
II (‘(SIll
S Hi lilt
Set till shi )HI&l he icltipteti ritci
Hit Hill ilk
It ill lu citti
ii
is Hill Ii (lit
104)11 t
oi
lit lot
HIll 00
1 (
is ii Avi ttioH
)i
tiil/ ((Hill (t At ))
I
1i
I U
S
H (liii
Ii It
Ii
1)11
H ill p
ci
1 At )
pit to
Ills
Ill
I)
ni
((ito
Illtlli
IC
I tint
lu
j( / 11n11 ntl
ti
It
ioilt
u
10
i
II till
i
II
it it
it
hi tilt
ill
I iii
iii
I iiiii Iii
It
I il
(1111114i11
It S
I
cntjtlil to
tolitili unIhinlls
out
iott
wilt
i
tot
i ito
lii nnh O
tilIsSitIlls tiiiiii Iitdi
t clotriilittw’ ‘(‘((itO,.
I Iii- .1501100
11,1(111
55.15 ltilIlt
oh
11(111 chpIii.inC
hid Ieii loin.
he t\il
I l.HlSpI)iI Asstit,iiioii ot Ante it, thaifen’etI the pI.iitieil
HtTtiCilieul,itlt)ll utile
It1) .ienititni
(‘011015 helcirt the Lrtislt
t(IIIIt, ,iltiIil
liii smut
lie E’Tl’
ititVisloii’
I tilt iii
‘, ((1 ,l\’sit’tiii 55 CO
Ii liI.i\\ liii, Si) Sell C ito’
0(1)1 0i1iilH 1II1)iCiflCilt
lii
tIie.isiire-.. A iCriIillilH.irs; ret Flilti Iti iii
I ilrope.lIl
1 owl III }osllte ollowed.
It ,iiliIitsecl tltc
t,iItt
ol the
!‘i )
Ivi,ltitiil
)tct’ l.itui’
iii
Gt,lltc]
liatohe
T&’SIlItiiH’ (ii tint’ ttt iitt
Hitt,t
‘iitldi1Sltt’1I t )‘U mlii
1)1 tile p.1st tli’i.IiiCS.
Case
:6l ‘0 Air Transport Association ofAmerica and Others v. Secretaiy
of ¶.ate for &ner]y and i/ru 1
Chinqe
Cuse C-3ttfl/lO
firmed toe t’cJ.lte of the C IL) ‘uitt
uvI low
In csi Ii
its dot sior, he C Id
CI C hurnbo
‘1
1
the compatihl Of C a
via)
pros
on
with the Chcacjo Coe’en ion on IOu’
1’ cmtl Civil Avu on
the
Kyolc Prc.)IoioI; ht Open Skes Aort’ iwiit; uric’ vunot.is ncims ot ‘ole wilt
I comu
iw
Tot
Cliv qo Curvorit O, 0/hiC flioStly i’ctuLies dC(C
to
dli 1fdtl
to
ippot
tic qiotI 1dt( 1
Of dVldIitfl
wus
ltd rot to hino the
non because is cqnutor (‘ to the iVlitsht Sttitf inslcsd iii the
EU itself unit ton lhuiflht t SluRs’ poew In the context of the Convetutc
had
not been trartsterred in their entirety to the EU. The Kyoio Protocol wu eli
lIi
quickly dispi nsc d wlh
ulihough
irwnuivocahIy huiding on the
EU
its
° lonne Siolt
lIltt Ilvinyd
i&.ijnttiiii, ‘EU
C lirii;ik
( h.int’e
idilI,Heicllsin’ (.10)2)
I liiStj)i’iu J)t)iiiil vi It. ttiHll.IliltiI 1_nv 40) 4t)t
1)
1St’ t
— 3(it. itt .ltr ‘I )aelptni
ls’rii
ilittI: v/
11i0HC,) iiid ( itO I
V. ,Stt liii)
t/ SSi(t’ lot lint t
nil I
/111101
./itl)1’’i
2111111
C It 1—1 37i5.


I Iii Cha
I ci ige of Cl imdte CI
I ige tc,i dci S
1
271
iii
lii Iiiiiil
ill!
\si’l
[iclil
It)
1)1’
iiiii!Iiiii’iit!1
[iliil—’
iiuil
hIlt (111)111k ii Id! 10 1)-il
ii.’l
lii
In’
ii t
-t
ililIlil
ii
ii
K’ ill
ii in C. 2bb/i0 il,
ii
Ic, We (Iii
tti4’s/\lIii’i’irii’lP(dnIlItllt’piIli(i1!Icui(iI i(iiliiiyllliiliflutlolllIldV’ IIit’liiiicii
‘ci 111,111 Vt Iih!’irdKr((illIi lit
iti iti’Iti’t’ii
Ii” El ,iil [IA
II
I-
c’llijils dti( rift
11101 Ii’iiii
1,10’s llittii”, lie
stilt1
I liditi’
1 ((tIlt
llIi,ilI(’iiill ili5it c’iiii,
I tiu dll(iVt’,ilii to ilid iiid
tirititut
a liii
cilteiliiçllil
td lilt were. their
tote,
1(11
iiiqlit lt (lii’
hf’t Iris ilidil! iih
it.
his is, trqicihlv, a
1,11mw it-ti liii
ii
lit’ iiithiiliitittii all the
111110
,t’ dliii liiiuiit Int’l
(iii (lifl[itil)li ciHi
tIlt
P
it
t 0)/ I it liii
iii
iii iiLtl ii tij II 0 (lId! -ihltiw
11
1 d
H’ thi 510j1 It’ll
11
ui
ii itt
iii
hl’It’IlhtiIiIt( dllildtIOfl
lOt
1jijtu,’
Up
lie
I
Sill itt liIoin5iiy nOt riilitiri ii
law, lhieClFCJimtognrsit thediptlt1tilIjtyclt hileplIll(i)IOSit(,ltt’,l(l
it inpitte ditch
xcjct’
j
i
Oflipt’hi’iao Ovet
It’, own iuiaci, thd no
intl
ttji’ct iiy pail
cit Wi
Hicjh OeM to
IS St Vl’t’i9ncy;
(Ilti die
-1 elLiott of
Ii ‘‘doll ovei the
I ugh
t)1(t,
I-It
t ‘c/f
I
givt’rl the
I geiiI
‘I lidlille,
ji diii!
ow \Vd’ limited to a
error
i-i
tin
I IC)
ivi,ittotl
VI- Intl
5dy cIt
nd thi’ luiiclli’
Ii’’ i
I
io
j’
iii ted th.it dii’ i0VISl0fl
It it Jilt i,ilt must OihhOi bi id oi (ii detail
10111
ill
iii
it ii the Eu to bc cnughi
bV hi’ [CD, w[lewcl’ ph]IICS
lossIng OvOl it IC
Jhi EU cit JCi’ ,it(l U tilleet”’
COri,titUtiCct
1
i fhcu’i
I ciitflcC)i)Ii to the W 1l’iIlfilI)/ 10 Jipi
I
0iiCVlfl’, of
Ii ,itnl clInt itity rtfld WIll li(gelflt’flt of Ii umd
i iItttIIl V
MV! 10191 ll/.
I tie Li’i),ivi,iiiitil
11(15 Sbus 11111111011 Iii! i lithietnu jsiivcd
ieit tle,isnie ti’cive
‘ .
lu
sclioliirriop
( oiiiiiic-in lIe!’, hive ptticci nOt m es cry ,iri)cai, 0 stiItin iii hod
,i
-Si
I re;iillS of
i Inihumsftils oil issties
i ,iiiin
coin tIlt rules
primbey between i’t
I
nd nlierIIaIuillll Ito’, lIlt’ iiii.It I tii
mile it
ihiij tiii nilerpretiflulls ut 50001-
ii.
‘-Ignty,
lit
IllieeIi
lull heis tell nitiiiii,iterah ;nid unil,itt’r,il ,dVllO,i0iOS to ejllii;iie
1(11011 nit die idt’tl(l its oUIiIleeiiii;ititiii titicler tile Lii), to thc t’uillll itituIit ot
lie E’i’i) ssltli World ‘I rich’ ( lri,lil.y,tlnnI (WI ( )) lao
11 Yet iii terlils Of seLtilli!t
tic
dispute
iii ilk tel i
i
i
intl
111111 III
c inn ill iu’,,
( ‘ace
(‘- tt(i/ Ii ss
s Iii
Ic s’
S Wetiot’.
I ititi,tily huoyt ci by
Its vu toy, lilt
- 111(911 Ii) ( t lill]1S’,iOil 51W tIle L(
itiIill!
IS
Ill 199111 tc.nItv lii pi’c-ss its .itIv,llitaie (ill
Iii
lilt’ ii,itifili ii stjie intl i sill 101
‘(nOn tniclc’i tilt’ It Ji( 1, ‘t ,ichheti tli,it ,niy ulJstnn
tilt iib,il,tiil,lb ,I9ec’ilelii slititdth
‘‘C) h_-yniitl
tiit’
t’iiiissioiis
i’c’thtietioiis
rustiIill1l
(1(1111
tilt’ 1lS
1(11— thit’
,iVl,ltlClii
‘I OVISlOilS Ill hit’
I I ) to he sitspc’liclc ti
Nt’ei 111,1111 hiS thcl
111th
ci
I c’stUlW tiliult’l
1110 JLA(
hut
si I
tilci
lilt’
1,111 iih,il’lllll(
.1
1111cm the Il’s.
SOllit’
iVt 11111 tills,
‘lJ Artwlis lift) intl 2(c) Air
I l.liispuri it It’h
SkIes) AOrc’ili-lil, (iJ 2(111
C 13-i’1
St t op. Soul
mci I1.lJ,illl.htil. ‘(1110,111
1
I),Iil’’e t 1lllI,li(-l,lilsIIi
An
I IC-Ilopt-Il, ‘Soc crc 1(11(15
as I )ec 15101111 llhdupt-lldc’lhc 0 ((VII
I )tmlt’stlt
1,11,1)1
C lit- I); ,,ni,’ over Ac 1,111011 III tilt EU
Emlsslolls
I
i id’lll’ SVsl’ In
(Jti 12)
1(2)
Ii,hllsll,l!I,’ui,l/ I ill’llitllllii 111,11 Inn
251
lilt
5,1111,1
iitptijt’c It
-
i t’!llhISlIll iiiVIilulIllit’Ill.II
I c’htlt’lStlIp
I
121
I
Il’li)hiriI if I’hli’l,lfllliI,’i,l,lI 1,111’
110
Itt,, CecIl
1)1
that-i’- ,nci
C tdrlu
13,s’ie’,i, II
‘ lilt’
I
i
I
Ilhi(’’IIlcaul
Ill All
I I,iI).iIt
As-itt 1,1101) 1)1 ,‘\llIt ill
I
ilId tIlt
llltl’rn,Ht,)(l.li I (‘‘It ( Ollt’’\l
1)1 the
I
‘s ( 9nli,Itt
(11,10)10
Poiiu’’ 2n 13) 3 I iI)1’(’Illi 1
‘it (‘‘II
- if/llhit kt’)’li’)i’ iSP
Ill.


272
C!iinatt’ Change
lit Iiitinii
In
US WhiR’
I h tist
md the
( hniese tveiyniient,
nitintietl
I heir
lhiuttiial
:niinies lilt to suirendet
ilkiwanies,
mci cvt ii prepnecl Ie,tsl.itiini to
ttntliw participation in the EU P15. ihey Ippioniteci tVleinber States nidividietily
nitl cnihisiseci the pcitciitiilly d,iint’mt
i h
1:1’s t
tiadiiip
itlitiotis between the countnts \Vithin less thin ttitt veil ttltlie ( )*Jtlidgnteitt,
i.ickshi.itLippeaitdnitIit’ Pits litici tile
st.ltitt
nit!, ,iiter rtiltitinre
iobl)yitiby
lie i )K.,
id lin-e, in Cite 2(1 2 the Eniopeni
K ollliiliSliOii [0105Cc! tO
skip the
lcitk on tin’ tnipIeilleiittttoii ol tile PH)
tVtitioli it)VlSIONS Vlsxn-ViS
Intej iiliitt
ii ilit)lllS, i itdii’, tie
ittilltttIlS lot
iii lilt
icititotiti
i ieiinetit cinder the
RAO. Vbt tutu tliiet yta laiei,
iii IGA( ) poiooti d
his tided etnen,ed.
It IS, iiovc’vt’i,
,t
Xlii
Sli,1(It)W tiUlit’ Ills initial itipnlttloll that
niy niteriladclnal
iteentelit stioold eXt etti tile El’!)
lViItitiit [hitS shuts in nitbiton.
lie proposed
irbtni
K )lhettiti:çSelienie
ui lnteni,itioital Avi;itioi (K ()5A) ssihl resuire ,nrinies
0) nllset (i),
t tinsstitil
litnn 2(1
ii)WtVei,
)ttiniini,liy
i Clint iii
IllS been
used
I c
UcItlC tht
St 111 tl(ilc V ottiit
tiOpttSt(l itenlit, Wh tb (tOutt b1 hnnnered
by
iii overly
tiFiiOSiVt
nittiptt’LiIltiil ol seliut ;nutonii[s
iii
oIISitlcti,
lot the
upws 0! eiunssinns tetitxtioi, mo a generous ipproith to c’;:ciill)tcon provided.
M)l-enveu, !ttet)ibt’iXntp ot l ( )Xl1\ nay iiake It tuittt’nlt or ecitilittles to
epare
Stir on lottie utnOitictis reuioiiH
lle,lsuies to Luekie tnhfSSiollS.
lilt’ P15 ,iVl,ttioit Sli nib r.
iseinating tusights nitt) the powei- mid hittirs ol
Inhale chntgc tiw. OIl the one hind, the CU’s d1t isbn to regulate aviation
nuissn)iu.s tnt
tutd
i tonI
1)! t’VelltS that
txnidlee tlit thtruii,ntt ICA() utegotit
tIOli strntRtR auiil ‘s’ilI piolsibly iestilt in an ntternational a’Oa’t nictil till
iViitlOti
eiiitsstoils. its tc)I]tent ittiy
ill slioit cii the Ill’s ispititiolls, litit it
t i)ttIFi constituti
a illc)te scistilnabic basis
or tirthter (eVeloplflelit thiil were the EU’s cunilatri;ii
ittlOiis. hit’ eXperuent
(
ILl) stows that luw uieeds illOie tilill ;tttiiei;lt ioprob
0011; it
ieetis to be rcctnised as l;iw[iil and lIgitililIle in the broader citiiuntlumti
RI SUrVIVe. lht GJbU rcuiitug did little to ehanee tIle heits and incuds of third
tInnitry
gOVetiilhlLiItS,
intl
WaS 1tit,ittttt ly nttstiecessiii
Ill
iltSIiIItli)g the El)
,iviatmli sehtlne Icoitt
tirtlieu ttck. Hoaiiy, tile teveit)pn)ents ol
rc Lent yet
u
vvutily tlIcIsi:r.te the tulilpiex dyn;niiics between ni[ernitntii;ii alici
iltema. cli
mite leadershIp
the PU’s decIsion ‘stop the elntI
on the tnternitioiid apple
Unit i5 the hiS roles appeased Its tliteniitn)llai tuading uXurtliers, htit exposed it ti
the
r;th of EU budget airlines which went’ still caught by the LI’S rules
hid
iOttfltl themselves
it a cc nt’aektVe dsCIVlIIt ige vts-i-vms thtrd eonlitly airhni
iii its ehunute ehange’1oliey, the EU bust
ii
Vi ate betwt’eii the p;thills it
nnc]iter;ihislll oii the (Nit’ hand, alid leiding by excIlipid on the other.
See It M I 1)ralt A’sciiuhiy
&c
cdtit 011 k’Xt 1)11 a GE ,it,tl Market -based Mt’ton e (GM (5
St hi’nic,
us itt
I Mirth 2t)ltj, ivulablc
it
wwwttcntill/MeI’lilllK/(tA1 ls—2016/f)it,
nih’llts/I )r itt5t2(tAsscnblytS201&esolutionict20lcxi’St2uicn°t2t)C%ViHfVitit,2OtortSt2t)20t It
tIC 1/\i Rpdt
IC.
Siuitctti Itituehi
‘lnicutlitttnti Vt-b
I ttnld
I )tri! Usc’ itt It_i 115 ftur A’ ennui’, EN!
1 tt!t’ftt
,
(Ft
.‘ t,t
lt 1(1


The Scope of the Climate Change Challenge
273
The Scope of the Chmate Chalige Chaenge
(liiit,tte cliiiit’t- is he
hilt] ciii lullioit causes. (
erLilli et Olioiflit sectors (silt Ii as
eleeritity teiitratiun, lle.ivy iiitiitsin,tl 1
lilt (loll, traiisptni) are t’\tt’plcoii.ilTi
heavy toiitiihuif ors, hut e,trlniii dt’pciidc icy cliaractc’i;ses every opt t
I of our dail
work, ofiioss
v.’e spetitl nm
come tiiiie anti oi;iitise our ]hiiiily life. Pievitici
t,l It,
tittisittits al-c otticli more titan a teclliit)lcHitii tlt,IlltilIe, they
lIt’ ito
toiiscc1lleiitt’ i1 in eilcllt’ss \S’t’h of niterettonc etc’d ecoiionnc nid tulttn,.i choices
Any sii’itiiihIt rcNill.itOty ieN)ttnst to thU iisks of clitoite tlitltpe must therekre
Tice lii) to 1)0111 (lie uopreteclentecl scale ,incl tile nearly hocnicilcss NcifW 1)1 tIn
thailti iit,
‘the
sc eot:ollai stilt’ not o tipe i\]ititii
A niimtit’r itt pioniiiieiit f
itches of clu
LUs puverlinlee repitite liar elnitite chanc’.
i
t:tntitcntlly, the Lolunlissloli
added the post of Eiiiope:in
C tcnnltisslooer hir ( liniate t\etioit to the roster iii
20W, ,tiicl sirtiiohcnc’d tilt (oniicicssioii’s tthitinisir,itive hr:tiicii sVit.t tht’
dcii
Loll oft
I )ticc(oi,i(e (ential htr (1 niatu Actitot (‘1 )(
(1 Os/iA’). flu y take tile
eat] in
I lit’ dc’s c’lopnietit of cinitati
e!ianf;e uroposai.s. Howeve’, oivcn the d:l1isc’
impacts of eltittate
eiitii;’,e,
their work
ettiires ex(eitxive nivolveinent with
brttitl ralt]e of otlit t
C citttiici’cstooers and
irecttc AttN. iiclctdiii2 those respiul
uTile Ito ctivlroiioietlt, Unerc’y,
iiterhlai market, irailpori ,teaeulturc. ftsltetyc.s
Intl
colt.
I it
e(oIi,ttc’ clitti itianci:ite thins it piest itt
iht’ (Ot1i!illSSlOhl’S :rc tIe’ I
test of :olc’t
tic ptrttitentil eoopcratioit tO orcilc ctr:tlccol.
‘Ilit’ nntltl i,ois,tl it;itmiic’ of chni,itc cltance is aisci icOetteci in ilie et:thuislinent
ofL*J cinoate cli;nie Ii r’c’
, intl tIn rni’c oi lu
ii nistrtitttots
llie I:Us ch;iniie
c iii
c
Ii lii
ui 0t]
)OiNllc
olili
ition (ill (liii
I out
If) rt
1
till it thOl liii
i
In ( ( )
ciiii
oiis
i sliih tccss’ncls )7
ccitt of flit
I
]
t iiti
11cc (is Tic n
mc t Ii too it
ic s iNc cat
y sciui cc
intl
i
0) p
Ct lit ctii nit
I iii 01 iii t itt
eieleiiey.
the hiodnif
ilstrctihie Its to steute thesi’ togets nc;tlct: the (Itnitti
and ]ni’ry Pac k,i’e Wit very nanit cikwlnchi ailmcles to the enifiposite natclie of
unto
it it ti)
tilt
I ut
I
I flit IC liC
I tO
lilt
1 host of
sciclition ii
105)1 nnic ills
covenno
i toitiitornlt’
tliti ittiotiin of GHC ciussitiiis
tr;:llSDort
cod
ftiels
]uoiso,iiccl
culsc-S
ilol li’c’sts
nitl
iiliiirc.
‘lie main
c oilipoitell:s of O
I
eluniate ell:ni’c it’! iasl;tticiii arc’:
-
his Uim:tu and Energy Package
The EU Et/sso’cs Trad,nq .vsrt?rn (FT51
ti ecdve
.000/3//t(._
c
utTiuisho
U
a
cherne or cit’nnhouse gas
50)1500:)
tltowrc
tteditig withu
the Comntuim[y 0] 2002 L 275/32 CEiD]
Dttet:ttve 2004/101/ti ccIabfehtnq a
chieme 101 t
a hC)uo gas nnttsstoi
tllowancc trading wtthi
t ha Common. y,
tt luspeCi Of Ihe Kyotti P 0-oCul’s
irojEci mechanisms 0]
ADULt t 130/18 çLnl tog Dttec Civii
lnropc’iit (cuincit Concltoittto ?t)2t March 2ttl4, [1.0(1 7/1/74 RtV
I di) FUR 2
(1 )N(
I I?.


274
CHmiie Chaiig’
if et,m 2008/101/H
ariiiiicliiin
I etivi’ 2001/$7/[(
so as to
iii liii I
ma Uon ai Ovi I es C)] 2i]t]9 C 8/3
DireCtive 2009/2O/FC amending jr (I iv 200 1/87/EC so es lu iii4HO\/c
III
extend [he
I r idin
schen
0] 2009 [
1 iO/b
7âo Shrjo
Decision aIt6i2O(8/t C on Uw ci Iol of iVcnibei Iat e. to mdcii e their gi ceo
hocscçj:,
:r ission ; to neet tIm Cocrnunitj sqi
iiliousu gas emIssions 0 do
1100 COc’mlii
let e up to 2020 0) 2009 C 140/136 (C hurt Sharing Derision)
Rcnr ‘ifik Eaerqy
Dii cc üve 1009/?;]EC on the pron iotinn of the use of
letqy [tom Cl newabi
snaices O.i ?009 L 1 10/ 6 (Renewable Energy Diieclive ni RED)
Caaoea Gipur. and 50r iuc (ccs,)
Diici[iv
p0(19/lU/It
on
tic 31olncjlt
I oricj
ot
t irhon clioxirk’ Ut 70(t’
I 4i )/i 14 (C C S )iec dv)
Energy Efficiency
Directive 1012/27/EU on energy ethciency 0] 2012 t 315/1
r
Ghg Montorinq and Rear C
ilcqcliiton (EU)
H)Cj )Q
3 on a
ri ebetism [or rnoniloiino and irportii
grnc 0) flUSC gi IlflSsi0n5 and or trpotirig othi
ii lormanori at tiitiotuil ui
Union level relevant to climate change 0] 2013 t 165/13
Transport and Fuek
Dim
t
1 9qC19./EC relating to the
iv ihtiICv of
i orisumer rifornitici
on
helm 1)11
1
V arid CO cmissio
i
in respect of it1 a Caing of new pa;;imi
cir Ut ifl1 [12/16
[i
Jit
lOOP 0/EC amenclinq Directive 98/70/IC as regard. the Per ii
tion of pee )l, diesel and gas-oil and intrr clLicnC a mechanism to monitor and
ricuce et
i
house ge; emissions OJ 2009 L 140/88
.5J.fECa Gases
Reouletic
if
) No
8’] 1/2006 on (gertain fltiorinaied gi ennhouse gast
01
0O6 C 161/1
Forests aud Agniulture
Derision Ni ‘CC,ft 3/EU on act:ouiipflq iijir on cicruin use gas emosions
and
ii
a teal
esultino tiuni aitivities oIaIuq to and
ise land use haij


It eiwwihi
E nt’igy
275
dflCJ ltiiti l(5lOhiIiLt(iIiiitI(iICOilC(iiLIIi(IICtIOIi5I(IriIitiCl tOilo’;EiiliIiv
ij 71 3
1 6518()
AS niciitiniiecl
.1111(1,
1
Liii tliS lission ot
U iiiiiiite
liiiii
iSV Wltlilii
lie
tntiiits iti
ins one
ll.ipiei his itet nine a Fitiii il tinj
ssciiiiit. Ilits
itiihii
Oil f)(iIStS on thc. l&elltW.titlt Ineigy
I )irtt livt. which
is t\iiiiiiletl in
reJter
ttail in tl)e next section,
iTtI the L IS.
I lie niiin
tiirpt ‘sc
itt
ic nut ineil it
oxes ibttve is to oiler a st;ntun
point mi lnrthci nitltIIlV and to convey a cncr;iI
OSC 1)1
lie eflitiniItV of
lii cliuixitc rliaiiue iiçcliclci br Icisv nid ftitilitittU.
jmate (iia(}g? as a W&[iLeveF Governrit:e [Jiiaerte
[he Exampe of Reiewab}e Energy
.iiccesslcii tiutiltit
t Iicnc’t
ihcitcntrttt ptthcies lccptltr Itiitci.ttnciitiI Sc iii
hiii;u
mriiictiuis hiiisiiitss
is cistiti suit1 toO st,ihthisc
çltth.ii (
I
sliliSSlonS, hUt ‘viii
isreatl propti
cot letS’ io\5nclS
Chictiiiatic
ttIltptritilrc
hikes oh I
to 0 clerecs
elsicis hy 2P)0, Iti beyond the titaxiunhitu 2 tictçrces’ rise
irtulcl by the l’,iris
‘Screenirnt1
I (cute the uutissicttt 0) itt chni.ite tli,tui’te huH
itloti laW is lot (osi
o ljlcVctut tlticriolttltii hut
Lit
lctsteu
lilgc-Si.ulc
C oulVciSlohi in hose cnn’
is
oureccl
nittm tIepioYCd iii btisnitss nil
ui the (h)fltc stit lc’Vc I
uc loss the U (Iiun,itc
laflue itt ion
clhullius
oVutilnielits to icilinik IutfluitisilicSS IS uloite nid c\’cn li/it!!
LiSihiuSs is done. Suiitcsst ii itilphcnicnuutitm \ iii hIVe a nuep
opuct oh
a \\ ide
no tiC uloniestic
pt)iit t(, (toni ttiIitsttiuh ptittV
iTO
i!hiOi!I!
to tohirisni, ti,iclc
id even chebeiitc
hiulcech, die totentcll httipi
t ol LU chiiiu.tte chnuic liw is tiuto h
tunic
ictite
nit1
iiituiisivc’ th,utt
it
iS
ni
ni’
othiur nea ttl
ti
thhviuoili]Iuntii
oVciiiuttte. tlui’otpiisioclv. the ticptti of diet uuittcchunechuciiieni’eiuuic’iitcut
onteins about die
‘dclii lit whit ii LU
.1W cittules lit ittiihl so\ ci
i’ntV nil hinti
overitilients
iflhiit
to
rcpiesehlt
utiti
inlet I (lii
rOiltiti itS
catch
ci ononnu
iterc Sts. [I_I chniiute chiil]cte kiss’ lutist tlutrttoic
t:i-letinu a thihtcnlt h)uluilc till
ct of henutt uroictivu
nit1 iesohiitt shift
it tb
satuic thiuue tlcihfc nil tespetUcil
if national thbltcencu.
u’:enewable Eneigy Policy in ile EU: Iecondiinç /Furopein t.nthition
411th tIation,I Eiffeientiation throctgh i’IuEi-Levd ot’em’nce
iU lass’ nit1 ttlit v ft
i:chtiic
ti itwuile ehueruV sonic u’s
hptlv ihlcisir utu
liLt depth
tb tile
c lnn,itc cliunc
hthit Illt
intl tift political anti leiuI tensions iii Its
55 itt
he EU ht.s conuniltteci to tnu;ut,lse thu
hire u)i teneWihit
ciltigy (. I) in tilt
iicri7V nnx to 2)) pci cent h 202)). anti 27 pci cent isv 1tiIH In
utunpcire
lie ovu till RE lucite iii tilt EU27 was H.7 pci tent iii .)t(l
“ Ac
turding ici tllc
t-Ieyviert. ‘f ttvtruttnt ( luuuuiit
i Ii.tuuue H 17.
ivltujtJu Bunt, Nit tiLue St uriti. Fuhi
I\loittrn
I
‘ ritno nid Jcuuu-Fiuittois
I )illttt;nttt
tLeiutss ihit Eners
(‘ut
ss nu t U t’, i tii
-
U2)t’
(ttlit/ it ctinIt Cuutirr Sntnt:/i
tuut! Pt’it y


27S
Climate Change
most
C
0111
10401e’S,
it
cOne mitly
slantis
it
tpproxiiti.itely
)
per
e’Ttt.
lie
(‘OOtilitiflOiit evidently represents
.1 size.ible shift
iii eiieliW P’°°
ht
shi.ii’c’ of
IZ I
has •ihiiit>st th)iihlelh
iii the
f).mst lilt yeais, and
it
tieR to e’xptfltt
Ijirlftem’ iii the tte\I tet] yeats to ec’l1 tilt’ iU on
.iet
Etc its 2(127 Int’l. It also
‘efmiit’i s
a
stiinht,timt dt14t’ee
of cic’hhe’ratr
imit’tvetiitott
itt the oiam’ket;
oittier
ttosnic”;s
a’
isii,tt
15,111 0)t:tHls, tOe’ sh.ii otl&t
in
9055 111111 e’tn’ny ettnttmoii
woilt! hiavi’ Ileen
‘enfiteel It) rise to
2.7 pit’ tent by 2((2(),5t
lien’ is sonic e.ttise’
(IF optfotisin rezardiog tile
HelslSc’ctS of 1&i iii itirope
lIe’ 1.1
1 is ninetahly (lit ttt I. to meet
Is 21)2(3 tar2
I
Mon over, the’ exp.nttiiiip
I,tttltit Ito
anti list’ of :&1’, ttiiy serve
more’ thait Meither State’s’ t’tivirtttititc’ittIl
Ittitten. ‘nicetitc’
)t)(ts,[ittaicttttttnt has ht’rtt
iii ;uw’teiiiytho toiefdition
(I) tt’tlllt itt (1 it
etuttsstotls, RE e itt ft.ilmic’ss etierw see ttrtty kid tO Jell) tt’c’,ltit)li
ft
,,
tttios’ttoti ttthtittt)95’s
lOti
ItliI)ttii’e cc 01)01010 conipetItvetlcss
these
arc’
hi hi
itt
ti tot
e
Ito
h1
ct titt
t to the
lb ii o
tin
is inn kt
lttt lit ci b
lilt ii
I tb)
itt poi tic
I
1 of tic
ii
tic liili
i
it
ii
j Ott S
iii
1 We UI
ii
II
It
flit)
ii sit
ii] tile
)ttht
stilt
ItS in ti
Mite Ii
tsl
1i sc pill tile tile ut)
t lien
in tt
tote tottst
ii
51
c ii if tt
t
t itt
I ttttick
Ii
lii
ste nt
tile t
Li Is ot thc
It Ii iii
tOOt lilt
I
t
I
I h
t
it
I,
1
ttt
t
Ic
It
tI
itt
1
I
t
Vt
t
e
C itt
i s it 0
the
I
i).tc’Lthiehiilp
hIlt ree’esslç)tt
lilt, ittIw
the
lily .iiitl stIll vtt’
1110,) ittttc’itaiIt
thallenres renreselitihi by [lie UK’s titteticled dc’ptrtttre II’t)tll th’ fU, have ntadt
e’iitployitn’iit .100 e ttmtlp<’tilmeeless tile’ lmte’omilrtsVtt I ble’
titOtitte ‘t WitilnI and aniuti’,
EU
,t.tte S.
“it
IhiLi I tell.)
lit
c’ilt’n:lEttti heiire’s
lilt1 ih
an,trtilt sytierEy
Ft’tv’tt 111’,, eIlert7y Sec cirity 0th) Cc e)Iielnltc’
t’tt\ttl
101151 3 loIre e’o;i’tie.eiehty.
hletEv pttitt’y in the ETJ ‘eei(ltre’s tile cue
i1 tllellesti.it0tI e)f lU 01(1 ttOtloitti rote’
intl
ii .ptostbdmtics to he able’ to ,leiljt.’vc
its ti’tpit
tt1it’e(ive 0!
1 ltttl;ttc chany
lltitII’ittttti,
e’licty
‘;t’eett’tiV atiti
e’eotiottiic’
t ompetittVt heSS, It
iS
.111
e’opresslv
‘3
example
Of
iliulteheVel
9lvetmattt;c’
ill aettem, alit)
,i!tist’,ites hoth
[ii e’ti’e flgth
ittel cilalletles th.tm c’ottlpLe
regimes lace,
Ao inlportailt eoilsicterilt0.1 here,
is tiilt
[hit ish br litilOvatitIn
iii enet,’
stllmreimlg ;lappc ns 10 0 market that was bi’trnierfy
i State
ticitonoiy and that sttlI
Rrpettts, Report EUR 2040 I (EN), 2(11 3, 7 ,.tv’.t ttl Ii’
ti 0 tp:
ut itt it
t’tti t)p.t.c’ti/remcshi
sit, i/t’c’tite’,t!flte/ii
3’tttCteSS
in en 27 20(ta 2tLt) otiiittt
hottptlt,
Lot Obsrv’
11,
‘110
Shut’ ttJ lt’tit’ttnib1t’ litteru’.i
itt
Etttvjtt’ (21)15
hIlt Ittli), as tibEt
ti
wws.’. ito obstrv’-tt nt’cI/ I 511) —,t rtn nal—nvul’vmcw—b,lroillc’tcr,
St
RliOi’ll’
I
It nt
t ititithItS ‘VI,tt7(ts,
,e’oiuRt l:trctcto,, Ntkotaos Itsios, Cur Kiassen
ttt,i
Toni Van frrt,ttid, ‘Aimaiys’ oftfie ktJ’ttdmey Rtc karc on Chtim;tti’ ( ‘liattc’ intl &,ntwtbt’
(2011) 39, I4trriy Itttlity
I 47t
I 4145,
tI 1177
Cnininmssion Rent’ W,thhe’ C’ nergy I ttogicss kt’port,
1 5] nttt 21)1 5, Cf IM (21)1 S)2t)3 final
Cnninimssmon Energy i&tt;telmap 205(1, 15
1 )t’t’enihe’r 2011, COM(2t) 11)1485 fitilti, 9.
I&ogc’t
liitllli4’ soil,
Jttiibnnt’s
Strpttic
and
Atietre s
Jordlo,
‘ P.,ctmtev,tbic’
Lout’
A
( ontlilolilg I1il;ni’im ig Act
In
Andrc’w
JortCm,
I )ave’
I ltniem.t,
1-I arm
van Ass
I
I itii K .t50t
tile1
11,015 lit ‘15)1 tOt
(cclii.),
C %ittiitt
C %itt’r Pttlit’y
tim tht’
I itmpt ott
tltte
I Ot’[ttttt/tt?”
tIlt
3 )ttttttt
ut
it/
Ahti,,i/tcii
tilt]
,:tltlttchlicct.
•
It ‘.itmiht”de
t tnivt’tiity
Itt, is,
21(11), 1014.
Viiniss,i Mor.,. ‘EU. l&itsi,t. I,,Oihflt’ to Mcci clii
itetg’ Sc, ltr:ty; (ntiS in Ucraio hs
S1nnktd I e’.mrs ihout the Setpplv tIt (IS it’ t’,tltOl’t
It tilt .SItr( Jt’it t,t’, 2’i ttcltlit 2014,
I


Renewable tnt’rgy
277
(01 U ipolist U
feat tires.
Moreover, energy is a
Uil)Il( pcicitl,
I tc ‘iippiv
ti toiiiiiiijit Oil of whit ii
ire pivotal to
tile Icini tionni
of e.ieli
colIntr\
moiily. ‘i’hese factors, totc’iliei with tlic need for enerty sc’c only, nic’.ni thai
re
clevelopIllelIt (if
iii ntern,’I tt.ikt for eliencty. whiIi isa key eOnll)Onelit of
‘he EU’s i oiiipe itiveness and 5rowth strat y, needs to be striientired as
1 ir,ichi,iI
ii ‘l’
P’ Unfettered Iiber.tlis.itioii may not tllle,iten ener
secur
I
ty hoot
iii LU peispeetive, but it certainly does so from a nttioli.il ponit of view,
as it entails
lie nsf that doincstii
eneigv sctpfdil’is will be oiitcoiiipetc’tf 1w
flp.lnlIes iii nei hbcnii’nit’ l.SU St,ltes
lit,’ th same token, the cctnloniic
,niil
tatet’it
illlporiaiice of
lie eiic’r5y seeto lilty
suppress Mciiib r Sttes’ will
ness to siti tip to iiuindatory t:trc
mci ilariilontseil
ipproltiles ttiW,iic
the
l))]lOIlt(i1 1)1 P. 1.
Moreover, the Ji]lpieiiieiit;tttt)ii of Ri
tarets is hilily ptditic;iIly sensiti Ic.
veil the eitc’igy sector’s
i c’itr.iiity
to
the eeoooi iy,
iiid the eonceii’r;ttech
iterests at stake, shifts in c Ileicty pohey repieselit touth political ehtalieiit,ex for
Semlser State povernilielits
I’hey
111Cc
to halatic e the sttoil’-tei-itt itoch often
5
eaI15Ccl cltsrttptloil caused by
c iii1fet ,(1 eoei5y ief5tilatiott
iiici support .iamst
lie lciiit
tent),
feneral
hi oci its of eilel5y
tllItOVSLioti. Unsust,iiiiable eiiert,
1 )dttctioll ittay still bc susta tint’, ioel coilitounites,
,iiid there
is
often
ito
aviotis
c ilolfseits.iilciil
hir then
losses ni tile
‘511111
I o
a
i c.i iii
I
etoltotIty
a
)lil,lrly, lot, I pttcsts .it,tiist fie
c tabIsitiiieit of
\,‘ittc power
iilst(fi,j’iC)ii
iitiit
bc
brushed
cdl
as
sit
e’15Ol)c’iIt
of
, not
i- toy hsc
iiiettt:tlitv
lM] Y si
bit t;te’ also
i c)ll’Seiit
serious
,tnt
IC’ ,,titli,ite
loiteerns
(1)1)111
e.to hens tilt
coSts
lilt: who reaps tIle lew;irc,s ;
tiv.rcttiiitiitsl
(1)11(0 itiolt.
010 this
tive,
J U cc’nesy,ihle etier’y stilcy can have sIinltfielitt unpIn
otis hw eiivitooiiietital josh
flits ecittstittntes a
irdier
actor c(tili’shic,ih,il’ tlic
t
5
‘ilopticin of’,’ltiotis and liuinioinseci Itf ta:’cts it the El I es el
‘itl,hci
thu (OUSt Id
i’nercw sect I’’
tilt, attrn csU :V ci
(ci
‘SL IC
.555” [tOO
xcessive ref t in e oii ldssil hid, but it clot’
11)1 neecssan]v litre [lielli tow,ircls
.
newables. RI’, c oni{wtes with other alte il;its’e cncrtv si ‘nrc es, such as shale as
ad 0th leai c’nert,’, ss lot Ii rc plcsellt
cli fd’nc itt
t mob
11:11 on ii
ifs
tic
ho nell
II)
occ’ty fiotti
.111 c’l(VliO ilent.il sc(speetiVc
an enerfy sei Iii iiv peiSpcc hiVe,
IS
till as a trowtlt uer;peetivc
‘he sttraetveiws of P. s.
i-c 1st
Sc’ to that 0111011
enew.thle ,tltc’ ii,ttlve iuel e1iery sources, cIt pc nds on
ii ,‘nt,
factors, lilt filch IV
I t.it.oi iii
c’ to psi ph y and
I
I id lit v of n still’’]
resci ci rees, the p
to cola r co
ieeds of the
t ounti
‘s ooiiti
itt ,ndnstric s atacl sc vii c’s
tistoic l cii” i lo’snic
it
nid even cultural pnfcrc’nc i s.
i.tncc’, lc
e ,r).t)Ic
, is well known
r lcnikint
‘.6 or c \.U!ljlli’, inertly oipiiti’is ire c!’jftit
It. lii on
iCi l’Ss io tto’ Itnict. .i phvsit ii nt’isvort, ol
tt,lUSllilS’Ittil Iiiii’s, st:hi.ti,n’,, iriiis5tlll
soil niOti
111,11 illiSly
1
‘i Wi itv iront (hi
I
iilini 10 C’llterpnsis intl hoiisuliotcls. ici cttidtu I dir it
‘ ;ldni;so
I c’t al, ‘Rent’w,hle :hicrtlir’., Itt
(‘iiniitiissioji
I aic’igy {rt.dni.ip
‘Stt
C ‘I let (.1(1 t
t Ott
fin ii
I 10 V
I Ill hen M.oIdo t
-
Ri’spoitctin
to the
1tnvate Rt’’ni 111110 of I )ssi’nt
(1110:1k
C hut
‘
Action
Pttpuli
liii
I
(lOt I’ P ifii tO
ItttcSt (2t0.ti ‘at) fI’IInUIII a! LIic’n,llUHt’fli,tl tim’.°) “ t4
ii 210,


l,i\oiii.Il)ly oii
inc Lii eilt:icy
( eioi,iiiy, on die oilier liiiid, cleciclici ,i(tei the
I cikiislniii.i clis,isiei ii) disc ccIiliiiilc
It
iiivesi iiiecii iii
liii Ic
ii c’Iieie,y ptcccltcei
cii
I lecice, eVen tlltcici’Il
Ii
cits olclnn,iO’ cli.cne iiiiii,iticcii, cflt u scciniv iicd
Ci olloilIli
Inc
etiti\eoi5s
iii sli,iri d, Meiiibei Stitt’s’ views oii (lie liest
OlIN of
ii ilti
IS .otcl
t IWO 115 then
.11 lIieVc’i I hut
c liluci
hI
oplicct is cliii, •cltlic,lc there ire s(roii chivecs ttcu.iccls tile lihei,clis.itioci,
li.cittcoiiis,ctiicic
thu
110010
iiii cit 1(1’, it (lie KU level, Iced developciieicK ire kept
iii
liec Ic liv cc.itcccii,cl interests (cc Felon a hiih clet;ree ol control 0Cc F eicc igv l,isv acid
hi v
I lie
esicltitcc need fun lc,ihccic e lceiweeii ILl ude ith)eecive md Member
Stile
clmlI:ceimti,iitccii
5515
ie.tclih
.ippIleot
in
the
tIl)
i<eoewalcle
i.lectmitccy
iicc civet
a pcecimisol
tic the {coseici
h&c’uessilck
hiIeI
I )hic’c live (Eli ))
201)1
)uit tivc
xlcoi’ted Mc’iiilit’i
Sliti.’, to
,iL
1
rc)pruatt
5(15)5 to cm ocr—
coot’
treater ecicistt,Itoticici oh eti’
tony piodoec’d Iicn ieoew,tl’hc’ enerç ‘‘
cmiii, cc
dims end, c,mlied oii the
tViecmibc’r Stilt’s to sit liItccit,Il mimclie,itise t.ii5ets
lime ke)
c ciiiiilicctioic
cit
lit’
)n eetiVe was to Liv down
i liamnewock iii.
stint tcired and
Lccilmcatech die
cvclop’oc
It ol
hiteies
it
lie
c,ctcoct,ml level, but Meochec
States
cc iii,iimictt
hi
Ii
co.’ ol scI)icI lhc
ii toil RE l,itOet
cmiii scIcetici:
scippoct
sciences sticlc
is teed cii tarcHs,
Iec it terluhe,ilcocc null c’icerc5
t iN,il1tcii.
I lie 0(1
(El) tmitioc1ic e
a
c tccopi’ctiveiy ln’lcer cic21’ee c)tc cnlrchisction, hut it still
etains
sooce key h.iLcu nic Ie.Ouc’es liii ehi,ir,iett’rcst
‘U le0cskiuoct iii cccticttcally seitscttvc
creis. Moreover, die 21)11 Euciccpeccc t ‘cnccce:l cccnelccccnis on [lii 2(1(t) ( littt,cte cud
I ccer:y 2olcey i’eainc wccrk tier dcl a cecituct to nioc dec enii.ihsecl .ip2c’tc,ielies aftec
2020.11 Hence, (Er tile Eieseecble liii ccie, ninlti it Cc I oveiiiat]ee is set to
‘email
a piscnniletht leittii’e ccl ELI uilers’;y policy .icici reuLctcoct
I/fe VO9 I?onewahle
721gj/ Directive (‘ti’LD)
hue &id )
sels out a (ctllliflccct ic;nhiewolk iou the c’odtieticimc nid orocicolion ccl
‘euiefl’ horn renesvahlu ucotckiscl souiees, by s’hiecc [lie I )ireenvc’ nie;nls wind
suEr, .ierotlcec’ni,iI, 5c’Oth$till,il, Ii’ clrccilic,’m;ci cid oeemmu cii eI-cty, hycl:’opowcc
F
I
‘
l’uuiic Lr,iv,iien, Markkci lulincnc’ic
mcccl M,cri M.mmnsk,cctic’mm,
‘C Scumc.ctc
C ‘Iciccyc’, Frier:’e
‘sic crciy
intl 0.1’;L
t )c’hctciy Nnilar New tlccihci in
I cnl.cc:cl, I-ccmcc c
intl iIi UK’ (2t)l I
‘Ott) Lucy 1(cli
3134-3442.
tO Mit ,itcd,c A. SI cc nc’
‘CZlnn,ctc (iu,utit’, I,nei gv Sic nor-’,
cod Risk
-
] )ch,cccn NucL
New Build iii t’ccclcmcl,
1 ionec multI the UK’ (2(113) 14(1)
I’huscimtcccil lflqi(Ili
1 in Law ((3—lit
I )ireeiive 21)1)1/77/Ft , (J 2(11)1 L 2H3/33.
(‘Ice ( OiiOt)c’scc Ii W.iS St hitchuhed to prep.cre
1 ptopos.cl Itir i Iolhu)SI’nhc Renewil,le Foci:
h)II’c live,
0VCiicii. the 31(20 to 2(1,3(1 1)t’flOd, by end 2OItc,
il Art. 3(I) kI:D.
Eniopean Council (23 .nid 24
C )c.inbc’r 2(1(4) (oncltmsimocs FUC() 100/14 CC) FUR 13
C(iNLt 5.
1)1cc ct:vc 2(0’) 2t lit
cc) ilceL tctccpc’,uii P.urluacnccit ,iccct cc) dcc- (,ccn cccliii ti /\iicI 2000 ccl.
tlcc prciuuoeoic 01 thcc usc
id eicer:5
I
ictO Ieutc’’S able sccimrc c’s mccc:
Ic
11011.-
cciii scibsc’qccecc
it’pc’,clIccc I )ccc’eicuc’s fi)(lt. 77 IC
,ccccf 21i03/3(l/F(
ct.chlisIics
c ounmon
rintc’work
the prodcicnon
111(1 i ccimmcmt:Oic
of
(‘mccc dy
(10111 ctnew,ible
Sotitct’s
It (‘I )),
O_J
21119
1
I ((1/ I (c
278
Cliitijle Cliaccgu


Renewabk’ Eneiqy
279
:AT
.Ef”
t
I
Production 2005
;‘cv
—p
•
Thigut 2020
1*
-
Fl
4
—
—2= =1
0
—
NI..
2
PC
P-i
---
-J
Re
=t
SE
—
I
i(
Si
- -
- =
I
0%
i
ID
I
.0 /
54
30 1
.0’.
lit
ure 8.1
&tittw.tbic
I
ict’’ i’tt,citu ittit 2(11(5 nil .5)2))
titt
I
(it c
I
I
ii
it
M
I
ii
c
I
lit
Mit II S. tIn’
ti ti At
iii) - ti ci \\
tic Ian
Rcnew.iiiu
I
itt
s Sn ii ,inct
2(115, Joint I&uiit h
)
t’Ittit
5(11 itttii
utti ftc
Bitt
ii
rpnIi,
I iii tttt
itt I
ii
S I
n)1]t3S. iilicliill 5iS, sc’\viei
trc’.ttltic
P liii
5.15 Jfld lti.tus.
Aiii Ic
, ,intl
\nncx
I tti thi
)iiec’ttvc .tssi5ii etch Mc iithtt Stttt
it’ tnciiiorv overall ii.ittoii
!
ipet itn
lie Slitic ot tenets ible etic-
\ iii
1155 iiitl cttiisuhiiptl(tti cti
it(i’ hV
t)2() (1
‘itt-c
, )‘
i’he tat g’is encttiiip.iss
c oiisciiliptoti thrmiph cisc cii dcc
‘icity, lte,itiii
itici
tttciiit nfl! ir.ttispctt. iitt last tw!iicii hits ,t speetfie ,iiici
tflih3l iii 1.11
c’t tti Ii)
Itt ((lit i. (iltte,)lV hilbel--itireccl) b
2(121). I’he t,ii’5c15
tC diftcrc
ii
tic-I!
inc
iii
,c
ii tttil
(I per cent (br Malt;t) to
2) pci
t clii tlci
weden)
i a ken
t tipet let,
tit cy set ore the
I U—widc 2t) per cci it
target Ito
Tue liii cipe
it (,mtit ii .iliiriiit ci iii
5)1 ‘1 diii n
lit iii! ni,iiiciilin v tireis ss ill
ice abaiicttnc ci tr the 2020
!o ;t)
Iiist,icl, die 27 ptr cent Rh goti Itir
!03t) will he icliti v
ci ilit ott- Pt ‘4eiitliti ttiIc S
oiitnhtitictits tiidect by die need
it) djisc-i collectively
liii.
hi.J ttrt \s tiiout
tit-\etittii’ Menilc’r 5-titc
fre)iii
,,ttjii then O\Vli 1111)1 C ,iitihitiotis iiitioii.tl tircts nit! sli’poriiii” iheiti’, National
rets sili be tiidic atite, •itid ‘s ill be (list 05cc.
CHitl
euciated nitttitttils and
tilatertiiy betts ccii the Mt-tither ‘,titcc anti ilk’ f ,oiiiiliisstitn,
his ,tpjtrt,ic Ii to
U pohc
Ititlclclllcittati(1i
ssii iii ttttttseon
til!ctiist ttrt’ct’,aiitldchtiiii,i!i
iitioiid iiltltleilteitii[tlli
\pc c tttni
his been
I iteilcil ilk ‘nest
itS ernst
Art. 2 k[iT
Paint
is et a!., Atid
Is t,I till
1st.] Policy Ptckitt- ttii
( bunt
hiiit-
iii,! Rent-st tb)’
I 4T’
1,8
1 lie
ntiisiiuti
tifluS
IS
(IIltlltilt ltti,tit’tI
1)1 t\V,’c’tt
Flit
t(1c
titter
StJICS
St,
1111(1.,
1477-i 175
I lititi
t .ctvL’tfliiict
I )ivides ( ,,lntrtt’s. IvIi’Ps’,
1 ‘s’I),S I U,)t, /J.inti.itv I)i 5


climate Change
.lppli).I( Ii.
It Will
l)lisi(lciil)ly (l((CU,l51 tb)
(li)pOtliIlI(tIt’S loi
tilL
.lIiol)t’:lfl
l1.itIitiiieiit Ii)
ic’
Ill alf)1lI
Ill
liii’ (l(’V(l()l)l)il’ilI
Ii
RE
1)1111 \, ,iid
t’tltiit’
Mt’lill)ii
S1;itS
LXf)(lSiItC
to
( ‘JI’.( /
strIluny
ho
110w
Ov0ii6ilIlt’
If)()IOHCtl
4)111(1 1Il(tt’iOlt’ Ik
5,1111
(1 Ilf’Iosl.’IIl
.1 S5Vllt( hcoi SUf)l.Iil.ltl(lIial lcl\V.lRlS
1
non’
IIIln\1lillIlill0lI \,IIi.iiit cli iII(iIii bYLI
(VClYi.IIIlL. iVicioovoi, Ill tIll’ toiko of
lilt’
l’tlI0t’.lli
IltillIll
IllIIc.ltISIoll’,
lIlt
(1011,1)1’ (11,001
,tiicl
t’IIt’t’y
):tl0,tts kit
l)(), W’ 11(55
tIlvi iII,liilr’ .lflt 11,1111
iS (lOSt’ II(’ill 010011(1
tt’oii sIidh,’’
kIt l fi 1’lll’V 114)111 V
I lit
1<1.1)
lllsf)l.lVs
‘t’5l’i,ll
I i1.Ii.l(tl tIslIc
ol
llil’l,llL’til,ILt)Il.
/1’Yl)Utl thi
il’totlnln,ttioli
III
(I ili[l’iitfY)
I cilollIlsIlly
l,ltilltl.l l,ii”’t.
lit
),lI’oilvI’ loaves
I h
ivil’IItl)CI
,LlIl’S
1
1)10.11
(1109L’l
(Ii lIiSllltilli I
in
now to clUVIll)/l
.111 illIple—
l0t’llt.liiOIl
S[l.IlUCy.
VOll’IIV(’
the RI])
(lot’S
III))
llI:llI(LI1I’
I
il,lillI(IIIISC(i
lf)[llI).1(I1 l()\V,ii’tiS till
ItitIption oI slippc)r; scltt lIlt’S II) 1)lIlStt’C
110 I1lIlIp1)I1IVt’noss
1)) 1<0
1)11 (hI
i’lIt’iy l11,IiLI’i
,IIst(’Ol,
Ii
OVt’i’lIl, (Ito’ .ovt’lIIIIlt’lll
1w dittisl 7%
Ii 011(1(1(111,1111 iv (01 Iii rIllolIlsed p01
1 (0111 I’NO(’l’tlt
04 I’. .111(1
.11 ((III III IIl!t y stan—
Ii) 15 [0
till)
Ill I’, 5ll;)fIl)IY
till! il”!it 1)11 II
loll) ‘“I II
ill IIl ‘0110)111)11,
h/it tII’OVCr,
lilt
i&i/J )
(lllit,ltl’.
1)
(110111)01
4))
pi’OViSielllS
11)11
Ib’,tl’r,
1)111
(II)
1)01
III 111)11(1,
11)011,0011) t)It\\t(’tI IVit’itthcr S1,It(s 1OW,lI(lS tilt
,kIlil’l’)’lil(’lit 1)1(111’ Ill.llIclltorv
t’lI(’o.’Si%i.l)Il’ l)t’ll)\t ZOOiii III tIll 501110
1)1 tltt’ l&il )s key 0l(IVISiI)I)S.
P1/i;) tivrl<-t/ Ac/ion
f’Iar I S
•
he 1< 1:1 )‘s iit,li,t
)i’O((’(itiSli (X(iC’e’l,ltlt)Il IS th,lI lVicIllIx’r St.tt
s tlr.tsv It
I\lat 101111
.40110W iNc i’.nery
t’\t huh
PI,ns (NE 1’/\Ps),
\Vi)lt1)
Ifl,lf’
Otit (‘loll
t ollittys
ihhIpkYllClit.ItH)il
StS.1tt’fy
011(1 tiletutIt’ ‘esttin!tt;d
t.l)c’ltorit’S
In
ot cordancc
svitli tho (
OllliliiSSiOll (l’IllphIIt’
or NE 1/APS. eston,ited lrtjcc’[oiies plot each
lVi1’illher StIll’s .Iiltl(’il) ted 1(11 (ieDiUylIll’lll (lii
Si s’c’tolI!I, yl’;lrly .11111
1 hillIllual
1
11551111,, ‘A policy lt.lIlll’Wt)lk foIIIlni,it’
.111(1 011Cr
Ill lilt’ perIod toni 2(121)11) 2030’,
221lllutly 21)14, (3 IM(2(l12)))IS
-
- j
-
.\tt-:l
(klillllo:’fl,CII,
%OlVITOli(lIIIlI
Liw,
Re3uh,ioioii
,il(l
(,OverIl,1iittO
Siliftml
Alc)llIt’(til’’
(2t1i1) H (2) jtilrilll I)! I’l.’l’iliIlllill 1161/ I_Ill’ 170 2)2
- .
“ Ait
3 ft t
1 (Olit.lSIl’.
Si 1101111’] llUhIli)(’I
1)1 lIltIlIlIlitlil (‘xpl
I i,IlloIIs,
ill 111(1
I’
(hit t’%iiCta
-
-
001) 1511 f)tlhIll
bn1tl11-15 will pI,l\
Ill (0Clllpi.ll\
oh’ (Art. 13(5)) hId 111,11 I&
‘ 110.1013/ and
100)05; SyslolilS will be prniiiott’d Ill hlliidIii% lc%IlI.ltSoIlS In] c’ncie’ (Ai’L i3([t)).
71
lIt’ lIst 0’ SI%lpOtl St Iliflits itlIIli(lt’i
1)111 151101 rtstrlcti’cl ill’ ‘mvt’-lItiI’ilt cd,
lx I’xt’illptiOfl
UI
I CdtiitlOll; , Lix 011)1(5, r(Il(’W-LlIt’ t’nei’(y Ob.0)ll.tII.
.UiIfIUtt St itt’Iihes iiIltiUiIl% thoU
115111%
70(i)
c (‘ltII]cltls,
,iiitl ihi’t’ti oI
5(17/0)11
SIil1’Iltes
ntlndIIlI; Intl
II)
(.Ini), and
t’IIliti Ill
p(ylliCfltS
(Art
2(k) 111/1)).
i )tiring lile pn’par.IhoI
‘51,1
‘t’s
of
1111’ 14 El), the
i:tnop(-ail C 011111 115)1011 showed a pro)t’i (‘11CC Ion tht tk’vulopnic’nt of’ an El.
‘ --wide System
1)1
1) il(’W,ihll
(‘111135’ stlppt)rt ihroti%il %et’Il (lit ho It(s 1111011 aiitl tnadil%, hot (Ills pie
ie’rc’nce was hIlt ‘hai ed by the’ 011)01-lu
the Meniht’i’ Slates. See I on //I
I;hi’Jr(llIlnlflill)
I till’,
I
Ill’l’tli)l1III citd I)lul.ii)ll_/l/ik011, 149
71 Sn’ ea. Ant
- 5 iU;l), whit It i.tvs clown a ii,ti IlICInISOd lile’thodolllgy
0 e,thctiate the- share’ of
RE iii
1/l 1St
(/11:1/
1 no ri;
((1 IlOl 1101:00; Ao
-
I 3 Ri I), v 1, (‘1 lays dow II
leiSil I: ,sti-:ttivl
‘(lVl’l7I,lOc 0
St,llloI:ifllS
01 till
,lli[hIOni’ .1111111
(IntihlE ItlolI
Ill) ilc(’lls:llO of RI- Interposes;
and Art
14 1411), waic’ii tails Ill) Melillloi St;itt’, 111 pi’ovldl’
I1 llI:II,lt:IIIi 111111 II
000’
Ait 4(1) iii] Allnl’x VI Ri/i) All N0.1’.Ais
itt’ avaihible .11:
1117
‘
1’
(‘0IilpI 1-n/ellelgy-
110111/71
-


Renewable Energy
281
basis. ‘
I li’
i
ipel
ciTieS
(
list (lilt’
iii
inipiii’t;iIit
act titiiii thEy
ii icc h,iiiisin.
the 2t
tier
ciii it
by
( )2()
‘icil iiiiiiiies t\/ic’iiilcei Stile
it turn with
a lccti—
reFill
per.sIcc’ct:ive, bitt
it also cleleis .iccioiiitihthtty.
Ilic’
iccssibihit
of iioii
cc(iili)li.tiict’
litlltatiuli
iliiiost
Etit
\‘t,iTs
into the future
is inilikely to unit! thu
cls’c’uicniciit of the day
its line.
11w ti,teetccnes ctiiniteraet this res icnscveoc is
deficit. in ttinilciiiiticcti with lie lcunintuul perhiwnianee reports that each Meiiibci
State mist stibuint,77 they cccnsiitiiic a means liii (lie I onlniisslon (as well as other
EU institutions
mci l’llccw Meniher St;ites)
to check iii a soniewh;ut tnnelv
manner wliethiei Member States are oii traelc
towuncis 202(1. It
is, liowevei,
a titrly sob cliccic: Article 2(l) 1<1,1
prvuiles hit if Member States fail to
inc
their nccl:c tilve tnets iti the two
inc cilni: years, they ‘shalt submit an iniended
national renewtiile enercv action pl;uii to the
( ciilni)lssion by 2t) June cit tile
fhllciwiiict year,
settni’
titit
itlecjcitte
mci proportionate nie,istiu’es to re
ciii.
\vitlsni
,i reasonable tcniet,ible, tIle niciic;itt\’e trtjeetorv
‘lhe
(
ccislncissl(cll lOiS
lso issue reeoltnnetitl;iticnt cci
lie basis of the N 1< I-Al’s.
I loss-ever, since tl
undo
it vt
Li
fCc toi it
tic
ion hn clint
it is In lily it tilt I
c h
t sit
u ii I tic to inc
ticoi icotIth, iii tsel, enlist i[iitc’ thc basis Ci nit culcneeiient prc)cc’tti:(ti’.
oopc.titioi I tic’! W(’Qfl A4(’iIth(’t ta !cs
Articles
(i
cc
I
I Rid)
pitivicit’
a fi;nncsvonk that
niflist s the iU’s ieiucs’,clile
uucrcy
str;itepy
with
,t cIeiree
ccl
‘trccl,ibiliiy’. ‘lii
,uchu ye
iittonal tunis,
lvicniher States
nay stunnl:tte the ptinhtetioii intl ccousnniptlcui of’ 1<1, witlini
their ics\it borders, but thCV iti,t’r’ list) not to exc’Il.ul]i;c’
tints C)ti’eiiew:ihle enetp
tiyi’ociitlt stitutic II ti,tnslers
‘cit
a spi c itch
,iiulocnit
ccl cut ny (toni renewable
sooree.s hunt
1)111’ IVtenibei State tic
nii)thct’ Menibc-r state’.’’ 1 Ins pla)Vistt)n
cuabtes Menibc-r States with ttiore lnntecI e:t;ieity in RE pi’tccuer;ois to tic’ totiit
with MentIon States with
‘Jc tIer
<c
eip;it it)
nid ‘buy
a settineot ot r2
ci
perkn’niaitt’e
Ihi
ipi’o;tc’li
is intended to boost hots etheic’it ihtocaruoli ant
Ceoiitcuntc’s til ‘ilit’ ni lU
prccdnc’tioti. \VhiCiI conic. potentally mike RE molt’
coi)ipentlVc
with
tisichtticici;il
t’nenty
socii’ccs
intl
hoc,
speed
tip
inarkct
etietrttion
)n the o[Iier hand, if lVleTnbc’- Si,itc’s can
ti ,iiislCu away’ niy excess
amotitit of nut ssahit’
t nc’nctv Icioclnceci, they niac
have
ic’we
ileent vc S
to
oveishlotit
bc’ natitcii,il tai’:ct. I cnisc’i’sel, uuitititi’ies 0’ec\’ nc the iransici nity
ely mu
1
00 Iouc’itfl pc tititit titili to uliec t tutu’ o\V0 ut;itioitl titroets, cund be les
inelmeti to invest ni ions- rely]] tlOiiiestic RE pi’isetiitioti
Piltenli,utisc’l\
, natconal t,ircts ni,uy be iehievcct thircccictlm ‘foitit picipeets. eitlic
i
between bU Meniber St,ttcs (Articles 7 intl
<bI )) or nu tiintic’r,ituiin with] thud
76
-,
‘
(ccciii, cs’cccc
P )cccsiciti of
itt
111cc
Ott i c’st,ilclislniuc’
.1 tc’nmpl.nc for i”1,ciyn.iI I-Ic iii Sv,tlilc
Fnc-i’y J\c ticcn t’I.cns cmccIc’r
I )iic’cnsc Jim’)
t-c I
(;tJ(itt’t)1 74-—I,
Art. 22 kEl ).
I lie rc’ports ncnst cncicc,nc clii’ kF siucic ,ttittvccl in the prc’ec’chn two sctrs,
as well .15 ii]
I shcJili.itiCici ili(I FV,ihti,cn,cic ccl
lit’ clonic-stat supports uni’cit.incsno n ni phc
Art. 2tt II
i
7i
Act. (cl) k-I I
Ste Pulp.
ri .ccirccpi cit
c cuc’rscmotIei14.
Gercl \X/citc’r
Ilic
C luici,itc
cc No (
cummnicc
itS: :;ck:n: Stock of the Enuscions
I ‘,iduum’’
Sysicum (tihtl .2(1
/iuotcul cc/ I cui’ccc-Ic,iccuIcl/ Lciti
I


2t32
Clirnae Change
cocliltries (Artieles
I) .nid
It) R Id )).
lo
touiit
towards tltc
IcililvellIcIli
ot
Mc inber Lites
i:Iriets, the tIlssiin
ooclii on
1,1 Itt lui
•
the electricity rnce,I he’ coisutneci in the EU;
•
thc nIecI:ci1y musi
be
prodcii ed
by d
iewly com,titic ted itistilla[’
tor In t’ 2009);
nd
•
Uie quar thy oF cde’utr city produced
tel exported must not betielit from iii
Otll(
I StI[tC it
sO fit
oOtiIii[IVt \cIIIU1Q
iit\Vc cii \;tciiihei Stitc.
tilt! Meoilici Siitc mci third
otiritlics,
enr.trcc
a Lir’eIv
tic oreiic it
Fl.t non
A
Ic
ii
oli)ority of Meinbet
‘Litis tiiihiiiitl III tutu
t\tkt’/\11s diii
liii ho
tliii,
(ci
llitiocitHc 11exihl
iIWl IllInoIs Ill tile ttcisceiliIt
miii
lot1 lot Iclpitc ci flIt ci tile h it
i
c’ii thioui;lt
lii ItsI it
p OtIticill Ii
U H
II il.
Sts
it MenlIlci
si [t’tpi (‘sIll
it’ll
tutioixc
lilt Iii tl cl)OI3Li!iiOii III
irihIci9l
lilt! illtiltiitci
1 pllic’Iitiil liltc it
t lii
t (lttteIdtlih.
Itur so Iii litth
intl
cUon Iii’ hccn tiiitltrtikiic to p tht
olilt iliItitiVtS
rub
on tic e
) iiH
oliitr;ts W.t
itliltoileci
it
ii cisilcet ot eii,im
ii stitista
i
ome1tei’, itiost
O1Uc ipitt’cl
to
lie
iNc
to cX!l0lt CXttSiL Oill’
[ioir MeiilIscr State
iitciit,itctI thit they riiietit iIC(i tic btiosi ilicltclOIilcStIC
c)tIO[I tiiIoliii itilports
ILi totiket tcti triuistc i
clot’
ui1icne, it Lotiki b
pit’cloiiolliirtl supply cloven.
)ite lit tin that truiblv snppiessc’s tVciiihi’i Stites’ lnpctltL tort ltOptflitioti
I
the 10oct11) br ellelCy security,
hid
ttoec’rLiluity about the rinpu
tctouit pi-ojec
I
till ulltlnul;L sujinort sclitliies
Mlncover
tilt slow tipike ot tlexdilc uccechit
15105 lfli lhlttSttlti that, ill Spite 0)1 ChChltr asstlmptlous, tiitrF_ct biscil i1iproacii
ilcell in e\teflslVt
iduiiitiustr,ittve nitrastrut ttllc’ to) tiollilshl
As suil! b ex’ilored ii
the next section, t!lis is)
tSStOil tliit its vividly imposed iKelt ill till
oittext ofLI
I’llliSSiOl)S traiit’i. Siuiiuiarl’, with rcurcI
tl) the ile,tlilc
lilt ch.tn:suii, [or RI
SI-VerilY i/ic uiibc’r Stte iN&t AP assert that,
iii
Ulu
ibscin e of a uiiore detail
rcttth;ctorv traciiework lot st.itstieal transFers Jlld)Oi!)t projects, it ts i!i%ieult to pt
beyc 111(1 f’Ci It Cit
eNl’CSSi I )ill oF approval.
Accesi to the Grid dod GtJ3r]n tees of Or/girt
1 leetne elitiey needs to bc
tech 11110 ‘tile prid’,
1 physic il Ilet\vor (tttrlsiilSsc
md distlybutioli lilieS ciperiteti by one or 0101 C tofu oh centres, to by deluverru it
See
lillpe
ditto c clircipictI lCIlltil/llltlOhi,ll --tcl1tWtItI(--tlltuV--lCttOli -PI1l15—uirt’lt
t”Jti
tor Aiistri,i, Crttilit.
I _5prtlS, lIlt
C iteli Fi,.t1illl)Iil, 1isltliitd, ii(li;iIici, (enhli,lilt
Itet c
I
IIVI.l, ilIlitialtIl
trcIind. lilt t\trtIl tlailtI\
PoI.iict. Port Hutt, ii Ollt;tlll;t, Siovit
Spun, Svc dcii or tilt U K.
1 rant c, Bth1t 11111,
I )c-ici 11,11k,
151 cm];
ancJ
I It inpIty explu’.
a plli’ntl
uulil’Iest tO tltxihtc’ ni(c
iili;Ouc htii 111w no niH -t [111115
1,Huc(
tbu!e tnt,
t ) l)iclar, istoliiu. (Lruuins
it
ant!,
I ichu.,iu.i anti Sill
cntic5
hc’uuic in
1 p0510001 tO) sell ItalS , I too iliaolll
,, Mitia atid Slovenia mdccci
I Icc-v may it’crd
i_cl
1110(11
C ctuitiis’iois
C (tfliliIIlllc
III) on (ltllVc’flltC he
11111111) iCc Inc it lll.trkct
11111 In (511
li
111(11 ttI 1ithi
IIlt(IS’O’fl[lt)ui, 5 Ncts-c’icihr
Ii, SWI 1 (i)I)) 14)1
11111 I.


Rt’flC’iNiil)l( tntrcjy
283
ciselitiltis intl tIIttrirIt. AtIIII’V(’iCit’IIt iii tlic
pt’r
tilt lU
liit.il ciiuiiiiiijt
tIl taiti tliift Iiiiitt’s tiii I. I
tttttlitt (‘IS ttlti.ltIIIil[ t’Itc’t ill’’ J((CS5
((I the
t’iitl.
ilits
IS
lit 0 it tiillatl(tii cii Article l(t
I& II). wInch
ills
or ititli tlic’
velopuitlit intl lint Ii&’i enhi:iiit t’iiIc’iit of tltt’ “iii 1.
it oiiittittl,it’ tht
p1 titlili
iii
of
elet iritilS
fi’oiii
R I
SOiiIt(’S,
Cliii
lli.iIltl;lii’s thu
54eiiihit,r States
lrl\(
iOi’tty (Cr iiataIltet’tl itt’ess tiC R k pituthticets.
Qncc’
c’iic’rty
ciitt’is
[lie
i’lul,
its
soIlrei’ Itettunics
peiit’raiiy nniratt,iltlt.
i
OVcrtuuiiit
this
CrtClClc’iit, AititIc’
IS
I&I’.I ) rc’cpiires
ill Mu’iiiluti
States ti
istiru_’ the lStu;Iii e ota ‘tutIl’IIItC’c’ ill tnIiIii. Whit Ii attests reilewalCIc’ sntirtIiit
he n;tiaiitc’t’ ttiiltjtiis
.1 st;itutLuiulisc’ul set nt iiilirnu:utituii, anct nuisi he I’ec’o
‘cd liv
ill P/lciiillc’t Slates. liuiiittitiiiilv tltttiitli, tin’
‘n,ti,tIItc’t’’s liiiictitii
is
inp]v
I hit:
tiu ttf ol iciiesv.uIiui
St nruitig. As
uiliriiic’tl in rI
HI if 1 case l;iss
-
1 is not c’cltuivaleiit tC) Cliv iciic’wahlc’ it rrc’ cit
t erotic tIc liii a Mc’itilic’r Sat ni,t
sue in tic
CCII text ut a ii,utitni,il support
St liclite.
he Diflicult Qtiociton Of Biohuis
toftiels intl biohic1c:icis
Crc’ ,uIitullc
lit-
cticw:thlu: eItc’flv soiirtestos’ercd in tlic’
Li), hot then ichttl,ituon Pu tiltS
1 ntitutltcr <ii special cii blt’iiCc’s.
I lit
I )irc’cYIvt
tnul;ite’,
Cit :itioss-tlic broil lixctl tat’iu’t ol I)) p’
C c’Iit Vi. nsc’ iii tin’ [I.ttupoit
CX)t. Praciuc;ully, this Lurc,t
will he owl itiostl thioutit’li hittlhcis, \s hit Ii trt,utcs
.ts’ecilit.toul trttsviiitlc’tti,titcI fur tIns p;urtititl;iriU,sottrtu’.
LJnhrtutit;io lv. ili
rt’t’ n tri-clenti,ils of’ biotitcls li,tvc- ‘litUc’ii tltit’stinnaltie’
OflVc’ICtioIl,il bioftic’ls uiid liiohiqnicls, which tie pit icliiceti htii cc’:’eal ;nic] othc
:cO—riclt
rops (ncii
is iiiatie), snpars
mci t)!l crops. dC)
lot tic’cc’Ssuriy
tellieVu
:nLiC,nit (.
V
5aVul)tS
C oiitp.irc’ci
to ‘reicilar
iciels ,:am c’--sctle Loinnmt i
vlncahl a c,ttlitui
ii[eimsisx
iitltui[rV,
inc
is liLly to
aPt
su:iitbc,tiit toil on
cal bittclivc’isutv,
oil,
,utr
hid water rcsonrc cs, l\4orc-ovc’r, [ICc
n[itidtttt oh
of
oftiel ciops tither rc’stuI[ iii ,iulclitiint:il l:tmidl bc’iii cl:nnied (iCr Lurmiti. or in
lit
iitensihi,utitit of Li-tti:ii
practices it ) :iItru lSc’ tiic’ vu c. Ihe c-xpansioli t)
ant
and happens lit cause land is iicssly clc’arc ii hr liiohic’l pmodtictitin (direct land—cisi
chane), or hec,iusc’ it displaces
I raditioniml loud, feeti md textile crops. trtsseuain
tres5tifl’ for c’
O,lilsioiI tir hut utsificit:tti Clsc-\\ Iic’rt’ (nidiruct
I iiicl-ti’c
c lmtim:’c-)
Vhc’tliu
met
t tir iiiciictt, l,nci list’
littOn
lIt’ 11.11
in:i’Jv prt)ltlciilatlc if tli
(md hc’iii cI,00letl
IS
11(11
III
ltitutllvc’rsltv
11111/01 a
proclnt’tivt’
c ,irbon sniP
i’he ii:islttt is that slnkni: li’onm iimcsil
ic Is to hiutticls ni,i’ product i ht jtloiu
in rc’fi’rs to as ‘iiui’,iti vt (il-IC
saviin;s, a well as a sn2iiiit tilt tielt rioritioll of
the natcn,tl envirolliilc’nt.
Art
I (u l& H)
(-t71
2
(lIft
till
ft
(2 IOU(:2tI1’f2ti17; fimnc’d(st’s ot
C -2u,-l:12 tilt)
12 O_ot’id lti’/m’iuitt hC’I i:hU-(
2)ti’f if
117 A:iuti’
)uuft
, ‘lttttnt’ls ‘rtttiilciltlu, Irtde intl n
.mii,IICI
lc’vlttpint-lit hilt rune Issues’
IILI ) Stisi,tii ii
M,irkt’is I)’ its’iit
‘ip
No. 2 (.Oh)(t,
6
1,8 loiciw
I in,
‘1 ,wt
1111Cm: Ihttlti ls:A Pic ip.) -Aecil Aiiifys ot the 1:ilicillcstil Union
I3:C)tncIS ( uiti)lcttiolt Rt-t’tnies till
lilt’ ( I-an
I lofopilti
MCtlC,iIlISlli
(21)1 I) 24(1)
jtiitmuI /1 uut’ltttituu
tul Lit’ —tO
.1).


211<1
Climate t_huitge
111010)15
itu ilso totiiu easIly tr:lllSpOit.li)l1 thin, sly, iiiti Ut oLu -])OWC’It’(l
t’ntigy. ( ‘i’tjtieitth ,
in tluveIopiiif
1 ieginlc ioi
Ill
‘flVll 1)111)0 OIlily sound
1lCl0Yflu(’tiI
ol lutdnels,
lit’ l1 1 ntlist
tiLt’ into tt’eono
.metn itton;ii ti,ide.
Slllu
univ ol tit<
ilesJitlx’( cthoii
ioU envitoiliiitittti
nipiels ol hioloels t’
.1
oiisepitiic’t- ol hose they
itt ,<tJti<d
die :,U bids
iseib
iii a ibiii’iiil anti
lt’piiiy )t’t’tii’ioit sltti,itioll. i1e (‘l)Vit’l)llllielit;il Sl)titchlt’sS Ill prttiittt’tion typltiily
does Hot 5llii\t tip iii tile too pi’t)thtict, whli lilealls tii.it envlt’onioelilai ‘egtii:t[ltni
1111)51 1tr’e[ the proees itseh. Hut proeess stttidai’rJs arc’ dilHeiiit to fliniicti:itc’ and
bi,nclt.r
to nitnntor,
<‘spet tills’ when
titi
Oiot:nt 11)111
i,iLs plate tiuiisdc’ LU
tiosilit tint. Mort’o i r, sttoJtrls rho it til,ite p10111
titOl
tilt
prot ‘55111L iiteth—
tis t1PM)
lit
i
:u:te
risk ol’ viol.tttiii’ itite:ii.ttioitil u,tb&’ hiss titm product
it
1 Is
I ow, iwo, dot’s LU law rts’otiti to die
t
hOle; ticS OHes oishy iiten’.tttnt
liciliiis lilt) tIN it’Ot’Sd.hOic
‘ttt’rt\’ tr)tt’),y:’ t\ itsittal
),IIVIS:lllh li Artc’ie
7 t&El)
O hilt
tv’, this n ‘nitO)l)i5ty t’iltt’iia br iiiohitqs. iii
c’titt’ili ttirt spoilt1 with
ho’,’ i,ittl
11151))
itt
It’ .Ht1) Joel ‘‘nitity
)m etiVc’,
hn ii
into’, part
0 the
‘tielgy
c’dicic’iit’y
lilac
ut the bUs elliot’ ehaity
p;t’Lap’
Inti
n;tticlates
1
p
tt’m
‘dtietitit
.t (,HC
t’lhllSSiOt’S
‘v 21P1)
‘,‘o
c otnit tow.n’,ls tlit’
ii pci tint; P.1’. Lle,c 1, hioitft’IS must iiic’i’t lilt’ oiIowitti
111101 111111 ti)
•
ltoielc mu’) ichiuvc g ,‘‘tih(052 gas ravinoc o at k’;tt 35 per cOlt
contparison to osil iueis. This ceungs :eqtidn ti
ns’s o SO p°t crnt in
2017. t )Q 18, it ilsos
citt to hO C/t COOl 10 00 lItiC
11)1 plOfli
tflStaIil
Ott 2016. Afl lilf’( i/CC’
02105)0,1’ Ct 0 LOl
010
0
riOt vvhc n cictiit
gmtrrho: i’” gt
;avincJ’.
this rtr.htirlcs cmt’,ston: Lotit
Ct tiO0StjOi
0:0
)
sop nm
•
dto; 11011, 0 nOt coot
touk not
‘
‘ovel
imput
the Co 000 caactcy at
II
(it
C
C
0 th
nt
Hon
,
‘‘‘ii
C’ nos o
‘to
be
,irr’
in
irOi’
tutii’t’i,J ttttt
land with pr’!)
eph catrbort stock
smh us svt’tnncls 0 romsts, or from land eroytog a Ogh odtit’: ‘1.
value, or torn land that was ior’tteny ‘er)’p
I Lii 01011 kihl, “1 ‘i ide 1. tv, t.onsti,ituuts to B. <‘new bIt’ K ‘ioui.d }tnt’rgy Support Schemc’
10 tVi,irjio Peetc’is ,nid ‘I hoiui,is St ht)nHrtis teds.), Rriu’itsth1e
1 iw’y Lint’ in ih1 EU Lçit(
Pt i.prthli’t
. ill Boltnn- iuj .‘IPIllHUIi s (1dsvan] lti4.ti’, 21)1 4), 43.
Wi ti u A Ken’ and
I
till t Loppachc’i
I riding ittoiut’ls
. Will liit ‘rn,ittotiil Trade Lats
lIe a (onstrauiit5’ (2)1(15)
(1
( ,uitrt’itt ,t’ncitllior, intl and
Resource 1u<’,, 50—O2, at 5);
Stt’phiailic Sw:iyer,
lntetn,tuuii,iI lt;ik’ 1...iw ii c: ‘flit’ t;tivroitioc’iit
I )estOnnl) a Le,
init’work 10 (,uiLil ti it’ 1iiiott oi’Unsustainai,ly Pi odttei.’d
lit) uti’
‘ (2ttI 7) (.. ( )]oiir,al /
Jolt i),iiH)fl,tl
1111111
1,011111111 POll)’ .lt(—44.
91
1)ttt’ctts’t:
2)11)0, 31)/P.C
tint ndiii
. )ire, u’
95, ‘0/1
as re.att5
1)11 spt’ttltC,ttion
iii
prtrttl, cht’el
1110 gus oil IOU liii ‘otitltihi
a oit’cliani’in to nlt)flitoi’ ,ii,d recluc e gwenhour
ciulJSIr)ns,
t )j 2titttl
1 1411,55, Art


Riflewahit iii trq
285
ri1,ll.,),llll.lhlill\
iiltrI:l h)r
ttofjit)c are ttirtlicr cictiiitti to cut’ _t) 5 l(ittiijt-i
))]rec livet
whit ii ttt
tios
to iht
t Iiiiian tittiie risks posed by itt
wtel
intl use
chant
(I I
It
1 lie Biolciels
I )tr
Ove, inter tilia, tilintis tlit ho
per cent ener(v
•;aviitis ctttl iiirttdntcs au
nidtc:ttive 0.5 per cent 1aret mr
icivauic ed Ititiftick’,
whit Ii
tic
eitecitetI (itilit
loll lotidsociitc’s;tiidliiiotstlicltti-eofluofnelsfrouii
crops it0Wii Ott .t)tit(lItclltI Lnttl that (ill be citiniteci towircis the 20)2)) tarets to
cell).
lie I,ttt
tip
is
iitiilktiitlv
11101 L eiierons than the 5 pci
cciii
naxinillilt iii the oriiii,il Contini.ssic ii propt)sttl
Winch excet-citci tile tilihililt
ofthe liintptiii Pai ll;inieitt (slippnriiiii’ a h per t ciii cap) nici, piltieniliJy.
1 litise
j
of the
( ticincti, which
htvtnirech 7
tel
cent.t
hue titfletcucts
iii
tiltitilton
Onsuite
tout tltc
u)ohllliti seitsilts’itv .tiid hull tic’pt’iicieiicy 0) eiiel’y
ocllc In;
stritct calVe ]:tuvu’ tlio() iii
lie
ttiiitllttt o) toiivtiltitln;ti liiouiit’is
hat ciii
t 01(111
owiruis the Rh tin;et iiiuv ihrtiier eliVIlolintelital objet tcs’es, lint It liil tinder
nine lilvestliteilt cittices ionic on liii’ basis it) tite 2000 ttru;ets, intl
etc1 It)
iii
OVCIsllp)ilY iii hiolciel crops, -tsllltIii;
vtd.ttii. ty anti
itt reset
piesstu e nit
the
I
icrut iuhucirii sector.
crc (Oll, tile jlitil tt)Wt)ds
SVlil
Wills lot chniatc
Clint’ lll!tl!tIlllil. enci; vt ttity .iid eo lietitlvelless IltoVet itiore \\ilitii1l)
mci irettlttrttlls Ill plo tic (llll tile till ocy sttc;Lcls.
c) assess tnllpll;nlee wIth the sllstiiliablllty erlierta the
U rite
tilt ((111(0
I
0011 Schlellies.
I )owever, tilest’ St heiiies
ir
lint rtitl by either tile
C
ontiiiissucui or
flatloil;ti
I I
Illittlt y anthctritjts
it liii’ Metiiber htate level; they
ire nlniIc’c 2 by
•
a vilely oh tt,lttsii,itltl,lI
l(tiui’; Shell
is
lltt,lVt)te)ilttletltti
b!( 2
nd hulsvusntiauloos.
it
t)illltiissltilS Jill)
IS It)
it ci i l)eitt It uttrts
un
V
CCellilI)Ie ( eitllic,itit)ti
titetties
mid
It ei1e oil teqitests Ito rtcoc;intictit
ithilul
Ct)
by certlhc,itictn
Chit
lie ttpct,(tuis
lie l)Obtl1S Stil,)Ill,ll)lJit lt2iilt
luireltitu
V
ehec
tilt
itt
tutu
p,hl)ott ol
itiltiut
alit) pri.tte .uetors, Whit It
nlay (illetltc
it
nterl)ltltil),
I
it ;tooti 01 (stub) lltttttoal Jes’eis, (It scenic tiuc ecieetive till )lentc it
ttloli ol
15 llitlil,I
It
it
Wiit’iltS
ill
idvunc ccl
11)1 ill Ill liii) lIt 11)11.11
01 ‘itybi ci
S
multi- Itti
‘ovi i)))ilt1
Wile
I
IS
110
ii
er hlilllted to tile Ilnetit (Itt
I iiet\keen
tIe
-:111 ilptsill ,tiid 1(0 Mtiiil,
‘tiie level, bitt incoilipIssi’s a htrttaili’i
tSiil)c
t)t
transtitt icni.ih
itiolS
12
I)iict Ott
Ott)
2t)It/Ittt.t
of
lIlt
ttiopciit
t rlutuittiii
tiici
u)
iii’
( (11110)
It)
t) Sc’picniitc I
‘(1)5 iiittiiiliti
) ietttsc
‘i17)t
C
t )lol it) liii- c)li.tIlty ti)
tiiti
tilt)
tinsel (tick intl tutcotinin I )rc tilt t
ttttt0/211
C
ttii lilt puonlittitil ii) tlit
list
of ciinii
Icon ill lets il it
sunlit’s, I l 2)) (5
I
- it),
)
-
Prtipti’
1 (nra I lint tlvt’
it ilui
.liio(tto Ririt,tlll,nl aol) It) li
C
tttittt ii ililll)IIllt I hit’1 liv
Y5/7ttt
C
i 11110’ tct the (tdl.lhls
il [‘I’ll
I
tnt)
Ii
-
I ttmt-ls IlId
lot ltl1itl
I )irt tIne
1tl1)’t
2H/It
- ttll
lilt’ (Jioltioilcltl n) lilt’
tJSC cii
c’itc’ii.tv
11)111
ti_lit \‘,iitii
t’NrtiS
t
C
f)n,ti. 17
C )tittht i 2)02.
icitcI (Vt ‘I’
I
(Is ho 51tit
ii Hittuitel Rcttriii’, I i\J)S I lttttjtr 5 i.initus 2)05.
‘
-
ben liii [lii
I d’i,til
tilt thu
I titi
iii] lii lit
-
tnti
t t:rnii,,intio proc I
SIC
I in,
( ,ovciiitutt
tuoltiuls, 50
6 (1 Vt’tlic
I (tv,lert,
Whit’s
lit
.t N nit
hilt
I ttven.ini
if ISle cr
is
I rtnsi,,tiu ‘itt)
[Iilviiutiiiiieittti i&t-onh,itic,it
(20)) .s) tl( I) Rt i’it ii
tij I ui1
liii
( tituJtl,tIiit
flu
IItlrnllt(illit’
lii) Jut
— t
‘)t)


liii tjutst itlI
et itsitir
is \viit’tliui
tlit’ (()
pti
i tilt
s,ivliits
ihiiicti seit
tilt•
clislill Ilitilit V ii
I
t lii ,tiii
I
U
Ii I,
l
I etti Ut
Hunt
or bi
tiit’is tint (otini tO\VliIS tbt rt’ni’\vil)lt’
‘Itt ittV tat ‘it
itt
P
IltipItibit with intcr
tttttoip.iI ihiilt l.iss.
I lit
Us hitIiiis litlitY itlii,)IiiS, thus Iii, UUttttti itii this
stOIC’, bitt
,i iitiiitht’i
lit tilt,
5Ui%9V’St (liii
it
injy lit
stiJnt’ppblt
It)
ii,IlitIitt.
As ubst’ivt’iI c’aditr,
tilt Wit)
I )isititt’ Si’ttltliit’tit liocht’s (I )istfl ti.itii)iiiihilly
1
inner hli
\Vit it
PM b,ist’il
t’Si
it lions titan stili piotltit t
tiiititilit’nts.’
I lit
ii
hiotiteis
ni
visions liv
un1 ititc
iii within
lit
uniter
,ttcttNy
II
PillS) iititit,ti hiiti
I
,ii
1)ii5i)it’itti ‘h!,
‘itttitipts’
Lii tIitnt
biitliicls Unit
pitt’) tile
C ,l ]( ‘,iviut’s ,nI ,usttiii,ihility tnILlt a, It nity h’ very tittlit Lilt Itti the
1k to
ustily its f10ft’ti
ip.’ IVottost’i, ,ilthOtUii
:ist,ie
t.)5t liSt
SlIi’4t’5tS
lit W
I ( ) I )SB stotulti
oltibly
it
t’1’t
litutie thi,tiltc iiiu,isiiits
is ustihible
St cit iii
to
tilt UN I •i
itt’
I
Itt
st t’st niptltuls,
‘
I its is ye) to lie t’:piicitly
iiiti lit ti
intl it liiIV lit)) s,)lVit’ tiit Lt
i)piO ti)
1 it
IS
I t)iisitlt’i ‘ii .tthititniiy
Lii
list rlItIili,itt
ln’uwttlt
siisi,iiii,ihb
intl ctutil,ti
l)tt)tit’is.
N (it fl 0)1 St ‘tP)
/ °
As ohseiviil in the 1(1,)
‘Mcnihui
St,itts have tliii’it’itt
it’lit \U.tl’lt
tile)
Phit’itilis intl opt’ritt
tUk rtiit stIit’incs tu
Stlpflt)it
for
nieit tltt’it’.
For
iiisi.tiite, Meiiht’r ‘at tlt’ tna botist icnt’sv,ibht
ent’nuv productioii tlicotitli ureen
iuttsy tt’rt ii c,iticiit. IU iht
,ist’, ttnt’v,ihiu t’i1t’rty
Ititit Cr5 iett’i\ C. tt’rrtttcates
II))
eVt’ry ptt’tit’tt IlIllilitI t1ii,itlfltV itt IU
piinlcuteii. whit ii they
lily sell either
it,t tlit’r with tilt’ t ittity or st.ptr;itt’Iy.
ht’ scheme set iss ni
i fiitiblii,itlon with
tlotiwstttaily Set ttio)lS tilt) tttjnlic lhh itt ii pirties (whit h
110W bc tie fl
titcirs, the scipplieut
01’ tilt
cOUSClitit’rs)
Li) submit green
iertjlit,ites to covet
a
l)roptttion
of
their
overthl
t’u]urtV
protitietitlu,
tlitti’il)LltitHl
or
use
Phe
t etilicatt’ gets
il(lLiliti tilt’ sit,bhtnt tHat, OUt I
lcd iito the grid. the prove
nii)ct’ ot ent’rgy s haiti Ii) tract’, by eri’atinup rc’tonS
‘snout ol
JtV
ration an
ui,iktn ti)iS
nroot trat:tble, Green tti tilleation was the .i;tproaeh Li) stiniulatni
RI, t olLlllUflt.t)fl t!i;i )tDit)tlt’tl by tht’ bnrost’t
uniun;ssutn, which in the earb
.9ttt(is aS’iIet. to t’levatc
it to die
iiitifliflSt’i.
U inrtiut’ii to Ri. SUS)t7ort,
I however, the il)itiatiVi’ did ito) iiiid l;ivoiir With)
1 IttIItil)C’r ol Vlenilst’r States.
iiiniuiliinç Spani anti Genii,niy, whit hi prtleiied ahterii,itive schemes such as teed
‘ See un
9,3 md 91, ,iI)ivt
‘ Attn Sss iith,nil nid Cii still
I )itntblei,’
tniprivmv hU I)iotutk Polk y? (ii einhouse Ci
l,nnssions, Polity
P
tilts. intl WTU
tiulintihilut’,
‘ (2(t 3) 47(4)jnintii
‘1 II ‘told Tri,l
SI --K)4
An
t I
Ill
nit1 XX ( A I
[V WI’O Appchl.itt’ Body Report, United Slatcs
—— Ifli it’
Prohibition 4)1
C ‘t’ni.uht Shi imp auth Sun tip P
tlnis (US
Shrimp), W’I / I )S58/AB/ l
,ttn
it .1 i Novunilsc
l
)9S; WI C) Apinilait t3otv RI1 oil,
I, J ituted States
Standards
‘
itt)tiiitiil,tt,.tI
lilt1
,oii,t’iittOiI,t
C
(lie (US
t tsolnt). Wl/l)S2,AICR, idopi
2tt M,i
I 991
HIt)
Ut), 1i’etmhIt’, 25.
Pluruii ity trout renewable t titi sw soun t S tilt! the in krnal elet wit ity iiiarkei.
ommissi
V
sstrkut tlt)i titlit’iit
Si ( ()‘))4
it tin,iI, 13 April )))
286
tIuttili’ Cliinge


lititewahie Energy
iii
nih.
C
ii
Ill iii 1k
niilIiiltt Rb prodnttrs ittess to the tritl
it a fiXed
tariff,
iii ithi
i i.’,d
1
fl( lit lii i
liii lot
Ijt’ii
iii ol tiliic.
I ted-ui i,iiilf
iic
clestitlcti tni
ii iilitt
oiii Let
itt tSS lii tlit
tIllISitiOli ptnioti titUliil hitli
it
is
dihilt lot
1kw ninki
tUUalits
to
oiler
i iioipt tulve pt
onip.iicd to tiit’
utttiiiiioiits.
LJItiiiitt’iv,
lIttililts
to
litiitioitist’
tiatioital support sc’henies
I
lath-il
tilt
.tt(I’) Ri’,l
I htivis
lit ilioiit’ of
SC Ilittit
iii the Mt-other ‘tltt
md,
iflstC,ltl,iti(tlst’soi) iiiriiioiitsiiitltcieiierilioiitlittmsfortiieitiipit’iiieitt;ttioiiof
I
itch sciuott’s. ibis, Artult
I (2) rcoircs thu
tilt
tc’tiiiocai speiiiii ittcios that
Ltciiitic
Titlist unit
to) cjtiiitiy for tt,itiiiitai support should he citar]v dehied md.
where ivitbaldc, lie txpitsstd ivitit Ttie[eflce [<I inltopeail stoidtrcis.
Wini ficvii support sciittiic
is
irtft neil
it
h ttiuoiial Itvti, a few
tot’rif
poliie
hioi.iiiti out-thou
inst
under boson’s-is too,ii coiidittous tilt bU is
iredicitil to Liii short of
Is i)
itt
cttit
1<1’, tilget 1w O2tI. Suppott stilcitics
art.
hi-it fort.
iii tiitritisti
iirt
iii
lit’ lU’s clunate thitttru policy. SecoitcP’t,
esttlihisin-J liatli itid support scitcuics ssull typo ii1y otily support clot tc i (tile
prdiii cii it
hiss ,ihlc elicrs
I 1t
b’ ii) fort-sit” tht possibility of iittct—Stttt
tochici.lt oil lint
is citsclissi’il tither
so fir isv i\4tttthit’r ttts
list
silowil
ti it ii liii it huh
tt
p015111
it
it Is
St thin its
ti!
it
it
diii
ici
V Ut
tiop
inciit
itt
itvcl.ss lit-hit. itlv Uottit’sttc lUcos of nitiotial support stIic tilts pits
sittitii,il kb
ltilttits
11Th
.i ptitttitiil
(Olhicoll
Course
ss itli hti
ltlosc’tttt’llt
ptuiplts,
tIlt1
iii]) OS’tls the
it liSilili
l)ttWi’tTl
C olliiittiitn
i iiiitcptitdisittoo’
•
o coihijittitivcocss
itici
liii OV
sctiirttU
as
i
liitltiiiil
CCI,
iltttltiti\’ti\
i bun Opt itt
iii nil itt
tiee Mo Vt n itii ol TonewAh/n I noi qj’ /iI ti/a
iin flCi wren the oak 0, i / the
‘the, dli i /0/i
I flh/// 0/ imeii
/ /1 Oi
U/On P/iC’ N HO) / I (0/li! a! ot,ei tfleI9J/
!0l/CJ/
I hi
i oiiip oh’ its ti do iii 5th
1
ii
T
Sit ipili t
Si lit lilt S 55 th thc
Ii cc
iTio\
C
lit lit
prtseiljittcols oi Artic it’ ,‘j i liLt iii’, [
cii the stihiect lila c
mpact mit r cii vent
cisc
lw.
l’lic’ lust l.iiitiiiiirL case, (.ini/ill
( )IL°1 cciiiceroctl
to irish
icqutli ii tilt lit iiitit uii.ii oil
c iiiopiiites soctit c ,i
Uo
iii lion ol ti1cr od Ircitit all
!n.th reltotry. /Utltoiiih [lit
iutani
thriven hc’iituid the ptdicy sets to seiurc’ tile
icoiiotiiii viiliiiity iii tilt rthuciy,attcliitFoothc ci olltitott iustlhcitoiisasa role
ianllot lie invoked to extitip itt’ li-ct’ fllovcllitllt nc’strictiottt
tilt CJFU pcotii[tc U
the recitllleilleot. Jo its sihuiitssioii, the
iishi ovc rlllot’itt eiii.h,ss t’ thin kecpiiiu
the rehuiery opc’rititilili Sea, a iiiit(t’l (ii 5t itt”lc CIlIllOllilIt e iici IluttF0il siiOl]t\
jUt the Irish I&eputbbu
f )o this liusis, tilt
(
Jl Li rc,noiicd that the rccioiletilcitt fell
wtthlli the polk P ‘but
i\ecptli)u) ifl At iii’- 0 ‘[‘[-IL!.
I IililiiiLss,o it al,
I&cCii:sll’i
Iii’r,tlc’s, lieu
I 10
I )ot’rit Ioiiiiiit
intl ]houi,i
[1. iohni.ssio
‘tlui’pt.ni tnt’
11111
ili-r’s
t’ohcs
ii
C.iossni,itls
tills oii
t Ic-tout itv
uppirl Mci liiinsiiis’
2itot-t)
Iti(l I)
I iiiiy I’ell:y
•itt71i -lttt
04
72./U It ‘f.I;It!A
it/H:2,t,


2
Clirnale Chanqt
uI1ptll
( )i/ shows a
I
clIpetil ( ocirt thu
is cn;tuuhlv J)t
ISSIVe in itS tilIClel
stucilicu, ol the
[)El1)llC ptthi’y
eXC’C’[)liOti
us upphecl tu) C’tI11W [1010 V. p.nittiitnIy
cCuiStdeflic tile overtly disencnnuctury cuttte ol the lrtslu scheme. Yet in assesscccg its
IC lcV.Iuiie tc JeIC 01111k
lilt
ic:1Icty oh IIttionti SuSpolt scicecoes Eluder the 1< H),
two ,tdd:tcott.tl
IcOns teed to he couishred.
‘Ira, the lrish [101115 In
1ttit1tus Oil
Was
clot
custuhieti
011
iii’
1)1515 ol
cttVIloItIiIectt,ti
II IISIJC’tatIo)uIS
SC’1 III)Cil/, the
dtlISiOIl
[11CC eCles [lie 0110011:’
(.111(1 snil Iit(InipIetC
U plC)Iltltillt( tI)tv,ti(I5 the
huheruhisitcoic
(II etIC’rt5
i1]:11kI’tS
hI) lltidC’lSt nid hose these ttetors
t
up;tc
on the
cn1ii ItCbl{ItV oh Il:tn(iiI,’l sEtppict
SC hollies \Vitht AittiI
3 I IU’U. We nOIsE turn El)
the ieCcsauuus in P rI!’,5I’ttljl*)it, .‘111011C
ecJkrtJt till, oust [CI ently, 1:0 it).
In
,uc hi
C :tse, the c outtestec
Ilue,i’,turc seas pcrt of a ti ttiocu,cl s)ratC tv to p1011111k
Il, P
cochiict -ott: a
:CCEuirC client
ticat lt
I uSC
tv
I’
t,1i)cI S SOtliCC’
a
[1 clOOrtlOul
01
titer electricity
rIot wino :,Il’IIIS in )u’c:cu’tclIu’ktis
.111th a I’eCICIIIC’inC
ii thit C’clel’CV
i:stnhuiuus tilt) ili:t)O1 Cci
s stihutut iueIt enuuy 1:c’c titui,itus It)
111)001111 II El) [lIeu
‘Ill rI SIll
.ttith liSt’ Ill .‘NSI’ltl tuol
IttciIs
I j;tlL’n:/i.
oh p1)1cc V over\litc)cul uuiiy 01
hics:sulv Its OWl’)
1i0111C’Sttl RE prt)Cluuccr’: Only
1 o’rtul,lct wtictl Itu’itr;
C’OUbC
SCtf)’Jhy
c lectutc ity to
ft t,thes
littler the sIhiCull’
cit
Prt’ctst’iJ/ti Ii)
,tIiCI only
CItittlitCi issticd it th1 Ss eC)iSi) (,‘ill!IlIP
cttJiist/t) or Phetccesic (1ccc Ut) atttlioc’ittc
111 tIter
tI1V,t[CIS Ote llCtlct,tS. ict iii,tlIy :1)) the eertiicC,tes, lU; pc’ttCfltCl’ft u]eecje(
to he established
ispi C ttvely in Sweden or Norway (,1tii1.
tOl!!Sl1!/t) Or :3ChClClcIl
I lcst’ict)
,Niltivcthstlccc11t11! tile stltllt.ttlttl’s, Pii’ii.csi’ti1Ii’I’itt, .,IctutL
I ‘i1,cIkrc’/
lilt1 bsst’n
elI I] have a dcstcu]etcve
eatnis’
Put’ttsst II:/I’Rtca was Cli
1 ICICCI in 21)1)1
, when tit
!cheralis,tcoci
1101 ttctes’aOi)u1 oILU enetpy Il),Ii’kt ts was lac less ;tihvtuucccl thacu
t is
lOW, ilk SCilefl)e cci 1051)/f was ailopted uccdec’ tile preuecessors iii the 2t
(IC) Rh
1 )cn’ctuves 20)1/77
oud 2t)03/54), which asked Member States to develi,)
il1(11C,ltlV(’ RE t.o’sc’ts but CUt, not Ic)cpo-e clc,tc)0;1t11:’y I1,ttiOtLli t,It’’Ut5 br R_h
t
.1 OCcpOu’tIotI O bIll
f7Ct’05’
(1)1)1 CIflilt tOIL
‘tui,til, ahthC)CtSl1 the CJEU ruhtr
pieeeiles the iii [15)01) in
sst it, the ucceastuics ucudursec’uuuty iii .‘lltcictls H-cdkraji, it
bitt 151, were
hi
hi st
It) hi-
rC’v:eweCl
i/l tne
C0iite2, [
oh the
201)1) R_s.
1sduressun1 t:le question wetiter nat I)))),
Stt’fl(tl’t
SC’helnes that
:tvour
alt
)t)tecit)aily uIsadVaulta-cC
utattoclal nrodtictwt ot
cit cv aNt ecuery
to’ eaudht 115
tIll’
1, 1) ib [lot
c
on trade restrIctions cn Article 34
i U , the (3 bU in
eac
iuust;tnee ,turwert’u cic tile ,lt,irnltlLVt’,
ibis means U1.it tltttlo)lL1l SC4)[1Ott IISCISItI
for ruitewabit
C nei’
Ire not exempt bioiii (J; U si oILily. I -lowever, in cac.
ot
the thc re eases the t )iL] also tound that thic’ eontestert nieastures weru ‘useful for
I lie protection ol the envronntecut tnasunnch as jtttey C CIntobutef IC) till’ reduct
In greenhouse
ras c’mIssiotus, wh:ch are
tuhconist the noun
e,iuses of
ClU1l.t
I hauue thtat
the Lnrrupeaiu
Union and
its Member Stites have
)hedged tu
___________
uui
ut
110
\sJlc Ic
15
1111)11
hI
1)1111
obsc i vi d tli It
in mt ii isi d use of R
05
‘
57l) 0/i Pocco’ctl (ct-ut
‘Ci I.I.ti(0fll :1(c)); (S7,t/l2
-1rcncl
I ‘c’udktctjt ECLIi
-
1
:21)14 2)))?,
1010cc!
(uSes
It
C —St 1-12
did
C’
- /00
I’
l:ittc’i
Itil’ttittc
LULl: l
‘:2))) ‘I 2 1 Ct)
I or I icrthuec dc neoC,:)
- Set’ list) I htcpier t
IOu
ccItt
ci 0!, lIe mlii: icc
i/ct-dc,
II 75.


the Challenge ol a Reçju Inlion—i3asetl Market
289
•iiitrilsiites iowncls lie poit et Hull tit
lie lie,iitlt .ntil life of Ittintins,,nnnt,ils anti
ant, (lie pub
V iatntiiis ensinnieul ni Aiti ic
Itt
I ti.1
on
lie iutsts of which
)eiither Si,ites nity
nstiPy trade restrit tivc nie,isnres, even if they ne dist rune
itory iii ciesin or ililpiti,
is the 1<
n,ititun,iI support schlentes were. Morettvei,
lie deeisicun to exclude ioreii’n RL pinclitici’s, or c-sicuiiiIIy eneiited eerttuIeites
iii tile case ot I:cct’ijt, liotn tile scope oh the soppori scheme was in teceptihie way
nra Meniber State to ensore (flat Its i< str,Itey would effectively stnnnlite kI
odtic
iTt
is s’’ell as coitscln(ptituii
witiliii (lie
Menilser Siate
intl to exercise
—
a tieiree Cli eoiiti’()l user the iiahon.ti eilert’
niX.
I lie
t tulitesteti nteisi res were.
eretore, in
tuttipinette ss; (It the proporttnuluty punt ph
‘I lIe
litiicctti12iktii—,ln,ttl.’,
I utill,’tii/(— hso’ni
triiu(Vili
settles
titi’
cftlestltoi
1)1
lietiter taLonal Rl sti—ateties nta’ i;tvoiir local P
I
fsrotict(t;u)ii.
[ however, tite
itdnr;niee of the ( ,IPU’s vision nay be less n,ii,ititet’ti th,nt the iniit s infancy of
runtentation
ni the thiet’
cit
nients .Siine5(S. list, tile
t ieatttin cita i’,tutt)sac’;iti
nci
Union by pocthn
soiti C ss
ttitiui nit
ii it
ish ttt 11105 nid Uilttnt
ift
it
2
‘tatiiw power vts t•v
third eutnittes,
is a puitnity ,i’eida point of’ tile
cntekei
Oflt(ilissioti.
It
is
cjri
tIo]ab:e whethcr
ti:ititiii,ii c.ttdersttndtnt;s ot enety
ecuitty, suhteh technic s’lIliti!niess [ci rely on enerf’\ supply if’oiii other
niiiei
tttes, will
eontntcte to ht witlltit
t cinibed
nicutic
I that
c]uirely iianie.s s-iier\
cm its
its
iii is nc
is ciii c
t st
nit upt ni
in s tons
t’/tu iii osc i
[Iii
IS
I oil
tennl tenet cut the ()LU s ue,ionnti is sve.tk. As c’inphiisisc ii
Acivoc its (tnei,ii
•
lots ( piiitoti5 ifl both
‘lands
ntlktift ,tiid t.siiu(, haunt a elnn,ite c lint
e pefc
ave itdtue not n,tttcr wlic’tc
eift’\c’:l[)ic ener
is
enc’c,teci !ii’ii,hiy, tile nclnsion
if hitet’it
itoduc
‘is in ui,tuuuii,il siip1siutt stiieiitc s ecuitlcl buster
tilliculines of scale
nd titus
iii ks [hi
ti C)tittc tictit (Ii
icc (ciii
5 tilts
i
ttst
c llct (is
lot ic t)ttld in
inn speed up market penetration
i s’itlentiy die CJPU dc’eidcd di(ireiitly, but the
uG opinions sits’s
is
i cuu St Oil
iii id
tlt it
t ciittinits
[ci
tilVitc
dis
ttssioii
iici
sotetit tfl
iii O5 (hut tttoii
10 115
tltc c \Ts[c
it
ill iii nd
tot
n it on ii Is
t
i
t ts
in uilauidu
null o’lt ph wici
i si
itific
itt p ut
01
t
pl ntn;t
ths
tics ci k)t Mc nibs i
States to 1 sip
t (tint ii ntci on ulonis slit sncit,y p OclUc [too und
t si
c p tttcois Yct
inrnd:aois Lit ieis wtll expire in 2t)2t), ,nni ssiii lot lie rc tssnuC fur tIlt’ 21)2))
ttI)i
penod. It in ty hut be a det isis’s eletiis:tt
— ths iuaeicdrcip of
ticicatiss’ tr’os itt
t55f’nt diii litit StOft the ( niirt front tilitSit ernti tite c’xehtistoii oficcia ox t certihit
itt
eceptable
bitt it is
it utothte tctor that cititittlis its to keep a witelitol t’ye on tin
re aewible i’iit’igv
cners’y st etttsiy- ni,nket lis’tiitsitisci nexos
The Challenge of a Regu’ation-Based Market
Uitqctesttouabls tile tilcust i,itiicitts tenet cti the i U’s (Innate (lintip Pit kwe i
the hiiusstoits
ruing Systt’ili (J’S to iii b IS)
‘lie
1 5 was t st:hiiilied iii
Je,iit
C ttndejmtt kt’r, ‘A Nc’w Start br itirnpe Mv Anincit or cths Growth, I tiness and
I)c’itioc’i,iiie Ch.tniie Itohitic,tl (,titdt lint
Fir tht Nixi Fttrcipetn (tlntillissictit’. Opt oiie
St.tc’ittcnt in thi’
1 urolc’irt
I ‘iiijinieij I
I ‘lc’Tllrs Sc’sioti (Si rasbourt, 22 C )crober 2)) 1 4),
tv,nItbic
ct: Iotp
/ec,cutt’ p c.u ii p
tutOR
dos s
i_s’n.pcIt t!fiat;s’
it


Climate C5aiige
tin UtU lniisstons
1 tacim l)1nc live (l I
I ))uut .cud atiojin a ctp-.Ini [tacit
.ilpn)ach
((1 t’illtSSii)ils e
tt’ni. Opc’r.ttotc it
tcei
ii
In
I Ii)
ctJcccie ( d
ittuensive .sceturs such asi Iant. steel nulls oid,
ittfli\ etsutlIv. lolOhilti
ciii atrhites (see above.
(
civecJ
ihterp[is tints) ohtatii ciltssotts .iiiow
hues,
t’.it it
it ihi Ii
t olives’s
lit
iltt
tel
t.’tiitt
liii.’
tilitlie
ot
I)
tot its
tcithivtiehit
lit ttltiilht
tiXItit’ or flehlititlic)e,tthOfl) intl .iiintially suurrcticlc’r sum
etch)
tiiosv.iiit t’ to teevc
I their
iutis’,iteii,
I itt’ iocii ituutbt
cit ,tliow.itiees
isscit ci coO esuonds to
to
ces cecil
oiisstoii
cap sshicii, as ot Phase
ill of rite
I ),
is de
liiite
etcticliv leer .ll (Vie othi r i
cite1 sioe h
1c crc eses by
i/I ccci
III toictitily.’
I lii tip
çi’d at a (evil lien slueicckl c;ulriubtc e that,
Icy
‘t 12(1.
1
5
cOil
s ill hive iedcc
c
h’ec fh If, eiuits’iotis Icy
it
ietst
per
ciii
Otii.iI,t 1
i
‘))O
in icc itoltitic with
die
eec oIly .tdopted
U ))
()t) stitci”
ei
1hasu
V, ( dl(
unissioci
svhtlluut tlic
I
‘1 sectorS ,ure
tel LIII)!)
tU
tilt ittOtl,t!
(1 per tint hs 2)) (1)1
to .u luieve thus.
lit over]!
s:ili rheen let
c cOlic
Lion ii by .2.2 pet- ccitt ,iiiuie.t liv loin 201 I
I hii Iiitse IV
icrhtis
tic-
otultruite-
itt a ))I5
eiittlillsi(lit eoeciI to
tim
lit, the
Ii), anti
tIc
Vc’t 10 1)1’ tii ccl
11)011 by tilt Council ,uiiii
ni Lineal]
‘it lint iii.t
The IIS as i/1ar/.e-5a7d i?gu/aflOn
the LU LI’S is a pratud cxpurubcwnt
iii iu.uiket-based rem:tclattott, ‘ctt,tcc;mtl
ccrp,tsscetp nieviotcs itiodels (such
us the US Acid
Rain Pteprt,cttt)t ti
tilt1 titer
itativc
e.trboit markets in scope
acid
seal-.
it
is clc-sittcd to
Itritess tnarkci
tic cht.tiisttts
iii
service
of
bc
eitietetit
ciehverv
of
rc’pctlatory outcome
)pcrtttr that tiwit excess
tlhosv.uetcc’
caut trade these on th
opeut miarin
which shcnch! tilt entivisc
cii Vestuneitt in nrecn ifloUvatcon
hrottph the tinloli
LOS
)tuca
iSv
2(103/57
L(
01
the
]-uiiopeaii
P.imic,ciieent
intl
ot
the
( ocincil
cit
3 ( )c cohn
‘15)3 etihIushiiic a schniuie tnt c;rceiehnucsc
uls eunusstditis .eflciwiuiec traditi
wct)iei
tilt
I
0hhihlilOtUe
.ini)
,00inc(lic
ouencii
I )urut si
i)11 ((
I t
OJ
2))(i
I 275/32.
tel Atinc’c I, ti It
lilt tllip)eIchtn[utohe iii t)i IIl ) is cirseciused iii elefftiici phases, the stall anti cod claw- of
which
C Ocelchcic With key points iii II.) ,uid iiitirti,itutitiiI t )IctIit
clteocc’ policy. the mill
period (Picc I; sItite cit the cilicy 1111cc (01cc of the
I
I 1)111 2)11)5 iiul ran until 21)1)5. Phi
II covered
thc
Kyotc)
c onuptiane e period between 21)1)5
end
2(112. Wc are
citrently 0
Phase’ III, which wilt cxpcu e
ni 2(12)).
ill
[he oct
i umotnbc’r of ailoss .mc,s
I icr 201 7 i
031 ,244,KOt I.
Assci onin the
e ontmer
nit muon of lilt
UI< in the
I hU El’S, this
I ot.th will reduce’ by 35,261 264 .eIlowcn
pit veil nnt ci 2(120.
ii 2 Set’ ii, 30, above.
I ii See hutp:/ /ecturop.t.c’u
e II ciii! polie;e / ets/mcicxc’n.litm.
0-i
Proposal
or
a
1)11cc tvc
tel
thee
1tirope.tn
I’arhenct ni nd
1)1
the
I
eccineui
colt tic
l)hicc
cut
2)5)35 ‘/]t
to cohticcc
c ecst-etlcttivt
enhissie
115 It Cliii
11015
cod iow—caticofl
ccvc-st ccc ccl-, (/)M(2)) (5)337 final, 15 July 11)15.
0 A.
I Ii icc c’
/,.t-tcocn,
P.eit I,. Joskeisu. R;c lard
Sc biiialrttsec
, jti.cti-Ptblt Mctntt’tt)
upt
liuz,bern
(VI
lilt v
3lcerke’/i lilt
I leuec
lu
The
t
S elite! Rain
lttecce,t,et
If
cmhtc,
l.JuiItel,hiS I’tcss, 2)11)1)1.
i
I


Iho Chull(’nqe of a Requiation-Based Marltot
291
l)ireetive,00
i’niissntn
RediliticHi
Units
(bRUs)
obt:tinetl
via
onci
icleiit’iit,ttcn
iichr
iii’ kyoto Proto iii, intl ( ericlittI l:iitissiott kc’tliiitioiis
((IR’,) issiittI by the ( le:cii
iteeltifunent Met lintisin ((.1 )f\4), liii be ccuiveriecl
Ott) ,illtt\V:ili( (‘S nut uttiset tc;tnist 1:15 eccussiocus within lice l I. l[ie jo)ssihclity 1)1
tiacitici; ,tllow,tutts, (it hil:iiitii)f clcincesite entisioits \s’i Ii eiiuissinccs redtcc lion’
iCilceVitI oictsitfe tilt’
U, ltltls otit the proililse 1)1 eiltisscotlis iedtittions h:ippc’ci
niore eost—t’f}eetively than wider a etinunucidund —c ctccirol
cpprtt:ttit with
uni(triit ecinssions reiliiticticc st:tuid,trtls Under ntirkc’t —bisect re’tiI:ctcon, sectors
that e:cii luciovute
Iteiply ss’ill ni;cke the trc’atc’si tilts Ill t’ctnssiotis.
ilinse fin
whom c’nnssctms reductions ire expensive svill hold
00k) (heir allowances and, it
necessity, pun hitse illt)Wtitdl’s lrec’cf tip tlcittntçh C’nnSsit)cts recfnctioits elsewhere
kncussiitstu,itlnili,isitc’enie,i pitt of the
I iiiopettt rt’-nl;ittiry itnidsc:ipe, yet
Its nit ititluc
iii was flit front nnpicdtletit:ttie :tnd its fittine Soc cr55 reut:ctits lcicçltls
precino is
‘‘he history td the IL)
:15 oIlers a sve;cltfi ot lessou.s ft
lie Ic: ,:tl
chalfeit:es tii,n
nt’ninp;ttiy iii
cfehib rite tte,ctioit nIt new market tic sic
port
a rc:nl,ctory str,ctecy. ‘lucy
tic
title, to n:cnie but
a less:
lie le:,tl tussles ovei
ac’tepttlle icaitoical
iiloc,iitttii
ol :ilfoss:liices
iii
conipictiuce ssctli thi
ttver,iil
cap;1
/
lit iuyri;td cli,ihleui:’,
‘; involved
ci
lie e.st:ihhshioeitt oirt liable, venilable
cud eouipctlitle inhililtorni:
systelits
1(0’ eiiiissions
hid
re:istr:ctitn recrcliics
or
:ihlow,cutest
(lie scope iItr
nit1 teed to touih;ut )r:titd cci thlos’aicces title;
tlct
tfuestciiiis surriucitilici; the ie.ti st,itdis ii c’niis’cons :ihlow:cnics as a newly eie,uted
connitoclity;
L
I
mu
so utic
‘l’hie
I
I Ph’s has .cfso nivc:’or:cietl extd’n’ iS’’ c:eb:cts
,chonf tlic’ pros
ciii) eons of ilidtiltiVC’ based ie;ulition eoccipit’eci to counnanci
cod-control ,lUdl/t ,iltc’i titlist
rei;ul;ciory appntitehes
nid about the extent anti
ethics of conoiiochifi it hilt
liii’ sc’ctions hic’lo\\ ln:hili:lo two Iniportuit nu’ss,c”es [hit enieroe (roni [lie
sU hiS esp’t utcic’ htcit thu
iii) potr’utilb (iinsc cud
tilt
context cii (El(
t’missioii’,
ti
duct;
lb
P1’S reveals
tutu
attempts to harness the
iii,irket
for
‘erul;it oct iii
c a htit;h de’ree of complexity ifltd) re
tulatoc’s desi
n and cleec,n)h1
iciikiut’.
I irst, they introduce a new acid ehialicci:nu: ilarrtitivt’ hilt)
fL’etiveciess
:ussessnients,
i touchy, thi
use of niarket
b,cseci retulatiocc his resulted in thit
‘onslmnctcci of
,u lie,is iv i’ctnlatcou b,iset] ni,trc’t
Kit pine this ucarket ,tlltuit
1i6
)ict’dtcvi’ 211111
Ilul
id
t,i,Itc hi :
1 sclcc’ccic for
‘ri
culicic’c’ as t’iuccSSiccui .illccw,tneu
tr;cdccu; wiuhccc the C
cuuiicccc:i5
ccc cc’spc cccl ihi Kycic Pccttctccl’spcoject ciii iic,ccioccix ( )J
21)0.1 12th
1K.
F.,
ktn
plc
Ithluruiu:’r
cccii
Andic’t
Iicite
‘Misccuu
tucipc’scbl!?
0cc
the
I t;icicucccv,iuccnc ol N.ci:ccit.tt All
chico tuf,icl tctuctcr the Pt) I ucus’coui’ ‘I r cliii
‘ I lilt) live
(2(1(15) 2
it JctttucuI cf RIM/itt
i,ncttccc
K 1-
18 5, lilt titec,cnu’ nt’Vccs
ut V.clt’ntct ii ff,tc’ci ‘-dcl., ‘Monitoniuct’, K ptcrico:cnf Verilyict:
1iuuissccciis tic liii
C Yccn,cuc’ Ii c)ctccicly
(2(tt -c) 5 ,\‘,itciu t )ictcl’ (lit/uS H)-32h
iS K;ctltt-rcnt’ N:
(ii
cud
Kit rio l nut. ‘Print] on the itincpoin Ucucoui Lccusscotis ‘I’rcticn:;
Sc’ltc’ccu’:
I t1uis, \/chtccichcltct*,ccicl It,cxtcl,iiccis I&i’ictiicc’ (‘((hi) 21(
I uuctpc’cict Icuc’oycitcd
I ‘cct’:cuttccc’cct,i/ i_itt’ Rrc’ic ci’ 25’s _2h)
i20 S,cbcci,i M,c,’,
‘t lc-t:itui:’ Fuuiussucicts Pnicttccucectts in thc
I inistitutuouc
ot the It] Fuulisstc)lcs
1 radii
‘ sic’iic’ (21112) ((2) ‘ISituccuch’c’ctc/ Etc’otutccuctct,i/ Liii’ 2(13-3 U


292
Climate Change
((lUll itk
ii
t ii U i
iiC
Jt ut
1 t
\‘est 11(11
(If
c”U
itt II
t’S(
I It US
ii 1(1
II
(
I
I
I
5’
(iauglng the L7 ecr!/en954 o
il/i.aIet-.8aSeC/ [?t!httio,
\ lust
soil
the
C
ISI-Cuelli is of
it1
)tiiIi iltt’iil vt
l)lSt(l (lIC’liOiiillC’ll
iii stl,itt’iut’s ku
tilt’
lilt tptli:ilsitioti of
i
ifituiy
litiveiicss.
I lie lU l’!’
spent lit
C SfiClW tliit, wheu It collie:, iii cv,
l.Itiili
C ks tlVc’lk’S’, Iii.iihUt perfor
in it
,ì it!
ci Si
ii
ic-i
ii
pet in un u e
1ii’c
)c’Ct III1C’
uIet’tIy
ti it
1 ilc.l
flit
111)51
fi utfili iii i\’
115CC1 ci
iii—
ill !,iilI0 fitIw
..‘‘ Ii (oi
f)t)OCly)
fit’ 1’ I’S is
\ciuil’,lllt’
i’
lit
lilt
Ii
tilli’tSiOiiS .illiuwiti t’
cli
C,ltl)t)iI prI1t. ‘I lit-re is sonic
1151110 ,OlttIl for tins: t’COilOii)ts[, eStiii,ttt’ iii
,libCiul .eiiw,iiis,
tiLt ittIS’ ttaci—
1111 at
i-f)rC)\;lni1els C4.7 (lilt,
wtiiilt
liCCif to h’
i(C’i) •it (l) or
hove to
sIiuilil.ltt’ lUhic\.lticlli
At fC)W(’i pOttS, it ieiil.iiilS 1(101 C’ eIhtiiit 11)1 OIi ititOS tO
Out 11,1st
ii
,iflt)\V,uiii
‘5
ii, it) lIi\’est iii
ii: It’.
tilt C, llhItkt
thlilSitLiOflS
(iii
11(11) ‘f)ii’tl
hf) ui1
lit’
if
ililicIVattohi
lilt!.
tot’ uiti.Illl/,
I tI,il)ic
liii
kt,_J to
tiiliiilll
to
iflC)i’C
,tiiihttot iSO’ tiilti
15,1
U,iO’i’[,
till
231
ti
It’LL
‘,i’h{’tjSlIe.
Vfo:covei, tlit ,i\,ili,uIhihIIy t)i
1 tliiii firit C as a til.iuhifict., Straichtk)iW,li’U hc’uch—
iii.uk of
ciul,ltuiv 50CC 155 IS It
lily IVlpt. 111114 it) ,iiiafysts o
e”,utiiitiy t’lh cOve
iiess, 141 Veil tilt’ Wt’li (!i)ttiilleiite(l
C (liii lc(Oty (ILlct’tiu’:ltCIy issessitie the iii
act of’
ItR)iC ti,iditiou,if ilIe.lsLiius such as ccii ssious limits ,iuc tt’c’huc’ai staitci,ids
lit’
C’tfUitlOii
tit
lhi,ifkt’i
:)erfc)ntt:ilu c’ with
envluoiill)cu[.i! pemfor 11(111CC
15,
hiowcvcr not tunpioblcinoi
t\u:,u,thiy,
2
((ill Oil tilt’ ‘tIaclc’
‘tiILi
of tie cap
21111 triclu tc’iiinc’ tliVl’rts (Itit’lltit)fl away from
thc’ d’l’S’s true chl(4liIt
it)’ ehange,
it,00elV, tlic’ tritlu:lhfy 1:’
tt’lIiii14 cap.1 lIihc cap is eg’itively c
ihti’t
c, reduc
[loll tiii%UtS will be net
I’C
it’tllt’S) ol thi,’
C :u’hou
lOUt.
liii t’d, it iS osstble ti
I lint t:IVC’ itt SCt’u,it’iOs V,lit’)
ile t,irbtli)
lOUt is mw yet Lilt’ euVirOtliltuutat tar14Cl
tit the
lti4ltflU
aic’ bc’iii
cubit vt-ti, fir eaIci lIc
it oaer;irors oust-i their GUt
t’flhlssiofls ,114(UflSt meduct (IllS cfiievcci iii
I (IC cleVclopitls4 5,’i)i’IC( (st’t btlow). Thci
IS,
tflci’t lore,
a risk
tiat
a low
c((rtlOcl 2ICU
COtuic
hi
used
(1) dist’i’ccit tb
Let tivetlSs of 1(U Clmnlite
C Oaui14t’ politic’s that,
rilni
fl t’nvirounit’uLi :P
tive, are nonetht’!ess de]ivei iii:;. l\Ao’covc’r,
etrott.s
LI) suiport the
unarset
mit
,illOWailccc icily
lot
lit-c C’SS,U ily be thc’ most t’fc’ tlvc’
to ithieve iapid G1i
etiiSS)llS reductions.
1c)tc’iltliilly, rt’gtlfatory ititilC)t’itit’S t’otilCu bt’ led to poonti
‘ilvunu’ the (:11111(4 c,mi’hon ni:irket uive :uvest:n the Lt*t1 e idito r s’sou
at their disposal into
;mltc’ruativc
,
pc’rflapS more effective, approaches
tOW2t
1
tliiiiate change uhitliatlon
flit’ 2f) ii
dilOit4tvefl’t’ut httweeii erstwhile neu
( cullnhls’liotser f )ettiu(et and (1liniate ( hantc’ ( OfihilliSSlOllUF I iedetaard Ox-i
I )at 3
1 v,li!.ihlt’
ti
www aC: -
- coIn’ c-i’ll / Ill
-
‘
tVlc’ iii
j ),
I Sf
,
,tt)000icsts
“tVaru
of
“Lost
I )c’c’adt’” Risk
[Or EU
C,mi’hou Mark
-
I K
-u’Ntuir-,’ .f II ,,v ,:a:’lc’ at: www. Itt t orc, _Ii f 5 / I 1_f,’
K/ecouomsts -W21 n—of—ft
tit-u ithc’ —risk— Ioi
- i II - Ii 0)011 -inarket/
123
I ):uuc]
Ilitcf,uich -j,
‘flu
‘frt
md
(,‘,sift of
1-lU tihhtmttrtil
Lnmtiritlimi’utat
l.ciu’ (Hr v
Uiihvt’lciiy lilt
, 2(110), 251 2S
1/4
‘lnli’i
1 hi
I l;Ui,itt- is No (uiiitimodmty


[tic
C haflenqe o a Regulation-Based Market
293
\viiCtli(’i
111I11(l,IlOi
‘otry (lilt
tilt ‘>7
t:li’irets slio
Itt hI’
iIiI[)t)St’CI (iii the hIS
ector’, Ilus itt’s itt’ t(’flSlOT), Alilittiicli
tiitrihuitiit. to tltiitate chtii,
Lou, the coilteril
55 is rued hit chit leiny si,iiuthirds wttiild tiest,tliillst’ he ni,irket
or eniissioiis ,LlloW;lIl( c’s anti should
lierefoit’ itt
ivctidecl,
“ It appears that the
hoice liii’ the iiiatke
liiIV
li1VC’
1
severely
restrictive
iiiiitit
Oil
recuihttoiy
cite ri iut iv e
‘4anag/ng a /?egu)tion-Based lf4arket
ic
hit l,ttter oissers’;itic)iis hiiik to tl)e 51100(1,
iiiiahly iiiost ieSOiiiidiflB
lCSSOii
Imptrtetl ;iiter ,i cleenle ol the
‘.11 IsIS: iui.irLets est.Ilslishtetl
hr
cccli relil.itioii
ire loch
ll],tiiuieii:Iiiee toot ‘tutlittlis. [‘roiii the tiitSei,
hit’ hid t,crhttii iii:irket mis
been pl;i:itecl by tleticieiutu c’
nid itut(heil)C iltttIit.iiit e. lhiihluii it buck froiii tIle
lion!.: of ohl,inc’ :uppe.urc ti he a cttltst;tiut lecoh,itttiy Ut
eavctiii’. [Ins is
irlciisicic
once nile ot the tuitiehi viitt’it
eiiehts of iit:irkei--h,tsetl o’ciil:itltto over
ciiui
‘i
tnand—aiid eoiiti’cil is
fLit thit’ ltn’iitei’ ‘trodiit c’s hiss nt1 tapt
: recul:ttot’s
u-c’ iee to
:OCUS oii the Iiui
slttilre whihc’ tin’ m,tcbei sst)tks
COlt the
tt chiu:e:ti tfet,itls.t
l
)ever,ui f;itiin’s of the t’I’h iii its tsricutu;uf tle-cicit help to expliin the puvvle.
rhe A/location olAllowance’
lVaiiv 01 th
key e:itisc-s
ill
cit
sIiiccisli
‘U tahiti
i
tii.iiket
ire traceable in
tLstritiitttto:tl tilolem utu:lthu’
it tile
Ict’fitc(tit of tilt’ hI ), l\/etst
:icriiifii’;iiirfv, thc
Oetlsicuii 55:15 iliacle to
,lll(O21c’ tiit tivec’whieliniuit uocforlts/ of ,tiioss :iiic’es
I Phase
•
1 dii tIll
ft
111th Uhti,
it
I ht
ii OSf’tC
t)f lit t
iihtisv tict
S itt
tic
liii 050
Hi ctc ci by
it
t
) hibu
hl’1
It)
C sHill itt
151
1
u sisso ii
voin nc
55 hit h
ifcu tcd
fit
iii tiil
C tic ii)
1101)5 Ito tht
ovti tIb
C
[5
itt
t 5(11k tI
iii dir
ovc
]ot
lit’ i
of
itios ,tttt t
I
misc gilt itl
dir
c
w us litthi
Si C 5501 C
Oil thc
1 s
Lctois to
C itlic I
tc cliii
c
iliSsin is hi 5/ond btisiuii 55—0
051111 P
(iou
(it
tu
DC
Cli
i
icIt itiofl ii
hltts
110(5
ii tict
m lily to Itt (
11it
ttc ipt of
his in wl
tie tc d issc t
is
i
tiittl ill
tii
C ct tn wh cli ss IS P1555t1 (ii) to thit
C Oflstimrr
I
‘I’he trade --supprc’ssm! ilup:tet ot r’:td,t ei’uib was exaeerbateo by the rcgiiiic in
pCe liii’ the LI)- s’-’ichc’ ,ilh)Ccut0O (ii .IIIC)tvatiet” dni’i iV Phases I (f)(f5 dt)(t7)
intl
ii f2(RRt
7(11.7) of tIe
Ci’L, It was up it) the IV:c’tohc’r St,iic’s to draw tip Natioii:ti
Jdioc’,itiou P]ans (NA Ps) s-.’iticli sc’t out both an
cvii LI estonatu’ of euitissioos and
he tiiitoh ,tblot,ttttiii oh; floss’
cit Cs iaer CeUtOi, tiowtu to the
iiiSt,lhfatt(ii
involved, lii tfi s task of estciii,it(oli
ml ,thlcie,itoi i, ‘Ioo:cl
t tint ellis oh chiii;tt
i hahn’ ;iiicf iiatioiiaf c’ohicet’ns tec’,u’cfiiic the c’olilpetiflvei:ess of the ETS Set;toi’s
i:ltenhi:ticiecf. C oiisetpieiiLv, NAPs telldteo to cli Oil the sick ofu’neotsitv. this
25 ]--Irs suIt ‘I ttvt’niouc ( ‘hiio,tt-
t ‘h-nit”,
26 Brute A, At’kt’rnt,un
intl iCut’lrt,’rl B. ‘twirl
‘ltc(ttiiiliit,’
‘its ic’tiuits iii,il I,,tw
((9(15) 37
S1tu/tl I,,uut’ Rt’u’it’u
233--f 1(5,
ut ‘II in
1337 ,uid (212
(.i I
27
hue;t l&ubiiti nut trt’7;tI bc’’nu
Whio’ii Stttp tilt
tl.,tiitP /tl!ttc,uit
Liunsoon Athctv’,mct’s
for Free:
1,nsirtiniu,t’ni,iI
Ptihit ,
‘ ttt
itt,
till Wit I
‘iuuNttl5
t,,iw’ (20(2)
1(2)
iI’titi2litlfi’ul -I t tui’ttt’teutt iii
I I tilt’
179— 5’t


234
Climate Change
jestilieti,
lint,
it
,lttiittitliitttt’, cliSltti[(4 l)t’tWteIt
tltc
fVlcilIi)t.’t Stilt,
111(1
IuiC’
ti) 11ms’,Ioi i, ss lilt. Ii wi’, t,i’Lc ii tvii ,ijttt oviit
stiltii
It cli N AIS ,iitd.
ti
4)44,1—
51011, Withltcili this
tlr)Itt\’ ii
S
tttill. tl’
‘c tilt tIlt’, c’,iIilI.ttc’S itiiilit.t colt
it ll)ttlc’Cl iii owl ,tlit)t ito tti.
lVIt’tnhci
St.itc
,ilhto
thou
lii’, nov
hect
teUlt,illsc’cl .ttici
IS,
itt
,l
Sit’iiilk
liii
tlc’tiec,
55sicI.i,iit’,4’{!
thitttttthi
lilt
,ittilti,tI
tiilttcitiltl
itt
hit.’ tt\(i,tIl
,If
i)y
I il
)c
Cr111
ttl tct 2i121i.
,i,ttttlt,iilut. IIuI4,
ill
(11111,
is t;i.ttltitlfv tei)liCetl by
ltttittit, \Vltlc It kilt i S ito
I.
S
,c
ttti it) nitcruiliSc-
lit
051’, ot (1 it
c’tins
iitttS tIltt, tints, cioUtlics 14 14311
I nt,irLI’t ‘,it,il tii Sti))1tttti idc’itiiss,tttis it’cillc timi
and
titttav,tllttii. 1v 201
1, slt:;IitIs ttsc r It) ptu ceult cli ttttisslctIts llIftw,tltces were
tilt (ittuleti.
O\\tVt’C.
a
till \VltCh
(it .uutttl(tlult:
is prilvill:’
tttTitt’ithitttis
:15
l\sIc’iithç Stiles tic Itt’rvtlcis ,i[ttttll ilie hitilpic
1 1)1
C tisi ti1tt’iiIItutttl,lIl,Ittt)ul oh
liii’
lttlt,th Cithlt’tc’tl(lVc tic vs tO
bc
IS sc c
ttrs. ( )rt’’tti,til ‘,cltt unit U to 1w itotipiriecl
ht
2))
tIlt!
tttslt
titsVjtt
,ttttttitIltIit
lit)’,’,’
ittoks hl(l5
lit
ite sttspeuicletb
I lie I tohtc 2))
1
1: Cl
. 1011(1 ktt)Itttti)li alliruiit’cI tloit:
Irecallo 44)01 will not ‘xpiic; existim. nicarurc
will cort)inut’,tftct 2020 tt) pievt’nt (0
ri’,k of c4iibnti IaIoqt’ lite to Cii ld. ciIict
115 lung us
it. (00J3r.id. II (iiOtk art
tinder
ken in other in. ijor economics, with the ohjt cOve of providing ipproprial
levels
of
suppor
for
sectors
at
risk
of
cOng
intemat:onal
cotnprtitivel to
The wnc hcnarkr for free altar, lion
vaIl he pr rirdicIhy eviewed in lint vaith iechtt
logical pmgiess in the
spec live irdustrystctois Both clint aid indinc Ic n0on cot
will hi’
i:e
rib
(Coot), in
re with the
U
it: aid wIt
SO 115 tO t’uuit’ a It
pityittc unIt)
lit order tI) nlOintait
ifltetflObOiial coinpet:iivc’’iess, the
lint) cHic
unst.sltt’o’it in thur
;nrtnt,
autO not I
tu
mUon taitbuti costs tetdng In cart,’
loakaqc
1)0
Hie cihst!rvatH)i]s
il-C
1111 tiui:)tirt,i)t ftiiilittlc
that itiiti:ttoiy tb
tees
Ire detei
tubed by tunic titan c ()ttsideiatiohts ol ctsiciney. As clnu’lnU the st.irt-tip phase, tilt
sntc ess of the lU hIS is uO lily denntc (‘tiC Ott tile \CtlIlhittleSS
1)1 ilit’ Metiibi
Slairs Cc’ snbport iirb repttnc
Intl 01 tIle eliergy—tutc’listve Sec 1cn$ to c oiulply Wtth it’
prc’sc rlpilollu;.
lii :ciil:It;iit
md
rekwuuutiu:; tIle his. the 1U
itlttsi
nuantin
a cltlfiectit b,tlattcc
IlttWc’eul citvifl)iiutieiiial etiectiveutiss,
cc OtIOtttIC
tIticients
nmd poiittcal acec’ptability.
Recession <md Ttimriationol Offsetting
Iwo .iticlt[tot tO lactors that stppi essed the carbon price were the iwihiutlity il
uxieniilI
c reated credos ,uiuil the
t’i nilonuuc
i’ecessioii,
Ihe latter flCiatIVt
‘‘ Sec
e.g. (use C-2i7’
I I P (%tninikcitit V. IIu’Itt IC ‘Lt:EU:( :2(113:021; Casc C-S05,i
P
i .ttttlhu14ittt!
1lui IT.] I:1’,U:( :2(112:1 7tj. ( ,isr
C 1—nt)4/t)t) P
C tttilititt’uttt v. PoI,t,
LI Lt:t.U:t :2012:1 7K.
129 Sec ht gt
ct .t ttrctpic’u/thint politic’s! civ ant’nnn:IICC’ ntdt’ .c’ui .lii.ui
131)
II ..‘),,itto’,e.
i ht:siot:ci
Truip ,iud
I 111) Zhtnt.’, ‘I.rssttius
1 runt t&cOct( ittunt Caihotui
C )n,, t Mart
i
fIllS) .lI)
I rtstt,tu,ut,tn,il 1:tti’ittttttttt tttl Liii (tO—lOll,
it KU—KB.
I


liii’ Cli ili’ngi’ of d Rc(jtllatioTlBisetI Marlcvt
295
if’ (Ct1
Io Will III
lit
i. I S Stttttl, pr0tllltlTtf lilt’ (,ttillltllt’tli\’ \‘cI\ tub) silver
dot
lit
iIit’ti’lt’ it ititisly ,iliot,iicci
illoss liii iS
iliiplS
t 05(1cc1
OililY
t.i(ctis (d I(
c’iinssions. As to the tttiiiivr, the tiptioti of
t titivt’ltiiltt (1 )M
Ins tutu
,iiioSS,iltttS,
1101 of Ilsilit converted treclits to tOVCI ii. t
iu.ist ci c-oils
lix, Ilitielseci (lit’ liiiilihtr itt ,iilut\5,ilit Cs IN tiuttliatloit, tills lIi’ tilt’ t ,uibttu pot
c
IVIl.
itt
lhIc’oly, the .tsiti.tittiity of (‘I )fvl ciecii, should
Intl luci.itlvtIy tIlt-i
I
riluer tilt’ U5ll for uliitoVatloli or t]tliii(t’ CilOt1C tItltiiitittii 0111 tIohii stilt,
tine thit
çlc’iter ease
illoitis to
I U—based operators iii iOt’t’(ili[ their ohtiipiiittn’
l1tet auaiiist ullvestnlcn( ill .lCCli (cc’hnctltt
v nit1 (,FI(
ciiiissioits rtdiuctitto in
j
lit
t.ievehctpiiiu
wcitlci.
tnfitrtunnc-l,
11
ttttci
proves
c\tleolt’iv cltllic tilt
ttl
ii iv xvi itt lit r Ci )M pi oc’cts treat e
c’i
ci iii
‘,uitiii 1)1)1 lit y, t hit is, sviietl ti
ti-v rcclnt c, (1 If, c’iiiissioii- lieyoiitl
lit
ptttllt thiit xvttohti ii,i\’c ittctt
itt heti
ittlerst;tltti;irtittitwthl piitjittlolis. Ui, lttw carbttttpiitjc’cts ioiphtt score wc’ii tin
eitiissioiis, lint pt rtoriit
itc)oriy
ss’ithi
tec’,trci
to the bro,itler ytrcistlcl
ttf
itviroliiilelit,iI sust.itlliI)thtv.
Mtti c’ovc i, purtcttllll ly thttriiit tts st;tti
tip yeil
Itt (1 )M pots cti vctliteitidc’ to weikoessus in ctrbttii u(tociiituli ntd torruptioli.
tic ttlthc- lutist suviti c-x.ttitpies xx is
iii str ttecW .tcioptcd by
i nttiiihut of
c ttttl,iiit
tories
iii
lit
cievc’litpltt-
s oi’lcl
to rani
cip (lit’ prttdttettoii tit
I If ‘l( ‘—22.
( ‘PC—22 is a rc’litierant uid lc’etlstock
or t ert.nll plastlt s. it plociuct tilt releases
1 liy—f3rtttltltt_
hf
22, a C
C that is hl./t)t) tones illctre flettelit thou (‘0..
t)itspan (‘5 tic’]ibcritt is’ t rcttc’ti 110)1 t
I
(
22 iii order to
t iptclre titti ‘t’5ti ttv it,
id Janit (tic’ crc ciii.
i’iic’ liii tlt it, as <unit nit ( itcksni,tn ieptlrt, Itt pci cviii itt
II Ci )M ccc tilts c’eiic’i.iteci Itets ccli tilt
‘st. bhisliotetit iii
dic’ (‘I)M
nit1 2()i2
CtC
155- inteci to relricer,ittt proctttct’rs,11
sii- -ests thit tin
was by
iit
llt.ills
1 rare occti ri ci liv.
El S prcs’stt lOs it’
n tin tc f ‘I )lV1 oIl c’tl .t i’
li,isc been toiisicic iabiy tii itt-ned to
itanace tic- above clc’sttbcti risks. Wiit reis tilt’ ttric’ni if
I ittkttt I )lrectls’t
uittpttst’i I
to tllnltlill lit
If) Oil (l5t olnitern.ltlolc,if tic tIns Intl tuistciti It’ll tins ni,ittci to b
i-tvninnetl lt the Mt’niber States,
bc 2t)13
‘Cc’ctl.icco-t netitleiltuit
the Li I)
tipulates thit t-xtstdIi itisttll,ittttiis iiiiy oll’et to c’ithc r the .ilOtilit itlortit.’tl theiii b
lie
!tt4c.liibc-r State
lilldvr
Pli,usc- ti,
()1’
to
I
I
pci
cent
it) their freely
uilctc .ncc
iilowancc
1.11 New lust ihlitlotos nii\ only cillstt up to
1.5 pci
t ent itt thit-n total
niissiolis Vititililt’. flit Colollitsx((ni hit been crnitecf t4Teater ,itllllttfltU to ec Jude
tlOblc’llii(lt
(
I )M prOtetts
‘0111 the
11.11111
of
tilt’ Idl [‘I’S,
inch
(it ellstire thai
I )M tllitt,lt’Vt 5 mutt
t
fC’t t
(Ii ills oil ens iittttiiit’i iii sti ,i,ilti,tl)li,(5
32 Iv,i
I civiti illti
t’t
ii.,
‘(
iutsbiut
tilt
i
C titnnty
(
iL
U)
(;iutbui
I lix iltinloc ill
Gctx eriu.uitt I
I
C ttlit
Iltibo
iii
I ulic’lt’bltt’
Cf iV
tsl.ti Lit’
(._nnt)i
ti()
( ,ltltl/
l-itt’nttiiutit 11111/ lttllitt t ‘—i
1(1(1,
.11
I ((I
11,1 ‘ihiokct i’,,tluute ,iutd i&tthc’lt C
C ho Lttti.uii,
‘A
t ttitip.iu
tic t
Aut,utvst.
01
1uci utnntaluluis
Mci
tilt tittt
(Itt
I
t ttsystt’ilu
“t rs its M,,rLt i
in lilt
Uulutt’ui SIll
-—
Inc1 tltc’
I illitpt
ii
Ltnntll
Ii) 2(2),
1
tic ulti(iu’uuil I tli’ttutttttit intl Liit
)—2K.t
ii 2(9.
34 kc’ttil.uittti
(PC)
Nuu.
( i22/2U13
tIlt
i Icit Ilittlttlit’
iitic’rrt,tiittnut
( ,rcdit Illililt lIt
ItT
ptirsluuull Ii)
I )uruc liSt’
)( (((
‘ If
t tf ih
I tlrttptlli iirIu,tuutt-mti
iii of the C ,ttUltcli
(
3 J
uit(
t.
135
\ltift tiltt /lt,tlutc
-i c’Stuults’, i
8


Cliniate Change
Addrce,si,tcj tfk Uoithit ot //i Pd51: /3dt k/Odt]U?(] dnd th
IVIar/cr’t 1ahIh(y
Reserve
I he cIiti’c, tti ilIciw,uiee
iNOcittciii
ukl
lii the ippt(ii(li to
iiuttiiitiotiiI t)i—
set
ii
ic
ii Liv help to foot
S out
Lit iii I clips
ti tic
t irbt ii iuu Let, lout
icy dii itot
address the etstiiic surplus ot ippoiociiul;iuely 2 1itlIi
c’s.
o tickle this,
ilk
I upreed to
(ic Llt)11l
uiloiwito
s [hat Were clue to Ix
ituet totted iii Pltts
Itt,
000Stfitolitfl
titeit itttiOcliicUoitl
llttC) tIlt ititiket cuttul 2Ul) )(Ui) by which
I tic, it is hoped, dcii
itt! \s ill have picked up
(ticLhiiclit,
IS
1 (lift
oIl bt. As
.i uioie citdtiriuir, sustuittihilc soitttion to the
oiStO
illoo
itcoo
hdl1u11
ilk
ISU
hiS
100W
licOtCt
ki the t’stih!idiiiicot
1)1
a
Mirket
t,il)iluty
i&tSo(Sc
Whitlil
will hoi1
opuritivo
ii
2010
I hit
<eseive ss ill itt as ,i hitiloco to disoitli titirket Shot !s, leiidto!’ 0(tter stithihty
plc clictilithity to the
itbou p11cc. d ss’ihi. u the woods (ii the ( OoittiiSSiOil,
opt litc’
tittitly
icc ottliti
to
Oft
cieluiecl
tiles Witithi s’uidcl hive (it)
io the I
OlituiliSSicot, or tV)cOOllc
tittS in its
Li
urohtuti titeti
t
!touivo!y
hiilloadoii
iblovooo osuU,
,i IVIti’itt St;ibiht5
Reseivc
duty lielo
IC) stthihse
Itt
tuiboit tttuu-ket anti keep owhuit pi-iecs ai
a
level
that
LIt eiitts’iscs the
siS
sectors
to
exph)re low
c,iti)u{i
avenues
loweve, itt Cit wiLe of the uitiiy adjttstineos tuid
ut ltIo)OaJ oiLs c1opted [ii
step [lie carbon iiiiirket afloat out
tltieStIOO beeotties li:irt to Lt1Oi. ho wh:i
extent will the resttltiti illaucetiocut’, still rcstuuble a
euittitic
iiiar1t t Wil] th
supportlotr oueasures ,ictcually iiic’Jitatc trade, or will they itistetd trOi[orm thi
i itiJOti tttittket tuitc)
a ceutrahused, sophustc ttcd variant on an CU wide GH(
p0 ruutittuii remune? hrouiu a chini,tk cliatlee persptetivt, the uuswtr to this quc:
ion may be of hunited nuiportattee. As a test oldie workability tttd rc sihenee oh
f
iirte--st-ale tnarktt—b;used recpt]:itioii, on the other hind, it cottlc] busily be rno
I ttiCl.tl.
Remarks
( htoiatt ehuoe has,tht;tiattciiiy cda;tCed the landscape of LU cu VlrotlITh1II
eputl:otioti Most evidently, it has led the LU to adu:it swathes of tiew les1atoi
to
c ctithiit this cr:odefititttv t’h,il!etiit
It hits caused the LLttopeatl Union to
its leitCet-shto mettle in the utiternatuouti arena, attcl his utvited the Luropo n
XettiLiVe to ethuttk its inist]tttttonai ore,at1tsttsoui. It hits ttticttestiout;tbj onsets tIc
profile oi
sU envurotiniental policy, yet its hugh visibility may at the same tiii
have east a shadow Ott other, uton
t Iiuiiate-related issttes. Becatuse of the chit
136
ointnisston I
Uulanou
1: U) Nt.
I 76/2t) t 4 o125 1c’hni;uy 2ttt 4 unending 1&es;ulcc
1
(EU) No
ttt3 I /2(111) itt partui uhir to diterunine the volcti ut’s oFgrcenhuocuse gas emisso
allowinees to bc itiCtoucc in 2ti1 3—2tt, I )J 201 4 L56/ 11.
)ecusuoui
(I: U)
21) t 5
t 8 I ‘4
of the
I tirOt)ean
Pothiinic’ut
and
of the
I ounc ‘I
b ()ctobct 2(11 5
cci icern cur Cit istiblisin (ciii .iti C c ct cUutt
0 )f a ii tarket tubibty reso
lou tiit Ututou I:uoetiliocise o’ co
oo tin oi sc hucinc atid totidi
);l-cctivt’ 200.1
1st, ( )J 1015 Nit
‘ See hltip://ec.eucuo1ic Ctu/c htiie loIn
c’
[5 totinnj mdo’x cut lutni


Concluding Remadts
297
nd
l(l).tl
iiiiltre
ot tin
tirohleiii, the (ieVelot)iiieiit
nid iittpleineiitaticui ot
Ittati’ hnIc jli)tit tes have reticnrecl nut It Itiore .ids ntitti eflorts of deternun
;Sttiteit. (lOh(,tritlOil and eOOi’UJnittOfl tttan tire other pcihev area wttlnn or
litsifie
lit envnunnheittil ietitit. lie deve]optitent of ite US has converted the
itrltet—Itiseil iproacit ficuit iii optiottil side dish i]tO a staple of env;roriinental
ii
[ eivinc isicle, thrtttith iteeessit’’, the tremendously thorny and tiob
ly eoilclttionil clitestiult ofwltctlier lU eltititte e haiie law will be seici esstul in
lit nuhti’ ebb
I WaritilnLç 10 the
iSUt( ci to 2 cc rees Celsius teniperattire rise, it
s ittpt
stide to ititore the deep itipu
t of ittiitc
C h;tiice 1,15k on the EU’s let.i]
d 1etttlitor\
tent ti’.
1
,
a


Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rnrl20
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
ISSN: 0264-6811 (Print) 2376-4538 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rnrl20
The judicial interpretation of the Habitats
Directive by the CJEU: a high water mark for
offshore renewable energy developers
Célia Le Lièvre
To cite this article: Célia Le Lièvre (2018): The judicial interpretation of the Habitats Directive
by the CJEU: a high water mark for offshore renewable energy developers, Journal of Energy &
Natural Resources Law, DOI: 10.1080/02646811.2018.1491194
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2018.1491194
Published online: 12 Jul 2018.
Submit your article to this journal 
Article views: 3
View Crossmark data


The judicial interpretation of the Habitats Directive by
the CJEU: a high water mark for offshore renewable
energy developers
Célia Le Lièvre, Marine and Renewable Energy Ireland (MaREI) Centre, Environmental
Research Institute, University College Cork, Ireland. Email: celia.lelievre@ucc.ie
(Received 5 March 2018; final version received 9 June 2018)
This paper offers a strong critique of the particular interpretation of the
precautionary principle by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
under the appropriate assessment procedure of the Habitats Directive. The CJEU
favours a ‘criminal-like’ standard of proof whereby project developers must
provide the necessary evidence to inform national licensing authorities beyond
all reasonable scientific doubt of the absence of threats to the integrity of nearby
marine Natura 2000 sites. This strict application of the precautionary principle is
no
longer
suitable
with
respect
to
nascent
offshore
renewable
energy
technologies. It erects a standard of proof that cannot be realistically met by
project developers in the marine environment and stands as an obstacle in the
way of technologies that are needed to tackle the greatest environmental threat of
climate change.
Keywords: Habitats Directive; precautionary principle; offshore renewable energy;
scientific uncertainty; ecological integrity
1.
Introduction
Licensing processes represent a significant regulatory obstacle to many developers of off-
shore renewable energy (ORE) projects due to current uncertainties regarding impacts of
these nascent technologies on marine ecosystems.1 The term ‘offshore renewable energy’
primarily refers to offshore wind, wave and tidal energy systems. A ‘paradox’2 exists
betweenthelow-carbonenergytargetsadoptedbytheEuropeanUnionandcurrentrequire-
ments for environmental assessments in licensing processes. While the ORE sector pro-
vides an innovative source of low-carbon energy, developers of ORE projects still face
significant regulatory challenges to meet the licensing requirements relating to environ-
mental assessment processes. The Renewable Energy Directive3 requires that Member
States ensure that permitting procedures for renewable energy projects are proportionate
and necessary.4 In a similar vein, the amended Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
1
Le Lièvre C., O’Hagan A.M., Culloch R., Broadbent I., (2016). Deliverables D. 2.3 & 2.4. Legal feasi-
bility of implementing a risk-based and compatibility with Natura 2000 network. RICORE Project. 53
pp.
http://ricore-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RICORE-D2-3D2-4-Legal-feasibility-Final-
1.pdf accessed 6 July 2018.
2
Term used in: MA Masterton, ‘Promoting Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy and Managing Environ-
mental Risk: Toward an Adaptive Management Strategy’ (2014) 5 Journal of Energy and Environ-
mental Law 71, p 72.
3
Directive 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable energy
sources [2009] OJ L140/16 (Renewable Energy Directive).
4
Renewable Energy Directive, Art 13(1).
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2018.1491194
© 2018 International Bar Association


Directive5 mandates proportionate monitoring requirements.6 Interestingly, compliance
withtheserequirementsishamperednotonlybytheadministrativecomplexityoflicensing
procedures in national jurisdictions,7 but also by the legal requirements for environmental
assessments deriving from EU Directives.
The appropriate assessment (hereafter AA) procedure of Article 6(3) of the Habitats
Directive8 is one of these regulatory barriers. The Court of Justice of the European
Union (CJEU) has given an important doctrinal function to the precautionary principle
in order to interpret the requirements of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. The
Court favours a ‘criminal-like’ standard of proof whereby project developers must
provide the necessary evidence to inform national licensing authorities beyond all
reasonable scientific doubt of the absence of threats to the integrity of nearby marine
Natura 2000 sites. Such ex ante standard of proof is extremely difficult to establish
in dynamic marine environments, particularly in the context of novel and untested tech-
nologies where data and scientific evidence is still being collected. This holds particu-
larly true for wave and tidal energy projects given the nascent nature of these
technologies. While knowledge on the ecological implications of offshore wind
energy farms has been steadily increasing as empirical evidence from commissioned
wind farms is accumulating,9 wave and tidal energy devices are still in a pre-commer-
cial stage. The magnitude and nature of the potential impacts of these nascent technol-
ogies on marine ecosystems are still poorly understood due to limited experience of
full-scale deployments.10 Evaluating the full effects of new ORE technologies on
Natura 2000 sites and their qualifying features may not be possible until the first
arrays of turbines are actually authorised, deployed and monitored in real-sea con-
ditions.11 If the strict application of the precautionary principle under Article 6(3) is
to be upheld in future planning permissions for full-scale projects, this will certainly
result in any novel offshore technology suffering from disproportionate environmental
scrutiny and low levels of certainty for investors. To comply with the judicial principles
of the Habitats Directive, licensing authorities are inevitably inclined to adopt an overly
risk-averse approach to decision-making, imposing very extensive monitoring require-
ments on developers to inform an appropriate assessment procedure. To date, the
approach has been to request large amounts of environmental data and information:
an expensive and time-consuming approach for developers of offshore renewable
energy technologies. In the absence of strategic mapping and planning systems afforded
5
Directive 2014/ 52/EU of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [2014] OJ L124/1 (EIA Directive).
6
Ibid, Art 13(1).
7
C Le Lièvre and AM O’Hagan, ‘Legal and Institutional Review of National Consenting Processes,
Deliverable
2.2’
(RiCORE
Project,
2015)
http://ricore-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/
RiCORE-D2.2-Legal-Institutional-Review-Final-1.pdf.
8
Directive 92/43/EEC of the Council of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora [1992] OJ L206/7 (Habitats Directive).
9
Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Review of Post-Consent Offshore Wind Farm Monitoring
Data Associated with Licence Conditions (MMO Project No: 1031, 2014) 121 www.gov.uk/
government/publications/review-of-environmental-data-mmo-1031.
10
Copping, A. (2018). The State of Knowledge for Environmental Effects: Driving Consenting/Permit-
ting for the Marine Renewable Energy Industry. Report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL). pp 25.
11
A Copping and others, ‘The State of Knowledge for Environmental Effects: Driving Consenting/
Permitting for the Marine Renewable Energy Industry’ (Position paper, January 2018).
2
C Le Lièvre


by governmental authorities, existing data gaps are only addressed by project develo-
pers in the licensing procedures.
There is a need to diversify our renewable energy portfolio. Up-scaling wind energy
plants on land to meet national and EU targets for renewable energy is becoming more dif-
ficult due to the scarcity of locations with appropriate exposure.12 Development of onshore
wind farms face increasing public opposition characterised by the so-called ‘Not in My
Backyard’ objection.13 New forms of renewable energy technologies must be deployed
further offshore. Offshore wind energy is certainly the most mature and viable renewable
energy technology deployed at sea but it provides an intermittent source of energy with
variable revenues. Wave and tidal energy present a number of advantages compared to
wind energy. In particular, wave energy and tidal stream converters come with fewer
visual impacts and ensure predictable and often continuous renewable energy output gen-
erated from waves and current flows. The Court should therefore be careful not to impose
unrealistic ex ante requirements for certainty as this may restrict opportunities to diversify
our energy mix portfolio to include novel forms of renewable energy technologies.
The strict precautionary principle under the authorisation criteria of Article 6(3) was
first adopted by the CJEU in the Waddenzee case14 at a time where Natura 2000 sites
were predominantly designated on land15 and the ORE sector represented a marginal pro-
portion of our energy mix. The time has come to acknowledge that the interpretation of
Article 6(3) is no longer acceptable. The CJEU has set a very high standard of proof
that cannot be realistically met by developers of renewable energy technologies deployed
in the marine environment. While the establishment of the terrestrial network of Natura
2000 sites is now complete, additional sites will have to be proposed by Member States
to complete the marine network of Natura 2000 areas.16 As the marine network of
Natura 2000 sites expands, future ORE proposals will be more likely to be systematically
subject to the authorisation criteria elaborated by the CJEU under Article 6(3). The expan-
sion of the marine Natura 2000 network is clearly necessary to halt the loss of marine bio-
diversity.17 Yet, biodiversity objectives should not mean dismissal of the achievement of
climate-energy policy objectives adopted by the EU under the 2020 Climate and Energy
Package18 and the more recent 2030 Climate and Energy Framework.19
12
E Willsteed and others, ‘Obligations and Aspirations: A Critical Evaluation of Offshore Wind Farm
Cumulative Impact Assessments’ (2018) 82 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2332.
13
JK Kaldellis and others, ‘Environmental and Social Footprint of Offshore Wind Energy. Comparison
with Onshore Counterpart’ (2016) 92 Renewable Energy 543.
14
C-127/02 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot
Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Waddenzee)
[2004] ECR I-07405
15
European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission on the implementation of the Directive 92/43/
EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna’ (Communication) COM
(2003) 845 final.
16
European Commission, ‘Fitness Check of the EU Nature Legislation (Birds and Habitats Directives)’
(Commission Staff Working Document) SWD (2016) 472 final, p 33.
17
European Commission, The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (Publications Office of the European
Union 2011).
18
European Commission, ‘20 20 by 2020: Europe’s climate change opportunity’ (Communication) COM
(2008) 30 final.
19
European Commission, ‘A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030’
(Communication) COM(2014) 15 final.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
3


This paper does not intend to challenge the utility or legitimacy of the precautionary
principle nor does it intend to challenge the Habitats Directive. The objective of this
study is to offer a strong critique of the particular application of the precautionary prin-
ciple under the AA procedure of the Habitats Directive. The CJEU has not had the
opportunity to confirm the application of its strict legal precautionary standards of
Article 6(3) in cases involving licensing for ORE developments. The major purpose
of this paper is to highlight what could be the consequences of applying the inflexible
precautionary standards of the Court in planning procedures for offshore renewables.
Using the onshore and the ORE sector as case studies, the author raises the important
question of how realistic the application of the precautionary principle by the CJEU is
in the context of offshore renewable energy projects.
2.
A ‘criminal-like’ standard of proof under Article 6(3) of the Habitats
Directive
2.1.
Important preliminary remarks on the precautionary principle
The precautionary principle is enshrined under Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union20 (TFEU) as a guiding principle of EU environ-
mental policy.21 The TFEU does not define either the precautionary principle or the
threshold of uncertainty that triggers its application. Pursuant to the EC Communi-
cation on the precautionary principle, the application of precaution is relevant in the
event of a potential risk, even if this risk cannot be fully demonstrated or quantified
because of insufficient or inconclusive scientific evidence.22 It is settled case law
that where there is scientific uncertainty as to the existence or extent of a risk to
the environment because of insufficient, inconclusive or imprecise evidence, protec-
tive measures may be taken without having to wait until the reality and seriousness
of those risks become fully apparent.23 The CJEU has explicitly enshrined the pre-
cautionary principle as a general legal principle of the EU.24 Consistent with its
status as a general law principle, the precautionary principle applies outside the
scope of the environmental policy across a wide range of policy areas including
energy policy.
The precautionary principle has been implemented with varying degrees of weight by
European courts.25 Broadly speaking, the level of precaution has been primarily influ-
enced by the standard of protection set out in secondary law ranging from weak to
strong application of the principle.26 Hence, a ‘weak application of the precautionary
principle is commonly characterised by a high threshold of scientific evidence to
20
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/49
(TFEU).
21
TFEU, Art 191(2).
22
European Commission, ‘Communication on the Precautionary Principle’ (Communication) COM
(2000) 1 final, p 13.
23
C–157/14 Société Neptune Distribution [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:823, para 82; C–77/09 Gowan [2010]
ECR I–13533; C–343/09 Afton Chemical Limited [2010] ECR I–07027, para 76.
24
C–132/03 Ministero della Salute [2005] ECR I–04167, para 35.
25
R Lofstedt, ‘The Precautionary Principle in the EU: Why a Formal Review Is Long Overdue’ (2014) 16
Risk Management 137.
26
P Jiang, ‘A Uniform Precautionary Principle under EU Law’ (2014) 2 Peking University Translational
Law Review 490.
4
C Le Lièvre


invoke precautionary measures and a preference for risk management’.27 Conversely,
Garnett and Parsons found that a strong application of the precautionary principle ‘has
a lower threshold of uncertainty and tends toward stringent actions, such as prohibition,
even if there are only weak grounds for believing that a project may be harmful’.28 In its
strong version, the precautionary principle epitomises the rationales for proactive restric-
tions or prohibitions in the face of uncertain environmental impacts. Trouwborst better
summarises this approach ‘as erring on the side of caution, in favour of the environment:
in dubio pro natura’.29 This is exactly the interpretation of the precautionary principle
that theCJEU contemplateswhen interpretingthe requirements ofthe appropriateassess-
ment procedure under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.
2.2.
The application of the precautionary principle under the appropriate
assessment procedure of the Habitats Directive: ‘in dubio pro natura’
The Habitats Directive lists nine marine habitat types and 16 marine species30 for which
Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are required.31 The Birds Directive lists 60
species of sea birds whose conservation requires Special Protection Areas (SPAs).32
SPAs must also be designated to ensure survival and reproduction of all regularly occur-
ring migratory species not listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive.33 SACs and SPAs
constitute the Natura 2000 network.34
Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, any ORE development located in the
vicinity of a Natura 2000 site and likely to have a significant effect thereon, either indi-
vidually or in combination with other projects, must be subject to an AA of its impli-
cation in view of the site’s conservation objectives. Competent national authorities are
to authorise a development only if they have made certain that it will not adversely
affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 site concerned. If the findings of the AA conclude
that a development is likely to have a significant impact on the integrity of a designated
site, then that development cannot go ahead, unless it meets the criterion of overriding
public interest under Article 6(4). The AA procedure of Article 6(3) applies mutatis
mutandis with respect to SPAs designated under the Birds Directive.35
The Habitats Directive does not specifically refer to the precautionary principle for
the purpose of Article 6(3). The Waddenzee case36 is seminal in this respect in that it clari-
fies the nature of the precautionary principle that is to be applied to the authorisation of
ORE projects. In Waddenzee, the CJEU endorses a strong application of the precaution-
ary principle by requiring a very low threshold of scientific evidence to carry out an AA
and prohibition of new developments in the face of scientific uncertainty.
27
K Garnett and DJ Parsons, ‘Multi-Case Review of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in
European Union Law and Case Law’ (2017) 37 Risk Analysis 502.
28
Ibid.
29
A Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights and Duties of States (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006) 29.
30
See further: Appendix 2 Lists of existing marine Habitat types and Species for different Member States
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm.
31
Habitats Directive (n 9), Annex I and Annex II.
32
Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds [2009] OJ L20/7 (Birds
Directive), Art 4(1), (2).
33
Ibid.
34
Habitats Directive, Art 3(1).
35
Birds Directive (n 33).
36
C–127/02 Waddenzee (n 15).
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
5


The trigger to carry out an AA is a ‘very light’ one.37 The precautionary principle
applies for this purpose. Any renewable energy project that is likely to have a signifi-
cant effect on a Natura 2000 site shall be subject to an AA of its implication for the site
in view of the site’s conservation objectives. The CJEU subordinates the requirement
for an AA to the condition there is a mere ‘probability or a risk’ of significant effect
on a Natura 2000 site.38 The CJEU held that ‘in the light of the precautionary principle,
such a risk exists if it cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information that the
project will have significant effects. In case of doubt, an appropriate assessment must be
systematically carried out’.39
The conclusion of the AA shall inform the question as to whether a project will have
an adverse effect on the integrity of marine Natura 2000 sites. This stage of the AA pro-
cedure is referred to as the ‘integrity test’ of Article 6(3). The CJEU favours an inflex-
ible application of the precautionary principle whereby competent authorities shall
refrain from granting development consents where a ‘reasonable scientific doubt’
remains as to the effect of a plan or project on the integrity of nearby Natura 2000
sites.40 According to the Court, the competent authorities may authorise a plan or
project only if they have made certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of
the site, namely, ‘where no reasonable scientific doubt’ remains as to the absence of
such effects.41 The CJEU justifies its position in light of the precautionary principle
and performs a very light proportionality test according to which ‘the authorisation cri-
terion of Article 6(3) integrates the precautionary principle and makes it possible to
prevent in an effective manner adverse effects to the integration of protected sites; a
less stringent authorisation criterion under Article 6(3) could not ensure as effectively
the fulfilment of the objective of site protection intended under that provision’.42 This
jurisprudence has been consistently repeated in a number of recent decisions.43
The Court further clarified the threshold of precision that an AA must meet for the
purpose of Article 6(3). An assessment is not appropriate if it ‘contains gaps and lacks
complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing all
reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects’ of a project on the integrity of a site.44
Further, to be lawfully conducted, an AA must identify, in the light of the best scien-
tific knowledge in the field, all aspects of the development project which can, by itself
or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site’s conservation objec-
tives.45 It is therefore the developer’s duty to ensure that the Natura Impact Statement
has no gaps and that the science relied upon includes the best scientific knowledge in
the field.
37
European Commission, Study on the precautionary principle in EU environmental policies. Final
Report, November 2017, pp 114, 21.
38
Ibid, para 43.
39
Ibid, para 44.
40
Ibid, paras 56–57.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid, para 58.
43
C–142/16 Commission v Germany [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:301, para 42; Joined Cases C–387/15 and
C–388/15 Hilde Orleans [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:583, para 45; C–182/10 Marie-Noëlle Solvay and
Others [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:82, para 67.
44
C–304/05 Commission v Italy [2007] ECR I–7495, para 69; C–404/09 Commission v Spain [2011]
ECR I–11853, para 100.
45
Waddenzee (n 15) para 54.
6
C Le Lièvre


Interestingly, the CJEU has not defined the notion of reasonable scientific doubt.
From a common law perspective, this evidentiary burden appears to equate to the crim-
inal standard of proof of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. In the common law system, the
prosecution has the burden of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt.46 This is the
highest standard of proof which contrasts with the lesser civil standard of proof of
balance of probabilities. An often quoted case of the US Supreme Court defines the
burden of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as follows:
‘Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a proof that leaves jurors firmly convinced of the
defendant’s guilt […]. If based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly
convinced that the defendant is guilty you must find him guilty. If on the other hand,
you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the
benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.’.47
It is therefore the prosecution’s responsibility to prove its case by more than a mere pre-
ponderance of the evidence. ORE developers embody the role of both the prosecution
and defendant in that they must prove their ‘innocence’ by providing sufficient evi-
dence to convince licensing authorities beyond a reasonable doubt that their projects
and associated ancillary works will not adversely affect the integrity of Natura 2000
sites. If competent licensing authorities consider that ‘there is a real possibility’ that
a project and its ancillary works will adversely affect the integrity of the site, develop-
ment consent must be refused.
More recently, in People Over Wind and Sweetman,48 the Court has confirmed that
the strict precautionary standards of Article 6(3) similarly apply with respect to the
authorisation of ancillary cable works associated with an onshore wind farm. This
case concerns a reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article
6(3) submitted to the CJEU by the Irish High Court. The CJEU had to decide
whether mitigation measures could be taken into consideration at the screening stage
to determine whether an AA was necessary with respect to cable works connecting
the wind farm to the electricity grid. In People Over Wind and Sweetman, the CJEU
repeated its seminal case law according to which Article 6(3) integrates the precaution-
ary principle and makes it possible to prevent adverse effects on the integrity of Natura
2000 sites; a less stringent criterion of authorisation could not ensure as effectively the
objective of site protection.49 In the light of this established jurisprudence, the CJEU
considered that taking into account mitigation measures at the screening stage would
be liable to deprive stage 2 of the AA procedure (ie, integrity test) of its purpose and
create a risk of circumvention of that stage, which constitutes an essential safeguard
provided by the Directive.50
46
Jack B Weinstein and Ian Dewsbury, ‘Comment on the Meaning of “Proof Beyond a Reasonable
Doubt”’ (2006) 5 Law, Probability and Risk 167.
47
Victor v Nebraska, 511 US 1, 27, 114 S Ct 1239, 1253 (1994).
48
C–323/17 People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:244.
49
Commission v Germany (n 44) para 40.
50
People Over Wind and Sweetman (n 49) paras 37–40.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
7


2.3.
The judicial interpretation of ‘integrity of the site’: a catalyst for precaution in
the face of uncertain impacts on Natura 2000 sites
As discussed above, the granting of licences is conditional upon the findings of the AA
meeting the legal test of no reasonable scientific doubt. Remarkably, the concept of eco-
logical integrity had remained undefined under the Habitats Directive until the Sweet-
man decision.51 In the Sweetman case, the CJEU has given an important doctrinal role
to the precautionary principle by relying on it to inform a purposive approach to
interpretation of ‘integrity of the site’.52 According to the Court, a project adversely
affects the integrity of the site:
if it is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the
site that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation
was the objective justifying the designation of [that site]. The precautionary principle
should be applied for the purposes of that appraisal.53
The CJEU justified its reasoning in the light of the precautionary principle:54
‘It is to be noted that, since the authority must refuse to authorise the plan or project
being considered where uncertainty remains as to the absence of adverse effects on
the integrity of the site, the authorisation criterion laid down in the second sentence
of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive integrates the precautionary principle and
makes it possible to prevent in an effective manner adverse effects on the integrity of
protected sites as a result of the plans or projects being considered. A less stringent auth-
orisation criterion than that in question could not ensure as effectively the fulfilment of
the objective of site protection intended under that provision. Such an appraisal applies
all the more in the main proceedings, since the natural habitat affected by the proposed
road scheme is among the priority natural habitat types […]. The competent national
authorities cannot therefore authorise interventions where there is a risk of lasting
harm to the ecological characteristics of sites which host priority natural habitat types’.55
This decision is remarkable. The purposive method of legal interpretation provides a
clear-cut example of how the doctrinal role of the precautionary principle is being
used by the Court to deal with uncertain ecological risks in the AA procedure. The
Court clearly endorses a restrictive approach to the notion of ‘ecological integrity’
by considering that the permanent loss of a small portion of a priority habitat (0.5
per cent of the total surface of such priority type habitat) constitutes an adverse
impact on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, hence leaving no leeway for a de
minimis exemption under Article 6(3). Typically, a de minimis exemption would
allow competent authorities to permit projects which, despite the existence of a loca-
lised impact on a Natura 2000 site or its qualifying features, would not compromise
the entire ecological integrity of the site and as such its capacity to meet its conserva-
tion objectives. The precautionary function associated with the purposive approach
has been endorsed by Advocate General (AG) Sharpston as a legal interpretation
51
C–258/11 Peter Sweetman and Others [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:220.
52
See further: O McIntyre and J O’Halloran, ‘The Gulf between Legal and Scientific Conceptions of Eco-
logical “Integrity”’ in E Byrne, G Mullally and C Sage (eds), Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Tran-
sitions to Sustainability (Routledge 2017).
53
Sweetman (n 52) para 48.
54
Ibid, para 41.
55
Ibid, paras 41–43.
8
C Le Lièvre


technique that prevents ‘the “death by a thousand cuts” phenomenon, that is to say,
cumulative habitat loss as a result of multiple, or at least a number of, lower level pro-
jects being allowed to proceed on the same site’.56 The exclusion of a de minimis
exemption under Article 6(3) will ensure that no unexpected adverse effects on the
integrity of Natura 2000 sites will occur as a result of the ‘ripple effect’ of direct loca-
lised minor incursions.
Paradoxically, the CJEU also establishes a holistic requirement to consider the eco-
logical characteristics of the site ‘that are connected to the presence’ of a Natura 2000
qualifying feature. The applicants in the main proceedings before the Irish High Court
in the Sweetman case57 argued that the integrity assessment of Article 6(3) ‘was
designed to deal with the situation where an effect on the site, although not a direct
one, might nevertheless undermine the integrity of the site’.58 This would be the
case in situations where upstream activity might have an adverse impact on water
quality or qualifying habitats and species situated downstream.59 Without permitting
a de minimis exception, the specific reference to ‘the characteristics of the site’ indicates
that the Court has therefore envisaged all situations where a project may have an indir-
ect adverse effect on the site or its qualifying habitats or species because of affecting
other relevant ecosystem processes or functions that are important to sustain the con-
servation status of the habitat types or species of interest. In Bund Naturschutz in
Bayern,60 the CJEU has shed some light on the notion of ‘characteristics of the site’
when deciding on the type of ‘appropriate’ protective measures to be adopted by
Member States in respect of proposed Sites of Community Interest. The CJEU opts
for a broad understanding of the notion of ‘characteristics of the site’ to include
other ecological features that are not per se the habitat types or species for which the
site has been classified but contribute to the conservation of these qualifying habitats
and species. The Court held that the characteristics of the site ‘must reflect a number
of factors including the degree of representativity of the habitat type, its structure
and functions, the feature of the habitats which are important for the species concerned
and the value of the site for the conservation of the habitats or species’.61 The approach
of the Court is consistent with the ‘integrity of site checklist’ of the EU methodological
guidance on Article 6(3).62 The ‘integrity of the site checklist’ highlights that the integ-
rity test of Article 6(3) requires a broad ‘ecosystem’ consideration to assess the effects
of a project on other ecological factors such as: (1) any vital defining aspects (eg, nutri-
ent balance) that determine how the site functions as a habitat or ecosystem;
(2) dynamics of the relationships that define the structure and/or function of the site;
as well as (3) water dynamics or chemical composition.
This emphasis on the ecosystem approach indicates that natural values which make
the site fit for the qualifying Natura 2000 species or habitats must be equally considered
56
Sweetman, Opinion of AG Sharpston, 22 November 2012, para 67.
57
Peter Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála [2009] IEHC 599.
58
Ibid, para 61.
59
Ibid.
60
C–244/05 Bund Naturschutz in Bayern [2006] ECR I–8445.
61
Ibid, para 46.
62
European Commission, Methodological Guidance on the Provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habi-
tats Directive 92/43/EEC (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2002) 29.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
9


in the integrity test of the Article 6(3) regime.63 In line with this, Rees and others argue
that assessing whether the integrity of Natura 2000 sites in the sense of Article 6(3) will
be adversely affected requires ‘the complex task of understanding the ecosystem organ-
isation at one location in terms of the ecosystem structure, functions, processes and con-
nectivity’ in relation to the conservation status of protected marine natural habitats and
species.64 Scientific knowledge, however, usually lags far behind what is required by
law to inform regulatory decision-makers.65 This is particularly the case in relation
to understanding and measuring the complex interactions of ecological processes and
functions in relation to the conservation of Natura 2000 species and habitats.66 In the
Sweetman case, the CJEU may therefore have created an additional level of protection
to ensure that no indirect adverse impacts will occur because of insufficient scientific
understanding of ecosystem connectivity.
The judicial understanding of the notion of ecological integrity infers that the legal
standard of no reasonable scientific doubt must equally be satisfied with respect to the
assessment of potential direct and indirect impacts likely to occur by connectivity with
the natural habitats and species of Natura 2000 sites. This has been confirmed in a very
recent decision. In European Commission v Germany (Moorburg),67 the CJEU found
that the environmental assessment of the project being challenged was not situated in
the Natura 2000 areas concerned but rather at a considerable distance from them
(600km upstream), but that this in no way precludes the applicability of the require-
ments of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.68 The legal test of no reasonable scien-
tific doubt applies regardless as to whether the proposed development is located within
a Natura 2000 site or outside the vicinity of the site. Although this case concerned the
installation of a coal-fired power plant, similar reasoning may be applied to offshore
renewable energy plants.
An important question arises as to how realistic the judicial interpretation of the Habi-
tats Directive is with respect to the ORE sector. More precisely, what are the legal con-
sequences associated with the interpretation of ‘integrity of the site’ in terms of standard
of proof required from developers of offshore renewable energy projects?
3.
‘No reasonable scientific doubt’: an unrealistic standard of proof for
offshore renewable energy developers
The jurisprudence of the CJEU, in particular the recent judgment in People Over Wind
and Sweetman,69 raises a number of legal questions regarding the balance to be struck
between technological innovation in the field of renewable energy and environmental
protection. The ex ante standard of proof of no reasonable scientific doubt appears
63
MEA Broekmeyer, CJ Bastmeijer and DA Kamphorst, ‘Towards an Improved Implementation of the
Birds and Habitats Directive: An Inventory of Experiences in Austria, England, Flanders and the Neth-
erlands in Relation to Two Dilemmas’ (Wageningen Environmental Research, Report 2833).
64
SE Rees and others, ‘A Legal and Ecological Perspective of “Site Integrity” to Inform Policy Devel-
opment and Management of Special Areas of Conservation in Europe’ (2013) 72 Marine Pollution Bul-
letin 14, p. 19.
65
JW Moore and others, ‘Towards Linking Environmental Law and Science’ (2018) 3 FACETS 375.
66
Rees and others (n 65).
67
C–142/16 Commission v Germany (n 44) para 29.
68
Ibid, para 29.
69
C–323/17 People Over Wind and Sweetman (n 49).
10
C Le Lièvre


particularly impractical for developers of novel ORE technologies given the high
degree of uncertainty surrounding complex marine ecosystems. The state of marine
ecosystems is rarely known with certainty due to the inherent difficulties of monitoring
life underwater and in offshore environments.70 Impact assessments in the marine
environment are commonly regarded as ‘the most challenging of all’.71 Achieving cer-
tainty beyond reasonable scientific doubt is extremely difficult for reasons that are
inherent to the ecology of marine ecosystems. Marine ecosystems are subject to a
wide range of natural variations and chaotic fluctuations, which means that no scientific
investigation can reasonably meet the standard of no reasonable scientific doubt
without prior experience of monitoring in real-sea conditions. No amount of obser-
vation before a project is actually deployed will reveal, with absolute certainty, what
impacts this project will ultimately have on marine Natura 2000 features.
The interpretation of ‘ecological integrity’ combined with the strict standard of
proof of ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’ puts an unrealistic onus on ORE developers
to prove the absence of threat to nearby marine Natura 2000 sites. Any new technology
installed into the marine system creates a risk to marine biodiversity. This can be the
case even if the devices are deployed outside marine Natura 2000 areas. The application
of Article 6(3) is not limited to the geographical scope of Natura 2000 sites.72 Spatial
areas with connectivity in the marine environment may extend over hundreds of kilo-
metres reflecting the foraging and migratory use of the marine environment by species.
Adverse effects on the integrity of marine Natura 2000 sites may also occur outside the
sites as a result of physical interactions/collisions with their mobile protected species.
Understanding the potential impacts on the conservation status of a species population
requires collecting data on the distribution and density of this species in order to esti-
mate the number of animals predicted to be adversely affected by a development. Gen-
erally, less is known about the distribution and population structure of marine species.
A number of Environmental Impact Statements for recent installed offshore wind farms
report the difficulties associated with tracking marine animals over large geographical
areas.73 Fine-scale representative data on the density and distribution of marine species
population is lacking for a number of representative species. Baseline data may be
lacking or, when available, this may not cover sufficient periods of time to detect impor-
tant seasonal or annual variations in marine ecosystems that are necessary to understand
the potential effects of a project. Some data gaps are simply too broad to be addressed
by project developers.74 Populations of fish, marine mammals and seabirds are highly
mobile receptors with large seasonal and spatial dispersal ranges that significantly
70
B Planque, ‘Projecting the Future State of Marine Ecosystems, “la Grande Illusion”?’ (2016) 73 ICES
Journal of Marine Science 204.
71
A Smith, ‘Impact Assessment in the Marine Environment – the Most Challenging of All’ (28th Annual
Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, Perth, 4–10 May 2008).
72
European Commission, Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’
Directive (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2000) 31.
73
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd., (2017). Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm: Preliminary Environ-
mental Report. Vol 2 Chapter 7 Marine Mammals, p 11;
Inch Cape, ‘Environmental Statement’
(2013) Chapter 14, at 22; Smart Wind Ltd., (2015). Horn Sea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two–
Environmental Statement Vol 2– Offshore, Chapter 4 Marine mammals (Report No UK06-050200-
REP-0004), at 4.6.133, 4.6.143, 4.6.144.
74
H Lindeboom and others, ‘Offshore Wind Park Monitoring Programmes, Lessons Learned and Rec-
ommendations for the Future’ (2015) 756 Hydrobiologia 169.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
11


complicate the evaluation of potential impacts at the project level.75 When available,
survey data collected by developers is a snapshot of population dynamics and thus
only provides an indication of the number of animals predicted to be affected by a
development.76 Determining whether fluctuations in abundance and distribution of a
Natura 2000 species can be attributed to the presence and functioning of a particular
ORE project or group of projects is also a challenging process. Fox and others point
out that the conservation status of a species population is influenced by multiple exter-
nal stressors (ie, climate change, pollutants, fisheries’ interactions) and large-scale sto-
chastic factors (ie, fluctuation in recruitment rates, alteration of food-web dynamics)
operating outside development sites.77 The influence of these factors on population
dynamics cannot be realistically detected in project-driven monitoring programmes.78
These factors combined with large dispersal ranges of marine species exacerbate the
‘data-rich but information poor’ (DRIP) syndrome, which means that despite con-
siderable monitoring efforts and collection of large quantities of data, the results of
environmental monitoring do not provide sufficient useful information to give
greater confidence to decision-makers in deciding upon development consents.79
Environmental monitoring of all types of ORE projects including offshore wind
energy developments are likely to be DRIP.80 For example, the design of survey pro-
tocols for the United Kingdom Round 2 offshore wind farm developments did not
have sufficient power to detect consistent changes in the numbers of sea birds
because of the important fluctuations of sea bird numbers at any given location.81
Bennet and others observe that for wave and tidal energy projects, the likelihood
of suffering DRIP syndrome may, however, be of greater concern. The smaller
spatial scale of these projects adds to the challenge of designing monitoring studies
that can distinguish the potential effects of these projects from bakground natural
variation in the wider ecosystem.82
Additionally, monitoring techniques in the marine environment present a number of
limitations. Passive acoustic monitoring, which is commonly used to detect vocalising
animals, provides cost-effective and continuous monitoring but is subject to limitations
relating to operating frequencies, the discretion and directionality of vocalisation by
marine mammals (ie, animals do not vocalise continuously and remain undetected).83
Active acoustic monitoring (AAM) can track animals that do not echolocate or happen
75
CJ Fox and others, ‘Challenges and Opportunities in Monitoring the Impacts of Tidal-Stream Energy
Devices on Marine Vertebrates’ (2018) 81 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 1926.
76
Ibid, 1931.
77
Ibid.
78
Lindeboom and others (n 75).
79
F Bennet, R Culloch and A Tait, ‘Guidance on Effective Adaptive Management and Post-Consent
Monitoring Strategies. Deliverables 5.2 & 5.4’ (RiCORE Project, 2016) http://ricore-project.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/RiCORE-D5-2D5-4-Adaptive-Management-and-Post-Consent-Monitoring-
Strategies-Final.pdf.
80
MMO (n 10).
81
IMD Maclean and others, ‘Evaluating the Statistical Power of Detecting Changes in the Abundance of
Seabirds at Sea’ (2013) 155 IBIS 113.
82
Bennet, Culloch and Tait (n 80).
83
Maldini and others, ‘The Importance of a Multi-Method Monitoring Approach to Assess the Effects of
Anthropogenic Activity on Harbour Porpoises’ (Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal
Energy Conference, 27th August- 1st September 2017, Cork, Ireland).
12
C Le Lièvre


to emit no vocal signals.84 However, AAM suffers from limited detection range and a
poor capacity to identify the species group of detected animals.85 Other techniques
such as visual surveys are also limited by sampling issues (ie, observer error) and the
inability to detect animals during poor weather and sea conditions. Data and parameter
inputs computed into scientific models to derive impact predictions may generate impre-
cise modelling outputs and fail to remove risks. Minor uncertainties caused by a margin
of error may be sufficient to delay licensing procedures even when the environmental
risks posed are relatively low.
Impact assessments in the marine environment will always have inherent uncer-
tainty associated with them. It is therefore unreasonable to expect developers to be
able to fully inform decision-makers beyond all reasonable scientific doubt. The strin-
gent interpretation of the Court can be described as a genuine example of a ‘paralysing’
precautionary principle.86 It typically embodies what Wildavsky refers to as a ‘trial
without error’87 paradigm of risk management whereby ‘no change is allowed unless
solid proof that the proposed undertaking is not harmful’;88 ‘no trial without prior guar-
antees against error’.89 When in doubt, do nothing.90 Sunstein has already warned
against such an absolutist approach to the precautionary principle.91 As observed by
Sunstein, a strong precautionary principle would preclude the introduction of any desir-
able technologies ‘that make human lives easier, more convenient and healthier’.92 In a
similar line of thought, Wildavsky points out that taking the precautionary principle in
its extreme application would make impossible any small innovation because of the risk
of adverse effect.93 Setting a standard of proof that cannot be realistically met by devel-
opers of renewable energy technologies runs afoul of the precautionary principle. It
marginalises the role of science and this may be defeating in the long term if it deprives
both society and biodiversity of the benefits of climate change mitigation. At first
glance, a strict precautionary approach might seem to caution against risks of significant
local impacts on Natura 2000 sites and their qualifying features. However, suspending a
‘Damoclean sword’94 over innovative technologies that are necessary to abate one the
greatest environmental threats, associated with impacts from climate change, will have
far more dramatic consequences. The failure to authorise and deploy low-carbon energy
technologies might pose greater risks to biodiversity as a result of unmitigated climate
change. The protection of Natura 2000 sites will not yield the intended protection out-
comes unless adequate climate change adaptation measures are taken to abate
84
CE Malinka and others, ‘First In Situ Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals during Oper-
ation of a Tidal Turbine in Ramsey Sound, Wales’ (2018) 590 Marine Ecology Progress Series 247.
85
U Verfuss and others, ‘Comparing Methods Suitable for Monitoring Marine Mammals in Low Visi-
bility Conditions during Seismic Survey’ (2018) 126 Marine Pollution Bulletin 1.
86
CR Sunstein, Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (Cambridge University Press 2005).
87
A Wildavsky, ‘Trial and Error Versus Trial Without Error’ in J Morris (ed), Rethinking Risk and the
Precautionary Principle (Butterworth-Heinemann 2000) 22.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid, 23.
90
N de Sadeleer, ‘The Effect of Uncertainty on the Threshold Levels to which the Precautionary Principle
Appears to Be Subject’ in J Applegate (ed), Environmental Risks, vol 2 (Ashgate/Dartmouth 2004) 29.
91
Sunstein (n 87) 26.
92
Ibid, 25.
93
Wildavsky (n 88) 30; see further: O Todt and L Lujan, ‘Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Pre-
caution, Science and Innovation Go Together?’ (2014) 34 Risk Analysis 2163.
94
De Sadeleer (n 91).
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
13


greenhouse gas emissions. Anthropogenic climate change is a major threat to biodiver-
sity.95 Thirty-five per cent of species protected by the Habitats and Birds Directives
have been identified as being ‘very highly’ and ‘extremely highly’ vulnerable to
climate change effects.96
While it is true that the precautionary principle should not unreasonably interfere
with innovation that has promising benefits, on the other hand, pushing the precaution-
ary principle too far, in the way of full relaxation is not desirable either, as this would
favour unproven and potentially environmentally harmful technologies. This is exactly
what the precautionary principle was designed to avoid. There is a need for a ‘middle
ground’ balancing principle.97 In situations where technological innovation is per-
ceived to be necessary but the environmental consequences of these technologies are
uncertain, the very nature of the precautionary principle should be to address scientific
uncertainties in order to maximise the use of beneficial technologies while reducing
undesired effects.
Reducing global warming demands a better understanding of low-carbon energy
technologies. Judicial interpretation of Article 6(3) may significantly reduce possi-
bilities to deploy, monitor and learn about ORE technologies in a way that would
be beneficial to improve environmental management of future projects. Setting a
standard of proof that is too high curtails the possibility of learning from new tech-
nologies as these would not have been authorised in the first place. Not only would
developers and regulators ‘never know what real benefits these technologies may
bring’ but they ‘would also never understand if the possible negative effects
really exist, and if so, if these effects can be resolved and minimised efficiently,
or if they may turn out to be acceptable given the overwhelming benefits
derived from the technology in question’.98 With regard to wave and tidal
energy, Copping and others stress that as industry is now scaling up from single
devices to arrays, ‘there may be positive trade-off between environmental risks
and performance of devices but these trade-offs can only be resolved once real-
scale projects come online’ (p 7).99
The problem is therefore pervasive. The situation epitomises the ‘uncertainty
paradox’ of Van Asselt and Vos, that is, the paradoxical position of regulatory
decision-makers who ‘increasingly rely on science for certainty but science in turn,
cannot deliver decisive evidence on uncertainty risks’ (p 317).100 Better conservation
outcomes can be achieved by means of less restrictive measures without lowering
the conservation standards enshrined in the Habitats Directive. One possible way to
maximise the use of scientific knowledge while balancing the imperatives for biodiver-
sity conservation and renewable energy may be to promote adaptive management. This
95
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment
(Island Press 2003) 10.
96
C Vos and others, ‘Managing Climate Change for the Natura 2000 Network – Assessment of the Vul-
nerability of Natura 2000 Species and Habitats for Climate Change: Species and Habitats Types Most at
Risk’ (ENV B.3/SER/2010/0015r) (Alterra-Wageningen UR 2012) 30–31.
97
C Weiss, ‘Can There Be Science-Based Precaution?’ (2006) 1 Environmental Research Letters, Article
014003.
98
Todt and Lujan (n 94) 2166.
99
Copping and others, ‘The State of Knowledge’ (n 12).
100 MBA van Asselt and E Vos, ‘The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox’ (2006) 9
Journal of Risk Research 313.
14
C Le Lièvre


approach, better defined as a ‘learning-by-doing’101 management process, may be par-
ticularly useful to improve the conservation outcomes of the precautionary principle
while encouraging technological innovations. Instead of being paralysed by conserva-
tion goals, adaptive management involves ‘authorisation in the face of uncertainty, as
part of a rigorously planned and controlled trial, with careful monitoring and periodic
review to provide feedback and adaptation of management decisions in light of new
information’.102 An adaptive management procedure does not necessarily require a
high level of certainty before delivering necessary development consents. However,
it provides the process to ‘improve relevant knowledge about dynamic ecological
systems, while seeking to minimise risks’ arising from imperfect decisions made in
the face of incomplete information about ecosystem reactions.103 From there,
adaptive management should not be envisaged as an alternative to the precautionary
principle. Adaptive management and precaution are complementary: adaptive manage-
ment integrates the best scientific knowledge that is needed to give an evidentiary basis
to precautionary actions. Monitoring programmes are designed to respond to specific
questions and hence contribute to the wider scientific knowledge base which can be
used in future to refine policy and consenting processes.
The CJEU interpretation of ‘ecological integrity’, when considered in conjunction
with the strict application of the precautionary principle under the Article 6(3) regime,
sets the contextual basis of the approach likely to be adopted by domestic courts. The
subsequent section provides a short review of domestic case law illustrating the legal
and regulatory difficulties resulting from the CJEU jurisprudence. Although the dom-
estic case law reviewed by this author primarily concerns judicial reviews of per-
missions for onshore renewable energy developments, it is worth noting that
domestic courts almost systematically apply the judicial principles elaborated by the
CJEU. It is likely that a similar approach will be taken in future judicial reviews of plan-
ning permissions for offshore renewables.
4.
Application of judicial principles of the CJEU by domestic courts: a
deployment challenge?
The recent judgment in Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd v Secretary of State for Business Energy and
Industrial Strategy104 illustrates the regulatory difficulties faced by developers of renew-
able energy projects to pass the legal test of no reasonable scientific doubt. By way of
background, Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd sought planning permission to install 27 wind
energy turbines in Wales. At issue was the effect of the proposed wind energy develop-
ment on the red kite population of the neighbouring Elenydd Mallean Special Protection
Area (SPA). The Secretary of State refused to grant development consent on the grounds
101 BK Williams and others, Adaptive Management: The US Department of the Interior Technical Guide
(Adaptive Management Working Group, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 2009) 7.
102 R Cooney and B Dickson, ‘Precautionary Principle, Precautionary Practice: Lessons and Insights’ in
R Cooney and B Dickson (eds), Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk, Uncertainty and
Practice in Conservation and Sustainable Use (Routledge 2005) 304–05.
103 DA Keith and others, ‘Uncertainty and Adaptive Management for Biodiversity Conservation’ (2011)
144 Biological Conservation 1175.
104 Mynydd y Gwynt Limited v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2018]
EWCA Civ 231, [2018] Env LR 22 (Mynydd y Gwynt Limited).
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
15


that she was not satisfied that the project would not have a detrimental effect on protected
red kites as a result of the risk of collision with turbine blades. A number of uncertainties
needed to be addressed including the proportion of red kites coming from the nearby SPA
and the level of mortality from collision that the red kite population could sustain before
the site’s conservation objectives would be undermined. The claimant (Mynydd y Gwynt
Ltd) relied on extensive survey data from 2009 to 2015 and guidance provided by Scot-
tish National Heritage (SNH) to argue that there was no connectivity with the SPA in that
the proposed development site was located at more than four km away from the SPA and
no nesting activities had been identified within six km. The maximum foraging range of
red kites in the breeding season was established at six km by SNH. On this basis, the clai-
mant contended that there would be no real risk that the red kites would come from the
SPA to forage. Natural Resources Wales (NRW) argued that Mynydd y Gwynt had no
data to demonstrate the origins of the red kites using the proposed development site
and therefore, it could not be shown that the wind farm, alone or in combination with
other projects, would not have likely significant effect on the SPA. NRW required
additional surveys from within ten km of the proposed development site to account for
the birds’ foraging range during non-breeding seasons. The developer commissioned
further surveys but NRW maintained its position. Unlike NRW, the Executive Authority
concluded that, in light of up-to-date survey data, a reasonable degree of certainty had
been reached to demonstrate that red kites did not originate from the SPA. The Secretary
of State requested further information from Mynydd y Gwynt on the maximum mortality
rates that could occur without adversely affecting the integrity of the SPA. Mynydd y
Gwynt responded to some of the issues but failed to provide further information about
the red kite population. The Secretary of State eventually turned down the application
on the grounds that there were some risks that the red kites using the site originated
from the SPA. Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd appealed the decision on the ground that the Sec-
retary of State erred in her approach by requiring ‘absolute certainty’ with respect to
each element of the data instead of using available information and making a reasoned
judgement based on the precautionary principle.
At the first instance, the High Court held that the burden of proof was on Mynydd y
Gwynt in the sense that it was up to the applicant to provide sufficient information to con-
vince the Secretary of State that there was no real risk of adverse effects as to the integrity
of the red kite feature of the SPA.105 The High Court concluded that Mynydd y Gwynt
had failed to provide information reasonably required to determine the AA.106 The Court
of Appeal upheld the decision. The Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State was
not asking for absolute certainty about the red kite population, rather, the Court held that
the Secretary of State required clarity. The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that
such clarity was not provided by the information before her.107
That said, while it is for the competent authorities to undertake an AA, the onus is
on the proponent of the project to provide the information necessary to secure the
approval.108 The Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd case concerned visible red kite birds on land.
105 Mynydd y Gwynt Limited [2016] EWHC 2581 (Admin), [2017] Env LR 14.
106 Ibid [67].
107 Mynydd y Gwynt Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 231 [34].
108 C Whelton and L Reid, ‘Providing Information to Enable the Decision-Taker to Make an Appropriate
Assessment’ (2018) 186 Scottish Planning and Environmental Law 45.
16
C Le Lièvre


Providing certainty as to the absence of connectivity with any SPA or SAC at sea might
be even more challenging due to difficulties in monitoring species offshore or below the
water surface. Furness and others rightly demonstrate that it is not currently possible to
know with absolute certainty the colonies that sea birds come from, unless strategic
ringing programmes are undertaken.109 Providing more data or information is expens-
ive and time consuming.110 This responsibility should not be borne solely by develo-
pers under the framework of licensing procedures.
In Ireland, in Kelly v An Bord Pleanála,111 the applicant was seeking orders of cer-
tiorari to quash the planning permissions granted by An Bord Pleanála, the Irish statu-
tory planning authority, for two wind farm developments in Roscommon (Ireland). The
proposed wind energy developments consisted in two phases of 16 and 19 turbines
respectively, located in the same vicinity of several Natura 2000 sites hosting bird
species of national and EU interest. The main concerns included inter alia: (1) the dis-
placement of Golden Plover and Lapwing birds; (2) the disturbance of feeding/roosting/
commuting area and natural flight lines of a number of protected birds; (3) collision
strike of birds with wind turbines. The Inspector from the Board argued that the
level of information provided by the developer was insufficient. The Inspector was
also of the view that a higher burden of proof must be required to demonstrate the
absence of adverse effect on the integrity of the SPAs. In particular, the Inspector
argued that the survey did not address the interconnections between the conservation
sites and failed to submit information on flight patterns of Greenland White-Fronted
Geese. The Inspector further stressed that the developer did not provide adequate infor-
mation to prove beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that Phase 1 of the wind farm
developments would not have an impact upon the feeding, roosting, commuting area
and natural flight lines of protected bird species and on the integrity of the conservation
sites. Likewise, the developer had not proven beyond reasonable scientific doubt that
the proposed turbines height would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA as a
result of bird strikes. An Bord Pleanála took a different view. In light of the substantial
survey work carried out by the developer, together with comprehensive data and infor-
mation submitted to the Board, An Bord Pleanála considered that the proposed devel-
opment would not adversely affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites concerned.
Whilst An Bord Pleanála has the ability to disagree with its own Inspector, the
Board has to provide the reasons to do so. In the absence of such determination, the
Irish High Court held that An Bord Pleanála did not have jurisdiction to grant per-
missions. According to the Court, ‘the findings and conclusions reached by the Inspec-
tor in relation to the matters identified as potentially affecting the integrity of Natura
2000 sites are such that the AA could not support a determination that the proposed
development would not adversely affect the European Sites having regard to their con-
servation objectives’.112 The High Court concluded that An Bord Pleanála failed to
carry out an AA that met the criteria of the CJEU jurisprudence, namely that of
109 RW Furness and S Wanless, ‘Quantifying the Impact of Offshore Wind Farms on Gannet Populations:
A Strategic Ringing Project’ (2014) 29 Ringing & Migration 81.
110 Whelton and Reid (n 109).
111 Kelly v An Bord Pleanála [2014] IEHC 400.
112 Kelly v An Bord Pleanála (n 112) [77].
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
17


having complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing
all reasonable scientific doubt.113
Other national jurisprudence exhibits a more flexible application of the precaution-
ary principle. In a recent Irish case, People Over Wind v An Bord Pleanála,114 the Irish
Court of Appeal introduced a refinement to the notion of ‘best scientific knowledge’
arguing that ‘best scientific knowledge’ refers to scientific knowledge that is ‘reason-
ably available’.115 According to the Court, the objective of the ‘Waddenzee formula’
is to ensure that the AA ‘meets proper contemporary standards’ and ‘that the integrity
of the SACs is not compromised by the grant of permission which is in turn premised in
a scientific analysis which is out-dated, flawed or which does not measure up to state of
the art scientific understanding’.116 The applicants were seeking judicial review of a
planning permission authorising the construction of a wind farm situated 12 to
17 km from two SACs in Co Laois (Ireland). At issue was the vulnerability of the pro-
tected fauna of the SACs to the risk of increased sedimentation in these watercourses
during the construction phase of wind farm development. The Irish Supreme Court
refused to refer the question related to the interpretation of ‘best scientific knowledge’
to the CJEU.117 Following the grant of development consent for the construction works,
the developer subsequently addressed the question of connecting the wind farm to the
electricity grid by means of a cable. An application for leave to appeal was made by
People Over Wind to the Irish High Court. The dispute in the main proceedings con-
cerned the question as to whether the developer erred in taking mitigation measures
into consideration at the screening stage to determine if it was necessary to carry out
an AA with respect to the laying of a connecting cable. The High Court decided to
refer the question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. As mentioned above, the
CJEU repeated its strict jurisprudence under Article 6(3) (see section 2.2). Unfortu-
nately, the CJEU did not have the opportunity to confirm whether the flexible under-
standing of best scientific knowledge by the Irish Court of Appeal was consistent
with the Waddenzee test of ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’.118
Overall, the legal test of ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’ raises the more general
question of the standard of review domestic courts are entitled to apply in cases invol-
ving quality of complex scientific evidence. The CJEU requires that projects are exam-
ined using ‘best scientific knowledge in the field’ but does not clearly define what ‘best
scientific knowledge’ means for the purpose of this appraisal. The CJEU case law
would suggest that, in the face of opposing scientific hypotheses or opinions, competent
authorities shall refuse a project to eliminate any scientific doubt. RSPB v Scottish Min-
isters is a seminal case in this respect.119 At first instance, the Scottish Court of Session
(Outer House)120 had to decide whether the conclusions of the AA procedures carried
out for a group of substantial offshore wind farms,121 comprising a total of 335 offshore
113 Ibid, paras [67]–[68].
114 People Over Wind v An Bord Pleanála [2015] IECA 272.
115 Ibid, [50].
116 Ibid, para 25.
117 People Over Wind v An Bord Pleanála [2016] IESCDET 21, [38].
118 C–323/17 People Over Wind and Sweetman (n 49).
119 RSPB v Scottish Ministers [2017] CSIH 31.
120 RSPB v Scottish Ministers [2016] CSOH 103.
121 Inch Cape, Neart Na Gaoithe, Seagreen Alpha and Seagreen Bravo.
18
C Le Lièvre


wind turbines, were capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt. By the same
token, the litigation concerned the question as to whether the findings of contested
scientific fact or methodology were susceptible of judicial review. The scope of the
Court’s powers of review was placed into sharp focus. The modelling options and stat-
istical method (ie, scalar methodology) relied upon by the advisory body of Marine
Scotland to identify thresholds of acceptable biological change on the bird populations
of two SPAs were not approved by SNH. In the Outer House, the Lord Ordinary was
therefore not satisfied that scalar was the best scientific means capable of providing the
best evidence. The Lord Ordinary found that the AA did not satisfy the legal test in that
its conclusions were not capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt. The
decision was quashed in the Inner House on the ground that the standard of review
is that of manifest error of assessment.122 The Inner House held that it is not the func-
tion of the Court, in a judicial review, to decide between differing views of experts in a
technical area.123 The Lord Ordinary ‘trespassed into the province of the fact finder.124
In each area, the judgements to be taken were of an evaluative nature. Even if there may
be errors identified upon a close scrutiny of the data or methodology, none could be
described as manifest’.125 In other words, the existence of reasonable scientific doubt
under the Waddenzee test remains primarily a matter of fact to be appreciated by the
decision-maker and not the judicial reviewer.
RSPB v Scottish Ministers clearly highlights the fact that divergent scientific opinions
may be opposed regarding the monitoring methodologies or parameters utilised in scientific
models. Scientific models may generate imprecise modelling outputs and these scientific
limitations can be invoked against the legality of AAs. Furthermore, it raises the question
of the standard of review domestic courts should apply when complex scientific data is
involved. The CJEU held that the standard of review to be applied with respect to environ-
mental assessments is that of manifest error of assessment.126 Staying within the limits of
this standard may not be straightforward where the legality of an AA depends upon the
capacity of scientific evidence to remove all reasonable scientific doubt. The legal test of
no reasonable scientific doubt may reinforce what some lawyers refer to as ‘scientification’
of judicial reviews,127 a practice in which courts act as ‘a risk assessor’ extending their
review to the scientific merits underlying contested decisions.128
5.
Conclusion
If the Habitats Directive does not place a general ban on offshore renewable energy devel-
opments,129 judicial interpretation of Article 6(3) puts a ‘demanding onus on developers
to prove no risks’ (p 24).130 The CJEU has given an important doctrinal role to the
122 RSPB v Scottish Ministers [2017] CSIH 31 [203].
123 Ibid [204].
124 Ibid [221].
125 Ibid.
126 C–343/09 Afton Chemical Limited (n 24) para 28.
127 AM Janssen and N Rosenstock, ‘Handling Uncertain Risks: An Inconsistent Application of Standards?
The Precautionary Principle in Court Revisited’ (2016) 7 European Journal of Risk Regulation 144.
128 MBA van Asselt and E Vos, ‘The Role of Science in Political and Judicial Decision-Making’ in
HW Micklitz and T Tridimas (eds), Risk and EU Law (Edward Elgar 2015) 126–28.
129 C–2/10 Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini Sarl v Regione Puglia [2011] ECR I–6561, para 46.
130 R Macrory, ‘Habitats Directive Puts Onus on Applicants to Prove No Risk’ (2016) ENDS 502, p.24.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
19


precautionary principle when interpreting the requirements of the appropriate assessment
procedure of Article 6(3). Article 6(3) has been interpreted in such a way that competent
licensing authorities must satisfy themselves beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that
new ORE deployments will not have an impact upon the integrity of nearby marine
Natura 2000 sites. The strict precautionary standard of ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’
has the potential to unfairly restrict the value of new forms of innovative renewable
energy technologies with higher capital costs. Predicting and understanding the potential
environmental impacts of any novel renewable energy technology deployed in the marine
environment is extremely challenging and costly. Data collection in the marine environ-
ment can cost millions and take a number of years to complete. Efforts to reduce uncer-
tainty have resulted in developers facing disproportionate monitoring costs to meet the
evidentiary thresholds of the Habitats Directive. Science is never ascertainable. Science
is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evalu-
ation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. Given the high degree of uncertainty sur-
rounding marine ecosystem dynamics, the risks associated with ORE deployments will
always exist. The CJEU should be careful not to impose unrealistic, front-loaded, require-
ments for certainty as this does not exist in the marine environment.
The particular interpretation of the precautionary principle is the creation of the
CJEU. This is certainly not what is required by the precautionary principle as formu-
lated under the system of the EU Treaties. The precautionary principle cannot be under-
stood to require such a strongly restrictive approach in the ORE sector. While the
precautionary principle is obviously a central pillar of the EU environmental policy,
aiming at a ‘high level of environmental protection’,131 the Habitats Directive ‘does
not stand alone amongst the acquis communautaire’ (p 79) of the EU.132 The conserva-
tion objectives of the Habitats Directive must be balanced with other important objec-
tives that are closely tied to the overarching objective of sustainable development under
the Lisbon Treaty. Combating climate change is now firmly enshrined as one of the core
objectives of the EU’s environmental policy since the Lisbon Treaty came into force.133
Accepting that there will always be uncertainties about the ecological interactions of
new low-carbon energy technologies demands a more balanced approach to the precau-
tionary principle to facilitate ‘win-win’ synergies between the respective EU climate-
energy objectives and biodiversity conservation goals. Given the poor conservation
status of Natura 2000 biodiversity,134 it is clear that a relaxation of the protection
scheme of the Habitats Directive is excluded. However, a refinement of the precaution-
ary principle makes sense to reconcile the important objectives for renewable energy
and biodiversity conservation. A major question arises therefore as to whether there
is not an alternative way to protect marine biodiversity while promoting the exploitation
of low-carbon energy sources at sea. Reconciling EU objectives relating to renewable
energy and biodiversity conservation requires a nuanced approach to the precautionary
principle to encourage the establishment of best scientific knowledge in the appropriate
131 TFEU, Art 191(2).
132 FH Kistenkas, ‘Rethinking European Nature Conservation Legislation: Towards Sustainable Develop-
ment’ (2013) 10 Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 72.
133 TFEU, Art 191(1).
134 European Commission, ‘The State of Nature in the European Union’ (Communication) COM(2015)
219 final.
20
C Le Lièvre


assessment procedure. An explicit approach to adaptive management tied to ongoing
environmental monitoring certainly deserves closer attention as a more realistic and
pragmatic methodology to maximise the use of best scientific knowledge while balan-
cing the need for offshore renewable energy with biodiversity conservation.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisors, Prof. McIntyre and Dr. Anne-Marie O’Hagan from the
School of Law in University College Cork and the Marine Renewable Energy Ireland
(MaREI) Centre, for their constructive review and comments on multiple versions of this paper.
Funding
This material was based upon works supported by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under
Marine Renewable Energy Ireland (MaREI) Centre (12/RC/2302).
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
21

85
CHAPTER 5
BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM 
POLICY CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE 
DEVELOPMENT?
‘Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are 
sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone’.
Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote
RALPH FRINS
HENDRIK SCHOUKENS
1.
INTRODUCTION
Windmills appeared for the first time some 3000 years ago. First demonstrations of producing 
electricity from windmills took place during the 1880s. Despite these early advances, the en-
thusiasm remained relatively low up until the end of the 1980s. However, throughout the past 
decades, the positive impacts that go along with wind energy developments, alongside the in-
creasing query for national energy independence, have pushed many countries around the 
world to prioritize the construction of wind farms as one of the major targets of their energy 
policy. For instance, within the European Union (EU) it is assumed that wind energy devel-
opment will play a pivotal role in achieving the ambitious 20-20-20 target included in the 
2008 Climate Change and Energy Package.1
Yet, whilst at the outset wind energy was believed to be totally ‘clean’, that perception slowly 
altered. The rapid increase of the number of wind turbines is spurring additional concerns 
about its adverse environmental impacts. One of the most worrisome disadvantages is related 
to potential wildlife effects that wind farms are liable to create.2 The majority of wind farm 
proposals have been located in upland areas due to the high wind speeds occurring there and 
their isolation from centres of human population. Mostly such areas also happen to host avi-
fauna of high conservation importance.3 Although the mortality rates of birds and bats vary 
considerable depending on the specific location of a wind farm, the specific articulation be-
                                                          
 
1 More information about the Climate Change and Energy Package is available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm.
2 See recently Tabassum-Abbasi et al, ‘Wind Energy: Increasing Developments, Rising Environmental Con-
cerns’ (2014) 31 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 270. 
3 JW Pearce-Higgins et al, ‘International Importance and Drivers of Change of Upland Bird Populations’ in A 
Bonn et al (eds), Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands (Routledge 2009) 209.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
86
tween biodiversity law and wind energy development has undeniable come more to the fore-
front in recent years. It raises questions as to the compatibility of the green energy pledges 
with nature protection. 
Within the European context, the Birds4 and Habitats Directives5 spell out the specific rules 
as to nature conservation. Not only is the establishment of an EU-wide Natura 2000 Network 
envisaged, both directives urge the Member States also to enact strict protection rules for 
threatened species.6 Not surprisingly, EU biodiversity law increasingly clashed with wind en-
ergy developments which, in turn, spurred the debate forward on the alleged rigidity of the 
Birds and Habitats Directive. In recent legal literature, some argue that the rationale under-
pinning both directives comes down to ‘deathbed conservation’ or ‘nature gardening’, not 
capable of supporting sustainable land uses.7 By contrast, others have submitted that the legal 
issues that accompany the application of EU biodiversity law should not be regarded as in-
surmountable problems, nor as a trigger for relaxation of the Birds and Habitats Directives.8
That said, the stark rise in the number of legal challenges against the construction of new 
wind farms seems to underscore the aforementioned concerns and demonstrates the additional 
constraints that biodiversity law may pose for wind farm developments.9 Although these legal 
proceedings mostly do not succeed in definitively blocking the construction and operation of 
wind farms, they create a lot of frustration amongst wind developers because of the increased 
business risks. In light of the existing lacunae as regards the potential negative impacts of 
wind farms on wildlife, especially the rigid application of the precautionary principle in the 
applicable permitting procedures might lead to additional constraints from permit and consul-
tation conditions. In some cases, wind developers will see their proposals rejected. In order to 
overcome such obstacles, wind energy business is claiming to obtain a ‘green pass’ under the 
applicable biodiversity rules.10 Massive wind farm development will, at the end of the day, al-
so help to mitigate the effects of climate change, which is in the interests of all species. So 
why stick to the biodiversity rules for ‘green projects’ that are helping to reduce the harmful 
impacts linked to global warming? Are the potential negative effects that go along with wind 
farm developments not outweighed by the overall environmental benefits of wind power? 
                                                          
 
4 Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds [1979] OJ L103/1 (Birds Di-
rective). The initial Birds Directive has been codified in Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds [2010] OJ L20/7. 
5 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flo-
ra [1992] OJ L206/7 (Habitats Directive).
6 Art 12(1) Habitats Directive; Art 5(1) Birds Directive.
7 FH Kistenkas, ‘Rethinking European Nature Conservation Legislation: Towards Sustainable Development’ 
(2013) 10 Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 72.
8 ALR Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity: Policy Conflicts and the Future of Nature Conservation’ 
(2011) 21 Global Environmental Change 1195.
9 See for instance: H Schoukens, A Cliquet and F Maes, ‘Wind Farm Development in the Belgian Part of the 
North Sea: A Policy Odyssey without Precedent’ (2012) 10 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungs-
recht 304.
10 See, more extensively on the articulation between wind farm development and the US Endangered Species 
Act: JB Ruhl, ‘Harmonizing Commercial Wind Power and the Endangered Species Act Through Administrative 
Reform’ (2012) 65 Vanderbilt Law Review 1769. 


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
87
This article will address the leeway that EU biodiversity law leaves for wind power develop-
ment. After having treated the ‘green vs. green’ paradox more in depth (section 2), the 
articulation between Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, which lays down the basic protection 
scheme for the sites that are included in the Natura 2000 Network, and wind power develop-
ment will be explored (section 3). In this paper, it will be argued that, whilst the Court of 
Justice of the European Union (hereafter: the Court) has definitely opted for a high threshold 
when applying the protection rules for spatial projects, there still remains sufficient margin to 
harmonize wind energy developments with the precautionary approach that is present in exist-
ing EU biodiversity law. In addition, it will be submitted that mechanisms such as adaptive 
licensing, possibly combined with additional mitigation or compensatory measures, might al-
low to better balance the urgent need for addressing climate change with the protection of the 
EU’s most endangered habitats and species (section 4).
2.
THE DILEMMA: COMBATTING GLOBAL WARMING VS. NATURE 
CONSERVATION?
2.1.
Wind energy production on the rise…
It is widely known that the EU has promulgated some ambitious targets in the field of envi-
ronment and energy policy. Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from 
renewable sources,11 more in particular, has set national targets corresponding to a 20 per cent
share of renewable energies in overall EU energy consumption by 2020 and a mandatory 10
per cent minimum target to be achieved by all Member States for the share of renewable en-
ergy in transport consumption by 2020. Obviously, wind energy will play a key-role in the 
achievement of these objectives.
Overall, wind energy, which is widely seen as one of the most environmentally friendly ener-
gy resources,12 has witnessed a rapid growth during the past two decades. At the end of 2008, 
there were 65 GW of wind power capacity installed within the EU, meeting in total 4.2 per 
cent of the EU electricity demand.13 A 2009 report issued by the European Environmental 
Agency (EEA) concluded that wind energy could power Europe many times over. It was held 
that wind power’s potential in 2020 will be three times greater than Europe’s expected elec-
tricity demand, rising to a factor of seven by 2030,14 At present, the EU is a front-runner in 
wind energy and a lead player on the global market. In 2007 more than half of the global in-
stalled wind capacity was located in the EU and European wind turbine manufacturers 
                                                          
 
11 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of 
the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 
2003/30/EC [2009] OJ L140/16 (RES Directive).
12 R Saidur et al, ‘Environmental Impact of Wind Energy’ (2011) 15 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Re-
views 2423, 2424.
13 A Zervos and C Kjaer, Pure Power. Wind Energy Scenarios up to 2030 (European Wind Energy Association 
2008).
14 European Environmental Agency, Europe’s Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Potential, An Assessment of 
Environmental and Economic Constraints (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2009).


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
88
accounted in 2006 for around 75 per cent of the global market.15 Nevertheless, the EU is still 
lagging by 1.6 GW (-1.5 per cent) behind its 27 National Renewable Energy Action Plan 
forecasts.16 According to European Commission’s figures, more than two thirds of total EU 
wind capacity is installed in the three pioneering countries Germany, Spain and Denmark.17
As of today, Denmark satisfies more than 20 per cent and Spain more than 10 per cent of its 
electricity demand by wind energy. The figures are far less impressive for many other Mem-
ber States, underlining the stark need for additional efforts towards renewable energy. As a 
consequence, it is clear that many Member States will probably opt for massive investments 
in wind energy projects in the years to come.
2.2.
Rising biodiversity concerns
Despite offering concrete environmental benefits, biodiversity concerns place additional con-
straints on wind farm projects. Whilst wind farms might serve as refuges, at least if no 
fisheries or hunting are allowed within the wind farm area or, in the specific case of offshore 
wind farm constructions, as artificial reefs, their possible negative effects gained increased at-
tention throughout the past decade.18
In 2006, a German study on the impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy 
sources, drafted by the German Nature Conservation Office, concluded that ‘the main poten-
tial hazards to birds and bats from wind farms are disturbance leading to displacement or 
exclusion and collision mortality’.19 At the same time, it was noted that there was no evidence 
that birds generally became habituated to wind farms in the years after construction.20 Like-
wise, other research has revealed that, taking into account the sharp rise in the number of 
turbines in some regions, even low mortality rates per turbine could give rise to significant ef-
fects on some bird species, especially those with low reproductive rates. 
In 2009 the EEA, whilst acknowledging that the majority of studies of collisions caused by 
wind turbines revealed relatively low levels of mortality, held that, so far, there only had been 
conducted one sufficiently comprehensive study as regards the long term effects of wind 
farms on bird populations.21 The study referred to an analysis of the impact of a Californian 
wind farm project, which began in the 1970s and encompassed more than 7,300 operational 
windmills in 1993. Here, an estimated 35,000 – 100,000 birds, 1,500 – 2,300 of them being 
                                                          
 
15 European Commission, ‘Technical Background to Wind Energy’available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/eu/index_en.cfm?pg=research-wind-background.
16 J Wilkes and J Moccia, Wind in Power. 2012 European Statistics (European Wind Energy Association 2013).
17 European Commission, ‘Technical Background’. 
18 For a recent overview, see, amongst others, Tabassum-Abbasi et al, ‘Wind Energy’. 
19 H Hötker, K-M Thomsen and H Jeromin, Impact on Biodiversity of Exploitation of Renewable Energy 
Sources: The Example of Birds and Bats. Facts, Gaps in Knowledge, Demands for Further Research and Orni-
thological Guidelines for the Development of Renewable Energy Exploitation (Michael-Otto-Institut im
NABU 2006) 6.
20 Ibid.
21 European Environmental Agency, Europe’s Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Potential, 73.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
89
golden eagles, had been killed by collision during the past two decades.22 Population model-
ling demonstrated that the declining trend of the local golden eagle population could, at least 
partly, be ascribed to wind farm mortality.23
In recent years, also European studies pointed to similar outcomes. Norwegian surveys rec-
orded reduced breeding success in White-tailed eagle linked to wind farms,24 whilst Spanish 
studies showed that Spanish wind farms are causing many casualties amongst the Griffon vul-
ture.25
On a general note, we can conclude that the risk of significant effects is greater on or near ar-
eas regularly used by large numbers of feeding or roosting birds, or on migratory flyways or 
local flight paths.26 Especially, when rare, endangered and slow-to-reproduce birds are in-
volved, the impact of poorly sited and/or designed wind turbines can be decisive particularly 
in situations where cumulative mortality takes place as a result of multiple installations.27
Ironically, the only certainty upon which all scientists seem to agree as regards the impact on 
biodiversity of wind farms, is the lack of sufficient ecological surveys and studies.28
3.
SITE PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 6(3) AND (4) OF THE HABITATS 
DIRECTIVE: A STRICT APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE? 
Whereas the precautionary principle is often quoted as one of the main grounds for taking 
climate mitigation actions, it is also increasingly invoked by opponents of renewable energy 
projects. The strict implementation of the latter principle in the context of the site protection 
rules attached to the Natura 2000 Network partly helps to explain this alleged paradox. As of 
2013, this ecological network approximately covers 18 per cent of the Member States’ territo-
ry. Hence wind farm developers, in their quest for windy places, are increasingly confronted 
with the protection rules enshrined in the Habitats Directive. In light of the above featured un-
certainty as to the exact effects of wind farms on biodiversity, it becomes apparent that the 
concrete application of the precautionary principle within the context of aforementioned pro-
tection rules might present an important bottleneck for wind farm developments in the vicinity 
of a Natura 2000 site.
                                                          
 
22 CG Thelander and KS Smallwood, ‘The Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area’s Effects on Birds: A Case His-
tory’ in M de Lucas, GFE Janss and M Ferrer (eds), Birds and Wind Farms. Risk Assessment and Mitigation
(Quercus 2007) 25.
23 G Hunt, ‘Golden Eagles in a Perilous Landscape: Predicting the Effects of Mitigation for Wind Turbine 
Bladestrike Mortality, consultant report to the California Energy Commission (July 2002).
24 EL Dahl et al, ‘Reduced Breeding Success of White-Tailed Eagles at Smøla Windfarm, Western Norway, is 
caused by Mortality and Displacement’ (2012) 145 Biological Conservation 79.
25 M de Lucas et al, ‘Griffon Vulture Mortality at Wind Farms in Southern Spain, Distribution of Fatalities and 
Active Mitigation Measures’ (2012) 147 Biological Conservation 184.
26 See, in general, Tabassum-Abbasi et al, ‘Wind Energy’, 277.
27 Ibid. 
28 Ibid, but also European Environmental Agency, Europe’s Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Potential, 73.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
90
3.1.
The precautionary principle as cornerstone of international and EU environmental 
law
In order to grasp the essence of the current debate, it is appropriate to step back and succinctly 
address the background and origins of the precautionary principle. Since the beginning of the 
nineties, the precautionary principle, arguably one of the most renowned environmental prin-
ciples, has found its way through numerous international agreements and conventions, such as 
the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.29 At the European level, it was first in-
serted into the European treaties in 1992 at Maastricht. 30 Currently, the precautionary 
principles is one of the most debated concepts of current environmental law, which is further 
underscored by the many definitions it has.31 Generally, it is held that the precautionary prin-
ciple is comprised of three common elements, being (1) a threat of harm, (2) uncertainty, and 
(3) action.32 Authors, like Stewart,33 make a difference between ‘weak’ formulations of the 
precautionary principle, according to which activities should be limited below a margin of 
safety, and ‘strong’ formulations, according to which an uncertain potential for significant 
harm should be prohibited unless the proponent of the activity shows that it presents no ap-
preciable risk of harm. The latter is often qualified as the ‘prohibitive’ version of the 
precautionary principle and critized for creating ‘paralysis by precaution’.34 In that regard, it 
is interesting to note that the European Commission states in its 2000 Communication that 
‘where there is scientific uncertainty’ Member States should implement evaluation procedures 
and take appropriate preventive action in order to avoid damage to the environment.35 Pertain-
ing to the uncertainty-requirement, it is generally held that, while not a single category of 
uncertainty seems to fall outside of the scope of the precautionary principle, at least reasona-
ble grounds for concerns need to be present in order to apply the precautionary principle.36 At 
the same time, it should also be stressed that mere speculation is not a realistic and workable 
option and that risk reduction measures do not have to aim at zero risk.37
3.2.
Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive: in dubio pro natura!
Let us now turn to the implementation of the precautionary principle in the context of the 
Natura 2000 Network. In general, Article 6 of the Habitats Directive is seen as the most semi-
                                                          
 
29 Framework Convention on Climate Change (9 May 1992) 31 ILM 849 (1992).
30 V Heyvaert, ‘Facing the Consequences of the Precautionary Principle in European Community Law’ (2006) 
31 European Law Review 185.
31 See more extensively: A Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights and Duties of States (Brill 2006) 21–35.
32 Ibid 30. 
33 RB Stewart, ‘Environmental Regulatory Decision Making under Uncertainty’ (2002) 20 Research in Law and 
Economics 71, 76.
34 R Cooney, ‘A Long and Winding Road? Precaution from Principle to Practice in Biodiversity Conservation’ in 
E Fisher, J Jones and R von Schomberg (eds), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Pro-
spects (Edward Elgar 2006) 238.
35 European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle’ COM(2000) 1 
final.
36 Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights, 115.
37 European Commission, ‘Communication on the precautionary principle’ COM(2000) 1 final, 9 and 18.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
91
nal provision as to determining the relationship between nature conservation and land use.38
By setting out strict substantive and procedural requirements to be followed in respect of a 
plan or project which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a 
Natura 2000 site but which is likely to have a significant effect thereon, Article 6(3) and (4) 
seeks to pre-empt damage being done to the site or to minimise that damage. This begs the 
question to what extent this statutory framework minimizes an insurmountable burden for the 
construction of wind farms. Is the lack of scientific consensus on the collision risks that go 
along with wind farms sufficient to reject a permit application? Does the precautionary prin-
ciple only come into play when the threatened harm is to be considered significant, excluding 
minor or trivial risks? And, ultimately, is there some margin for the competent authorities to 
balance environmental, social and economic interests, under the general umbrella of the pro-
portionality principle? 
3.2.1. No general ban but strict assessment rules!
Contrary to popular belief, Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive does not put a general ban on 
the construction of wind farms within or in the vicinity of a Natura 2000 site. It merely lays 
down a specific assessment-procedure that needs to be observed by authorities when, amongst 
others, issuing planning permits to projects and plans. Such was also the view of the Court in 
its first-ever decision in a legal challenge concerning the articulation between wind farm de-
velopment and Natura 2000. In Azienda Agro-Zootenica Franchini Sarl the Court held that 
Italian legislation which outright prohibits the construction of new wind turbines not intended 
for self-consumption in Natura 2000 sites, is more stringent than the protection rules estab-
lished by the Birds and Habitats Directives.39 Thus, it cannot be submitted from beforehand 
that every single wind farm that is sited in (the vicinity of) a Natura 2000 site will face an out-
right refusal. In fact, this will only be the case whenever an individual assessment in 
accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, concludes that the given wind turbines 
are liable to put into jeopardy the integrity of a Natura 2000 site. This raises the question as to 
what activities can be deemed prone of ‘adversely affecting the integrity of a site’, as meant 
by Article 6(3). 
In order to understand the exact scope of the assessment rules laid down by Article 6(3), we 
first need to turn to the landmark ruling of the Court in Waddenzee.40 In this landmark ruling, 
the Court clearly tightened down the margin of discretion for the competent authorities when 
issuing permits for activities which might entail potential harmful effects for Natura 2000 
sites. As to the so-called ‘screening-stage’, the Court held that the requirement for an appro-
priate assessment of the implications of a plan or project is conditional on it being likely to 
                                                          
 
38 European Commission, Managing Natura 2000 Sites. The provisions of Art 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 
92/43/ECC (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2000) 8.
39 Case C-2/10 Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini Sarl v Regione Puglia [2011] ECR I-6561, para 46. 
40 Case C-127/02 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee en Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescher-
ming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij [2004] ECR I-7405.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
92
have a significant effect on the site.41 The Court concluded that a project or plan needs to be 
submitted to an appropriate assessment if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective in-
formation, that it will have a significant effect on that site, either individually or in 
combination with other projects or plans. 42 By reaffirming the precautionary approach 
throughout the screening process, the Court underscored the need for a precise and meticulous 
assessment of the potential effects of plans and projects. 
Arguably, the Court’s ruling in Waddenzee is most renowned for underscoring the application 
of the precautionary principle in the decision-making stage under Article 6(3) of the Habitats 
Directive. In this respect, the Court reasserted the seminal Opinion of Advocate General Ko-
kott43 by firmly holding that the authorisation criterion laid down in the second sentence of 
Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive integrates the precautionary principle. Hence competent 
national authorities are only permitted to allow projects or plans if they have made certain, in 
light of the appropriate assessment and the applicable conservation objectives, that they will 
not adversely affect the integrity of that site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific 
doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.44 Thus, it becomes clear that the Court, at 
first glance, has opted for a rather rigid interpretation of the precautionary principle, which 
was subsequently reasserted in its more recent case-law.45 By placing the burden of proof on 
the proponent of the potentially harmful activity, it opted for the ‘prohibitive’ formulation of 
the precautionary principle in the context of Natura 2000. In the end, it will be for the propo-
nent of an activity to put forward the necessary conclusive evidence as regards the absence of 
potential significant effects in order to enable the permitting authority to ascertain that the 
plan or project would not give rise to significant effects on a Natura 2000 site. 
In its seminal ruling in Sweetman, the Court further clarified that the integrity of a site is ad-
versely affected if the project is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive 
characteristics of the site concerned that are connected to the presence of a natural habitat type 
whose preservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site.46 If after an appro-
priate assessment the authority concludes that the plan or project could lead to the lasting and 
irreparable loss of the whole or part of a priority natural habitat type, the view should be taken 
that such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of that site.47 In lay man’s terms: 
the simple fact that, for instance, a wind farm is only liable to produce negative effects in one 
specific part of a Natura 2000 site, will not automatically entail that it is not prone to affect its 
integrity. 
                                                          
 
41 Ibid para 40. 
42 Ibid para 44.
43 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott.
44 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, para 59.
45 See, for instance, Case C-239/04 European Commission v Portugal [2006] ECR I-10183, paras 19 and 20; 
Case C-418/04 European Commission v Ireland [2007] ECR I-10947, paras 226, 228 and 258.
46 Case C-258/11 Peter Sweetman and others v An Bord Pleanála (ECJ, 11 April 2013). See more extensively H 
Schoukens, ‘The Ruling of the Court of Justice in Sweetman: How to Avoid a Death by a Thousand Cuts?’ 
(2014) elni Review 2.
47 Case C-258/11 Sweetman (ECJ, 11 April 2013), para 46.  


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
93
3.2.2. Article 6(4) derogation clause: a workable option?
So far, it has become apparent that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, if applied in a proper 
manner, will urge the proponents of wind farms to substantiate that there exists no reasonable 
risk of significant effects on Natura 2000 sites. However, Article 6(4) of the Habitats Di-
rective still leaves the competent authorities the possibility to authorize such a project which 
has been subject to a ‘negative appropriate assessment for the implications of the site’, albeit 
under very strict conditions. Under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, plans or projects 
may be authorized, by way of derogation, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications 
for the site, where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), there are 
no alternative solutions and all compensatory measures necessary to ensure the overall coher-
ence of Natura 2000 have been taken. A closer analysis of the 2007/2012 Guidance document 
produced by the European Commission as to Article 6(4)48 seems to indicate that the deroga-
tion conditions need to be interpreted in a restrictive manner, which also appears to be 
reaffirmed in the Court’s more recent jurisprudence.49
The first stage under Article 6(4) requires the competent authorities to examine the possibility 
of resorting to alternative solutions which better respect the integrity of the site. Admittedly, 
the search for alternatives can be quite broad and might involve, in the case of wind farm de-
velopment, alternative locations for the wind farm or an alteration of the size of the farm, but 
also alternative ways of producing energy whether renewable or not. Furthermore, the zero 
option has to be considered as well, as recently highlighted by the European Commission in 
its specific Guidance document on wind energy developments and Natura 2000.50 Additional-
ly, the European Commission stresses that during this stage other assessment criteria, such as 
economic criteria, cannot overrule ecological criteria. The priority that needs to be given to 
ecological criteria might urge wind farm developers, who aim for the construction of wind 
farms in the vicinity of a Natura 2000 site, to look for other, more appropriate locations.
Once it is satisfied that no alternative solutions exist, the authority should consider whether 
there are IROPI which may justify the wind farm development. As highlighted by the Europe-
an Commission in its Guidance documents, not every kind of public interest of a social or 
economic nature will be sufficient.51 In Solvay the Court held that an interest capable of justi-
fying the implementation of such a plan or project, must be both ‘public’ and ‘overriding’,
which means that it must be of such an importance that it can be weighed up against the Habi-
tats Directive objective of the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. In 
principle, works intended for the location or expansion of an undertaking satisfy those condi-
tions only in exceptional circumstances.52 In the aforementioned Guidance document on wind 
                                                          
 
48 European Commission, ‘Guidance Document on Article 6(4) of the “Habitats Directive” 92/43/EEC. Clarifica-
tion of the Concepts of: Alternative Solutions, Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest, Compensatory 
measures, Overall Coherence, Opinion of the Commission, 2007/2012’ available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdf.
49 See for instance Case C-239/04 European Commission v Portugal [2006] ECR I-10183.
50 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development in Accordance with the EU Nature Legis-
lation (Publications Office of the European Union 2011) 85–86.
51 Ibid 6 and 33. 
52 Case C-182/10 Marie-Noëlle Solvay and others v Région Wallonne (16 February 2012), paras 75 and 76.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
94
farm developments and Natura 2000, the European Commission underlined that ‘it is also rea-
sonable to assume that the public interest can only be overriding if it is a long-term interest; 
short term economic interests or other interests which would only yield short-term benefits for 
the society would not appear to be sufficient to outweigh the long-term conservation interests 
protected by the Habitats Directive. Overriding interests, as long-term, fundamental social in-
terests, may be properly identified beforehand by published policies, and land-use and other 
plans. Besides, in case the Natura 2000 site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type 
and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to 
human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the envi-
ronment or, further to an opinion from the European Commission, to other IROPI.53
Although the European Commission did not go that far in quoting ‘wind farm developments’
as a prime example of an IROPI, it is nevertheless clear that the positive climate mitigation 
benefits that are attached to wind farms, might help it to qualify as such. This will be especial-
ly the case for large scale and, possibly, trans-boundary energy infrastructure projects. 
Interestingly, in the recently adopted trans-European energy infrastructure Regulation (TEN-E
Regulation No 347/201354) it was stressed that so-called energy infrastructure projects of 
common interest55 should be considered by competent authorities as being in the public inter-
est. Pursuant to Article 7(8) of the latter Regulation, projects of common interest shall be 
considered as being of public interest from an energy policy perspective, and may be consid-
ered as being of overriding public interest, provided that all the conditions set out in the 
Habitats Directive are fulfilled. Also at the national level, increasingly efforts are put into 
stressing out that development projects that stimulate wind energy qualify as an IROPI.56
That said, before being able to deviate from Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, wind pro-
ject developers are also required to take appropriate compensatory measures to ensure that the 
overall coherence of the Natura 2000 Network is protected. The European Commission point-
ed out that compensatory measures are independent of the plan or project (as opposed to 
mitigation measures), should go beyond the normal/standard measures required for protection 
                                                          
 
53 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 89. See more extensively in this regard: 
L Krämer, ‘The European Commission’s Opinions under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive’ (2009) 21 Jour-
nal of Environmental Law 59. See also, extensively, D McGillivray, ‘Compensating Biodiversity Loss: The EU 
Commission’s Approach to Compensation under Art 6 of the Habitats Directive’ (2012) 24 Journal of Environ-
mental Law 417. 
54 Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines 
for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations 
(EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009’ [2013] OJ L115/39 (TEN-E Regulation).  
55 According to Art 2(4) of the TEN-E Regulation ‘project of common interest’ should be understood as a project 
necessary to implement the energy infrastructure priority corridors and areas set out in Annex I and which is part 
of the Union list of projects of common interest referred to in Art 3 of the latter Regulation.
56 See, for instance, the pending Dutch legislative proposal on Wind energy development at sea (Wet windener-
gie op zee). In the preparatory works it is underscored that wind energy project should, if necessary, be 
considered as an IROPI. More information on the pending legislative proposal, which project is subject to con-
sultation, is available at http://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wetwindenergieopzee. 


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
95
and management of Natura 2000 sites, and can be considered only after having ascertained a 
negative impact on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site.57
3.3.
A critical interim assessment: a bridge too far or merely a case of perception?
From the above presented research, it can be inferred that Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats 
Directive, whilst not laying down a general prohibition on the construction of wind farms 
within or in the vicinity of Natura 2000, still require additional scrutiny when considering ap-
plication for planning permits in this respect. The question now arises to what extent this 
should be seen as an insurmountable and unjustifiable obstacle for future wind farm develop-
ments.
3.3.1. No green pass for wind farms (and rightly so?)
Despite the overall benefits for all species that would be the result of an increase in wind en-
ergy, the case-law of the Court displays a great deal of reluctance in taking into account the 
general advantages that can be attached to wind farm developments. Accordingly, Member 
States are barred from exempting wind farm developments from the individual assessment 
procedure included in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.58 At the same time, referral to the 
climate mitigation benefits created by an increase of wind energy, seems, as such, incapable 
of shifting the balance in an appropriate assessment in favour of a wind farm. In the end, such 
an approach would require a quantification of the positive effects that the given wind turbines 
might create for each specific species or habitat.59
At first sight, one might submit that the strict stance of the Habitats Directive in this regard 
provides a striking example of its inability to adapt to modern day conservation strategies in 
light of the growing concerns on climate change. However, that criticism needs to be nuanced. 
In our view, a general exemption for wind farm developments would, in the first place, give 
rise to a great deal of practical difficulties.  It can hardly be substantiated in terms of measur-
able benefits. For instance, how to quantify the concrete trade-off that is created by wind 
farms in the long run for each specific bird species that would be present in a Special Protec-
tion Area (SPA)? How to trade off the general benefits wind farms might produce for the 
local harm it can cause to bird populations? 
                                                          
 
57 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 15.
58 See, to that effect: Case C-241/08 Commission v France [2010] ECR I-1697, paras 51–56.
59 See, by analogy, as regards the protection regime included in Section 7 and 9 of the US Endangered Species 
Act: Ruhl, ‘Harmonizing Commercial Wind Power’, 1791.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
96
Moreover, the deplorable state of the EU’s biodiversity (only a small margin of the EU pro-
tected habitats and species are, at present, at a favourable conservation status60) does not 
justify a reform of the Habitats Directive that would give wind farm developers a free pass to 
construct wind farms in the vicinity of areas which, for instance, host vulnerable bird popula-
tions. Or, in other words, the general benefits that might go along with wind energy are, as 
such, incapable of effectively underpinning the need for a relaxation of the site protection 
rules enshrined in the Habitats Directive. A similar line of thinking was also displayed by the 
Court in its afore-mentioned decision in Azienda Agro-Zootenica Franchini Sarl. Here, the 
Court held that, even in light of the EU Directive on Renewable Energy, which urges Member 
States to streamline and reduce administrative barriers applicable to plants for the production 
of renewable energy,61 Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive nor more stringent national pro-
visions, should not be seen as a major and insurmountable obstacle course for the pursuit of 
the EU energy policy’s targets.62 Also the European Commission, in its turn, does not seem to
believe that there is an apparent antagonism between the quest for renewable energy and the 
EU biodiversity goals as exemplified in its aforementioned 2010 Guidance document on wind 
energy developments and Natura 2000. 
3.3.2. The insurmountable burden of proof (a matter of belief or reality?)
Still, it cannot be denied that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive appears to be capable of 
giving rise to substantial additional delays and barriers in permitting procedures for wind 
farms. If correctly applied, the latter provision leaves little wiggle room for potentially harm-
ful projects. Taking into account the existing lacunae in relation to the effects of wind turbines 
on endangered species, it will indeed, in some instances, be cumbersome for wind farm de-
velopers to exclude the likelihood of significant effects. Also in recent literature it has been 
highlighted that the strict application of Article 6(3) and (4) may lead to additional delays, le-
gal issues and difficulties when applied strictly in the context of massive renewable energy 
projects, such as dam building and the construction of tidal barrages.63 However, arguably 
more fundamental are the allegations that a strict interpretation of the precautionary principle 
in the context of site protection seems to negate that ignorance and system unpredictability are 
inherent to the ecological and social system and cannot be eliminated through science.64
Yet, whilst the above featured comments might be well-founded in general, they need to be 
somehow nuanced in light of the following considerations. First and foremost, it must be re-
                                                          
 
60 European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Composite. 
Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Di-
rective’ COM(2009) 358 final.
61 See, for instance, Art 13(1) of the RES Directive which, amongst others, urges Member States to streamline 
administrative procedures in order to make them less burdensome for renewable energy projects.
62 Case C-2/10 Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini Sarl [2011] ECR I-6561, paras 63 and 75.
63 Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity’, 1198. This author treats the examples of the construction of the 
Sabor Dam (Portugal) and the Severn barrage (UK).
64 PFM Opdam, MEA Broekmeyer and FH Kistenkas, ‘Identifying Uncertainties in Judging the Significance of 
Human Impacts on Natura 2000 Sites’ (2009) 12 Environmental Science & Policy 912, 917.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
97
called that the Habitats Directive, as such, grants some, albeit limited, room for leverage in 
the context of wind farm development. The application of the precautionary principle does not 
require from the competent authority to refuse a permit whenever an assessment has indicated 
that only minor effects might be linked to a wind farm. For instance, in general, a wind farm 
project will not likely produce significant effects if the nearby Natura 2000 site has not been 
designated for birds, nor for bats. Ultimately, reviewing whether a wind farm may significant-
ly hamper the integrity of a Natura 2000 site remains, to a large extent, an ad hoc-matter. 
Hence it remains hard to draw general conclusions in this regard. Moreover, whilst it is often 
submitted that the strict application of the precautionary principle may lead to a complete pa-
ralysis, the practice on the ground does not seem to confirm this conclusion. The reliance on 
these ‘hard cases’ in the media and legal literature often blurs the fact that, besides cases of 
non-compliance, considerable numbers of spatial projects, including wind farms, are smoothly 
aligned with the rules on site protection for Natura 2000 sites. A recent analysis of the appli-
cation of the Habitats Directive in the UK has revealed that almost all port developments have 
passed the tests of the Habitats Directive. And, even for the projects that did not proceed, 
mostly economic and technical complications are to blame.65 In Flanders, the highly contested 
construction of a new tidal dock in the Port of Antwerp could, despite initial concerns on its 
compatibility with the Habitats Directive and a myriad of legal proceedings, still go along, al-
beit with some considerable delay.66 Even in the Netherlands, a country renowned for its 
relatively high number of law suits by which the Habitats Directive was enforced before 
courts, only a few plans and projects have been cancelled due to biodiversity legislation. 
However, still the prevailing idea among many Dutch actors is that European directives frus-
trate almost every development in the Netherlands.67
That said, when assessing the alleged rigidity of the assessment rules included in Article 6(3)
and (4), due regard should be given to the exact causes and nature of the resistance that is 
caused by the application of EU biodiversity law in the context of spatial projects, such as 
wind farms. Evidently, some of the troubles that were encountered can be linked to the poor 
compliance with the procedural requirements spelled out by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Di-
rective. 68 Only just recently, a research revealed that unsatisfactory compliance with the 
assessment rules throughout the decision-making process, limited participation and fait ac-
compli-scenarios seriously jeopardize the effectiveness of the Habitats Directive on the 
                                                          
 
65 RKA Morris, ‘The Application of the Habitats Directive in the UK: Compliance or Gold Plating?’ (2011) 28 
Land Use Policy 361. 
66 See more on this: H Schoukens, P De Smedt and A Cliquet, ‘The Implementation of the Habitats Directive in 
Belgium (Flanders)’ (2007) 4 Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 127, 134.
67 See more extensively: R Beunen and M Duineveld, ‘Divergence and Convergence in Policy Meanings of Eu-
ropean Environmental Policies: The Case of the Birds and Habitats Directive’ (2010) 15 International Planning 
Studies 321.
68 See, for instance: B Laffan and J O’Mahony, ‘“Bringing Politics Back In”. Domestic Conflict and the Negoti-
ated Implementation of EU Nature Conservation Law in Ireland’ (2008) 10 Environmental Policy Planning 175; 
F Ferranti, R Beunen and M Speranza, ‘Natura 2000 Network: A Comparison of the Italian and Dutch Imple-
mentation Experiences’ (2010) 12 Environmental Policy Planning 293; G Kûtting, ‘Nature Conservation Law in 
Context: The Limited Influence of European Union and Greek Designations on the Future of Cavo Sidero, Crete’ 
(2012) 15 Journal International Wildlfe Law & Policy 60. 


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
98
ground in many Member States.69 However, at the end of the day, project developers are, just 
as most humans, not eager to ‘take no for an answer’, even in cases where there are valid 
grounds to let biodiversity concerns prevail over economic concerns. Not surprisingly, project 
developers tried to gain political awareness for ‘their problem’ and, often in the absence of 
clear guidance on the interpretation of some of the key notions of the Habitats Directive, 
urged for relaxation of biodiversity law.70
As a matter of fact, also in relation to wind farm development, cases quoted as prime exam-
ples of the alleged rigidity of biodiversity law, often merely point out the delays that might be 
incurred whenever wind farm developers refuse to abide by the basic rules set out by biodi-
versity law. A succinct tour through the most notable ‘nature protection vs. wind farms’
jurisprudence seems to reassert this view. For instance, in the first federal lawsuit challenging 
an industrial wind energy project on environmental ground in the U.S., the competent court 
went to hold that, whilst wind development exemplifies a conflict between two  environmen-
tally minded policies, such a conflict would not have arisen in the case at hand, if the wind 
developer had utilized existing procedures under the U.S. biodiversity law.71 Likewise, in a 
recent ruling, the Scottish Court of Appeal noted that Scottish Ministers were entitled to re-
fuse a planning permission for a 14 wind turbine development within a SPA, since there was a 
risk of adverse effects on the site designated for golden eagles. In that respect, the court based 
its ruling, to a large extent, on the lack of an appropriate assessment of the potential collision 
and disturbance effects of the wind farm on the conservation objectives for the eagle popula-
tion.72
Lastly, it is important to note that the precautionary approach of the Court in the context of 
Article 6(3) does not amount to excluding all potential risks. Advocate General Kokott herself 
noted in her seminal Opinion in Waddenzee that the necessary certitude cannot be construed 
as meaning absolute certainty since that is almost impossible to attain.73 Moreover, there is an 
increasing tendency in national courts to apply the precautionary principle in a reasonable 
manner. Whilst, for example, in the aforementioned case the Scottish Court of Appeal found 
that a small (1 per cent) collision risk and a risk of the eagle displacement could reasonably 
amount to a risk of an ‘adverse effect on the site’s integrity’, such cases cannot be regarded as 
the ultimate proof of the inappropriateness of the Habitats Directive to deal with renewable 
energy projects. Indeed, there is considerable case-law which exhibits a more reasonable ap-
proach to the precautionary principle. For instance, in 2008 a Scottish court dismissed a claim 
against a wind farm located on Skye, nearby a SPA harbouring a breeding population of gold-
en eagles. Despite assuming that the evidence presented revealed considerable uncertainty as 
                                                          
 
69 See to that effect N de Sadeleer, C-H Born and M Prieur, ‘National Legislation and Practices Regarding the 
Implementation of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of 
Wild Fauna and Flora, in particular Art 6’ (European Parliament 2009) available at
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/200910/20091013ATT62399/20091013ATT62399EN.p
df.
70 Beunen and M Duineveld, ‘Divergence and Convergence’.
71 Animal Welfare Inst v Beech Rigde Energy LLC 675 F Supp 2d 540, 581 (D.Md 2009).
72 Bagmoor Wind Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2012] CSIH 93.
73 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, para 107.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
99
to the future trends of the population of golden eagles, the court finally concluded that the 
contested permit had sufficiently established that there existed ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’
as regards the impact of the wind farm.74 In a 2005 Belgian case relating to the construction 
of a massive offshore wind farm, the Council of State was of the opinion that the alleged gaps 
in knowledge as to the adverse effects on the bird populations present in the area were not suf-
ficient to quash the permit.75 Although there will be certainly examples that point to more 
rigidity, especially in the hypothesis where the affected protected nature finds itself already at 
an unfavourable conservation status, it cannot simply be maintained that the precautionary 
principle is, in itself, blocking the construction of the majority of wind farms throughout the 
EU.
3.3.3. The exception which appears to be no exception at all (Article 6(4) derogation as a 
scapegoat?)
Ultimately, the perceived rigidity of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive would matter little 
if, for wind farm developments, also application could be made of the derogation regime in-
cluded in Article 6(4). Originally, the inclusion of Article 6(4) was the immediate reaction of 
the Member States to the decision of the Court in Leybucht, where it had held that, under Ar-
ticle 4 of the Birds Directive, economic considerations could not be regarded as exceptional 
circumstances justifying the reduction in size of a designated SPA.76 At the time of the final 
negotiations, the inclusion of Article 6(4) was seen by many Member States as a safeguard for 
avoiding the ‘draconian consequences’ of a strict protection scheme.77 In fact, Article 6(4), 
which applies both to SACs and SPAs, overrules the earlier case-law of the Court on site pro-
tection.78
Interestingly, Article 6(4) is often invoked to justify the rigorous approach as regards the pro-
tection regime enshrined in Article 6(3). For example, in its Opinion in Waddenzee, Advocate 
General Kokott explicitly underlined that the disproportionate results that might be caused by 
the application of the precautionary principle are mitigated in connection with the derogating 
authorisation provided for in Article 6(4).79 In a similar vein, Advocate General Sharpston 
held in Sweetman that ‘whilst the requirements laid down in Article 6(4) are intentionally rig-
orous, it is important to point out that they are not insuperable obstacles to authorisation. The 
Commission indicated at the hearing that, of the 15 to 20 requests so far made to it for deliv-
                                                          
 
74 See Skye Windfarm Action Group Ltd v Highland Council [2008] CSOH 19. In legal literature the latter deci-
sion is critized for applying a too lax standard of judicial review, see: C Edwards, ‘Judicial Review and the 
Precautionary Principle’ in G Jones (ed), The Habitats Directive. A Developer’s Obstacle Course (Hart 2012) 
226.
75 Belgian Council of State, 30 June 2005 (Application No 147.047). See more extensively: Schoukens, Cliquet 
and Maes, ‘Wind Farm Development in the Belgian Part of the North Sea’, 307.
76 Case C-57/89 European Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-883, para 20. See more extensively: Krämer, 
‘The European Commission’s Opinions’. 
77 See more extensively: D Baldock, ‘The Status of Special Protection Areas for the Protection of Wild Birds’ 
(1993) 4 Journal of Environmental Law 139.
78 Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity’, 1197.
79 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, para 106.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
100
ery of an opinion under that provision, only one has received a negative response’.80 In recent 
legal literature, in which the opinions, issued by the European Commission under the second
subparagraph of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive were examined, it was even highlighted 
that economic factors are too often superseding a strict assessment of the intended compensa-
tory measures.81
In spite of the clear rationale that was underpinning the inclusion of Article 6(4) and the leni-
ent (some might even call it ‘lax’) application of the latter provision in the opinions issued by 
the European Commission, it is only rarely being invoked by Member States. In our view, this 
reluctance at the Member States’ level is in a certain way understandable, especially since Ar-
ticle 6(4) represents a last resort-option for projects or plans, that still must be carried out for 
reasons of overriding public interest. Considering the restrictive case-law by the Court and the 
strict Guidance documents issued by the European Commission in this regard, the scarce reli-
ance on Article 6(4) could hardly be seen as a surprise. By way of example, referral could be 
made to a 2009 ruling by the Dutch Council of State, where a permit was quashed that al-
lowed the construction of 17 wind turbines in the seaport of Eemshaven. 82 Whereas, 
according to the Council of State, the production of sustainable energy in general can be seen 
as a reason of overriding public interest, this also needed to be substantiated for the project at 
hand. Ultimately, the Council of State was not convinced that a reason of overriding public 
interest was served by the construction of these particular wind turbines. Seeing that, in gen-
eral, private projects do not qualify as ‘IROPI’, private wind farm developers will need to 
substantiate why they present an overriding public interest. In some scenarios, they will prob-
ably fail to meet that criterion. Additionally, it is being pointed out that, especially in the 
context of large scale renewable projects, such as dams and barrages, the requirement of ‘like 
for like’ compensation appears challenging.83 In general, the implementation of compensatory 
measures is often compounded or constrained by the lack of suitable sites which can be pur-
chased in a short term in order to offset the damage caused by spatial projects. 
However, despite all the possible hurdles that the derogation clause might pose, it is our belief 
that, especially for large scale public wind farms, more application of it should be made. As 
illustrated above, also the European legislator seems to adopt a similar stance in its recent 
TEN-E Regulation. At first glance, this might seem contradictory, since the application of a 
derogation clause will also be prone to giving rise to pitfalls and bottlenecks. However, in 
what follows, it will be established that such outcome might, at the end of the day, granting 
more legitimacy to public wind farm developments. First and foremost, issuing planning per-
mits for large scale public wind farms through Article 6(4) still remains a workable option 
considering the obvious climate benefits that go along with it and which could qualify as 
‘IROPI’. To some extent, this might also be the case for large scale private wind farms. 
                                                          
 
80 Case C-258/11 Sweetman (ECJ, 11 April 2013), Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, para 65.
81 N de Sadeleer, ‘Habitats Conservation in EC Law. From Nature Sanctuaries to Ecological Networks’ (2005) 5 
Yearbook of European Environmental Law 215; McGillivray, ‘Compensating Biodiversity Loss’, 449–50.
82 Dutch Council of State, 25 February 2009 (Application No 200709030/1).
83 Jackson, ‘Renewable Energy vs Biodiversity’, 1204. 


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
101
What is more, the very fact that the competent national authorities are required to consider 
other alternatives should be welcomed as an additional moment of deliberation before giving 
up ecological valuable tracts of lands to future massive scale wind farms. In that regard, we 
support the suggestions voiced by other authors, such as Jackson, to even broaden the scope 
of the alternative examination, to also include investing in end-use generation, energy conser-
vation initiatives and overall reduction in national consumption levels.84 More scrutiny on this 
level will enhance the sustainability character of large scale wind farm developments, which, 
in turn, will downplay possible legitimacy issues. Moreover, the fact that compensation is ob-
ligatory in such scenarios, will also enhance the sustainability claims attached to wind farm 
developments, since its possible negative outcome for local biodiversity is offset through res-
toration efforts that help to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 Network. Thus, 
the observance of the strict criteria spelled out by Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, might 
in the end be an appropriate way to reinforce the environmental claims attached to green en-
ergy projects. 
4.
TOWARDS A MORE PROGRESSIVE READING OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE 
HABITATS 
DIRECTIVE: 
THE 
ROAD 
TO 
NOWHERE 
OR 
A 
VIABLE 
ALTERNATIVE FOR WIND FARM DEVELOPMENTS? 
In the preceding sections it has been argued that, given the worrisome state of the EU’s pro-
tected habitats and sites, an outright relaxation of the rules of site protection would most 
certainly be a disproportionate answer to the recent demands for deregulation. Still, as noted, 
the restrictive interpretation of the precautionary principle might pose additional constraints, 
especially for private wind farm developments, which will probably not always meet the re-
quirements of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. Thus in recent years attention has shifted 
towards the inclusion of mitigation measures into the plan or project, to eliminate the potential 
negative effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, or, at least, to reduce them to a level 
where they will no longer affect the integrity of the site. In its 2011 Guidance document on 
wind energy developments and Natura 2000 the European Commission already provided us 
with some examples of mitigation measures in the context of wind farms, such as an alteration 
of the design of a wind turbine or the concrete siting of the turbines.85 In addition, the Com-
mission pointed to the (obvious) perks of strategic planning in the context of wind farm 
development. Such strategic planning should not only help to identify the most appropriate 
location and scale for wind farm development, but also helps to avoid and reduce the impacts 
on the environment at a very early stage in the planning process.86
Recently, a more progressive reading of mitigation has emerged in the context of wind farm 
development, which should allow to better align wind farm development with the high pre-
cautionary standard, laid down by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. This more 
                                                          
 
84 Ibid 1205.
85 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 84–85.
86 Ibid 47.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
102
progressive reading of Article 6(3) encompasses the implementation of risk management 
strategies at permit level and additional enhancement and restoration measures, aimed at 
strengthening the resilience of the affected nature.87 In the below part, it will be put forward 
that, whilst both approaches might grant permitting instances additional leeway for, amongst 
others, wind farm developments, it must be safeguarded that such practices do not undermine 
the mitigation hierarchy, which is underpinning EU biodiversity law.
4.1.
Adaptive management at permit-level: a more sensible implementation of the 
precautionary principle?
In recent literature, it has been argued that ignorance, system unpredictability and ambiguity 
in the science-policy interface, may cause difficulties in all steps of which the assessment pro-
cedure is comprised (setting of the sites objectives and conservation status; predicting the 
impact; assessing the significance of the effects). If one adds to that the current lack of scien-
tific consensus about the exact impacts of wind farms on biodiversity, which has been 
succinctly addressed earlier on, one ends up with a very explosive cocktail for decision-
making processes. Although, as argued above, the Court does not require a zero risk when ap-
plying the precautionary principle in the context of Article 6(3), it does still set a high 
standard by requiring that the competent authority must have ascertained that no reasonable 
scientific doubt remains as to the absence of effects on the integrity of a site. Whilst we have 
put forward that large scale wind farm developments still might avoid a rejection of a permit 
application through Article 6(4), this way out seems less straightforward for more small-scale 
private wind farm developments. 
So what other options are left? A more appropriate way to overcome the alleged static black-
and-white approach to the precautionary principle would consist in accepting that uncertainty 
is an inherent factor in the assessment process. Henceforth, permitting authorities are urged to 
focus more on the proper implementation of risk assessment tools and control measures in or-
der to further reduce residual effects linked to the operation of a wind farm.88 Such a strategy 
bears close resemblance to the adaptive management approach, which is generally described 
as a structured, iterative process of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an 
aim to reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring.89 It is defined as a flexible deci-
sion making process that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from 
management actions and other events become better understood.90 To that end, careful moni-
toring of the outcome of these actions and the implementation of strict control measures is 
deemed necessary, not only to advance scientific understanding, but also to adjust potential 
                                                          
 
87 Opdam, Broekmeyer and Kistenkas, ‘Identifying Uncertainties’, 919.
88 Ibid 920. See also: P Scott, ‘Appropriate Assessment: A Paper Tiger’ in G Jones (eds), The Habitats Directive 
– A Developer’s Obstacle Course (Hart 2012) 112.
89 See, amongst others: CS Holling, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (John Wiley & Sons 
1978).
90 See http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/adaptive_management.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
103
harmful operation as part of an iterative learning process.91 In that sense, it is often tagged as 
‘learning while doing’ instead of the common ‘trial and error’-process which is still predomi-
nantly used.92
In the context of the Habitats Directive an adaptive licensing approach might entail that, not-
withstanding lasting uncertainties, a project or plan could still be able to obtain a permit under 
Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, whenever the permit conditions impose strict monitor-
ing and, added to that, it is made obligatory to stop the operation of the activity whenever 
significant effects are detected. In its 2011 Guidance document on the implementation of the 
EU nature legislation in estuaries and coastal zones, the European Commission underlined 
that ‘adaptive management […] helps to address situations when, because of science limits or 
uncertainty about the functioning of complex and dynamic ecosystems, it is not possible for 
the competent authorities to fully ascertain the absence of adverse effects’.93 It went on stating 
that ‘an adaptive approach for the implementation of a plan or project or a compensation 
scheme may be particularly useful to address cases where, due to uncertainty associated with 
different contributory factors (location, confidence, unexpected delays), it is impossible to de-
fine all the effects of the plan or project or of a compensation scheme in sufficient details and 
if such uncertainty cannot be factored in through increased ratios. In such a situation, a rigor-
ous monitoring scheme and a pre-defined validated package of appropriate corrective 
measures must be foreseen.94
It is clear that the European Commission has not adopted a clear-cut position on the use of 
adaptive management measures as a way to scale down the rigid application of the precau-
tionary principle. Still, it seems to be willing to allow some leeway for implementing an 
adaptive management approach in the context of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Turn-
ing to the recent administrative practice in the Netherlands and Flanders, we may note an 
increased application of this approach in the context of plans or projects where, in principle, 
no absolute certainty had been reached as to the absence of significant effects. The legal pro-
ceedings surrounding a large scale gass-drilling project in the Waddensea served as an eye-
opener. In spite of the fact that no absolute certainty as to the absence of significant effects 
had been reached during the appropriate assessment, the project still was granted a permit by 
referral to adaptive management conditions that had to be observed throughout the operation 
of the project. Interestingly, the Dutch Council of State accepted the legality of the latter ap-
proach in its seminal 2007 ruling.95 Under the Council’s view, the mere existence of some 
uncertainty as regards the expected effects of the project, does not necessarily warrant an out-
right refusal of the permit, especially taken into account the compulsory monitoring and the 
strict operation conditions that applied in that case. In the permit, it had been provided that, 
                                                          
 
91 Taken from the definition of ‘adaptive’ management that is used by the US Department of the Interior (BK 
Williams, CS Szaro and CD Shapiro, Adaptive Management: The US Department of the Interior Technical 
Guide (Adaptive Management Working Group, US Department of the Interior 2007).
92 H Doremus, ‘Precaution, Science and Learning While Doing in Natural Resource Management’ (2007) 82 
Washington Law Review 547, 550.
93 European Commission, Guidance Document. The Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in Es-
tuaries and Coastal Zones with particular Attention to Port Development and Dredging’ (2011) 33–34.   
94 Ibid. 
95 Dutch Council of State, 29 August 2007 (Application No 200606028/1).


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
104
whenever soil subsidence or other effects might occur, entailing significant risks to the Natura 
2000 site, the gas exploration had to be temporarily halted, or, if deemed necessary, complete-
ly stopped. As to Flanders, a 2011 Guidance document on wind farm development and nature 
protection, promulgated by the Flemish Institute for Forest and Nature Research, promoted 
the adaptive licensing approach as an effective means to minimize the negative effects that 
might go along with wind farm developments. Not much later, the principle also emerged in 
the context of a highly contested permit application for the construction of 3 wind turbines in 
the Port of Antwerp, which were localized close to a SPA. Reiterating the above presented ra-
tionale, the Antwerp Provincial Authority gave green light to the operation of the wind 
turbines, amongst others, with reference to active monitoring obligations of possible residual 
negative effects which were included in the permit.96
We believe that the latter approach might offer competent authorities more leverage when 
considering wind farm developments. Seeing that the operation of wind farms can relatively 
easily be submitted to a monitoring protocol, adaptive licensing may rightly be regarded as a 
reasonable middle ground between unfettered development and nature protection. Recent 
Spanish research moreover held that an active monitoring approach, if linked to selective 
stopping techniques as regards turbines with the highest mortality, can effectively help to mit-
igate the impacts of wind farms on birds with a minimal effect on energy production.97 On the 
legal side, whilst the Court has not pronounced itself on the legality of an adaptive manage-
ment approach in light of Article 6(3), the rationale underpinning adaptive licensing does not, 
as such, seems to run counter to the Habitats Directive. Not only did the European Commis-
sion herself refer to adaptive management in the context of Article 6(3) of the Habitats 
Directive in its 2011 Guidance document on the implementation of EU nature legislation in 
estuaries and coastal zones, it did also point to the obvious link between mitigation and moni-
toring in its aforementioned 2010 Guidance document on wind energy developments and 
Natura 2000.98 Advocate General Kokott herself seemed to reaffirm the underlying rationale 
of adaptive management by stating that mitigation measures can also be of relevance in order 
to avoid an all too harsh application of the precautionary principle.99 Precisely where scien-
tific uncertainty remains, it is possible to gain further knowledge of the adverse effects by 
means of associated scientific observation and implementation of the plan or project accord-
ingly.100
However, at the same time, a wide-spread use of the adaptive licensing approach might also 
entail certain significant risks, which, in our view, should lead the competent authorities to a 
certain reluctance in this regard. The technique should not be used to justify the siting of mas-
sive wind farms next to protected areas that support population of species that are highly 
sensitive for fragmentation and disturbance. Submitting that adaptive licensing is no ‘one-
                                                          
 
96 Provincial Authority of Antwerp, Decision of 13 January 2010. However, since an administrative appeal has 
been launched against the latter permit, it still remains unsettled whether the Flemish government is also willing 
to adopt the latter approach on a more general scale.
97 de Lucas et al, ‘Griffon Vulture Mortality’, 188.
98 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 83.
99 Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, para 106.
100 Ibid para 108.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
105
size-fits-all’ solution, in the end, merely amounts to stating the obvious. Indeed, in some cas-
es, it will be tempting for the competent authorities to pass on the exact determination of 
effects to a later stage, whilst, in the meantime, allowing the construction of wind energy pro-
jects on poorly sited locations. In order to avoid such fait accompli-scenarios, the approach 
should, in our opinion, stay confined to situations where residual non-permanent effects of a 
project can clearly be singled out, the monitoring is able of tackling them and there is no other 
option to exclude such risks.101 In other words, there is no point in using adaptive manage-
ment as a solution for the construction of wind farms within highly vulnerable SPAs. Added to 
that, it must be safeguarded that the operation conditions are drafted in a sufficient precise and 
strict way, in order to allow a strict surveillance by the competent national authorities. 
The latter also seems to be the viewpoint of the European Commission which, in its 2011 
Guidance document on the implementation of the EU nature legislation in estuaries and 
coastal zones, pointed out that the monitoring scheme and the package of corrective measures, 
‘must allow to adjust mitigation and/or compensatory measures to the reality of the impact 
and by that way, make sure that the initially unforeseen adverse effects are being neutral-
ized’.102 Accordingly, a full disclosure of the results of the monitoring results towards the 
wider public and environmental NGOs should be ensured. Ultimately, what our analysis sug-
gests is that adaptive management will only be able to achieve its environmental objectives, 
which include the reduction of the biodiversity effects linked to wind farms, if implemented 
and observed in a proper and sufficiently strict way. To that end, it must be ensured that adap-
tive management measures are not to be misused as a cover-up for granting permits for 
unsustainable renewable energy projects that merely focus on short term gains. If that were to 
be the case and the matter would ever end up before the Court, it can be expected that the use 
of the adaptive management-approach would be debunked by the Court.
4.2
Habitat enhancement measures as mitigation measure: towards more resilience? 
Whilst adaptive licensing might present itself as a possible go-between for some wind energy 
projects, it will certainly not serve as a solution in cases where long-term significant, possibly 
permanent, adverse effects can be expected for a Natura 2000 site. In situations where wind 
farms might give rise to collision risks for raptors, such as the White-tailed eagle or the Grif-
fon vulture, enhancement measures might be envisaged to avoid a wind farm of putting into 
jeopardy the integrity of a Nature 2000 site. For instance, one might propose the creation of 
additional foraging areas for affected birds on another location in a Natura 2000 site in order 
to reduce disturbance and collision risks.
In general, such measures are being increasingly used in order to manage the hurdle of Article 
6(3) of the Habitats Directive, without requiring the application of Article 6(4). Especially in 
                                                          
 
101 See also in this respect: Dutch Council of State, 27 February 2008 (Application No 20060755); Dutch Coun-
cil of State, 24 August 2011 (Application No 200900425/1/R2). 
102 European Commission, ‘Guidance Document. The Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in 
Estuaries and Coastal Zones’, 34. 


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
106
the Netherlands, recent administrative practice has shifted towards the inclusion of the posi-
tive effects linked to proactive habitat enhancement and restoration measures in the 
appropriate assessment for spatial projects that entailed negative effects on some parts of a 
Natura 2000 site.103 Even more so, the Dutch Council of State rendered a seminal ruling, back 
in 2010, in which it held that the creation of no less than 132 hectares of new mussel beds, 
needed for the conservation of the affected birds, could qualify as a mitigation measure for the 
construction of a housing zone in the IJmeer.104 In 2012, the Dutch Council of State reasserted 
this stance again by accepting the construction of 22 hectares of foraging and resting area as a 
mitigation measure in the context of Article 6(3).105 Also in the United Kingdom, rulings have 
been handed down in which it was accepted that a habitat enhancement scheme could be tak-
en into account in the screening stage under Article 6(3), thereby even rendering the carrying 
out of a full fletched appropriate assessment superfluous.106 This begs the question: to what 
extent can enhancement measures help to offer additional leeway for wind farm developments 
in light of the Habitats Directive?
At first sight, the progressive reading of Article 6(3), under which habitat enhancement 
measures qualify as mitigation rather than compensation, might offer additional leeway for 
wind farm projects, especially when located close to sites that are harboring vulnerable bird 
populations. It is believed that such measures might indeed strengthen the resilience of the af-
fected Natura 2000 site and, additionally, also lower the mortality rate by providing 
alternative foraging opportunities for vulnerable birds species, which are located at a greater 
distance from the projected wind farm.
Here, however, it is submitted that such approach, whilst arguably encouraging the proponents 
of plans and projects to incorporate mitigation measures at the earliest possible stage in the 
evolution of their plan or project, will probably not offer the deregulatory advantages craved 
for in the context of wind farm developments. In our view, the main reason for this is that, un-
der such approach, one is required to take for granted the positive outcome linked to the 
proposed enhancement or restoration measures. However, in reality, such measures are de-
pendent on many factors and often do not achieve the results that were hoped for. In line with 
the Commission’s point of view,107 recent Dutch and Belgian case-law rightly held that the 
effectiveness of proposed enhancement measures should, at any rate, further be assessed 
throughout the appropriate assessment.108 Indeed, the lack of sufficient knowledge on the ad-
                                                          
 
103 See more extensively: J Zijlmans and H Woldendorp, ‘Compensation and Mitigation: Tinkering with Natura 
2000 Protection law’ (2014) 10 Utrecht Law Review 172. 
104 Dutch Council of State, 21 July 2010 (Application No 200902644/1/R2). See in this regard also the provi-
sional judgment in this case, to the same effect: Chairman of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the 
Dutch Council of State, 31 August 2009 (Application No 200902644/2/R2).
105 Dutch Council of State, 8 February 2012 (Application No 201100875/1/R2).   
106 Hart District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Luckmore Ltd. and Bar-
ratt Homes Ltd [2008] EHWC 1204. More extensively on this case: D McGillivray, ‘Mitigation, Compensation 
and Conservation: Screening for Appropriate Assessment under the EU Habitats Directive’ (2011) 8 Journal for 
European Environmental and Planning Law 336.
107 European Commission, EU Guidance on Wind Energy Development, 64.
108 See, for instance, Dutch Council of State, 7 May 2008 (Application No 200604924/1) and Belgian Council of 
State, 21 December 2010 (Application No 209.330).


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
107
equacy of the enhancement measures seems to rule out its use as a bypass for the duty to carry 
out an appropriate assessment, as also evidenced by the aforementioned decision of the Scot-
tish Court of Appeal on the legality of the refusal of a planning permit for a 14 wind turbine 
development within a SPA.109 It is no coincidence that in that case one of the major issues 
was the alleged adequacy of the enhancement measures, which were not deemed sufficient in 
providing alternative foraging area for an affected pair of eagles.
Yet, the precautionary principle also represents one of the major hurdles for accepting the in-
clusion of enhancement measures as mitigation measures within the context of an appropriate 
assessment for wind farms. As indicated above, the precautionary principle also plays a key-
role in determining whether or not a plan or project may hamper the integrity of a site. Al-
ready in its 2000 Guidance document on Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, the European 
Commission drew a clear distinction between so-called mitigation measures, on the one hand, 
and compensatory measures sensu strictu, on the other hand. There it was noted that while 
mitigation measures are an integral part of the specifications of a plan or project, compensato-
ry measures sensu strictu are independent of the plan or project (including any associated 
mitigation measures). Under the Commission’s view, the latter measures are intended to off-
set the negative effects of the plan or project so that the overall ecological coherence of the 
Natura 2000 Network is maintained.110
In recent years, national case-law emerged in which the creation of new habitats in one part of 
a Natura 2000 area were tagged as compensatory measures. This was for instance the case in 
the Flemish Region, were proactive habitat management measures in order to offset the im-
pact of a new by-pass cutting through a Natura 2000 site, were ruled out as mitigation under 
Article 6(3).111 Also in Sweetman, the Court hinted to a strict precautionary approach when 
interpreting the second part of Article 6(3), thereby excluding the view according to which 
significant local effects could still be deemed not relevant in view of the wider integrity of a 
Natura 2000 site.112
The reluctance echoing from these elements can also be retrieved in the recent Opinion of 
Advocate General Sharpston, delivered on 27 February 2014, in the Dutch case concerning 
the broadening of a part of the motorway A2 between the cities of Eindhoven and Den Bosch, 
which would affect an area of molinia meadows in one part of the nearby Natura 2000 site.113
Here, the Court was asked to indicate whether measures with a view to ensuring the creation 
of new meadows elsewhere in the same site, to replace or augment those affected, could quali-
fy as mitigation under Article 6(3). In her Opinion, the Advocate General aligned herself with 
                                                          
 
109 Animal Welfare Inst v Beech Rigde Energy LLC 675 F Supp 2d 540, 581 (D.Md 2009).
110 European Commission, ‘Communication on the precautionary principle’ COM(2000) 1 final, 37. See also, 
more recently, European Commission, ‘Guidance Document on Article 6(4) of the “Habitats Directive” 
92/43/EEC’ point 1.4.1. 
111 Belgian Council of State, 29 March 2013 (Application No 223.083). See more extensively: H Schoukens, 
‘Mitigation and Compensation under EU Nature Conservation Law in the Flemish Region: Beyond the Deadlock 
for Development Projects?’ (2014) 10 Utrecht Law Review 207. 
112 Case C-258/11 Sweetman (ECJ, 11 April 2013).
113 Case C-521/12 TC Briels and others v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu (ECJ, 15 May 2014), Opinion of 
Advocate General Sharpston.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
108
the stricter stance of the Belgian Council of State, in appraising the scope of the expression 
‘adversely affecting the integrity of a Natura 2000 site’. Whilst accepting that measures which 
form part of a plan or project and which effectively minimize its impact may be taken into ac-
count when assessing whether that plan or project adversely affects the integrity of a site, the 
Advocate General refused to qualify the creation of new meadows as mitigation measures be-
cause they do not lead to an adequate reduction of the pollution.114 Instead, such measures 
basically seek to counterbalance the unavoidable negative impacts that go along with the pro-
ject. 
Given the absence of the expression ‘mitigation’ and ‘compensation’ in Article 6(3), the Ad-
vocate General did not stop her analysis at the semantic difference between ‘mitigation’ and 
‘compensation’, but further elaborated on the exact scope of the notion of ‘integrity of a site’.
However, only to conclude that the same strict precautionary approach, as spelled out in Wad-
denzee, should be applied to predictions of success for planned new areas of created ‘natural’
habitat. The simple fact that there cannot be no guarantee of success for the new artificially 
created habitat, turned out to be the true obstacle for allowing a more progressive reading of 
Article 6(3).115 Still, the Advocate General did acknowledge that the creation of new habitats 
may well be regarded as a compensatory measure, provided that it is specifically linked to the 
project in question and would not otherwise be implemented in the context of the ordinary 
management of a site, as required by Article 6(1) or (2).116
Again, it might be contended that the strict stance of the Advocate General, if reasserted by 
the Court, serves as yet another illustration of the inability of the Habitats Directive to support 
more progressive approaches towards biodiversity offsetting. Still, the Advocate General’s 
approach does make sense. Indeed, there are no easy fixes for nature. In comparison with the 
adaptive licensing-approach, under which, at the end of the day, the operation of a wind farm 
can still be halted if entailing severe collision risks, a progressive approach to enhancement 
schemes under Article 6(3) lacks such clear-cut guarantees. That is not to say that enhance-
ment measures are completely useless in the context of Article 6(3). If the enhancement 
measures have been already carried out before the project is constructed and, subsequently, 
proved to be effective in, for instance, keeping raptors away from their previous foraging are-
as, there indeed seems to be some leeway. Yet, such approach would presuppose a more long-
term strategic planning approach towards wind farm development. 
Arguably, allowing (future) habitat creation as mitigation also risks to undermine the mitiga-
tion hierarchy that is underpinning Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (prevent, mitigate, 
compensate). The creation of new habitats should indeed be seen as a last resort, in order to 
offset unavoidable damages. Hence it should be reviewed under Article 6(4) of the Habitats 
Directive. However, whilst the creation of new habitats and other enhancement measures can-
not be invoked in the context of Article 6(3), it might in the long run lead to more resilient 
Natura 2000 sites which, in its turn, might create more leverage for future spatial projects, 
                                                          
 
114 Ibid paras 36 and 37.  
115 Ibid paras 42 and 43.
116 Ibid para 46.


SUSTAINABLE ENERGY UNITED IN DIVERSITY – CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES IN 
ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
109
such as wind farms. Arguably, spatial projects will be easier to reconcile with more resilient 
Natura 2000 sites, in which most of the natural habitats and species are at a favourable con-
servation status. At present, most legal issues surrounding the articulation between Natura 
2000 and spatial projects stem from the unfavourable conservation status of many of the af-
fected natural habitats and species. In such a scenario, every additional impact might give rise 
to significant effects (‘death by a thousand cuts’), as was displayed by the above addressed 
Dutch case. Hence the allegedly strict view of Advocate General Sharpston on mitigation 
should, in our view, not be seen as another proof of the alleged rigidity of Article 6(3), but 
more as an encouragement for taking more robust proactive habitat management measures, 
also outside the context of concrete spatial development projects.117
5.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The EU is currently witnessing a major shift in policy towards renewable energy, which urges 
the Member States, amongst others, to opt for massive investments in wind farms and the as-
sociated infrastructure. By requiring the same amount of scrutiny for ‘green’ projects as for 
‘brown’ projects, EU biodiversity law appears unwilling to take into account the global bene-
ficial effects for biodiversity tied to wind farms. Whilst not effectively prohibiting wind farm 
developments in the vicinity of Natura 2000 sites, it does put forward a strict scrutiny ap-
proach. In the US, the impediments spurred by the stringent application of the Endangered 
Species Act in the context of wind energy, have recently prompted the Obama administration 
to allow some companies to kill or injure bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without 
penalty, in an effort to spur development and investment in green energy while balancing its 
environmental consequences.118
In the EU, both the Court and the European Commission are more reluctant in deviating from 
the strict assessment rules enshrined in the Birds and Habitats Directives in order to boost 
wind energy initiatives. In this paper, it has be submitted that, in spite of the strict examina-
tion requirement which is laid down by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, wind farms are, 
in principle, compatible with the precautionary approach which is underpinning EU biodiver-
sity law. There is no total deadlock on the ground. Moreover, even in the current time-frame, 
where the push towards renewable energy has become part of the dominant policy discourse, 
it would be unwise to let wind power take precedence over protecting endangered bird and bat 
species. Despite all good intentions, such an approach could do away with many of the con-
servation efforts that have been put into the recovery of protected species during the past 
decades. At the same time, it would also significantly hamper the sustainability credentials of 
wind energy. After all, how ‘green’ is a wind farm that is decimating a local population of en-
dangered griffons? Whilst it remains sensible to consider the long-term benefits that will be 
created by wind farm developments for many species and think about ways of quantifying 
                                                          
 
117 See also in this direction: Opdam, Broekmeyer and Kistenkas, ‘Identifying Uncertainties’, 920.
118 See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/06/obama-administration-will-let-some-wind-companies-
kill-or-injure-eagles.


CHAPTER 5 – BALANCING WIND ENERGY AND NATURE PROTECTION: FROM POLICY 
CONFLICTS TOWARDS GENUINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
110
those benefits, such argumentation does not, as such, imply that wind power should take prec-
edence over more short-termish protection efforts for imperiled species. 
Yet it cannot be neglected that the ever-more ambitious renewable energy targets are putting 
more pressure on the European Commission to take further initiatives to facilitate wind pro-
jects in the context of EU biodiversity law. The inclusion of the Birds and Habitats Directives 
in the recently published REFIT programme of the European Commission, might be seen as a 
token for future regulatory burden relief.119 However, in our opinion, a relaxation of the exist-
ing protection rules, even in the specific context of wind farm developments, would, in itself, 
not be desirable, especially given the predicament of many European habitats and species. 
This article has amply illustrated that emerging administrative practices at Member States 
level, such as the inclusion of selective stopping protocols and control measures in permits, 
might already considerably ease the administrative burden for wind project developers whilst 
also enabling an effective reduction of the possible biodiversity risks attached to wind farm 
developments. Unfortunately, as witnessed by the reluctance of some national courts and the 
Advocate General towards the use of habitat creation as mitigation, there are no ‘one-size-fits-
all’ solutions. Still, at the end of the day, there are no quick wins for nature protection, also 
not in the renewable energy-context. Genuine sustainable development requires deliberation 
and caution, for instance, in order to find out the better options, both for biodiversity and re-
newable energy purposes. By urging the Member States to take a step back when opting for 
massive scale wind farm developments, Article 6 allows for that additional moment of reflec-
tion. It is our belief that, in the long run, the Habitats Directive will be praised for that. 
                                                          
 
119 European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; Regulatory Fitness and Perfor-
mance (REFIT): Results and Next Steps’ COM(2013) 685 final.




lhj1e Chaire
It; t1tctotn
itte (lIiitC
IS
lit svcirlds tIC’,IteSt eltvlroiiilleliiiI
C IilleTilO.
It jet)p:iceS
flg._t
liii CCIII i( )iiii(
lIlt
lio)ilt Cii St .II0I1Ey
1(1055
I lt
!oIti.
I IS
I iC ti Ott ci ieoi 0
tiitl tlisitiitv
Ittlil
iitdt- Illicit ever (oiifroliktl liy St)lltti(S past or
IL
iiile
ttLi’y (ltSir(i
,ll)Ottt
IC
I ItlilSitS’
itici (list rtlttt[iott of elittlale din il(
jets but (in Ihirope
it least) sonic thois ate 110W (OttttiiiittlV it eeptecl
IS tact.
• oiihrtitt.d
iii thc 5di Report of the
ittcroVri itnientil Panel on (:liiilate
ne (IP( ‘(
there is
1
)
per
ent scientin consensus that iiiaii-in;e
ions iii rceiiIiouse iases (C
i l( s)
ire eutsilit; dobil tt iiipe alto-es to risc
i unprec diitedlv s[ec-p liclnic. Under bitsitiuss as tisuti
c treUtitsCailC es the
-
net could heat op by noire thiot h tlet;rees (elsins by tlii
CIUI ohtc CeillttiS
1o e1teratc btu a itntifstl of tile noire ittaclysnnc iieciTttet, tonsec]ttettees uI liii
tess as tisttal sceitirto: polar ictt ips wIll melt; iiiaiiy isliiich State will be fl:ped
he fiec of the tart!); Cviii
note
t ilnItiles Wdl lost s;;tti[ieittt land tiios to
‘;Sea levels;
. I nii;e6
t nititolo;iiil tottd ttons will e\:ti erbitc liiiidttt
aitd
;er more e’trintt \teitlidt events; and nsitt; telilpelatttre’ w II have tirimatti
iCtS On
etC s3’stC ins
ttttle,tsh tin; a
51: tant of towennt;
1 lIlleires to
itt nut
tatioti, lilod vCTSIV protect tot
t’;rnttltttre, 11)11 stry
1 it! ltshitnes.
hirnate chiiie will leave iii) CorneT of the pIuiiet coil
[CU hot tilt tilipirt
1 be very totevenly distrbtttect. In a cittel Rsist of fite, the pootest
oniltries
Ill the snt;tllest cat hon both
ilts are ltkely to be thi
till)
I lit ivtlv
fteeiid
1w 2007 ‘teriI Res iew’ estnuttetl that, iii thi event o; the
tie; s s
U ni:n ii
tore rise, clitititt
t ltan;e \t’ill icStlIt ni
lolitl Cd )P hiss 0! in levi iii
cent
nit!
U per cent.2 Rec tilt reports su:2;est that tills estinlite
1113 well bc
too con
citive. l\/ltny of lii
c itjes that ire evpeetet to set tile fastest lilt reasi
to C1 )P
over the c oitnn
ileeic]es itlcilitni:- I )liiki iii
atitl:cesli
toil i\’ftnnb.i
itt linhi
Ire at an etreinc re Is ot climate c llali;e. A their :iro2<iiiTcCn Iuf’;lobtI ( d 31’ rises,
%11 wil [151 nnp.n
1 1)1
1 Intlitc
C liii ti
(11) t;lnbal (
P 3
t’t:t_.
\i/iCiitlI
1
1(1111)
I,
I linijit
C lilnc;c- 2t113:
I Ii
lIi itil Scitlit t
13.151%
IA’\V’(
I hmatei ft.ll)t -t it
S
Ci
‘ICtiOlHS Sic iii,
I In
Li’nt’i,nt •
I
/iTlltCfr
(
iiflit’i ((inihi d’e
I_Inn t rsitv Urn,
20(1(1
(“the Stern Revn ss).
oUflt lies
it ehiiii,iti i-isk to
11)1(1 ii tort (
t )t
‘, 3(1 C )tohct 21)1 3: ss. ww.i3lobtlpost. 0(0/ills
latch/news cit1
)3)°
‘i
iLtittrtt
tO-C unite-risk hold niore—tdp.


25
CUrni’ Chririgi
ICI)flLl II IIllSc’IlsIIS
IlIlIBI
Ill’ I’\ISIIll(c’ ,iiiil Ill)’ 511 IlfilSik 55 III (illIllIl
lI.ilIt,
tIi(lt
IS buIld
ll’l(L’llit’flI
\\‘Iiiliil
lu’
i’llKlilIIIl t(iioii
liii
ISS
111,1 II’5lll,l[I0ll
iii
IIIIp(lit.ilIt
LIII
to
LIIV
III
IIlIItiiitilir
.0
iCSlI)lI.t
III
[IllS
(II
IctilOlilt
li.iiho
c
IlL
I
Ioi
ii
[[15
Ill CII
Ill
ItILISI
01)111 1151’
U\c’I Ilfilot’
c’fl,IIIIL’ ill
o’ S
Sb
III
I
(lii
I’
155111’
II
CI iii l
I
1 11,11111,
55 iii
ii
(II
I
I 5, II’I)Il
I toIl
LOIS
00111
\‘t’iI I’jLiii
iii
plitsilib
ool
Iint,
lt.iIIiI
IiIliiil(ioii
‘0111k
I).kk to bile itc
I ‘Clbs III (.1115
‘(‘II (
t
15
I
Ill)
I
I
itt i\’IIV
LII
IiTIi.bb(’
ii.iio
11.15
t’iieiatc’Ll
.1
511,110 II
Ill
I&cCloi,II1OI1’
i)ire
llvc s
II’
sbus. ‘oil
lw iolsbitiliieitis
hf1
cUBIT
iltii:’
fll IltS(IlSSil Oil
ui [lB
loot 11111
1111)1 I,ISiIV (ill its 115511 d’ Io 11111 book
II Lt’p till
III\”tl
011001 ( Lull, this LII ojuoul
olleillilil
fey
io,olieiir
I )iitilIhlI III!’
lit
I
I
I
IS
.1
I C ioi.
Ill) III
loss
ioid
III 1101
liii’
I
11111
I IIIISLI’:IL(
(Isv
ll0I’.’Isi0I0S
ill
1,1,1
11111111
I
coin’’ iI’iiSI,[bI
II
11111
1151
ISv II’I,ol’
II tlies
[,IliI’iIiI’S
I ito V ire:
•
Io7cicrshiI)
tilt toflili’
I hnitcje;
•
Uie 0CJpfl O oofl’iIc:
hIlIgi’ ftqUCtiIO(1
din cite
C
‘Pi,)i as a
ruth-level governance dtll ntje, and
•
I,SIiiiicIfltt.
1 r’Vbtl,ilc,0).l)I’,1( Il,tI’1
13c’iore
:II\oSti:’.tblItiy ciii
CII ilieso’
Il1,IhII’II1Is
ill IIItlil.
tiii’
iI(’S1
St c’
loch
Ii1t1i,lt(
I iI,llIlc
‘jtIijii
till
IkJs
I
01’ its
I,I\I’Il
OIlIltlOiI’lbo1S
.111)1
lIit_titlf/
III
tvays iii whin Ii uliiii.oti IlcioicC’
I colIllilIc
II cs ire disillil I 10)111 (Ithc’t lU eiiVit’oi
111(1 III Po5S’c’i
(‘aoe of the furopein Union with Regard to C)irnate Chiir
iiu
I U
C(IIIijlu[IIii
0
II) ruICIIaiC’ ibir cilui.oil’ l’hl.IIUI’ ioiltt,ltioIi iiStS On si;iI°
1OIIIICI,IIIII1IS5
liito,otc’
I lt,IlIic
LS, 1VI(II’iltl, a i1t:ijI)i thou
LI) thi’
. IIVltOltilloI’
A Ltdit’c to i’c’SlolU Will iliorcuihly dc.:’il ti
iisi;i:i,ible tIC’VI upment of Ltioo
sviich, ;ic:corcliiu; to Article .3(3) oltiit
fRIlLy UI) Iiirope:tn Ltiiiiin (‘l’PU), lilt
he heed oiti
lI,IIIIIIL I tI c’(’UilI)Illic iI I)WtI) ,nid p011
St olnIlbv
.1 hi hiy conipetol
soiiI niarket et’olioiii, .iiII1lIii’ it
LIII CIiOLIIcyIiiellL nid 5(11 iii PrOi’ess, IlflCfl liu
level 1)1 proiec Uoil .iticl lfliLl”c)VC’ilIC’liL of thu i1ti,ih[y of the
I ilvUoiiiiieiit’. Art.
3(5) TI.U adds trot the LU sonltl uphold its s’,iliies
hId Interests In its rekItlollo
with the Wlclei wc)rici, sshitc’li iiiiltiilc ni ,iSiiI.ltiI)n it) c’oiiir bute to tlio’ sUStatn
llc’veloplnelil
cit the barth. Mtsrc over, In
115 pI’C1i’lStOl)5 on lU
e!lSirflflhlio:ohlaI
ptiluy, Article 1I
of: the
intl’,
oil thu l’onictionini of the ku ropo’an Un
(TI LI.]) sII]glcs out donate chan1_o
and states that EU invroionoental
pIo}
should an;i
to> contribute It)
plt)Iflh1tIIlL I)le.iSCIIu
It iIItuni;otjo)Ii,oI level
tO dr,of
E<a
Killovesi,
i’Jis,o
Monrc’u.I
liii
MiI(IIO’I
MUIII)7,
‘INS iIOInIlIllLII
fIu’irao:obo
N/iu iii Iceic
1
11111 IiI,IIIIIB,cl
)IIILcIl-,L,io1s Ol IU t .iw’:
(iopao knit’
Ic
FL_i’
20t)9
(:111
and lIi1i’t\ RucLiru’ (2111 1) 18
C
0110I0110III J,ith
I 1)111’ Ro’Il.Io’ X2’)
8°) I.
ii 85).
Ri ,III1I’I, If
‘ I Ill
II’IIIIOI’IiIo] 1,1))’
51)8


(4 ) ‘S
,t1A
II
Il3t(I )\
(IL 1.IlIS IU Itfll(1flS
13(11’
J(’t( )t7I)[(idfli,(tjl
‘,)1SI.(1d1t1,) A)31JI
11()L1i’llI’ll\
t U •Il
11131J1.Rld ( II.; 11(11
SIL
(l1
II()Iit(1lLL() I
LII
15.1130111
.)l1l7II(.IlI.(C1
(III )IILJI1)(
SlIOtII(J
1o1’,)lh).hll
113
)Ilj I 3[L1S1.t(.I.I)1S(ILl
51
11 ‘.).)1I3[_.1
‘[)L( [)l’i.tl
(1.1 ,7S( 55 St
( ,..{ .)(ji )J (Ilj 55 III Sl’,).II
311’ •(‘.)1j
J
A(LI1l.)
101’
71I1IILli’j1I
)(
1)13)5
SI
Ij.)11\
.\)Ij0d
.)t)53tI110
Jo
sI’33U
7,51)1511(5
Aj5I)0th1)UI
130
Ij3IiOI 0)
5).)11(IItIl .‘I\[)t(lll 1)5(j)
1j(13’.I 713(1(I)
3.5I’Ij 0)
.Sj
1’J
(I0tW3d1’j)
.1(1)
IlI’jIl.(l ‘.)5.7J0J,\j
(j l0ll1;1J
p3sIIlOItIjrI1 t JO .)(ll\ ppI’ np .5133577
11)
j11’Ij
11 •1’’’
)
)‘)iHH.)..l
)113 ‘11jJ
‘1)IlI’jIIl.
‘.11(j)
II
LIl’lp .7)01(7 Aj4iiiptSII)
IIrdcç s.1.dn3 loud lI01)l’.)(JII.llS.)j) jli()t131001
1)01’
.1tjiIIol.1j) IilI(7j
JO
)3(ISOJd
“NV ‘loll jjt’\ )IJ1’.II\/ 031111({1III’I ‘p ‘,.7.)I ljji’(j3
73)113.1 iu’to’j.
Jo i.n
t .nuJ o
1.)) (,)(IX,)
ApI)
l(IIp’l)
JO ‘.U).)llIUJl)j JH)<)’L lj()/({\
“13.7311 OOllIdj)I’ Jll.7331j
5.1.3,5
.).\l’lj
511)1
lI’7
).11.)J,ftJ
‘3.(ItIl’j)
.71))
1)11)0(11
o)3
_l.)13,U)
lit
.‘1.tl11I
3111111)
1) ‘.1 )I’ III
3))’) Ji 1)7(1)
131
I III ‘5.
IllS)
II
(101 11)1 (j) ‘‘535
.7))
)Il.3L111(
331)133_I_LI.) 10)53.11 (11
IlOI)I’Iillli SItiJilj/7j\ ‘plLl1t)_t’i i.1l’JI’(jS III) 3_lI) ‘jUl 1_t1j)
tIll ‘s.3.SIlrt)IlIt IIOIII)d(’pI’ .);lII’lI.)
lil’lttlj.)
‘j .J’ 51133)110.) A1l.tIIpI5(jI15 1.3/SC) 3j
11171(5 03 5j,)’
III! .511’
,.).lI(5I’,)l)I (I1II1i’1I (III) .l31Ii’1j
I 3)(’()llj ) ‘(jO) 1_I
A_I
jUI(7I)CjS1IIS
1)!
‘5
5II(l)’,,ll(I
lhij)h11
Al) p 757’3
III 710,1j
j1’(j19
U
7)1j113)’
A.lIj)
‘‘ ,1.L3
Al.
.O’tj)(Sjfl’. .7(j) SOd 5It))3lJ) .150111 311’lj
Citlj.1 11(1 SJ.1.(1.1 .)\I)95i3.7 I ‘“
,ft)tlIl
P.1_1I’tIs_Jo
j)
hoho)1(’S\ lII
j’ I)’1)(.hItIhbuhI.511
7
II.)
I )t)1.)5l
.3(1
.7!))
II
l(j) .I.3.’\ ) “H) S.) )I II’)
III
7)11(1
II .0)17
III
.7 HIlt)’) .7’
I’pll.);l’ .1AIlI)jSI;3) .717) )75 0) ‘III )1tI))Ij.tI1j ttl’3d0.tII’
3113
7111’ )l1)tSSIIlltllll ) III)3d01).
‘5.) )A)’jd j(’IItliI)’t(l’.kII Is .535) 5) I’I
31j)
.1)1) 53111111111()dd0
.11)1
))1(j
HIt.3tj1)(I.1
)AI’lj
511(1 A3Ijcld .3711)1)
))i’)Wj ) 5)1
0 5)33015!’ jI.1Ii’).)I
A5I,)II.1
7(j) II) )_(I’;3.( (p.
.\)l_l(ltj)Il(
I’)3j Sj’3’j .7(7) ‘3(11)11
S](I.)1lli(.i.)A0’3 ,))())
I.)l))Il.))AJ •I1IJ
(((1110.) .t31l1,i11 F
s.3 5(75)_I
13711
)l7.)1(ll’lj_H’)p
I((’,3_jO.(It’
.71)1
1)
111111(1 .1(j) 5.5)7(j) 7_I
I).)71J.S5
‘t.7.lflp.3.”
I11)l)I))Il(51Io1.)3I)))).II7j)7.)O.I3Ai1I)jSl7.3I )I)I.).)1I5I))iIIrl1SIIRIj3.)Bl1)J)1’SI\\1)jAl.I0
J,{
53.I[1Sl)3t11 A.)1j70.I J1)tI31ho(1h(i5I1)
77)1) 7,31fl51),71l
13)11)01 11713)111 ((3 )5I’.tllt
Ll
s.131((05,).(
\.l.Ut,
71(111 )I’l(
II
(k)I)l1)I))joic3 .1(ji
.l1)}
S(lOiIij)It1).)
.7(j)
((II NI1)
\7.(3tI3 .)i)5311(0)) .71))
(7 (lO)ltSCOitltl).) .))jI 3llI((t.(.3)3j( ) .1 \l)Ik),(.7.Id ,s3)l)).l.7j(I)
7(j)
S.)11[.13j(((I7
(I
.711(1)
(11(1’,
.)ljI
(I
)Il(j
I.)Sj_Il’tlt Ai.I,Itl3
1hl_J0
5)110.1,75
.71)) JIll
.5 IjIl (‘((It)’
IS 3Ij)’(l(I)UI)3lI1ij
l
1)01115 .7(j)
5a II .7(j) SIIl.l[)Jt (“I’ll L
It
I 3H’)1V ‘3.t 351)151115 j1j((j A[p’lto))tll (1)111 .)jltA\ 01 511101
A.)tjOd Sj,7d11’
.).Iitt{.) .)Il’t((Ij
1 ((113 S.1(ISIISIIJjI 1).J1)
I
A,7(l’.I(5 .)3(Lttj.) .))I)IIlIj.) 111)3(10)
1(j)
JO
).13)(1j3.fl’
((((‘Ill
.113
SI’
1l(II’j3
y.j
.1(j)
0315j1)1j
UOISI/5o]1)
A3tjod Af,iia..
.55311 Jt)
I
‘IMOj.7Cj
‘(is) .);I’j3tl) .5lJiIIi
p111’ 3)1101(j) 5) ‘J’ I 31jI_J0 S.lIjjld (3M) Ijil’
J)lI(I(lS.)i_II)
1 Aj).I.).I1J) SIlOISSIltI .1’.31jJ
‘53.1.11105 Ai.LitI.) .)jjI’A\311.7.( pItt Mill
Jo
111.1)1
(I0J 7.5(j) .)lj)
13)11’ ‘7t(IAI’5 A
.11(3 ‘A (((1(11 )j.) Ai.IilI,) .7)1(11(11.1(1 1)1
11011 I( Ill.)))
1(j)
S311)j)III’lII
.\)()lIjtlS.
‘S.3AI)_)311j
.1.31)10
1II1)III(’
‘(j111j.55
tf.31101cI
SL,’III,l
III)
.1).).)
5151)11
(‘101
It
5.Itji.IIl_Il’IS.)
) Eli.)
‘(I
‘SItliIllpIIiIIII’ AIu.uj
II(H)’l
)
.71j3
l;HI.s\0jj17)
.1)113
111,73.7.1
J11
SI
))3I)
Slip
Ill
.).)l1.lJJIItlIo
I
(‘((III IJ SflJ iI
‘Ailjod
S,l,1ll.)
110
) 7(111111
) 1.3.1113
U
.)Al)Ij
S3A131)l)llll
iJII1’Ij.)
.))IlIlllj:)
AiIl’J.\7
.)‘.)tttI)l.I)l)(Il)j1
II’(jlILO
I il’J((
II ii’d III jlIll’ ‘SllI.ljCjII.Rl jIIIIIJIIIIIII.IIAII.( .1j)lM)j.l1ls\ .10) jI’IIOIl.l.l
1(11
6S
(101141 U(!3(I0 1)5] .)1)) Jo
J)(’plItjAJ


260
Climaic Change
urn deed.7 Tue Sti
eeys
HIll) I,mets art’ Lu
rOlllOL(’ ,IcI;iut,ititii
ii
he Mt’iiihi
Slate li’vul, to
cliititte- prool
id] polities such
is
Hilt tilt Hut
10 tilTisport h1
iisiiii
lic’
t,d
,u t ciOUt
it .iLiit
[lii
tt)H(eHlS,
intl
iti
ii iiuibiite
Li)
0114
kiiosvli’tle
,iltiitii
iptItlo
licids
hilt
soltilTT)TiS
t;irotiifi
c’St’il’c Ii.
lb
ilit,itiiii ,ipjioa
Ii is iilCii,ihly hut LISt
ill
St
t Hunt polltit II clnii:ite u
‘eiilc’spih’.l(l
!.iiiti
‘ c
‘[a nut
tiP ntvousiit’ss
tittitil the Irapilitv
Ill
h’CtTllOHti
[t’(’C)Vt’l’
\\t[llu .tHtl t)eVtiiitI tilt
HIlt) ‘it’
lii
Ii,
loncier run,
hosvt’vc’i,
tlt’
s’ill very likely ‘ace
usSuri’s
Lii
lIlt’IiSIi/
Its
dli
.1
‘incitE wiih
tiliflili
11,11,
,H,tI,tLliiIl.
Iii.’ 1)15
‘iii’
t4’iiIt
Ti
,
,itllt’’Eet,
I
tllI’iI,’hiIi’IiI,ttion 0)
JiIlti l”t,ti oils fri it, scott
K
ittlvc,tiitltl on
i:n;ite (
lLlHuc
(I JNI( ( C),
S tiTlitilt
i.tllC,t
Itiipt;iiloti
is a sey
uKc.tl ol
tltit’IIl,ilithtil) <lunate
1351’.
,iltiiIi’siCle
11th
atlor iiid t lmiitC
ici’, As a siiçu;itoy niP ciiitt prithiloter oltit’
li. LU viil
It (‘dl Lu
Tlti :1
al.ipt: loll
11011
ptth Iii it
It l In
Ii
liii 114 ,haii’’i
ttilic I’”;, LV 01’,
541 , th)ltl tt’H.iii
III
1,11 I, tHai
ItCH ‘I a
ui
t’rplnt
ni cans’
light
‘sI
ill ill’,
‘illS 15010 a
vidnily 1h
ru
whIr iiiii’hhtsnrin
Menibur States shut
iutttirai HsOtlrcCS,
iltit as over basins or ‘t tin,it,nn r.lfl5c’:
but boa. julius
ii ,ldJ )Luttlo) can
hiso
itt.Tr bile, nate at roe
[lu ) i by, ft
tllst!ll(u,
‘ii cli
i0’’:6)’
.t its
ol
his utilt’,
rutnltls.
PtlL,’ltiiII,
lOCatti
ltnC(liitI’l)lltcl
lI11fl,luts
0
eIIlll,ite ciiinu’,u
c octici constitute major ht,iith, safei.
nit1
St
HILLy
isl s
[II ii
cii rtIfL
I ti tritlc
intl Jt t)h
idi
tht
I Jiliflil S
It C thOu
I-
Ilitli,
il st ihiiitv, liii
it, pitt tin cltt’s[tcni thus iihlstihit’s cult’ Ui tile pt’reflfl]t
cllleinll I’ th,ll COllh’olIt tilt’ LU a a ovt’tnaticu
re’iullc: is:.:ut dti’ tilt’ remit ot
r
i ti poltc’ics towards donhistuc,Iliy seihsltlvt’ areas raises i.unc urns ol lileLKltifllai
dtllinetuiItt creep”
alIt, [tic’ urtssjoil of
I’t:ol’i
SOV”rt lilly bt’ynnci 1reat
li,Isedl lnn;ts.
Howc ser,
hint dollIs
Sc) cotlici t tlt),i!tilSt’
till’ elict tiVeiless
Wit)
whIch [tie EU tuliPs
[s eon
rob’ of
ti
tKratlnS the marktt
Old
,lrt titiieniiu
1 1
the Meiither St,ituP Cc onoitite tt’vr IoUmt’il[. P’Sis, too, totiid east a shadow cit
the legItlluIac’y oitlit’ LU.
C’ it’ LU, it Stelils, e,btl’utt avoid le’ptiiiiacy ehallenpi.
‘:
but raiSer oust cart’Iully
tavigite httwii tlicsn
Hiqh Siakn
The Challenqe of Chmte Change Leadership
I e ito opt’iii LJiiioii is It the
urerf)itt Of climate change law cliP nohey. it is tir
tiluilil di’iser
oetuiou
llle’ctatit)iISi
c tort
IC)
iflaihitaiti
lilt. c’nhlalc e
a
hincd
I
citierllatlohlal legal regime equipped
to respond
to
ever iiioo
pressing glob
iic’t’ds
101’ ehiiiuitt’
c’Ii IH’’c’
il1tiI;hti0hl
11111
tempt. [toil.
Internally, the LU h
I
t)flhilt]SSjOt) f,omniunit,Ituon in nit’
tlCCii’ill1 Pariiinienu
ilit
Council, the Europe’
ic onoinie md Soc’i:ii
1
011)111 [Icc
md 11w (
01 ninitile of the [Kco otis, ‘An EU Stratc
till Ati,i’’i
I ciii to (Itiict (Iiaiigc’’, 16 Auril 21)13, (.( )M(2EE13)2 If, p. 5.
H
[‘ins (I 1.111Cc)
13 L)tt cnihti 2(115,
iii toni’ 2.ovutnb 2016. aviIbt” at http:/!ti’
tCC 1111
“ New Yolk (USA)
‘) May 1’)02, in fm
,
21 Marc I it
.iv,tilihlu
ci
iittp//unfo
.Ini.
‘Stc’[iIicll ‘iXi ,tli, till.
‘C oiiijictc’hi
C
c
p nil ( ollipuWilue 1 oiin’oi’ IiiIt)4t
[3 ‘t’’tiihciot
idtiipi ut Liit’ 1—55,


Ihe Clttilieiige ni Cli iiate Clldflqt’ LHit)H[Silii)
261
-
1111
((hI 1 (‘Ii
.1
(I I(’ of ul lull u
ti i’ iws
ii ul si
iii H’, II ft’S, lies lit,
i
I Ii
IS
of’
t ale ai of
a ii
(II
lo lsldelslhiy exiec’d
ill se
oh
c’
I ooi side
if’
he
‘1
‘loll
ho-
iiopeaii Union’s progrc’ssive stuwe on i’liii,,iie (‘hill
t
ills HOidi’
[U uhinaic tYianie hiss’ a model and
t 5t1011t’, polili of rc’teie,ne for law not poloy
i-velttpiiic’iit titoss the world.
liniat,’
iiiaiipc’
lt’a(ut’rSlllp
ti11cis
the
I’iiroi)c’.ni
limimomi
iidt’i:thI,’
l’,)IIIi’eS1 hhic’ 1.1 is c’t’ntral
III ifltt’flIitlOll.Ii (lnfliit’ Cliaiii’,e ii(’COii,l
IllS 1’iV(’S ii ((l)lH))iiiliiiIc’S it) control the ,iciitI.i. and tl,t,s coiitijIl the i,sI ihi,ti
L
ny eilsiiliii’,
,
qeellielit would favon,’ stl.It(gles 01’ tecilntioiiit’s thu
rti,t (OllIlitI
tt he Us (‘(OliOlliH, ei)viloI)iot’ot,ll
111(1
Ci hIlH)I01( .ih (lIlt rests Syuiiiiohii,ihi.
fit.’
Ltuvo1’t’,iii ijii,oiis roic’
iii (liuliatu
ci1.lit((
Is
a
lvitposI
of
ts
unutlIrItv
as
•Iiyer in (i(ttlIlitloulil
10111(1
•ii,tl tli iioiiiic’’, ((115(11 Oh
111 IIH_ ‘.niIe l)le(ihI
1,
‘‘rid w is such as the UsA, ( liiiuu iiid ( enhliny. Its e1igc’tneIit ss ith ehnrite
(ii
C Scieli
e
lItil Its IltusihIt (t1,uIl ,I(’ehi(il that is eriiuiui hot <‘nlv (or l’al0)11
(0
III (ISO (or global SiStiIhlill)ilty grog (IS Ill liO,IL’t’ (i tlic’ LU .i
1
Ill \‘Vn(l-tlHhilS IIuç
tI huninntaimnt lorCi’
‘(‘his rc’pIeseiltitlon clil Iw ,i weh owe ,iiltld.tc to
lie
(.1111.0(111’ 11(11(1 L.J
IS a IS0hll()(’)ItS
-‘iijdist’ (OliCel’lii’ih with tile I iitlii’ss
,dt,ctioii ol titlc
101
iii,
‘,lke
1 tI pHI;tt)o1 that ptirsiues tite
I I.
iii both its
-uern,I
111(1 etetiiii (s!(t-oIC
eel heatlelslil) (((ilk-s with
a hefty pric’e tl.
t’iic 1ttnie
il tile ioterii,,titttiuI
‘no’ to (((‘(1 eli. to ((‘15’
1
(ii
recubie
(I Isto (I (ellIs ((II’ t’Iob.ul uoos’te its
I ecilki 10115
iild tniclo intt,d O
hill!
lit
U’s
‘c piitatioii
.15
a i’(t(lh,lI
poseur hotisi t
)ieinmssiooolli’,ut;,ihys.iuelt
hepoasiieb(.ttoititc’iisc’pic’sstiiesontiue
ole
i’onL
ft
is
ihro\’TIiu,
‘((1 rllsi)iiiy (hIhililt
to ic-el) .h
i\’
obei
ht,iic’s,
Oh h,i\’t’ WIi lt’ly \)V -I If (0111(11(111 ((‘I it
to
I
Ii
I
Ill (C’ oh c’hii,,ttc’ (‘11,11 lie ab,ite
‘Itt and uxpl’uI to In’ clihit
(‘1111/ 11111(0 ted by 1)11th
C lliil,i[e (ii,iIlt’
‘(Ill (hlnitt
ft
II
1111(11
(lii (IllS
I
1 h1
clii
I
I
1111,1
1 otIol (ii
chr 1
111(11
uit
thu
atur thii
nsk thit
11)1’
Ii J c’hlo(k
tOSV.ilCbs eliiii,iti
CII,tlii’c’ ,‘.hitc’iiieiti
Ire
Cinc’eliect out by
I 5Iiil
ClIOSSIOnS
u lsewhctc
inch have as the,,’ ciI
ieal (lc’u t
r
‘ thick tii (Iitopu’hm) l’(i)ilOliiIC toIIIihtl,t(V’n,’’s. liii’ ilitu’lt,t1tt
tdeiite hi’R,’eeii
the extelIi,.I
alich
litteulull pillar’
of eliii,ite tii,ttu’’ 1,i.,i h,j’
ouk. cody trip
nate ehiut
)OiI(3( ill a Vii
(illS 10(11’, snice
(((V ..1’i,d that
lit LU is iusiiig its
the with the Member Stitc S to stay cmii n,[tecl to an
Hl1Ih’tt)ll’,
hto,utc’
I li,uui’
ft. 1)aniei Kc-hinc’ii.
hoist.
n-
no(jn’,iIl
Uii,ctmi
ilI-tiOnIIt( iii,ii Polity’ UUit)) 17(3)
1
I
IlUtitIlI ttl Lu (‘JIll(tl P111(15 Pi’bij’ .i.iS---34’),
It .013 -3!
.
‘
‘t’basnui
( )itcithinm
inch
C lii)
ftctchit’ Kelly, ‘i-U
I I’.,,it’ lip n
I,iie,uiatu’uu.uh
I ‘hiitiau
t’oiIcy:
Ac biit’vc (11(1(0
111(1
1 hi.iiit’ii s’
( Iit it 43ftt)
Its
lulu’;u,u,t’iial
,hjtolti,’e
IIuIi,,I
flttuIhliit (f I,Ilt’(Il,-iit’tt,Il
/111)1’ (3
)It.
<uiiovc’s, ci
ui.. ‘l-m,sirttntuic tii.tl 1IIII”’IaIIoII
Intl tVlnhiit,u (1(11 lIleril ,i’on,tb
I inn-tisitt’, ol
OU
h..iss’’, (((it
14
Shins Avurulic iIhov.l
,imici
S.n,iiui-hu
It,issm, ‘ilt’ timid
limc’ i’.Irgc’ts:
.“s-,.essimu, IhC’ i’ti,tiu
1
I redibiiiiv
ot
Pbecht’,c’s
lot the
i’.imis
Amec 110111’
(I’olmrv lint
ot
till
t
,.ItHllutn
(&t’sthrl I,
iIisnIttIu’ om
C
1(111(0’
i hiampi’
inch uhc’ knu mioilniemlt.
I ,-hru,u 21)h1, .i),,ili,th(I
tt:
ittp:
-‘c-poll
is,-.,,. .iik’05i,7i1: I /Avc’m’uhI’lhl-ovu’- umicl--(t,issm-.’i) I t’pdi
%c’e e.g. Wcty mccli Koc, ‘Pohsit “No” tc,
l,lIc-l 001 Ch,miuatc- Aiiitsiioii ton 2tt3iI’, 1’ND.S
(aIro;ac, Itt (V. I’ll 3tu 6.


iiiitiiticiii
iIcti;liHhilC
(thud
iilrTIi
tiut
I
‘5
liltidS’
lict
1111111.
IiittihittioIial
ic.idtttiip
I)clSLtlt)il
lilt, tliti, )pUtlist
tilt
ltld))til)ii nid uiui1)lCiiitiilitiOi
ol
(.1
ii it i II
II titti
Ii lii III 11 ici Its
It
oliciwhulo
lit
c
oil (Ills
iiivst
[lIt
U’s
tilt
ill
hit
Hit
in Hilci iiil out!
ttii liiincs\oil tI)i
illiittc
iliiit, Hid h))tFI lii it
tiVtI sicts
h
lilt
Hilt lit Stak
1)1 i)lIyuuuittttiII.itlt)itili\t. AitdIt’IhillihiIipilthtttliiiitliIiiciISittiidtl
lit
Us
built
t liiuitt
it itit rslilti
tilt
st-c 11011
[Hills to tilt
iilijact ot hiiiiu tll;uipi
p ui
lit itliot
it t ss tin t ic ciii it
ii \ ci iliti it.uc
itici idut tics thc
iciii sti.ctclpcS iciioytil iii Hiltticc the uc:tti
ui
a
Hiltcci,
p11)11 lIst
slhlICt
Oil
hiiiiic
c hiuit’c stitli
tiiit clii
I)hcflhi
lit tlitc
I iiii tltc
1
II lilhIhIlill
hd)iul[lt[i
is tIics5
lit) \Vti ii
c ills
cli
liii II
d!iili ciii
It loll.
liii
huh
StY 11)11 jiliistt;itct
tOIII
tiic’
t’titfiili
itiJ
lcruii
tilllitiiltlhi
if
to
iluililt
tilhiut
Lideushi1t
iiilieiit tllldlli’ji III
I Oiltthivc iS oh ttUiSSld)Ii
11(01
lIt
iVittittli
iii&’
‘ ;U’,riCI t)n ui 15/0/1 0/ ‘urn
C ‘Yitn’j’ Ct acfr i:ch
LliiSiticChcit lilt stilt ci
iilt tiillIliic
tic I)d)tiy iii tlY.ity 1151 (edit itid ti) c iun;it
h
III
Hi itt
i
ili Ci
HId) kst - It cit hit H io:5
I Sc dl
)llitiiilt
Ihihtitlit ictiiai
itzee
nit_ills: tin
I )2 UniitcI Nittcis
(AmisS
ti k ( eiiiviiutitilu liii
lhiliAt(
(
il1HIl
(iJl\JI.((()
iuicl
iii
iPP7
lKyc)to
PIOtI.tctll
(1KP),
uud tin
clii iiouis of dn
titittictic
c
of tilt
°hIIIC, ( c)
illd)iltcdi diinitt the itispicts ci liii Ut) (Uk
hue 2111%
-
nis Ac’rtcmieiit (PA) ;oHlcdl tiiissctoh dil)(IillleHt
Ill Novc tuli)c;12))l(c
I i
I nit
ciii t )nuon
us wtli as
In IV)t-uuiher )t,iit’s iiutiivicliidiy i;cscpmitoric:
it tilt kJ1”ii((C, thu lv’ Hid tiic PR
jilt tiitttorc Stil))ttt it) thOm Pl0’i5iH
intl the
tic t))iipItlvifli ( ( )P tlct tAunt
i’OrtlliyilIt the .IJ
IS mi-lily stibjict It)
iinuate
11:111-c’ lis
liost’evet,
i(fli ittiitly utttlctii:iys tilt nistitittittils lciuiiuativt
iolt
ni its
ic tuiicit. t iiiiite cliautte nit :id)b.ii wtrtuuic uuitcrc-tl iUt)lk
COO
0 idiUSiiCSS
hltOilldl the nun
I kills,
111 Liret’ ii
thiuii-
ti)
iW:tlchieS5
Ilsiiie Cain
)piiS by *iciiiuiit ccttIIll5ltioIi:
tilt1 ( liSle
lid
tIll! tiltiliulltS
Slit)
is thu Worh
Metetirulc’-iu it ()-pmisa[ucni (\VM( ))
/kirlioiiili tilIte a few scueittuhc SUI1IHIII
were led svuthiui itU ten
tory, LU bodies kept
i rIlttiVtl low piode oil elitit
• until tilt
cud
oh the tietutle
his
us ui0tsurlrl-uui:
iii the Wlkc of it
5tH Cl 55th
TIc
otlillioul ot tile \j’tcuuuil Convention Oil Stibst 1HCCS hilt I )c plete Iii
)zolle Lmycr,’7 tI)UHLIL(S ld)Ok(tl to the USA lot :loblI tulV:rflItticfltti !eadet
SIllj). Morcovcr, we should recall ihut the Luropean Pinion only achieved foninc
ioiileteiltt lii t’uivuronulieuitll policy k)llt)Wil]g the Stuitic Ltnsipeiui Act, which
cii tered ii [dl force in
I P88
-
I lit LU so n idtptecI
1 uhilit- assei t is’e stance A pivotal niouncnt chIle by tim
ttuu ii of tile decade, when it itieed on a (then) L(-wide ioaI 01 tilbilisAlL CC)
CHiisSii)iiS
at
I )Pll iuvei’
by tht
yeai
21111)1
IilVi0i
macic
toe
cc)i)IllItiUt in
I)micl Ecd:cutstss
,
I he Unutccl Nations
II luteworL
I ouuVcuulictui on
C humatc tutu
A ( ttniini IltIry’ ( i)l)5) IS ‘kill JcclI)lsil Ill hntitttiiciiiiI Liii
IA I
- )liS, ci LOs.
i7
Vucoilcc
C
tiivc ilnul
till ulie tidbO CCCIII cit uilC ()ncntc
I
cvtr, Vut-nui.i 22 Mitch
1085
ii
loot 22 St pieuiihcr I)XO
513 UN IS 2)3; (10*) VIS 21
20 ([VI 13251(151157).
252
Climntutnt Changu


nultlliy,
I
Ii
1
) itcIlille
lU RId
t
lllI)llttcI mi tile tlOi):lf ilioftttoll of hiittltiw
Issitois ttriets
\VIlttil Coiitiivtiitci tile US preference for ti mUtt’ tiet titillilSed
I fItxiltie
ctlit
tilti iC’\ie\V
tjtcliitclt IC) CiiilSSiOIls leciti
IOns. lilt rsvui
tIetlCC’ I)et’veCIl It.) tilCi L.JS
lii)Ittt(ilt’S to
CillIhIte eihltltçe comititil chof not
i!jtfctl
[Ill’
lJt’sJi(
(
(
tsuhiuh
Ill
llIl’t
event
()il1llils
lit) ltIfloItlll tlilctS
for
lISsIlilts lctllktlctll), bcit
it
nnst ter[;lllilv
illeoteci the course ol thi’ I\V(ttt
t’itttoeoI Jilt1 tilt
PIT IS Aii teIllelIt lleiotl;lt Ions.
U lilststeflet’ III) and US
i
Stalne to qttaIltlt ted tetittt 11011 talit’tS for devel—
cci to itt ties tltt(itt k Vt it
),
1101 tIlt
lilt flee of (orlespi )fldtlt[ olthpt coits lot
Velo1tlmfl States iltIn iiey over tile
ISO tltS 1)1 1KVt)tt) Pttttot ol iie
OtTJtiOfls
i))2-—
I )ef).
St VIrti
ltIetIlptS
\Vele
Ifllt’
ttt Lee
Aitieitet
Oil hotrti, lot
i:Ltllee tfittttlil tilt
IlIttocitit ticiji III tilt’ text of tue I’totoccti ot ilextbie iteeliati
Ills tot eiliistotts t(till(ttOli
.111 lpproleh that US llecoti,ltor tttoltcit’ tttv’te;tttci.
Ivertlltiess, tilt
ISA \VttllIIteW 11(1111 kottt titti titUS, tIOllIc lily, the tlttttt[tt)llS
‘I 551011 lillY 550ff he k,oto 110151 ttttilIilll’ lC5lt , tile jltOllLtlütii 1)1
ittFl et
std tpprtac lies tic ettvtrotttlietttlI tguiatcoct,
hIti 110 pJl1 lIt Its littpleltllnt;ltloll
lIe [Kyitto Protocol, ;ltfcfteli
lii
I o)o)7
ttltltttltc iy entered Into elleet
iii
hen Rctsstt rItifieci tile clot ttttttot. i<ttsstt’s ita:ti-ssott sttppolt was the restlt of
ittensive rottltfis tiff ttlctfietil cilpIclIlItty
mci petstttslotl Ii sets Rc ttitieJ
It tilt
ItIC 1St
III of tile [US tttivti Ill tilt
lIttettl,it
111011 ,ltel,t1
Thu potivotois of tile t.IN.C(
(
.
tile I’ Voto
>tlttttecll titti tile
ins Atieetttetit
‘te expertly cut nsstli
Ill
Ill,lltV pithieitiittts.
5(1
.1 sittrt sttlttltltrV suflict
hero
he UN
C
C
itt
till It itt1 tic
ti
ttttlver
li tIltilli)t rho attci eali
ti
Is sUIt
les lit
Ike ltleiSttIes tttVvIttIS tilt
sttl)tlls,Itiott ccl cteeltitcltist oases (Ci
U’) iii
ftc ;lttttttspitt it
It levels titIt votiiti prevc itt tLlllperocts
IcttiSttlpttcelliC ititerfer
tlC itt tilt
cilItilte sylt it
I
(Art. 2), witIc h stitce tilt
21 It) Clileolli /titeellletJt
is tlfldersttlttci US
1 etllltlttlttt.eltt to Let p ofichIf tecil5tet-ttdte rtse to l)eiow 2 deiree
tisltts. Artit Ic 2(i) ol tie PIns Acreemimuimi restates tics
ccli s:
I tiiitoq
tItr—
ltCtC5C
ti Ili t1ittiot JVCdtjt
li)lt)—I :Ittts
it
V cii Itch
toS/ 1°C
t ve pi—tittlustrtaf lecici
IOU ptJrstttrtc tiul
to
fetiti fft
teITlpoliterl
it c wit
to
1 5°C
71)05; it
tflUusIri.ii levels, tetoqot ;ii Ig that
I his would
tittltcantly reduce the risks and impacts of CIII1IJLC change
ice UNIt
1
C
mips clot a broad
illLC of tasks titit olemmlher countries sitonid
tnderttkt
tIISV,ltCiS
t hiit1t
Cil,lllct
Ittittclt:tot
TclTlO1iiL
from
tllvel)torVtmic
I f-lU
(IctIlleStIC
emtttssiori,
1111(1
ldOpt;llc
IlitInlIll
lnmtmtatmnml
ilItte’,,
to
ttStenhlr edut itlin
lilt1
ISS lrelless-rlistnc’
c lTlif)llc’tis It lIpti tIes oit tile prim)
iple (ct
eOlt)Illllll ictit tilict It lltll[ed utslcttctslltliytmes,
\S lmtc1i resonites ifi tilt
(itV)S]oll hetweeii (clevelepeth Allmil’\ I eotnttttt
md (dveIopint) Annex Ii
(‘tIltIrle, and lIon Allilexed eeveioplns eottltttlt5. as Well
is tile expel t;li)oTt
the ChaUenge of Climate Change Leadership
263
l
urIc
I. lU
111(1
1
firtstcr
K.lrlsson
‘(IlIllItI (‘hmnt
intl thu
Ilcrn:lettl
I littOn’
I e;,tftr
III
Pit
Ill
tI
lIlt
ltColtStllltlil
1 ttitit’ (ttfttt
1’(1)
IldTllttl/ If
C ,llttlltHll
ticllktt
S/lltItt
121 ‘tI I
Ii 1))
1


264
Climate Change
hit tin iontier hid
t
tier lintilens itt
ii
tie
iitiipe i1ntlgitlon, ii1dt
teeittioltuy li.tlti(is
mci itliet
It
.tiiitti
Hsisttnci
lit
lc’vloiiti
tttliitrleS.
indeed,
1)1k
Ut the
111051
s
inli,int rts)tIis iii
IN I’(
(
(
)tt)jil’Hlt Itt)
15 the
‘o.ihtlisln lIctit
1
.t
I
ten
( butte
nod.
)tvc loped
toiltitiles piedel
it) I)tlltt)H ii Ott us tilt
loin1
iii
hi
ti iu di
It
it Id, vit h
t 1)titi
term
oil ol I i Iii)) Hilhou
ut yc , Ity dUtt
itt’ (IEIIf (d
Is titcitisive, expail
sti, )ti).ittuttll
tot1, 1t’i tt,
taiieI5
a i’’
tv:’eittti
tic’ not
uti
a
IIJILUS’ to hind Its
)ettoIic’s 0) spicilie mitipitioti
mlii
c’I1tisstittl rctliitt.nnt tesulto l,yt’tt
ii iht’y \seie. tile
utilvuntlol]
ttlita)liS Ott
tlttV)’lttO’
Ott
( list))
lttt’ilt ileytitIci tht it
1
lilt
hictt provisions
dispute
‘i iicu ti
i)tO,’tti
tin
tot n’. W lIthe
etC ott
eitiiu
ct tent, the
ltN!’( (
5,
itO\1c’V’, tic
‘,iut)ti ott lilst)tutu))l)I)nlldiilld
1
auvtslotis
cijited the i’st thh’ittttc’tn cO
a ittilt’ titlr,istitttintc
thu
laS St
Vi d
as
t lurtitu fiat
- ‘it bob
I
j,tt’
lit -‘c
Ittlit ne’
ii it
>101 ti’, till
itt Ittt mit nil ,ttiilitatiOil
tietv l)e iott,ttt’du InC. liii tin
tij-,tttittttn,ii ‘,t,iujltt
nttvitli ii by
it’
INI tC(’
I in
nit
Ii
liv in ls
itt
it
t ittetit
hut ut
ot
it
bit.
2111 Ci ii rout
iterioiis iii politteal it is tttrit y nit
u’
nit note ii ri ,tiititt y
it
k yo0
1011)1 ol set’, htttdtut”
(
lI
tInissIuitIS ic’iiti tHin
tt12i’tS, to
.ithi’’c d
ut
tIc’
net hid
ittt)i
do Id (‘Phase
I ) ,ue,,nnst
j C0(O ha’,elint’.
Enget
iii.
tiittitii’ti tttt tie tlttltttflc’S listed itt Aittit N 13, s-vhit, iii loud brushstrokes,
ovt’rs htirope, North Ainerte,t, t\nstr,ilta. New /,ç ,jl,i)iil ,tlic ).ip.ni ..yott) doe
lInt
ji,tnci,tte how i)0t55OitS O’citiCtlOItS sbuijit he ,icljtt-ved, but tt does prost
tn
ttieuori: bojitit letiti’iittttttitttnnt’ti lbl’Nibihnttcii,tnt’,i’ts:oittsi)ottstradiflt
jittitt
topic
tietitat lilt) ntd tile clean ck veiopnn’Ilt nii’iii.tnuni, ,iniSSn)tS tracuit
is dtsciisseii tiiote
e\IeiiSlVc+5
wilier
iii
tile
eti.tptt
I
3titnt
iiiiubeiit’iitattoit
itrielly, relers to tlic’ tt’tctn or I\nnes 13 eoutitt wi to ,otd tlteo’ total tlbo\\;abI,
c’lntsiionS
tilt)
ic leese their icspeetive caps juinitly
The
( heui
I )estlo’amejit
Mecunsiti,
ii turn, enables Atiie B countries to meet then tildetu by invesOn
in clean
i
utiitiusy itt develnpnip countries tti5te,ic
tI
iIc)UCii litc a! tb,tteinettt
!wittcVeniettt
1)1
tile
titi;ets
15
titltltO12ll
2110,
in
tutbie
rontr;tst
to
til
LJN
Nt’C,
‘lie Protocol
stabltshes
a
ilon-eutttplieiic’e
nec taitisill that h
been ;ic liv ely cisect to sctpport ,nicl compel Attic
13 eittititrles to
ii)
1 CSS toward
then eflh1:S1OI1Stedt1etI0n 1ancts.
\X’lt its dhuantiheci niaxintcntt eitiissions perec’ittat;es, cpeethed tintelne at
‘iO)\’.S,ltiO Oil Nnheil)c 0,1000 atic)
t
i2ctiecttte’tt, the ynttt lintoeol is a mm
more harct-tioseci, ‘hard law’ document than the UN R CC, Yet tlis strenl
proved stintitt;ittentisly its cg’eatest weakness.
hiic’ ELI encountered dIlic’ulty it
dettitl) the )iotiiecii p,ist the t’tii:c ation thiesbiold ,iiki tile USA iS notably absc
ti )itt 1)112 K ycttc) fold.
I he C ,il( etitisiotis reduction targets were binding, but tb
were also very tiitt.lest and, eonsecitteiith
, itlc’OiflfllCiISul-atC to tilt’ deg;’ce of changt
I lii USA 0,0 lit Itt bound by it’, turet lime It
jill tint only Kvuit. Ait’,tiii,t i,utcitc
it
2mt7
211 A:iti.
I 1ticytis, ‘l’hc’
I )esur,ibihty cti
I )c’poliiiizttion:
( twiphant e in tb’ iiutiatu
:hiittn H
tti0
I tt I ii —It I’ ‘lrattittttnttutl ttit’titintti teal Liii
hi —12,1


11w Challenge of Climate Change Leadership
265
I IC(lli)I\
1(1 slay ttitliio lIlt
lvtrail 2 derees (
liOnS rIse by 2PhL MOSI
llllm1l’(’
PIl.ISC
I ol IKpolt C\IlIrCCl Jt liii
‘11(1 1)12(112, without lIly ,I1rcC1i1C lit CIII
IICCISSOF lIlsIlIIIIICIII or .irt1s.2
hit
iiil:III1C)IIs f
1tIiI1l’e II
C
, lilerellte oftiw
P
tIes of 2O(.)) W1IS OtI1t1-:IllV lillIClpatccl to be the ioniiii (ni a iitii;ii liretIUcl1t on
‘(ItO 11, 1)111
It tll(Il:(l III (liSlrr.l5’.
It 1(111k
liii )1l1ct SIX years belort tht Iliterihitlolill eOlIlI’ltlIIlty iigeecl on a new
‘lItlilIl’ lllstrCIOlt’IIt to HI tile ‘oith left by
t he
C llpt’I(llJeI1 ktiliirc. As wil Ii the
yott) llrotocoi, tlit
iI.) piiyt’d a
Vt’ry prollllllelll
rolt’
ill brilipIlIp the
I’r.s
It’t’IlIlIit II) lrll:tll)II, but tile dliiert’IItCs i)et\(’e Cli Pans .nd icyoto tar OiItWt’iiI
(I’ slIllIkurilit’s. IIIStt’,ICi 1)1 ii 1105111” tOp
(105511 ci IlISslolls rt’ClliC t0l1 COIllOlItlilelItS
II developed totilitries, tilt’ Paris Açreetiueuit eIubr.Iees a bulttoIll—tip
tr,itey ttl.it
uIres Ill senuitory
1Ir( IC’S, whether dc VelC)peCI or (]eveiopillp. to iiLe Ilatioll
ny Ck it
I Wilt tIC 01111 lIlt to
is (NI )( s) tow ii ds (11111 itt chiti
C
C Olitlo
I I
C
I
iii
lreeIl1eu1t Is ilitreloit IlillIt flexIble III lppn)aeil, ,lIld plates relttr elIll
lasit (III
lf—dIflt’reIItl:ltltlll
(11,111 oil (I1l11111(lIl but tllflereliti;1[etl rC’SpOltSlbllItll’
(CIU )Rst
I t\IC sscd till tlii
Ii dl(IC till Ito
C hiS lOll
It CIW tioll
111
C ts l\4ost ol thit it
i
Ilte th tht P IllS A
ICC lilt III
I CCitlC 5 III it
ill (ICC C Cli iI O(\
510115
II1CII11)C I Cot II
CS
11111
1
lip(i
IC
lIlt1
1(11111 11111 lId itt
I
I )(
C Vt I
I
SC
YC
15
I lit
P
itt lilt lit
IC lttt
Ill
C \t it 111(111 cii P
(1
1 CS
SC
Ill i),tlOll III cloint St
C
1
1111 Itt chiii
t
tu
Ci
tgeS,
lIlt1 ilIlIOCItICt S CS teilsI Vt
illiOl’llhlLOiI provisioiis io all pirtit’s ho ellibie
ackiii of proptess OIl i\il )( s,hIl(I support Cdiereti to .111(1 ieteivi’tl by dew ioplpt
otmtrles.
Tht
1111
A
ItC
Ill Ill
II
t ibly
iliiii
I
lii
I
((lilt
1111111
liii 11)11 lilt
C
I
I citni Itt
liii
it Itit I
but Its Cl IC \ 1CC tt diV loll
lilt1 tilbIt i It
CSt It till
Wit it
1
ICOCIShy illiCit
SC 1)0
liii
Ii
I
lily
1)1 it ICIC I sh
iV o
Ci I’ 0
ttul
silt ti ssl ii p
(I VitleIl
ui lilt
I 1111 1111111)11 11
( liii ItI
C
I III
C
Ii C bitt C tilt t It is
C (IlIlt
it tlit tc 1st o
1 st’nfit lilt ioss uI 1(111111)1
tiC C
51011
iii ii iii
oiui
C iIhiSSlCittt Itt tic 1,011 t
I
C ts Ii is
sSt litI illy
I1CC II Itt hllliitd by
111111)11 ii
1lVt
11111 Ills
If (“.tl)( s
iil]tt tts t i
I Ill
hoit of dt liii
Ill
tlit Ii ‘,t I III IllIti
111011
C tltllli]t II ill iti
vitii tlii
15011
110115 (II
/ 111th
‘ri) ol
tilt
Pin
A
it 11111 Ill
IS
IS
ill C
C lIlly
till
C
151
I it
P IllS
Aireenitiil lilly
I ii,ible the 1Oct11 cOcolil
C IlItIIIllIIht\
tii 1,etel t the SilOIt’.lil, 11111
It does not tiler
11 cli 11115015 tO Police Or rectify tHe jtroiiIi Iii
Hi
uisloihitU Ill.IV
.1150 IlilliC t CIII tIlt iii’s ablilty tO 111 II lt,lIil JIl ,lI1ibLOCIS. CohesIve
C lmrite
lies’ Illit’i 11,1115’.
11115 15 Iiirtiier t’xiiicired Ill
lit
SeetICtIl iit’iOS\
-
21
A
IltIlIlIlCI
t)f
AIlIlIX II Ci)IllIItl1’ IlIVI
11111111(1k
,ut1rtCd
tc( tttulittitIi
.,L’1i
.1
.01111(1
_CIiCl,IIlttll
III ilIlISSICtIlS
11(1111 111111 lIFt Is. s\llli Ii
Ire
11(1)1111
ttt tht
intt [1111 IlIs,tt Ii
expiry Ott’II.lSl
I lItCIthiC’ 111111
111th
totet’ III 2 lit_tV IIillhlil.CtI. I 1(1411 tltSIllIlIIt-Iil
01) WI
IC
pItlo PIll0 II
till ‘IllellIll jih,ts
Il.IVe (iOhltllilItC d to .111 (11 1)111 CIII [CHIlI 11(111 1)5 211211, ss III
tIll Its S]I.Ii(’ ]t 21)111:
Cclii. (
IICII1I, Aiusti
111,1. iCCISSI. iitd
-pill
ilcIwIvet, 111(1 tltihiut ti
t
to RC 011111,11
22 kiidosl,’ S.
I )llisltrol
,
IlItlIlt
C oplIIh214en:
I lit’ ‘ttate of ( 1111120
C ,ovIrll;ulitt
‘ (2111 i It)
(2) ( ,hlI’,lI I llI’IHIhltII IltII l’ClIlIt
I 11
N
23
Kr,iTIier, Id
‘ LlIl’mIllllInthlI I lIl
.11 I.
2
24
Qtltrtll 5(1111 1110(1,
C Ol,(billitl C itntiit_ l’lt’diIes of 14(u NItiolls liii 51100 1)12 “C
I .iot
\‘iillul\’rlloc
1) 1)11 ttbti 0)15.


266
Climate Citanqe
It )l I
III.’
1_tIlt’
)( )s,
lit’
ttt&tit’ iii
bin ii ,ilojo l
.i p III
II
eXallipli’
oil
1011.10
t li.iIii1
llI1lIlil1
Its 1InIl,i[cl,iI ,issiintpiioii ol
,liiil)l[IOI!
Intl m.k tt\u
litilill
(lI.liiIl
Ills,
Ill
t
Itt)pc\ to ht’st1 tlw ilnusholtl h
Inuil
OlIllilics
Ii
lolIlIss suIt intl. thus, to ovt’ut oun
liii
Li ristilt
ohk’ctit.
Ito’ ttoIslt’tti liii llit
lllh,Il i’hTuitlt
.iLtItti
I t.itliIii liv t’\.tiiiplt
isa In not .ir’,ii.iblv optiltil’!
sti.iltg tltit
cites a rut
p
In tin
hllhltItIl
iii
lit
I t
is a i.isviii.ILIIIt
intl
tt’IiiitolV ,iIIlhiOnIs
It
IlliitiiIllhg
ii s tnt liii to o ilIenibl’I
liii It’ithilI lt I\ttliple
huh
\tt moth
II Itt
It)
lit
.110,115
itl\ktfl Ii 1105100 st.itcltIt’Itl
ct
llvnoliiitc ittI pohits
lvi.iII\ It
l’ti\lIOhllItl I1II. ilitisiltt’S
lV1’uilii
155th
. (nun
11_nil .tls to tItdtlt
‘intl 5p1tt,
Itch Ii to ,iiltIcVc’ .1 Itttli
cs (I 1)1 cilsIuoniinlIt
1 puttht’etlon all.
to
hittilu tIn’ lni lioiini’
tth
lilt ‘nil ln.IILt t. In’ ht’i,ilniit OIcfl tttvtl’
lii tiii iiii
ct iti i
dqi
t I S
s suit iii I
.1 ‘1 ii tic’
I cgtl II
s
Ii in WInk his b1_ ei i c’alIt
otto ejitchitin hit hnst.Ine
ili \S’iitniiV
‘.n’gc tni
hit tliviioiihlle’lttIl lcI’oteetcoi
1115
tt’iiihIy hiLt’
11111
(tctctIllt
Ittit
is pl’Ittn till
ctil)ti\’iliil
to
tilt
iiark
l,ltiOlitlt’ (ii III i’t151h1ltttltl.
lb1
iii.thhtlttl’ oh itItlni’ by t.x.tiitpit
OhtIs
1 Inrtlit
I.i ci
1)’
C Out
uNity
(0
h1_’ ,Ihii’tCl
putt ti’ioits bilitrint
itt
luetss’eun itteiltipl
pitbhc polo y otl’. ut
I utitIitioii. hKitlovsu, l\’loutt ri intl Mttiioi tletitPy tih
tubtin
(
iptlire
intl Storage
((
( S)
I )tn
live
is
a
ilolt t’ullti
liuntewod
eltsiiteti to m’pire itt’ tlevelopnient id both lltteuiIition,ti
nit
tlnhilc’stlc
law.’
‘f.
I htv sIit;içesi
Iii
lu
I )iutt tiLt
svlnt h ttihlishis
:t ltgiI Innest n’k hr tilt
eitvlflhlllttt’llttlly Sib
‘eoltitit ii st(irarçe oh’
il miii tlitr:itht
(Cc ) ),
t tine
lot
beni
1101
l)ti’,tlbSt’
id
i
1_h(’fliCHII
butt’ bi,n’ntttinst’tl
t othtiitloiis to lit ilit.tte
LIt
ehe’vt’lopi itii(
(Il
(lit
it t Ititithitty
iii
kciropt’, bttt It e,itise
bostet tii
C CS
in
I eti’ope 51/011111 lecitniitsu the
‘1. l’s itteliipts to hive (( S t’teOglllSC’tl tiiithti’ tilt
(‘atti l)evdlopttttii( MCc’lliiltSlll,\’Ilic’II wtiticliiittirneitibletittintrotleuetionol
Cf S in ilevc lo;in tollIltuIc, Ilso, this t otild uxpItIli shy liii (( S I )iret’tive hr
been
t’rippit’ci by
1tIiIIs1iill
lnti;
litt2lutit( itititcil delays
toil
its restilted
itt
pit/i
OIlS httle f CS lilnoVatItni
So
far.
t
ias lilortover butii
iS, ted diit tit
(CS
I )iret’ttvt ofltt’sii rut c’\tlliplt of hit oii oh uiotrktt htirnionistiitili hem’
1_ttIcloIi by the pursuIt
of
cxc essiVe’ tIeiii.tllclnt
cIIVII’OlhilltiltiI c’oiidttions,
lit4u i’t’itiLitory hurdles irtutibly deter
llVe,tliic
ti
in CCX
tistalhttitnis and,
hente, the Ve’r
otihtattoil (I
au
illttillil itarket fin’ CCX. Relatedly, the iosenrc
of aettial examples of (‘CS regulation itt itUelui erodes th
I )Ireutivc”s t’xcnipla x
101Cc’
26 Set’ ( ‘hapter 13.
‘(6
Kiulovc’sc ct ii,, ‘1’,uiVI!OhtlIlCIii.iI liinti,iiucm intl Micltifi( c’teti Init’i’iuiconib
I )iiiut’utsions (II
(it Liw’. 872.
(tt’iur )&ttIt il
Robin lions anti (-(ins St hlot’uiull.ikl’rs, ‘Too 1.11 lv or
Ccitt [‘(it’ lot (XS
Whit
I’c4ccls to Br
I )ottt
to
( )vc’I’uOnic
in’ V.tlk’y ol t)eatlu I’or
,iu’httn c’aplon’ intl
Stou,no
In l’tn’opt5’ (2(1(3) 37 !u u,’y Il,ctIw 6(8) i2tl(
ti (‘I’)’)
.6 Zen A Mkii’h, Slisiuta 7, tctttl’ctlt’l;I cot1 t(chidt:tit ( )riuc
MII’,’,nit,liC. ‘I ,itltoii (‘dItto’
intl StttI’,ttt
I uibdiey’ III Kart’n I,, Mnttn ii intl Ricrt1o l’iruur,i (t’ds.)
I C’tl;’ctutt’i’LlI aiit
IWO’)’ bitt’
I Wilt’yi3tickwtlI, 2(112), 273.
The Internal Diii ccs/on of climate C/tange Leadership


[he Challenge of Climate Change Leadership
267
I citItisiup hv txiiiiplc stilitis or fills wuli tlic trediltility of [lit’
Us intcnial
liiii:itt’ t li;inii’ eoloiiiiliiiciits
Phis lucius hit the 1t.t Joust pcisuulc
its Meiiihc’r
tates
ill tweiiiyeiilit lnui
tllflt’It’l(t eeoiiouut tilt iiinsi:iutcs, liivuii difler
ut niterests
intl tlifferen
s’icss’s
fill [lit best
ippiotth
to the
c lunate tluuiiic
h:tlItnc
(C)
iclopt liarinotitsed, iiiiiiirious
intl potentially costly iiieasures.
A noniiatr oistrateiçies hive been tlc’vtlopeci (it .icilititc Menibcr St:ite illeiiio
if) the ]t. Js tlnii;ite tltiiice icendi. Inst. to bridcc [lit clifierenees iii
‘ealth
md
ossil fuel tiepenchenty between Menilier States, IiU
lilnite tliaiit imw deploys
effort sliiriii.
In
iii iniiieineut
d.tn Jo the iltciis:thnaistti GlI(
etiussions
tedut tion o;ils lr Annt’ It eoiini vies under the IKyoto Protocol, tbe 20U) hithtrt
I )eeisitiii
(VS ciosvo tuitional emissions lmumits hr tile 20]
202t) pertt1.
,mcimt ironi ,i maxmimmcmnm mmmere:mse of2t) ptreent ftttmii ;m .7005 itiselnie Ow BIlirmt
in a iununmctimi teclciitu)n by 21) per cent
I )emntiri:
md freinitl’
l’1ic l’firi
Shirni
Decision niti
dci
sdmfirentiumon htim
it tliesiiuc’ tiiie ailtiwsa cleree
of
fit \mb lity by
ilhiiwni
Mc nmb
T
St itt
to
it lit
m
c my
no lii ii
cii
hum!
pereeiitipe of their tiuwil eiiii.siomis illoettittil. At the time
of’ wotimi, tin
onnnmssiomi
i.s dralnii ,i jimpo.s.d Oar a tctllnss -up ‘I Ilort Shumni, Rctmlatioii
which svli tilocite eiiussiolis rc’tiiitIicn t,ut ts hctss it u Meniber ‘states Oar
lit
9)2t) to itUU pt riot!.
A second strati c; to bitttst the icc eptihi]ity olunhit ions tiunite c hane tireis
s’is-
sos the Mendttr Stiles consists
of idt’omifyni: sectors at os]. of
t arbttn
ieakm!’e
nit! ultrcclncii]c spent! trtt1mit nients
tm safciiiiicf theni. ( arhon leik;i:c
ocCurs when
dmum1smons recimictioiis ui tine mepioli
caimsc
cu mssicus
t lst’whc’rc to
mdc
sc
cii llistultc
(
( )
ii (Ott tit
m
t n
t ts
ui ioscd on thc
I uitipc m stcti
ector oiikc
I.cmropeni steel costlier toct
t Hoc
coi)s[rnctmi)iI
C timpititc’s tt) sotircc
mheirsipples imiereasiin1v ittu Unnl cottony snp’ilccrs
ibis tniers a rise iii
hum-ti
000im
stct I mttocltic lion
irni
if
( C)
is It s
ti
i
c
miii
it
it1 tIc ci
ibm it in
iii
net c isc
ui
c nnssictns tim it nu hi csc n ontst imp tlic
c n boo loot ii lilt of
I ni opt in
‘tee] itmancilaettmrtis befOre [lie rechitctmon trce[s tOok et}’t. tJmtder the I ,lnissmi)us
cadin
I )mrctt:ve (I’!])). sectors
hit ire theenit i! ‘at
l1uitdi)t ri’]5 of cubit
lt’a()’t
ieccivc’
.1 I1i1Ik t
I)Opotttili
cit
c’iilisSIfiils
tllosxmuees,
wO can uahc
reater use of cirison tf[smrs.
ustirnrisiii’lv
this itoulcuin mottle the terimi
‘stenjfie,uit risk of
c imbon ledcace
a hotly coiitested etuiiumot2ty.
In respoiisc
lie itmct)pc an
t nintilissic n has chravvii up a
t arlicum list. xsIiicil is
c tiretmth
iii
“ l)eci’ittn
No.
tIlt
2ttili
I
ol
the Itupcin
l’,irli.iuient
and
ot
bc
( onin
1
23 April 2iH)) oit mlii
ttttrt it ticuihr Si i’ to
i
lu te mh’ ir 1recnlioiict’ sis tu)msstt)iis to
nicc’t iii
I oiniiicinmtys
tittictis’ t’is tillmssions it tlticiittii
tiiunitnuts i
Jo 2tmo
2(190 1.
t -tt)j t (t.
urit) tin
( titiiiitssit it
t’rt’ss Rtlcmse,
‘( tnnatt Actntu:
I uropt
rtidies
next cits
ttt
niptcuic iii Ott
‘iris Aeretnieni’, 2 Mitch 211 t 6, aviflabfe alt http
/etirnpctemt rtptt [
—rc’Irst
It’
1 ic sit’
eli. loin
f]
Pitlmiitr mci
ttk Utt’t Pttlit, ‘Carbon
I tilcic, thi Crt’t’,t P ir:mt]n
intl Pirtit
Futno t\4irti’
‘ (2911) a((3) hmititOitntttt Iti’imtijuit Rri’toi’ (7—f)tt.
0 76’
/60.
0 Art,
I Oct [IS 20(19 Set, turmlicr below


23
Climate Clmrtgtt
its sctwiiei itcr.itlini
ititi
i11)l1Ls
tn ilit
VIIUS
lii tt
1)31
In
nlpk’,
.111
titinstutal 511 101
IS
c ovcreil it tiit
ittittillill
i t>sts 11111111 he
Iii
iii
hineiltitillu
I tlic
II ) old
it List 5
1.
tIlt tci in ,tit II
0
o’ts,. od
lit
utensil y of imid
with dillil
otnitri”
Is
.1l)t)VI’ itt iti
iclil.
ti
w.litil i
I
111)1111 itikait
51(1(0
tilt ititle ntis
lie EU’s non i
t .ntin Ln.l
ndttst
s
II 1chlthni tn it ni, mUlti
tiitl tillittli ninitllIl tint. titiiiiifit
lilt
i’d ehIllIlti t’t1llIplilcnt
11111,
II the
eli
(It
I
ltI)i1ll( 5
1 VtIV0htiI,
5(0111
)tthitilfitllt.
1
ithoti k tLii stri[ciics
tlptIsne 0)1
1111111
II Il)U1l)Ctitietlll’sS is
1 restlIt
of tliinitt
UhitiltI
ititihitoti
1)111
it
hc
sinic
huh
.
I
111)1 iiflk
itt
10
quu(i
to
1111.151St
tlti
yiiii’i’s
between
linitti
atilon
11111
1 oilipentiveuies
Ii
.1
hIp
lii I et
it ltSSit) I,
11111111
IIIV
IS I 0111
H
lspt)llSt
,i win svin
haIti
let ifi.it j)hlittlS
e
Utlift’
hlilIV
IS .1 tittlySt ti) tiiinItIiiIl
noT
i Lilt1heC’ to
Set tb
EU
Oil
1
ft 110
te,wi.e:
,tlSiiillli)ll
[110th
HilT
il)Il1l
‘rein
It
I IinolniU.tt
I
itii hip.
‘Pt
Pt he .PtPt, tin
olmiisshcltS f,itithii:irk
lotte polIcy papei
wi:ni ,nhtn ci
tith)pcS f
fitii.tc
iiiii
t Hlflclt/i’tlt/)’
Ihi .Ioption of
1
Still
Sill)
illitl’o’Illk,
IOU,
IS
a
sEt iteiy
Ctt’ilillyC1
((I
It Ileilt
idci:iance
ti
liii lU’s
i iiitiit olitnu i1plIh tilt, ItithS,
c OtitSellIciltU its 11111
tIll fu.tsfersliip.
Yct 1Pt1t,it on
liii
1
it suit
i
it l)t tit ott iou
c
111011 ol
.ipe anti
1
pOsit
Vt
dtiO)lnit
o[ the’
elliltItI
10 (tll0llt
tiynnnii
lilly not
1)i’ i’itonth ti
,.ik’nnh tin
lU’s lcadt’rsiitp he
tX1fl11)tc.
III the first post
Kyotes
ieiiod
tiC
t) I
PUt)
tile LU
0[li)iiiilii tsP
tel
a 21)
icr it lit tnltS,lOil:
rtcmcnon and
litdlc.ltecf
Is
s
Ii
‘lit’s’, to thop to .3(1
ier Cclii
I
it; ePOCH; were
ttched b;
iiiiipar.ihie
i’itltSSlOil
it oltiitioit
t oilliitttilIc OtS
111)111 oth’ ohtVtlOflt(f
ii;ttlons
ti iii hy l(letftiiie
hi it I lliiitlOIlS
I
I liii
I
0
thou) Ii d
lilh)lt
itlvi: it U)
oft ‘it 1rpm
nIlielils,
act 0111111’
to
t:heur
iepottsthilitt
s
old
ospICtIve
(lllih)i]itlCS.
I ho
toOtlItloildI Ilihlirt
of this
(1)1 trititil tilt
was
hr
thy a step reiiioved frui’
1 purl ‘Ieole;ilttp by eiimiplt
ethos. ‘tin’ ( oititt
Soil’s 2t)li (Prt.’n ‘‘tper oil
linlttc
no! rio r’y policy
11)1 20.31)
( oii.3nuis that tin
EU’s
lttttat:u eackap
should lie suhon lilly sitthttoiis to
iisi ire Chit it is ‘ott track to meet h)nger tent
t 111111(1
objet
tves’, but ;tnhiiedt:ltie
let:; ChIt it
S’.hlLl!d
reHert
1 ntimber cit
Iliportlilt UlalipeS that have taen
ilatt
siutce 21)00,
ticitttos the
c conomi
rt c essiort
nit! the soy ii tlit tcbt isis
NeSS’ OiUVlfOpOllllfs oo
15t1CO)Ctiti
hill)
f
tllilltiiSSlOhi
a
1001 of.?’) 1)icelliiitl .?t)(t1t lIrttfltliillli. pltlstilnl to
C )irtsnve 200:3/8/
of the liireiiteiit
‘ii lilluleuli
111(1 of the C ouiiiiI, .i fist
1)1 SeliotS
1101 stilisec top which at
doLllicd Iii be
t Spilsud it) a stgnitn lot risk of enbon leikIpo, ( )J 2(110 H 1/10.
1 IlYVilti
‘( ,l)Vttltt iii’ Climate
C :lne’, 817. Set
also dir 203t) Green Piper ‘A 2031
Ii hulitwork for ( iiniite
11101 hiergy Policies’, t
1 )M(20 13)161) fool.
I ollllntlulucitioli [‘rum the ( ouuuiossioil to tbt
Pu opcuu P.iriianieuit, the (Zotilucli, tli’
(it )IiUll felillOllith
hOt Social ( :
Ilillititee’ iiiei ihe C olllliltiel’
if iht’ ;t’1lOfl5, 2t) 20 ti
2ft2tt Ltiropts CliiiltlU chiil1fO mlporilnitty, 23 Ti111t/ 2ttttP.
C
I, I ott(2ttttP)Ptt boil.
lb
PhliiiIii( iii and Cotiiucif I )eeis:nn ttto/2tttt),
.
: on eP
etrerr o
Member Still
to I’ (jolt their
i ic i housr
515 cIllisilOliS II) full rite C tlrilfltlltltt/
S Ztt’IiihiiOtSe gas redue
111)1)
1 Oitltllll;lci)t
11(3
tO
2t1?tt, )i
2(1)0
I
14k’
jo.
See’
also
j!’;cL
I
OflhituIsSI(tc
I Itlllmotullh
111011 on 20 20 by 202tt: Potleipt’s i Ittiali
ciiaiul;e Opj)eitttlfltl
1
t1eoi t>.ip;r. ‘P 2t)%tt
I itliolliP
ciii
tint ,lt
clot Pu cr lolIe Its
1
1 tM) 113)169 lintit
I


I lie ChilIencjn of (iiinutr Change Leadership
269
lobal c’nety llIltLtI’., (elk Cr11. clVer fuel
vet ly md the tifot dthihty of
wrpy
1rh1isiilcss
111(1 tiit
\‘itVlIl! levels of tolllIllltllliilI iitd .1101)1)1011 of iiu)trti,itioii.iI
;Ittll<1s in d<
I-It;
Siibs1t<ii ( oiin(ii Reseltitinhls
(eIltllIi(t
to cndor’cc a ioossive
c hiii:itc iIitiic fioIiCv, hot ilicit tolic too
IS clc’cidtdk
(UtiOlls. lhcy place a SItOilp cnipliiiis Oil tift OVc1tIdlIIp
I
iptrOivc of ((0110100
rowtli, on
tile
ICed to iflotcl Meituleet States flcsuhiluty m ,l<Ili<-viic’ eliin;I(c
IiIl1(
IatiçetS,
:111(1
(iii
tiIc
II Ilpoi1ilkt
pt0teeti)
I’ititclii
itcitistric.
%ailis1 the ttsk of cailion lctktic. Iii a siiinlii cclii,
I lie 21)14 liii gum
Council
csoluitotiouiaLoiiereiit kiiiopcaii Utuioit
imc’mgymttdLliiiitte leIi’’tiiIclcT
ores tlt.tt LU poles’ sliotild ensure ffordihlc c’neriy poe cs
:iiciiislrI.II coiiipcl;
vencss
SeclilYty <if supply
tmiel
iCIlICVCitiCOt of
0111
chlill3l(
aIIiI (IiVitoIiiiIUIlt3l
‘h1ecuves. (llinitc’ intl citviomiittcut;tl colIcc’rils ate ptc’seiit, hot their list plice
Ositioll betrays a Ll(tof)c:Iii (ottittil elispositlolt
1 itt
lppc’mr. mole pIc-o(clIpccl
‘ih ecoiionuc thait ciiiIi;Lc leicietsitip.
ftc siiccesshil tuticItisicili of the Paris
ecreeiiieit
it the end 012(115 (015(11 5011W 1esut%c’iice cit ci(iliiisiisil( for (he LI
I
rang
lip its <IlIlkite clullic :uiloiIs beyond estiblisId 202)) to 2(13)) t;irrcts,
ut litole coil—dc’peitdeitt McItftcI States sticli
IS l’nI.iitu ieee stated tlic it Iiiio
iltelitioti not to o iiIr)liti titan f)1e\ ously ipreed
ItS cniicietc tel
its, tue 1.U (0(111(11
its itidoisud
t 2)1%)) ieiltSVli)lC5 huge) (II
7 per cciii,
iii uiIery cfrcic-ilcy po;ei ciP 3)) pet
ceiil,
nid
iii o’ir<ll
c
utissicot
e cluction taipeI <if 1(1 P<’ Cr11), with 13 per cell) Ic (111< tools fir
cc lots covered by
111550)115 ti,tdni
- Altliti15ii
efIcively
icsS pOli h-taint; iltin ilic 2(12)) tirpets.
ins is still
iii itihitiotis tectlci
/ct the
It on
hitters
clinitte
1 liinçc hctc’ti
:
2
I te o]clc
e
(\4c nihc t
t itt s ttid
t ilnilhlic
i
of the
0)51
))) 4
I U
11(1
11)11
I
Ic
I
iott in
I
ti
I Ok i typic iiiy c \{tIcSS
ISO <in
p1 dc 1(11cc
(UI
lii 1110 ceiiif) 01105111
I lStCtic c 011
dr lOt oc ty
it the
mciii
t on il
ic iii
(<u lilcic
USe 0\(i III iic1 i)ot
ii
et, hi
Ii Ic Vc]
of 0 itintI ii fir
utility
tiC1 0 s<iltitc
P
Usc
ntc 15< OLlcui to
ivtet carbon ied.i”e
these c:irentllsttltees dci
lot tiecessarily spell the cud lot I U
Innite eliaiipe le:tcIeislip, hut thee ccr1 only represent a Cnilstc!cralsie chitIleilit
the c/i I/rut
oh / cudei hi1’ I
c mpIifrr’
lit case of / t’l i/O/i
viatoil contrihiitcs ioproainmiteiy
P<i
Ccl))
IC) plohh (-(
emissions md its
hare is haicuectedt to rite cive
on
lhe sector WiS
101 0tcldlcc(l iii the first silte of
he nitssoits .110010 Systctti (il’S), the EU’s itluiu CO ciItSsioiIs r chuiUoii
lstmilieuit, bitt was ad<1-d iii tie 200<)
IlteliclileltI IC) tie ETI), svllli
t I1e t loin
3(12. ‘the Lit) xc ill bc ana!y51ci in incite detil itt -ther in the cit;ipte’ htit, for tIn:
ti-poses c tlits ciisen.seul, tht- icy huts are titi’ %dloxs
isp.’ tom
1)11
onwIici,
-ny fliplit 1inims’ in or deartitp ironi tile
orciieaii Utticeit
was tc’ct(l;tedl to
;tltcgc.iIl
:eencul Loiichisioies 2)1,2) Much
2(111
hUCC) 7/I
II I&CV
I CO
1-) 1k 2
CONCI I,?
Ste t-uropc
ii lie Iiuiue’iei
tcsoltitit,e
i 2.3 tune 201 Ic On Cur reiuwahlc encr(p pntgrc-
repoti (2)1)11)20;) IN)
1
IC Ko.c ‘RIbs
Ne
it
I
‘lot i-U I
(tell
cc Anu)neii fin 2(i.’elC.


270
Climate Change
stihiiiii eiiiissitiiis ,iIloWillteSi(
tile rite tif
0111
.lilu\t,illI
c’
I
1011111
ut ()
tiiitotl tI11iIlii’ (lit
uiiiiiuy. iiçiilit.iii(iv, ,iiluv\,inCtS WCII leelell
ui the entire
IIIitiit,(i(((ttllIVI0t iliCCiIii’ lOHstlt.i(Ii.ippt’tillliii tiiigic’iiiiiisp.ue Iiitiiestiri
lij)
V1.1FS, up to i—iS
ii
teili ol illiiviiues
510(1111 hc’ liiiiileil to
1111011’S ItCC
1)1
liii
‘t’,
lilt
1)5 (‘I
(H
it
ill
liii I1’,isliii
(ei(eii(U’C
55(1111(1
I11’(’11
1(1
[it’ j)[ii(IiiSe(I
iilii us
lilt1 In’
lIt Cl
it
ill
ii Jiiii’ Iti
I
it
Lii
11111
iii
(
ui
ii iissiui i, thet
SeCT e
.iitcit Iv
‘ohji-t
(0
liii
ul lOt
5
[151 iii to iiis
it
Cli iV.ilci it
iii [lIlt
tI
lie I,
)
tiei1,
ol tIn
II il0iiii,iiluii,ii .5 l,ilitiii
,iilSetl
.1
Ii)I).il titiltiy
Ni iii
‘
I
Hill
I its Vol diV
iii,it ‘.1 ti1 .!I.i( I lit 551 III
tilt \
S,I\V ,iS.I liii VI
itl\V,ii (I
IIC,I\’5
il.iiilh(I llIli[.(tC.(Il’iH il lit Iiiili[tl.iii iliiiciii. Ii W,lS.li’tic(l iIi,0 .iVhitl()H
Ii
II
Hi
It
& Is lit
H Ii
11111
I
tli&
11th
1011)1 itt
I
11151
ii
55
iS
I
It I
I
It till
I
liii
it 1(550)1(5 ll lilt (
Ii
II (‘(SIll
S Hi lilt
Set till shi )HI&l he icltipteti ritci
Hit Hill ilk
It ill lu citti
ii
is Hill Ii (lit
104)11 t
oi
lit lot
HIll 00
1 (
is ii Avi ttioH
)i
tiil/ ((Hill (t At ))
I
1i
I U
S
H (liii
Ii It
Ii
1)11
H ill p
ci
1 At )
pit to
Ills
Ill
I)
ni
((ito
Illtlli
IC
I tint
lu
j( / 11n11 ntl
ti
It
ioilt
u
10
i
II till
i
II
it it
it
hi tilt
ill
I iii
iii
I iiiii Iii
It
I il
(1111114i11
It S
I
cntjtlil to
tolitili unIhinlls
out
iott
wilt
i
tot
i ito
lii nnh O
tilIsSitIlls tiiiiii Iitdi
t clotriilittw’ ‘(‘((itO,.
I Iii- .1501100
11,1(111
55.15 ltilIlt
oh
11(111 chpIii.inC
hid Ieii loin.
he t\il
I l.HlSpI)iI Asstit,iiioii ot Ante it, thaifen’etI the pI.iitieil
HtTtiCilieul,itlt)ll utile
It1) .ienititni
(‘011015 helcirt the Lrtislt
t(IIIIt, ,iltiIil
liii smut
lie E’Tl’
ititVisloii’
I tilt iii
‘, ((1 ,l\’sit’tiii 55 CO
Ii liI.i\\ liii, Si) Sell C ito’
0(1)1 0i1iilH 1II1)iCiflCilt
lii
tIie.isiire-.. A iCriIillilH.irs; ret Flilti Iti iii
I ilrope.lIl
1 owl III }osllte ollowed.
It ,iiliIitsecl tltc
t,iItt
ol the
!‘i )
Ivi,ltitiil
)tct’ l.itui’
iii
Gt,lltc]
liatohe
T&’SIlItiiH’ (ii tint’ ttt iitt
Hitt,t
‘iitldi1Sltt’1I t )‘U mlii
1)1 tile p.1st tli’i.IiiCS.
Case
:6l ‘0 Air Transport Association ofAmerica and Others v. Secretaiy
of ¶.ate for &ner]y and i/ru 1
Chinqe
Cuse C-3ttfl/lO
firmed toe t’cJ.lte of the C IL) ‘uitt
uvI low
In csi Ii
its dot sior, he C Id
CI C hurnbo
‘1
1
the compatihl Of C a
via)
pros
on
with the Chcacjo Coe’en ion on IOu’
1’ cmtl Civil Avu on
the
Kyolc Prc.)IoioI; ht Open Skes Aort’ iwiit; uric’ vunot.is ncims ot ‘ole wilt
I comu
iw
Tot
Cliv qo Curvorit O, 0/hiC flioStly i’ctuLies dC(C
to
dli 1fdtl
to
ippot
tic qiotI 1dt( 1
Of dVldIitfl
wus
ltd rot to hino the
non because is cqnutor (‘ to the iVlitsht Sttitf inslcsd iii the
EU itself unit ton lhuiflht t SluRs’ poew In the context of the Convetutc
had
not been trartsterred in their entirety to the EU. The Kyoio Protocol wu eli
lIi
quickly dispi nsc d wlh
ulihough
irwnuivocahIy huiding on the
EU
its
° lonne Siolt
lIltt Ilvinyd
i&.ijnttiiii, ‘EU
C lirii;ik
( h.int’e
idilI,Heicllsin’ (.10)2)
I liiStj)i’iu J)t)iiiil vi It. ttiHll.IliltiI 1_nv 40) 4t)t
1)
1St’ t
— 3(it. itt .ltr ‘I )aelptni
ls’rii
ilittI: v/
11i0HC,) iiid ( itO I
V. ,Stt liii)
t/ SSi(t’ lot lint t
nil I
/111101
./itl)1’’i
2111111
C It 1—1 37i5.


I Iii Cha
I ci ige of Cl imdte CI
I ige tc,i dci S
1
271
iii
lii Iiiiiil
ill!
\si’l
[iclil
It)
1)1’
iiiii!Iiiii’iit!1
[iliil—’
iiuil
hIlt (111)111k ii Id! 10 1)-il
ii.’l
lii
In’
ii t
-t
ililIlil
ii
ii
K’ ill
ii in C. 2bb/i0 il,
ii
Ic, We (Iii
tti4’s/\lIii’i’irii’lP(dnIlItllt’piIli(i1!Icui(iI i(iiliiiyllliiliflutlolllIldV’ IIit’liiiicii
‘ci 111,111 Vt Iih!’irdKr((illIi lit
iti iti’Iti’t’ii
Ii” El ,iil [IA
II
I-
c’llijils dti( rift
11101 Ii’iiii
1,10’s llittii”, lie
stilt1
I liditi’
1 ((tIlt
llIi,ilI(’iiill ili5it c’iiii,
I tiu dll(iVt’,ilii to ilid iiid
tirititut
a liii
cilteiliiçllil
td lilt were. their
tote,
1(11
iiiqlit lt (lii’
hf’t Iris ilidil! iih
it.
his is, trqicihlv, a
1,11mw it-ti liii
ii
lit’ iiithiiliitittii all the
111110
,t’ dliii liiiuiit Int’l
(iii (lifl[itil)li ciHi
tIlt
P
it
t 0)/ I it liii
iii
iii iiLtl ii tij II 0 (lId! -ihltiw
11
1 d
H’ thi 510j1 It’ll
11
ui
ii itt
iii
hl’It’IlhtiIiIt( dllildtIOfl
lOt
1jijtu,’
Up
lie
I
Sill itt liIoin5iiy nOt riilitiri ii
law, lhieClFCJimtognrsit thediptlt1tilIjtyclt hileplIll(i)IOSit(,ltt’,l(l
it inpitte ditch
xcjct’
j
i
Oflipt’hi’iao Ovet
It’, own iuiaci, thd no
intl
ttji’ct iiy pail
cit Wi
Hicjh OeM to
IS St Vl’t’i9ncy;
(Ilti die
-1 elLiott of
Ii ‘‘doll ovei the
I ugh
t)1(t,
I-It
t ‘c/f
I
givt’rl the
I geiiI
‘I lidlille,
ji diii!
ow \Vd’ limited to a
error
i-i
tin
I IC)
ivi,ittotl
VI- Intl
5dy cIt
nd thi’ luiiclli’
Ii’’ i
I
io
j’
iii ted th.it dii’ i0VISl0fl
It it Jilt i,ilt must OihhOi bi id oi (ii detail
10111
ill
iii
it ii the Eu to bc cnughi
bV hi’ [CD, w[lewcl’ ph]IICS
lossIng OvOl it IC
Jhi EU cit JCi’ ,it(l U tilleet”’
COri,titUtiCct
1
i fhcu’i
I ciitflcC)i)Ii to the W 1l’iIlfilI)/ 10 Jipi
I
0iiCVlfl’, of
Ii ,itnl clInt itity rtfld WIll li(gelflt’flt of Ii umd
i iItttIIl V
MV! 10191 ll/.
I tie Li’i),ivi,iiiitil
11(15 Sbus 11111111011 Iii! i lithietnu jsiivcd
ieit tle,isnie ti’cive
‘ .
lu
sclioliirriop
( oiiiiiic-in lIe!’, hive ptticci nOt m es cry ,iri)cai, 0 stiItin iii hod
,i
-Si
I re;iillS of
i Inihumsftils oil issties
i ,iiiin
coin tIlt rules
primbey between i’t
I
nd nlierIIaIuillll Ito’, lIlt’ iiii.It I tii
mile it
ihiij tiii nilerpretiflulls ut 50001-
ii.
‘-Ignty,
lit
IllieeIi
lull heis tell nitiiiii,iterah ;nid unil,itt’r,il ,dVllO,i0iOS to ejllii;iie
1(11011 nit die idt’tl(l its oUIiIleeiiii;ititiii titicler tile Lii), to thc t’uillll itituIit ot
lie E’i’i) ssltli World ‘I rich’ ( lri,lil.y,tlnnI (WI ( )) lao
11 Yet iii terlils Of seLtilli!t
tic
dispute
iii ilk tel i
i
i
intl
111111 III
c inn ill iu’,,
( ‘ace
(‘- tt(i/ Ii ss
s Iii
Ic s’
S Wetiot’.
I ititi,tily huoyt ci by
Its vu toy, lilt
- 111(911 Ii) ( t lill]1S’,iOil 51W tIle L(
itiIill!
IS
Ill 199111 tc.nItv lii pi’c-ss its .itIv,llitaie (ill
Iii
lilt’ ii,itifili ii stjie intl i sill 101
‘(nOn tniclc’i tilt’ It Ji( 1, ‘t ,ichheti tli,it ,niy ulJstnn
tilt iib,il,tiil,lb ,I9ec’ilelii slititdth
‘‘C) h_-yniitl
tiit’
t’iiiissioiis
i’c’thtietioiis
rustiIill1l
(1(1111
tilt’ 1lS
1(11— thit’
,iVl,ltlClii
‘I OVISlOilS Ill hit’
I I ) to he sitspc’liclc ti
Nt’ei 111,1111 hiS thcl
111th
ci
I c’stUlW tiliult’l
1110 JLA(
hut
si I
tilci
lilt’
1,111 iih,il’lllll(
.1
1111cm the Il’s.
SOllit’
iVt 11111 tills,
‘lJ Artwlis lift) intl 2(c) Air
I l.liispuri it It’h
SkIes) AOrc’ili-lil, (iJ 2(111
C 13-i’1
St t op. Soul
mci I1.lJ,illl.htil. ‘(1110,111
1
I),Iil’’e t 1lllI,li(-l,lilsIIi
An
I IC-Ilopt-Il, ‘Soc crc 1(11(15
as I )ec 15101111 llhdupt-lldc’lhc 0 ((VII
I )tmlt’stlt
1,11,1)1
C lit- I); ,,ni,’ over Ac 1,111011 III tilt EU
Emlsslolls
I
i id’lll’ SVsl’ In
(Jti 12)
1(2)
Ii,hllsll,l!I,’ui,l/ I ill’llitllllii 111,11 Inn
251
lilt
5,1111,1
iitptijt’c It
-
i t’!llhISlIll iiiVIilulIllit’Ill.II
I c’htlt’lStlIp
I
121
I
Il’li)hiriI if I’hli’l,lfllliI,’i,l,lI 1,111’
110
Itt,, CecIl
1)1
that-i’- ,nci
C tdrlu
13,s’ie’,i, II
‘ lilt’
I
i
I
Ilhi(’’IIlcaul
Ill All
I I,iI).iIt
As-itt 1,1101) 1)1 ,‘\llIt ill
I
ilId tIlt
llltl’rn,Ht,)(l.li I (‘‘It ( Ollt’’\l
1)1 the
I
‘s ( 9nli,Itt
(11,10)10
Poiiu’’ 2n 13) 3 I iI)1’(’Illi 1
‘it (‘‘II
- if/llhit kt’)’li’)i’ iSP
Ill.


272
C!iinatt’ Change
lit Iiitinii
In
US WhiR’
I h tist
md the
( hniese tveiyniient,
nitintietl
I heir
lhiuttiial
:niinies lilt to suirendet
ilkiwanies,
mci cvt ii prepnecl Ie,tsl.itiini to
ttntliw participation in the EU P15. ihey Ippioniteci tVleinber States nidividietily
nitl cnihisiseci the pcitciitiilly d,iint’mt
i h
1:1’s t
tiadiiip
itlitiotis between the countnts \Vithin less thin ttitt veil ttltlie ( )*Jtlidgnteitt,
i.ickshi.itLippeaitdnitIit’ Pits litici tile
st.ltitt
nit!, ,iiter rtiltitinre
iobl)yitiby
lie i )K.,
id lin-e, in Cite 2(1 2 the Eniopeni
K ollliiliSliOii [0105Cc! tO
skip the
lcitk on tin’ tnipIeilleiittttoii ol tile PH)
tVtitioli it)VlSIONS Vlsxn-ViS
Intej iiliitt
ii ilit)lllS, i itdii’, tie
ittilltttIlS lot
iii lilt
icititotiti
i ieiinetit cinder the
RAO. Vbt tutu tliiet yta laiei,
iii IGA( ) poiooti d
his tided etnen,ed.
It IS, iiovc’vt’i,
,t
Xlii
Sli,1(It)W tiUlit’ Ills initial itipnlttloll that
niy niteriladclnal
iteentelit stioold eXt etti tile El’!)
lViItitiit [hitS shuts in nitbiton.
lie proposed
irbtni
K )lhettiti:çSelienie
ui lnteni,itioital Avi;itioi (K ()5A) ssihl resuire ,nrinies
0) nllset (i),
t tinsstitil
litnn 2(1
ii)WtVei,
)ttiniini,liy
i Clint iii
IllS been
used
I c
UcItlC tht
St 111 tl(ilc V ottiit
tiOpttSt(l itenlit, Wh tb (tOutt b1 hnnnered
by
iii overly
tiFiiOSiVt
nittiptt’LiIltiil ol seliut ;nutonii[s
iii
oIISitlcti,
lot the
upws 0! eiunssinns tetitxtioi, mo a generous ipproith to c’;:ciill)tcon provided.
M)l-enveu, !ttet)ibt’iXntp ot l ( )Xl1\ nay iiake It tuittt’nlt or ecitilittles to
epare
Stir on lottie utnOitictis reuioiiH
lle,lsuies to Luekie tnhfSSiollS.
lilt’ P15 ,iVl,ttioit Sli nib r.
iseinating tusights nitt) the powei- mid hittirs ol
Inhale chntgc tiw. OIl the one hind, the CU’s d1t isbn to regulate aviation
nuissn)iu.s tnt
tutd
i tonI
1)! t’VelltS that
txnidlee tlit thtruii,ntt ICA() utegotit
tIOli strntRtR auiil ‘s’ilI piolsibly iestilt in an ntternational a’Oa’t nictil till
iViitlOti
eiiitsstoils. its tc)I]tent ittiy
ill slioit cii the Ill’s ispititiolls, litit it
t i)ttIFi constituti
a illc)te scistilnabic basis
or tirthter (eVeloplflelit thiil were the EU’s cunilatri;ii
ittlOiis. hit’ eXperuent
(
ILl) stows that luw uieeds illOie tilill ;tttiiei;lt ioprob
0011; it
ieetis to be rcctnised as l;iw[iil and lIgitililIle in the broader citiiuntlumti
RI SUrVIVe. lht GJbU rcuiitug did little to ehanee tIle heits and incuds of third
tInnitry
gOVetiilhlLiItS,
intl
WaS 1tit,ittttt ly nttstiecessiii
Ill
iltSIiIItli)g the El)
,iviatmli sehtlne Icoitt
tirtlieu ttck. Hoaiiy, tile teveit)pn)ents ol
rc Lent yet
u
vvutily tlIcIsi:r.te the tulilpiex dyn;niiics between ni[ernitntii;ii alici
iltema. cli
mite leadershIp
the PU’s decIsion ‘stop the elntI
on the tnternitioiid apple
Unit i5 the hiS roles appeased Its tliteniitn)llai tuading uXurtliers, htit exposed it ti
the
r;th of EU budget airlines which went’ still caught by the LI’S rules
hid
iOttfltl themselves
it a cc nt’aektVe dsCIVlIIt ige vts-i-vms thtrd eonlitly airhni
iii its ehunute ehange’1oliey, the EU bust
ii
Vi ate betwt’eii the p;thills it
nnc]iter;ihislll oii the (Nit’ hand, alid leiding by excIlipid on the other.
See It M I 1)ralt A’sciiuhiy
&c
cdtit 011 k’Xt 1)11 a GE ,it,tl Market -based Mt’ton e (GM (5
St hi’nic,
us itt
I Mirth 2t)ltj, ivulablc
it
wwwttcntill/MeI’lilllK/(tA1 ls—2016/f)it,
nih’llts/I )r itt5t2(tAsscnblytS201&esolutionict20lcxi’St2uicn°t2t)C%ViHfVitit,2OtortSt2t)20t It
tIC 1/\i Rpdt
IC.
Siuitctti Itituehi
‘lnicutlitttnti Vt-b
I ttnld
I )tri! Usc’ itt It_i 115 ftur A’ ennui’, EN!
1 tt!t’ftt
,
(Ft
.‘ t,t
lt 1(1


The Scope of the Climate Change Challenge
273
The Scope of the Chmate Chalige Chaenge
(liiit,tte cliiiit’t- is he
hilt] ciii lullioit causes. (
erLilli et Olioiflit sectors (silt Ii as
eleeritity teiitratiun, lle.ivy iiitiitsin,tl 1
lilt (loll, traiisptni) are t’\tt’plcoii.ilTi
heavy toiitiihuif ors, hut e,trlniii dt’pciidc icy cliaractc’i;ses every opt t
I of our dail
work, ofiioss
v.’e spetitl nm
come tiiiie anti oi;iitise our ]hiiiily life. Pievitici
t,l It,
tittisittits al-c otticli more titan a teclliit)lcHitii tlt,IlltilIe, they
lIt’ ito
toiiscc1lleiitt’ i1 in eilcllt’ss \S’t’h of niterettonc etc’d ecoiionnc nid tulttn,.i choices
Any sii’itiiihIt rcNill.itOty ieN)ttnst to thU iisks of clitoite tlitltpe must therekre
Tice lii) to 1)0111 (lie uopreteclentecl scale ,incl tile nearly hocnicilcss NcifW 1)1 tIn
thailti iit,
‘the
sc eot:ollai stilt’ not o tipe i\]ititii
A niimtit’r itt pioniiiieiit f
itches of clu
LUs puverlinlee repitite liar elnitite chanc’.
i
t:tntitcntlly, the Lolunlissloli
added the post of Eiiiope:in
C tcnnltisslooer hir ( liniate t\etioit to the roster iii
20W, ,tiicl sirtiiohcnc’d tilt (oniicicssioii’s tthitinisir,itive hr:tiicii sVit.t tht’
dcii
Loll oft
I )ticc(oi,i(e (ential htr (1 niatu Actitot (‘1 )(
(1 Os/iA’). flu y take tile
eat] in
I lit’ dc’s c’lopnietit of cinitati
e!ianf;e uroposai.s. Howeve’, oivcn the d:l1isc’
impacts of eltittate
eiitii;’,e,
their work
ettiires ex(eitxive nivolveinent with
brttitl ralt]e of otlit t
C citttiici’cstooers and
irecttc AttN. iiclctdiii2 those respiul
uTile Ito ctivlroiioietlt, Unerc’y,
iiterhlai market, irailpori ,teaeulturc. ftsltetyc.s
Intl
colt.
I it
e(oIi,ttc’ clitti itianci:ite thins it piest itt
iht’ (Ot1i!illSSlOhl’S :rc tIe’ I
test of :olc’t
tic ptrttitentil eoopcratioit tO orcilc ctr:tlccol.
‘Ilit’ nntltl i,ois,tl it;itmiic’ of chni,itc cltance is aisci icOetteci in ilie et:thuislinent
ofL*J cinoate cli;nie Ii r’c’
, intl tIn rni’c oi lu
ii nistrtitttots
llie I:Us ch;iniie
c iii
c
Ii lii
ui 0t]
)OiNllc
olili
ition (ill (liii
I out
If) rt
1
till it thOl liii
i
In ( ( )
ciiii
oiis
i sliih tccss’ncls )7
ccitt of flit
I
]
t iiti
11cc (is Tic n
mc t Ii too it
ic s iNc cat
y sciui cc
intl
i
0) p
Ct lit ctii nit
I iii 01 iii t itt
eieleiiey.
the hiodnif
ilstrctihie Its to steute thesi’ togets nc;tlct: the (Itnitti
and ]ni’ry Pac k,i’e Wit very nanit cikwlnchi ailmcles to the enifiposite natclie of
unto
it it ti)
tilt
I ut
I
I flit IC liC
I tO
lilt
1 host of
sciclition ii
105)1 nnic ills
covenno
i toitiitornlt’
tliti ittiotiin of GHC ciussitiiis
tr;:llSDort
cod
ftiels
]uoiso,iiccl
culsc-S
ilol li’c’sts
nitl
iiliiirc.
‘lie main
c oilipoitell:s of O
I
eluniate ell:ni’c it’! iasl;tticiii arc’:
-
his Uim:tu and Energy Package
The EU Et/sso’cs Trad,nq .vsrt?rn (FT51
ti ecdve
.000/3//t(._
c
utTiuisho
U
a
cherne or cit’nnhouse gas
50)1500:)
tltowrc
tteditig withu
the Comntuim[y 0] 2002 L 275/32 CEiD]
Dttet:ttve 2004/101/ti ccIabfehtnq a
chieme 101 t
a hC)uo gas nnttsstoi
tllowancc trading wtthi
t ha Common. y,
tt luspeCi Of Ihe Kyotti P 0-oCul’s
irojEci mechanisms 0]
ADULt t 130/18 çLnl tog Dttec Civii
lnropc’iit (cuincit Concltoittto ?t)2t March 2ttl4, [1.0(1 7/1/74 RtV
I di) FUR 2
(1 )N(
I I?.


274
CHmiie Chaiig’
if et,m 2008/101/H
ariiiiicliiin
I etivi’ 2001/$7/[(
so as to
iii liii I
ma Uon ai Ovi I es C)] 2i]t]9 C 8/3
DireCtive 2009/2O/FC amending jr (I iv 200 1/87/EC so es lu iii4HO\/c
III
extend [he
I r idin
schen
0] 2009 [
1 iO/b
7âo Shrjo
Decision aIt6i2O(8/t C on Uw ci Iol of iVcnibei Iat e. to mdcii e their gi ceo
hocscçj:,
:r ission ; to neet tIm Cocrnunitj sqi
iiliousu gas emIssions 0 do
1100 COc’mlii
let e up to 2020 0) 2009 C 140/136 (C hurt Sharing Derision)
Rcnr ‘ifik Eaerqy
Dii cc üve 1009/?;]EC on the pron iotinn of the use of
letqy [tom Cl newabi
snaices O.i ?009 L 1 10/ 6 (Renewable Energy Diieclive ni RED)
Caaoea Gipur. and 50r iuc (ccs,)
Diici[iv
p0(19/lU/It
on
tic 31olncjlt
I oricj
ot
t irhon clioxirk’ Ut 70(t’
I 4i )/i 14 (C C S )iec dv)
Energy Efficiency
Directive 1012/27/EU on energy ethciency 0] 2012 t 315/1
r
Ghg Montorinq and Rear C
ilcqcliiton (EU)
H)Cj )Q
3 on a
ri ebetism [or rnoniloiino and irportii
grnc 0) flUSC gi IlflSsi0n5 and or trpotirig othi
ii lormanori at tiitiotuil ui
Union level relevant to climate change 0] 2013 t 165/13
Transport and Fuek
Dim
t
1 9qC19./EC relating to the
iv ihtiICv of
i orisumer rifornitici
on
helm 1)11
1
V arid CO cmissio
i
in respect of it1 a Caing of new pa;;imi
cir Ut ifl1 [12/16
[i
Jit
lOOP 0/EC amenclinq Directive 98/70/IC as regard. the Per ii
tion of pee )l, diesel and gas-oil and intrr clLicnC a mechanism to monitor and
ricuce et
i
house ge; emissions OJ 2009 L 140/88
.5J.fECa Gases
Reouletic
if
) No
8’] 1/2006 on (gertain fltiorinaied gi ennhouse gast
01
0O6 C 161/1
Forests aud Agniulture
Derision Ni ‘CC,ft 3/EU on act:ouiipflq iijir on cicruin use gas emosions
and
ii
a teal
esultino tiuni aitivities oIaIuq to and
ise land use haij


It eiwwihi
E nt’igy
275
dflCJ ltiiti l(5lOhiIiLt(iIiiitI(iICOilC(iiLIIi(IICtIOIi5I(IriIitiCl tOilo’;EiiliIiv
ij 71 3
1 6518()
AS niciitiniiecl
.1111(1,
1
Liii tliS lission ot
U iiiiiiite
liiiii
iSV Wltlilii
lie
tntiiits iti
ins one
ll.ipiei his itet nine a Fitiii il tinj
ssciiiiit. Ilits
itiihii
Oil f)(iIStS on thc. l&elltW.titlt Ineigy
I )irtt livt. which
is t\iiiiiiletl in
reJter
ttail in tl)e next section,
iTtI the L IS.
I lie niiin
tiirpt ‘sc
itt
ic nut ineil it
oxes ibttve is to oiler a st;ntun
point mi lnrthci nitltIIlV and to convey a cncr;iI
OSC 1)1
lie eflitiniItV of
lii cliuixitc rliaiiue iiçcliclci br Icisv nid ftitilitittU.
jmate (iia(}g? as a W&[iLeveF Governrit:e [Jiiaerte
[he Exampe of Reiewab}e Energy
.iiccesslcii tiutiltit
t Iicnc’t
ihcitcntrttt ptthcies lccptltr Itiitci.ttnciitiI Sc iii
hiii;u
mriiictiuis hiiisiiitss
is cistiti suit1 toO st,ihthisc
çltth.ii (
I
sliliSSlonS, hUt ‘viii
isreatl propti
cot letS’ io\5nclS
Chictiiiatic
ttIltptritilrc
hikes oh I
to 0 clerecs
elsicis hy 2P)0, Iti beyond the titaxiunhitu 2 tictçrces’ rise
irtulcl by the l’,iris
‘Screenirnt1
I (cute the uutissicttt 0) itt chni.ite tli,tui’te huH
itloti laW is lot (osi
o ljlcVctut tlticriolttltii hut
Lit
lctsteu
lilgc-Si.ulc
C oulVciSlohi in hose cnn’
is
oureccl
nittm tIepioYCd iii btisnitss nil
ui the (h)fltc stit lc’Vc I
uc loss the U (Iiun,itc
laflue itt ion
clhullius
oVutilnielits to icilinik IutfluitisilicSS IS uloite nid c\’cn li/it!!
LiSihiuSs is done. Suiitcsst ii itilphcnicnuutitm \ iii hIVe a nuep
opuct oh
a \\ ide
no tiC uloniestic
pt)iit t(, (toni ttiIitsttiuh ptittV
iTO
i!hiOi!I!
to tohirisni, ti,iclc
id even chebeiitc
hiulcech, die totentcll httipi
t ol LU chiiiu.tte chnuic liw is tiuto h
tunic
ictite
nit1
iiituiisivc’ th,utt
it
iS
ni
ni’
othiur nea ttl
ti
thhviuoili]Iuntii
oVciiiuttte. tlui’otpiisioclv. the ticptti of diet uuittcchunechuciiieni’eiuuic’iitcut
onteins about die
‘dclii lit whit ii LU
.1W cittules lit ittiihl so\ ci
i’ntV nil hinti
overitilients
iflhiit
to
rcpiesehlt
utiti
inlet I (lii
rOiltiti itS
catch
ci ononnu
iterc Sts. [I_I chniiute chiil]cte kiss’ lutist tlutrttoic
t:i-letinu a thihtcnlt h)uluilc till
ct of henutt uroictivu
nit1 iesohiitt shift
it tb
satuic thiuue tlcihfc nil tespetUcil
if national thbltcencu.
u’:enewable Eneigy Policy in ile EU: Iecondiinç /Furopein t.nthition
411th tIation,I Eiffeientiation throctgh i’IuEi-Levd ot’em’nce
iU lass’ nit1 ttlit v ft
i:chtiic
ti itwuile ehueruV sonic u’s
hptlv ihlcisir utu
liLt depth
tb tile
c lnn,itc cliunc
hthit Illt
intl tift political anti leiuI tensions iii Its
55 itt
he EU ht.s conuniltteci to tnu;ut,lse thu
hire u)i teneWihit
ciltigy (. I) in tilt
iicri7V nnx to 2)) pci cent h 202)). anti 27 pci cent isv 1tiIH In
utunpcire
lie ovu till RE lucite iii tilt EU27 was H.7 pci tent iii .)t(l
“ Ac
turding ici tllc
t-Ieyviert. ‘f ttvtruttnt ( luuuuiit
i Ii.tuuue H 17.
ivltujtJu Bunt, Nit tiLue St uriti. Fuhi
I\loittrn
I
‘ ritno nid Jcuuu-Fiuittois
I )illttt;nttt
tLeiutss ihit Eners
(‘ut
ss nu t U t’, i tii
-
U2)t’
(ttlit/ it ctinIt Cuutirr Sntnt:/i
tuut! Pt’it y


27S
Climate Change
most
C
0111
10401e’S,
it
cOne mitly
slantis
it
tpproxiiti.itely
)
per
e’Ttt.
lie
(‘OOtilitiflOiit evidently represents
.1 size.ible shift
iii eiieliW P’°°
ht
shi.ii’c’ of
IZ I
has •ihiiit>st th)iihlelh
iii the
f).mst lilt yeais, and
it
tieR to e’xptfltt
Ijirlftem’ iii the tte\I tet] yeats to ec’l1 tilt’ iU on
.iet
Etc its 2(127 Int’l. It also
‘efmiit’i s
a
stiinht,timt dt14t’ee
of cic’hhe’ratr
imit’tvetiitott
itt the oiam’ket;
oittier
ttosnic”;s
a’
isii,tt
15,111 0)t:tHls, tOe’ sh.ii otl&t
in
9055 111111 e’tn’ny ettnttmoii
woilt! hiavi’ Ileen
‘enfiteel It) rise to
2.7 pit’ tent by 2((2(),5t
lien’ is sonic e.ttise’
(IF optfotisin rezardiog tile
HelslSc’ctS of 1&i iii itirope
lIe’ 1.1
1 is ninetahly (lit ttt I. to meet
Is 21)2(3 tar2
I
Mon over, the’ exp.nttiiiip
I,tttltit Ito
anti list’ of :&1’, ttiiy serve
more’ thait Meither State’s’ t’tivirtttititc’ittIl
Ittitten. ‘nicetitc’
)t)(ts,[ittaicttttttnt has ht’rtt
iii ;uw’teiiiytho toiefdition
(I) tt’tlllt itt (1 it
etuttsstotls, RE e itt ft.ilmic’ss etierw see ttrtty kid tO Jell) tt’c’,ltit)li
ft
,,
tttios’ttoti ttthtittt)95’s
lOti
ItliI)ttii’e cc 01)01010 conipetItvetlcss
these
arc’
hi hi
itt
ti tot
e
Ito
h1
ct titt
t to the
lb ii o
tin
is inn kt
lttt lit ci b
lilt ii
I tb)
itt poi tic
I
1 of tic
ii
tic liili
i
it
ii
j Ott S
iii
1 We UI
ii
II
It
flit)
ii sit
ii] tile
)ttht
stilt
ItS in ti
Mite Ii
tsl
1i sc pill tile tile ut)
t lien
in tt
tote tottst
ii
51
c ii if tt
t
t itt
I ttttick
Ii
lii
ste nt
tile t
Li Is ot thc
It Ii iii
tOOt lilt
I
t
I
I h
t
it
I,
1
ttt
t
Ic
It
tI
itt
1
I
t
Vt
t
e
C itt
i s it 0
the
I
i).tc’Lthiehiilp
hIlt ree’esslç)tt
lilt, ittIw
the
lily .iiitl stIll vtt’
1110,) ittttc’itaiIt
thallenres renreselitihi by [lie UK’s titteticled dc’ptrtttre II’t)tll th’ fU, have ntadt
e’iitployitn’iit .100 e ttmtlp<’tilmeeless tile’ lmte’omilrtsVtt I ble’
titOtitte ‘t WitilnI and aniuti’,
EU
,t.tte S.
“it
IhiLi I tell.)
lit
c’ilt’n:lEttti heiire’s
lilt1 ih
an,trtilt sytierEy
Ft’tv’tt 111’,, eIlert7y Sec cirity 0th) Cc e)Iielnltc’
t’tt\ttl
101151 3 loIre e’o;i’tie.eiehty.
hletEv pttitt’y in the ETJ ‘eei(ltre’s tile cue
i1 tllellesti.it0tI e)f lU 01(1 ttOtloitti rote’
intl
ii .ptostbdmtics to he able’ to ,leiljt.’vc
its ti’tpit
tt1it’e(ive 0!
1 ltttl;ttc chany
lltitII’ittttti,
e’licty
‘;t’eett’tiV atiti
e’eotiottiic’
t ompetittVt heSS, It
iS
.111
e’opresslv
‘3
example
Of
iliulteheVel
9lvetmattt;c’
ill aettem, alit)
,i!tist’,ites hoth
[ii e’ti’e flgth
ittel cilalletles th.tm c’ottlpLe
regimes lace,
Ao inlportailt eoilsicterilt0.1 here,
is tiilt
[hit ish br litilOvatitIn
iii enet,’
stllmreimlg ;lappc ns 10 0 market that was bi’trnierfy
i State
ticitonoiy and that sttlI
Rrpettts, Report EUR 2040 I (EN), 2(11 3, 7 ,.tv’.t ttl Ii’
ti 0 tp:
ut itt it
t’tti t)p.t.c’ti/remcshi
sit, i/t’c’tite’,t!flte/ii
3’tttCteSS
in en 27 20(ta 2tLt) otiiittt
hottptlt,
Lot Obsrv’
11,
‘110
Shut’ ttJ lt’tit’ttnib1t’ litteru’.i
itt
Etttvjtt’ (21)15
hIlt Ittli), as tibEt
ti
wws.’. ito obstrv’-tt nt’cI/ I 511) —,t rtn nal—nvul’vmcw—b,lroillc’tcr,
St
RliOi’ll’
I
It nt
t ititithItS ‘VI,tt7(ts,
,e’oiuRt l:trctcto,, Ntkotaos Itsios, Cur Kiassen
ttt,i
Toni Van frrt,ttid, ‘Aimaiys’ oftfie ktJ’ttdmey Rtc karc on Chtim;tti’ ( ‘liattc’ intl &,ntwtbt’
(2011) 39, I4trriy Itttlity
I 47t
I 4145,
tI 1177
Cnininmssion Rent’ W,thhe’ C’ nergy I ttogicss kt’port,
1 5] nttt 21)1 5, Cf IM (21)1 S)2t)3 final
Cnninimssmon Energy i&tt;telmap 205(1, 15
1 )t’t’enihe’r 2011, COM(2t) 11)1485 fitilti, 9.
I&ogc’t
liitllli4’ soil,
Jttiibnnt’s
Strpttic
and
Atietre s
Jordlo,
‘ P.,ctmtev,tbic’
Lout’
A
( ontlilolilg I1il;ni’im ig Act
In
Andrc’w
JortCm,
I )ave’
I ltniem.t,
1-I arm
van Ass
I
I itii K .t50t
tile1
11,015 lit ‘15)1 tOt
(cclii.),
C %ittiitt
C %itt’r Pttlit’y
tim tht’
I itmpt ott
tltte
I Ot’[ttttt/tt?”
tIlt
3 )ttttttt
ut
it/
Ahti,,i/tcii
tilt]
,:tltlttchlicct.
•
It ‘.itmiht”de
t tnivt’tiity
Itt, is,
21(11), 1014.
Viiniss,i Mor.,. ‘EU. l&itsi,t. I,,Oihflt’ to Mcci clii
itetg’ Sc, ltr:ty; (ntiS in Ucraio hs
S1nnktd I e’.mrs ihout the Setpplv tIt (IS it’ t’,tltOl’t
It tilt .SItr( Jt’it t,t’, 2’i ttcltlit 2014,
I


Renewable tnt’rgy
277
(01 U ipolist U
feat tires.
Moreover, energy is a
Uil)Il( pcicitl,
I tc ‘iippiv
ti toiiiiiiijit Oil of whit ii
ire pivotal to
tile Icini tionni
of e.ieli
colIntr\
moiily. ‘i’hese factors, totc’iliei with tlic need for enerty sc’c only, nic’.ni thai
re
clevelopIllelIt (if
iii ntern,’I tt.ikt for eliencty. whiIi isa key eOnll)Onelit of
‘he EU’s i oiiipe itiveness and 5rowth strat y, needs to be striientired as
1 ir,ichi,iI
ii ‘l’
P’ Unfettered Iiber.tlis.itioii may not tllle,iten ener
secur
I
ty hoot
iii LU peispeetive, but it certainly does so from a nttioli.il ponit of view,
as it entails
lie nsf that doincstii
eneigv sctpfdil’is will be oiitcoiiipetc’tf 1w
flp.lnlIes iii nei hbcnii’nit’ l.SU St,ltes
lit,’ th same token, the cctnloniic
,niil
tatet’it
illlporiaiice of
lie eiic’r5y seeto lilty
suppress Mciiib r Sttes’ will
ness to siti tip to iiuindatory t:trc
mci ilariilontseil
ipproltiles ttiW,iic
the
l))]lOIlt(i1 1)1 P. 1.
Moreover, the Ji]lpieiiieiit;tttt)ii of Ri
tarets is hilily ptditic;iIly sensiti Ic.
veil the eitc’igy sector’s
i c’itr.iiity
to
the eeoooi iy,
iiid the eonceii’r;ttech
iterests at stake, shifts in c Ileicty pohey repieselit touth political ehtalieiit,ex for
Semlser State povernilielits
I’hey
111Cc
to halatic e the sttoil’-tei-itt itoch often
5
eaI15Ccl cltsrttptloil caused by
c iii1fet ,(1 eoei5y ief5tilatiott
iiici support .iamst
lie lciiit
tent),
feneral
hi oci its of eilel5y
tllItOVSLioti. Unsust,iiiiable eiiert,
1 )dttctioll ittay still bc susta tint’, ioel coilitounites,
,iiid there
is
often
ito
aviotis
c ilolfseits.iilciil
hir then
losses ni tile
‘511111
I o
a
i c.i iii
I
etoltotIty
a
)lil,lrly, lot, I pttcsts .it,tiist fie
c tabIsitiiieit of
\,‘ittc power
iilst(fi,j’iC)ii
iitiit
bc
brushed
cdl
as
sit
e’15Ol)c’iIt
of
, not
i- toy hsc
iiiettt:tlitv
lM] Y si
bit t;te’ also
i c)ll’Seiit
serious
,tnt
IC’ ,,titli,ite
loiteerns
(1)1)111
e.to hens tilt
coSts
lilt: who reaps tIle lew;irc,s ;
tiv.rcttiiitiitsl
(1)11(0 itiolt.
010 this
tive,
J U cc’nesy,ihle etier’y stilcy can have sIinltfielitt unpIn
otis hw eiivitooiiietital josh
flits ecittstittntes a
irdier
actor c(tili’shic,ih,il’ tlic
t
5
‘ilopticin of’,’ltiotis and liuinioinseci Itf ta:’cts it the El I es el
‘itl,hci
thu (OUSt Id
i’nercw sect I’’
tilt, attrn csU :V ci
(ci
‘SL IC
.555” [tOO
xcessive ref t in e oii ldssil hid, but it clot’
11)1 neecssan]v litre [lielli tow,ircls
.
newables. RI’, c oni{wtes with other alte il;its’e cncrtv si ‘nrc es, such as shale as
ad 0th leai c’nert,’, ss lot Ii rc plcsellt
cli fd’nc itt
t mob
11:11 on ii
ifs
tic
ho nell
II)
occ’ty fiotti
.111 c’l(VliO ilent.il sc(speetiVc
an enerfy sei Iii iiv peiSpcc hiVe,
IS
till as a trowtlt uer;peetivc
‘he sttraetveiws of P. s.
i-c 1st
Sc’ to that 0111011
enew.thle ,tltc’ ii,ttlve iuel e1iery sources, cIt pc nds on
ii ,‘nt,
factors, lilt filch IV
I t.it.oi iii
c’ to psi ph y and
I
I id lit v of n still’’]
resci ci rees, the p
to cola r co
ieeds of the
t ounti
‘s ooiiti
itt ,ndnstric s atacl sc vii c’s
tistoic l cii” i lo’snic
it
nid even cultural pnfcrc’nc i s.
i.tncc’, lc
e ,r).t)Ic
, is well known
r lcnikint
‘.6 or c \.U!ljlli’, inertly oipiiti’is ire c!’jftit
It. lii on
iCi l’Ss io tto’ Itnict. .i phvsit ii nt’isvort, ol
tt,lUSllilS’Ittil Iiiii’s, st:hi.ti,n’,, iriiis5tlll
soil niOti
111,11 illiSly
1
‘i Wi itv iront (hi
I
iilini 10 C’llterpnsis intl hoiisuliotcls. ici cttidtu I dir it
‘ ;ldni;so
I c’t al, ‘Rent’w,hle :hicrtlir’., Itt
(‘iiniitiissioji
I aic’igy {rt.dni.ip
‘Stt
C ‘I let (.1(1 t
t Ott
fin ii
I 10 V
I Ill hen M.oIdo t
-
Ri’spoitctin
to the
1tnvate Rt’’ni 111110 of I )ssi’nt
(1110:1k
C hut
‘
Action
Pttpuli
liii
I
(lOt I’ P ifii tO
ItttcSt (2t0.ti ‘at) fI’IInUIII a! LIic’n,llUHt’fli,tl tim’.°) “ t4
ii 210,


l,i\oiii.Il)ly oii
inc Lii eilt:icy
( eioi,iiiy, on die oilier liiiid, cleciclici ,i(tei the
I cikiislniii.i clis,isiei ii) disc ccIiliiiilc
It
iiivesi iiiecii iii
liii Ic
ii c’Iieie,y ptcccltcei
cii
I lecice, eVen tlltcici’Il
Ii
cits olclnn,iO’ cli.cne iiiiii,iticcii, cflt u scciniv iicd
Ci olloilIli
Inc
etiti\eoi5s
iii sli,iri d, Meiiibei Stitt’s’ views oii (lie liest
OlIN of
ii ilti
IS .otcl
t IWO 115 then
.11 lIieVc’i I hut
c liluci
hI
oplicct is cliii, •cltlic,lc there ire s(roii chivecs ttcu.iccls tile lihei,clis.itioci,
li.cittcoiiis,ctiicic
thu
110010
iiii cit 1(1’, it (lie KU level, Iced developciieicK ire kept
iii
liec Ic liv cc.itcccii,cl interests (cc Felon a hiih clet;ree ol control 0Cc F eicc igv l,isv acid
hi v
I lie
esicltitcc need fun lc,ihccic e lceiweeii ILl ude ith)eecive md Member
Stile
clmlI:ceimti,iitccii
5515
ie.tclih
.ippIleot
in
the
tIl)
i<eoewalcle
i.lectmitccy
iicc civet
a pcecimisol
tic the {coseici
h&c’uessilck
hiIeI
I )hic’c live (Eli ))
201)1
)uit tivc
xlcoi’ted Mc’iiilit’i
Sliti.’, to
,iL
1
rc)pruatt
5(15)5 to cm ocr—
coot’
treater ecicistt,Itoticici oh eti’
tony piodoec’d Iicn ieoew,tl’hc’ enerç ‘‘
cmiii, cc
dims end, c,mlied oii the
tViecmibc’r Stilt’s to sit liItccit,Il mimclie,itise t.ii5ets
lime ke)
c ciiiiilicctioic
cit
lit’
)n eetiVe was to Liv down
i liamnewock iii.
stint tcired and
Lccilmcatech die
cvclop’oc
It ol
hiteies
it
lie
c,ctcoct,ml level, but Meochec
States
cc iii,iimictt
hi
Ii
co.’ ol scI)icI lhc
ii toil RE l,itOet
cmiii scIcetici:
scippoct
sciences sticlc
is teed cii tarcHs,
Iec it terluhe,ilcocc null c’icerc5
t iN,il1tcii.
I lie 0(1
(El) tmitioc1ic e
a
c tccopi’ctiveiy ln’lcer cic21’ee c)tc cnlrchisction, hut it still
etains
sooce key h.iLcu nic Ie.Ouc’es liii ehi,ir,iett’rcst
‘U le0cskiuoct iii cccticttcally seitscttvc
creis. Moreover, die 21)11 Euciccpeccc t ‘cnccce:l cccnelccccnis on [lii 2(1(t) ( littt,cte cud
I ccer:y 2olcey i’eainc wccrk tier dcl a cecituct to nioc dec enii.ihsecl .ip2c’tc,ielies aftec
2020.11 Hence, (Er tile Eieseecble liii ccie, ninlti it Cc I oveiiiat]ee is set to
‘email
a piscnniletht leittii’e ccl ELI uilers’;y policy .icici reuLctcoct
I/fe VO9 I?onewahle
721gj/ Directive (‘ti’LD)
hue &id )
sels out a (ctllliflccct ic;nhiewolk iou the c’odtieticimc nid orocicolion ccl
‘euiefl’ horn renesvahlu ucotckiscl souiees, by s’hiecc [lie I )ireenvc’ nie;nls wind
suEr, .ierotlcec’ni,iI, 5c’Oth$till,il, Ii’ clrccilic,’m;ci cid oeemmu cii eI-cty, hycl:’opowcc
F
I
‘
l’uuiic Lr,iv,iien, Markkci lulincnc’ic
mcccl M,cri M.mmnsk,cctic’mm,
‘C Scumc.ctc
C ‘Iciccyc’, Frier:’e
‘sic crciy
intl 0.1’;L
t )c’hctciy Nnilar New tlccihci in
I cnl.cc:cl, I-ccmcc c
intl iIi UK’ (2t)l I
‘Ott) Lucy 1(cli
3134-3442.
tO Mit ,itcd,c A. SI cc nc’
‘CZlnn,ctc (iu,utit’, I,nei gv Sic nor-’,
cod Risk
-
] )ch,cccn NucL
New Build iii t’ccclcmcl,
1 ionec multI the UK’ (2(113) 14(1)
I’huscimtcccil lflqi(Ili
1 in Law ((3—lit
I )ireeiive 21)1)1/77/Ft , (J 2(11)1 L 2H3/33.
(‘Ice ( OiiOt)c’scc Ii W.iS St hitchuhed to prep.cre
1 ptopos.cl Itir i Iolhu)SI’nhc Renewil,le Foci:
h)II’c live,
0VCiicii. the 31(20 to 2(1,3(1 1)t’flOd, by end 2OItc,
il Art. 3(I) kI:D.
Eniopean Council (23 .nid 24
C )c.inbc’r 2(1(4) (oncltmsimocs FUC() 100/14 CC) FUR 13
C(iNLt 5.
1)1cc ct:vc 2(0’) 2t lit
cc) ilceL tctccpc’,uii P.urluacnccit ,iccct cc) dcc- (,ccn cccliii ti /\iicI 2000 ccl.
tlcc prciuuoeoic 01 thcc usc
id eicer:5
I
ictO Ieutc’’S able sccimrc c’s mccc:
Ic
11011.-
cciii scibsc’qccecc
it’pc’,clIccc I )ccc’eicuc’s fi)(lt. 77 IC
,ccccf 21i03/3(l/F(
ct.chlisIics
c ounmon
rintc’work
the prodcicnon
111(1 i ccimmcmt:Oic
of
(‘mccc dy
(10111 ctnew,ible
Sotitct’s
It (‘I )),
O_J
21119
1
I ((1/ I (c
278
Cliitijle Cliaccgu


Renewabk’ Eneiqy
279
:AT
.Ef”
t
I
Production 2005
;‘cv
—p
•
Thigut 2020
1*
-
Fl
4
—
—2= =1
0
—
NI..
2
PC
P-i
---
-J
Re
=t
SE
—
I
i(
Si
- -
- =
I
0%
i
ID
I
.0 /
54
30 1
.0’.
lit
ure 8.1
&tittw.tbic
I
ict’’ i’tt,citu ittit 2(11(5 nil .5)2))
titt
I
(it c
I
I
ii
it
M
I
ii
c
I
lit
Mit II S. tIn’
ti ti At
iii) - ti ci \\
tic Ian
Rcnew.iiiu
I
itt
s Sn ii ,inct
2(115, Joint I&uiit h
)
t’Ittit
5(11 itttii
utti ftc
Bitt
ii
rpnIi,
I iii tttt
itt I
ii
S I
n)1]t3S. iilicliill 5iS, sc’\viei
trc’.ttltic
P liii
5.15 Jfld lti.tus.
Aiii Ic
, ,intl
\nncx
I tti thi
)iiec’ttvc .tssi5ii etch Mc iithtt Stttt
it’ tnciiiorv overall ii.ittoii
!
ipet itn
lie Slitic ot tenets ible etic-
\ iii
1155 iiitl cttiisuhiiptl(tti cti
it(i’ hV
t)2() (1
‘itt-c
, )‘
i’he tat g’is encttiiip.iss
c oiisciiliptoti thrmiph cisc cii dcc
‘icity, lte,itiii
itici
tttciiit nfl! ir.ttispctt. iitt last tw!iicii hits ,t speetfie ,iiici
tflih3l iii 1.11
c’t tti Ii)
Itt ((lit i. (iltte,)lV hilbel--itireccl) b
2(121). I’he t,ii’5c15
tC diftcrc
ii
tic-I!
inc
iii
,c
ii tttil
(I per cent (br Malt;t) to
2) pci
t clii tlci
weden)
i a ken
t tipet let,
tit cy set ore the
I U—widc 2t) per cci it
target Ito
Tue liii cipe
it (,mtit ii .iliiriiit ci iii
5)1 ‘1 diii n
lit iii! ni,iiiciilin v tireis ss ill
ice abaiicttnc ci tr the 2020
!o ;t)
Iiist,icl, die 27 ptr cent Rh goti Itir
!03t) will he icliti v
ci ilit ott- Pt ‘4eiitliti ttiIc S
oiitnhtitictits tiidect by die need
it) djisc-i collectively
liii.
hi.J ttrt \s tiiout
tit-\etittii’ Menilc’r 5-titc
fre)iii
,,ttjii then O\Vli 1111)1 C ,iitihitiotis iiitioii.tl tircts nit! sli’poriiii” iheiti’, National
rets sili be tiidic atite, •itid ‘s ill be (list 05cc.
CHitl
euciated nitttitttils and
tilatertiiy betts ccii the Mt-tither ‘,titcc anti ilk’ f ,oiiiiliisstitn,
his ,tpjtrt,ic Ii to
U pohc
Ititlclclllcittati(1i
ssii iii ttttttseon
til!ctiist ttrt’ct’,aiitldchtiiii,i!i
iitioiid iiltltleilteitii[tlli
\pc c tttni
his been
I iteilcil ilk ‘nest
itS ernst
Art. 2 k[iT
Paint
is et a!., Atid
Is t,I till
1st.] Policy Ptckitt- ttii
( bunt
hiiit-
iii,! Rent-st tb)’
I 4T’
1,8
1 lie
ntiisiiuti
tifluS
IS
(IIltlltilt ltti,tit’tI
1)1 t\V,’c’tt
Flit
t(1c
titter
StJICS
St,
1111(1.,
1477-i 175
I lititi
t .ctvL’tfliiict
I )ivides ( ,,lntrtt’s. IvIi’Ps’,
1 ‘s’I),S I U,)t, /J.inti.itv I)i 5


climate Change
.lppli).I( Ii.
It Will
l)lisi(lciil)ly (l((CU,l51 tb)
(li)pOtliIlI(tIt’S loi
tilL
.lIiol)t’:lfl
l1.itIitiiieiit Ii)
ic’
Ill alf)1lI
Ill
liii’ (l(’V(l()l)l)il’ilI
Ii
RE
1)1111 \, ,iid
t’tltiit’
Mt’lill)ii
S1;itS
LXf)(lSiItC
to
( ‘JI’.( /
strIluny
ho
110w
Ov0ii6ilIlt’
If)()IOHCtl
4)111(1 1Il(tt’iOlt’ Ik
5,1111
(1 Ilf’Iosl.’IIl
.1 S5Vllt( hcoi SUf)l.Iil.ltl(lIial lcl\V.lRlS
1
non’
IIIln\1lillIlill0lI \,IIi.iiit cli iII(iIii bYLI
(VClYi.IIIlL. iVicioovoi, Ill tIll’ toiko of
lilt’
l’tlI0t’.lli
IltillIll
IllIIc.ltISIoll’,
lIlt
(1011,1)1’ (11,001
,tiicl
t’IIt’t’y
):tl0,tts kit
l)(), W’ 11(55
tIlvi iII,liilr’ .lflt 11,1111
iS (lOSt’ II(’ill 010011(1
tt’oii sIidh,’’
kIt l fi 1’lll’V 114)111 V
I lit
1<1.1)
lllsf)l.lVs
‘t’5l’i,ll
I i1.Ii.l(tl tIslIc
ol
llil’l,llL’til,ILt)Il.
/1’Yl)Utl thi
il’totlnln,ttioli
III
(I ili[l’iitfY)
I cilollIlsIlly
l,ltilltl.l l,ii”’t.
lit
),lI’oilvI’ loaves
I h
ivil’IItl)CI
,LlIl’S
1
1)10.11
(1109L’l
(Ii lIiSllltilli I
in
now to clUVIll)/l
.111 illIple—
l0t’llt.liiOIl
S[l.IlUCy.
VOll’IIV(’
the RI])
(lot’S
III))
llI:llI(LI1I’
I
il,lillI(IIIISC(i
lf)[llI).1(I1 l()\V,ii’tiS till
ItitIption oI slippc)r; scltt lIlt’S II) 1)lIlStt’C
110 I1lIlIp1)I1IVt’noss
1)) 1<0
1)11 (hI
i’lIt’iy l11,IiLI’i
,IIst(’Ol,
Ii
OVt’i’lIl, (Ito’ .ovt’lIIIIlt’lll
1w dittisl 7%
Ii 011(1(1(111,1111 iv (01 Iii rIllolIlsed p01
1 (0111 I’NO(’l’tlt
04 I’. .111(1
.11 ((III III IIl!t y stan—
Ii) 15 [0
till)
Ill I’, 5ll;)fIl)IY
till! il”!it 1)11 II
loll) ‘“I II
ill IIl ‘0110)111)11,
h/it tII’OVCr,
lilt
i&i/J )
(lllit,ltl’.
1)
(110111)01
4))
pi’OViSielllS
11)11
Ib’,tl’r,
1)111
(II)
1)01
III 111)11(1,
11)011,0011) t)It\\t(’tI IVit’itthcr S1,It(s 1OW,lI(lS tilt
,kIlil’l’)’lil(’lit 1)1(111’ Ill.llIclltorv
t’lI(’o.’Si%i.l)Il’ l)t’ll)\t ZOOiii III tIll 501110
1)1 tltt’ l&il )s key 0l(IVISiI)I)S.
P1/i;) tivrl<-t/ Ac/ion
f’Iar I S
•
he 1< 1:1 )‘s iit,li,t
)i’O((’(itiSli (X(iC’e’l,ltlt)Il IS th,lI lVicIllIx’r St.tt
s tlr.tsv It
I\lat 101111
.40110W iNc i’.nery
t’\t huh
PI,ns (NE 1’/\Ps),
\Vi)lt1)
Ifl,lf’
Otit (‘loll
t ollittys
ihhIpkYllClit.ItH)il
StS.1tt’fy
011(1 tiletutIt’ ‘esttin!tt;d
t.l)c’ltorit’S
In
ot cordancc
svitli tho (
OllliliiSSiOll (l’IllphIIt’
or NE 1/APS. eston,ited lrtjcc’[oiies plot each
lVi1’illher StIll’s .Iiltl(’il) ted 1(11 (ieDiUylIll’lll (lii
Si s’c’tolI!I, yl’;lrly .11111
1 hillIllual
1
11551111,, ‘A policy lt.lIlll’Wt)lk foIIIlni,it’
.111(1 011Cr
Ill lilt’ perIod toni 2(121)11) 2030’,
221lllutly 21)14, (3 IM(2(l12)))IS
-
- j
-
.\tt-:l
(klillllo:’fl,CII,
%OlVITOli(lIIIlI
Liw,
Re3uh,ioioii
,il(l
(,OverIl,1iittO
Siliftml
Alc)llIt’(til’’
(2t1i1) H (2) jtilrilll I)! I’l.’l’iliIlllill 1161/ I_Ill’ 170 2)2
- .
“ Ait
3 ft t
1 (Olit.lSIl’.
Si 1101111’] llUhIli)(’I
1)1 lIltIlIlIlitlil (‘xpl
I i,IlloIIs,
ill 111(1
I’
(hit t’%iiCta
-
-
001) 1511 f)tlhIll
bn1tl11-15 will pI,l\
Ill (0Clllpi.ll\
oh’ (Art. 13(5)) hId 111,11 I&
‘ 110.1013/ and
100)05; SyslolilS will be prniiiott’d Ill hlliidIii% lc%IlI.ltSoIlS In] c’ncie’ (Ai’L i3([t)).
71
lIt’ lIst 0’ SI%lpOtl St Iliflits itlIIli(lt’i
1)111 151101 rtstrlcti’cl ill’ ‘mvt’-lItiI’ilt cd,
lx I’xt’illptiOfl
UI
I CdtiitlOll; , Lix 011)1(5, r(Il(’W-LlIt’ t’nei’(y Ob.0)ll.tII.
.UiIfIUtt St itt’Iihes iiIltiUiIl% thoU
115111%
70(i)
c (‘ltII]cltls,
,iiitl ihi’t’ti oI
5(17/0)11
SIil1’Iltes
ntlndIIlI; Intl
II)
(.Ini), and
t’IIliti Ill
p(ylliCfltS
(Art
2(k) 111/1)).
i )tiring lile pn’par.IhoI
‘51,1
‘t’s
of
1111’ 14 El), the
i:tnop(-ail C 011111 115)1011 showed a pro)t’i (‘11CC Ion tht tk’vulopnic’nt of’ an El.
‘ --wide System
1)1
1) il(’W,ihll
(‘111135’ stlppt)rt ihroti%il %et’Il (lit ho It(s 1111011 aiitl tnadil%, hot (Ills pie
ie’rc’nce was hIlt ‘hai ed by the’ 011)01-lu
the Meniht’i’ Slates. See I on //I
I;hi’Jr(llIlnlflill)
I till’,
I
Ill’l’tli)l1III citd I)lul.ii)ll_/l/ik011, 149
71 Sn’ ea. Ant
- 5 iU;l), whit It i.tvs clown a ii,ti IlICInISOd lile’thodolllgy
0 e,thctiate the- share’ of
RE iii
1/l 1St
(/11:1/
1 no ri;
((1 IlOl 1101:00; Ao
-
I 3 Ri I), v 1, (‘1 lays dow II
leiSil I: ,sti-:ttivl
‘(lVl’l7I,lOc 0
St,llloI:ifllS
01 till
,lli[hIOni’ .1111111
(IntihlE ItlolI
Ill) ilc(’lls:llO of RI- Interposes;
and Art
14 1411), waic’ii tails Ill) Melillloi St;itt’, 111 pi’ovldl’
I1 llI:II,lt:IIIi 111111 II
000’
Ait 4(1) iii] Allnl’x VI Ri/i) All N0.1’.Ais
itt’ avaihible .11:
1117
‘
1’
(‘0IilpI 1-n/ellelgy-
110111/71
-


Renewable Energy
281
basis. ‘
I li’
i
ipel
ciTieS
(
list (lilt’
iii
inipiii’t;iIit
act titiiii thEy
ii icc h,iiiisin.
the 2t
tier
ciii it
by
( )2()
‘icil iiiiiiiies t\/ic’iiilcei Stile
it turn with
a lccti—
reFill
per.sIcc’ct:ive, bitt
it also cleleis .iccioiiitihthtty.
Ilic’
iccssibihit
of iioii
cc(iili)li.tiict’
litlltatiuli
iliiiost
Etit
\‘t,iTs
into the future
is inilikely to unit! thu
cls’c’uicniciit of the day
its line.
11w ti,teetccnes ctiiniteraet this res icnscveoc is
deficit. in ttinilciiiiticcti with lie lcunintuul perhiwnianee reports that each Meiiibci
State mist stibuint,77 they cccnsiitiiic a means liii (lie I onlniisslon (as well as other
EU institutions
mci l’llccw Meniher St;ites)
to check iii a soniewh;ut tnnelv
manner wliethiei Member States are oii traelc
towuncis 202(1. It
is, liowevei,
a titrly sob cliccic: Article 2(l) 1<1,1
prvuiles hit if Member States fail to
inc
their nccl:c tilve tnets iti the two
inc cilni: years, they ‘shalt submit an iniended
national renewtiile enercv action pl;uii to the
( ciilni)lssion by 2t) June cit tile
fhllciwiiict year,
settni’
titit
itlecjcitte
mci proportionate nie,istiu’es to re
ciii.
\vitlsni
,i reasonable tcniet,ible, tIle niciic;itt\’e trtjeetorv
‘lhe
(
ccislncissl(cll lOiS
lso issue reeoltnnetitl;iticnt cci
lie basis of the N 1< I-Al’s.
I loss-ever, since tl
undo
it vt
Li
fCc toi it
tic
ion hn clint
it is In lily it tilt I
c h
t sit
u ii I tic to inc
ticoi icotIth, iii tsel, enlist i[iitc’ thc basis Ci nit culcneeiient prc)cc’tti:(ti’.
oopc.titioi I tic’! W(’Qfl A4(’iIth(’t ta !cs
Articles
(i
cc
I
I Rid)
pitivicit’
a fi;nncsvonk that
niflist s the iU’s ieiucs’,clile
uucrcy
str;itepy
with
,t cIeiree
ccl
‘trccl,ibiliiy’. ‘lii
,uchu ye
iittonal tunis,
lvicniher States
nay stunnl:tte the ptinhtetioii intl ccousnniptlcui of’ 1<1, witlini
their ics\it borders, but thCV iti,t’r’ list) not to exc’Il.ul]i;c’
tints C)ti’eiiew:ihle enetp
tiyi’ociitlt stitutic II ti,tnslers
‘cit
a spi c itch
,iiulocnit
ccl cut ny (toni renewable
sooree.s hunt
1)111’ IVtenibei State tic
nii)thct’ Menibc-r state’.’’ 1 Ins pla)Vistt)n
cuabtes Menibc-r States with ttiore lnntecI e:t;ieity in RE pi’tccuer;ois to tic’ totiit
with MentIon States with
‘Jc tIer
<c
eip;it it)
nid ‘buy
a settineot ot r2
ci
perkn’niaitt’e
Ihi
ipi’o;tc’li
is intended to boost hots etheic’it ihtocaruoli ant
Ceoiitcuntc’s til ‘ilit’ ni lU
prccdnc’tioti. \VhiCiI conic. potentally mike RE molt’
coi)ipentlVc
with
tisichtticici;il
t’nenty
socii’ccs
intl
hoc,
speed
tip
inarkct
etietrttion
)n the o[Iier hand, if lVleTnbc’- Si,itc’s can
ti ,iiislCu away’ niy excess
amotitit of nut ssahit’
t nc’nctv Icioclnceci, they niac
have
ic’we
ileent vc S
to
oveishlotit
bc’ natitcii,il tai’:ct. I cnisc’i’sel, uuitititi’ies 0’ec\’ nc the iransici nity
ely mu
1
00 Iouc’itfl pc tititit titili to uliec t tutu’ o\V0 ut;itioitl titroets, cund be les
inelmeti to invest ni ions- rely]] tlOiiiestic RE pi’isetiitioti
Piltenli,utisc’l\
, natconal t,ircts ni,uy be iehievcct thircccictlm ‘foitit picipeets. eitlic
i
between bU Meniber St,ttcs (Articles 7 intl
<bI )) or nu tiintic’r,ituiin with] thud
76
-,
‘
(ccciii, cs’cccc
P )cccsiciti of
itt
111cc
Ott i c’st,ilclislniuc’
.1 tc’nmpl.nc for i”1,ciyn.iI I-Ic iii Sv,tlilc
Fnc-i’y J\c ticcn t’I.cns cmccIc’r
I )iic’cnsc Jim’)
t-c I
(;tJ(itt’t)1 74-—I,
Art. 22 kEl ).
I lie rc’ports ncnst cncicc,nc clii’ kF siucic ,ttittvccl in the prc’ec’chn two sctrs,
as well .15 ii]
I shcJili.itiCici ili(I FV,ihti,cn,cic ccl
lit’ clonic-stat supports uni’cit.incsno n ni phc
Art. 2tt II
i
7i
Act. (cl) k-I I
Ste Pulp.
ri .ccirccpi cit
c cuc’rscmotIei14.
Gercl \X/citc’r
Ilic
C luici,itc
cc No (
cummnicc
itS: :;ck:n: Stock of the Enuscions
I ‘,iduum’’
Sysicum (tihtl .2(1
/iuotcul cc/ I cui’ccc-Ic,iccuIcl/ Lciti
I


2t32
Clirnae Change
cocliltries (Artieles
I) .nid
It) R Id )).
lo
touiit
towards tltc
IcililvellIcIli
ot
Mc inber Lites
i:Iriets, the tIlssiin
ooclii on
1,1 Itt lui
•
the electricity rnce,I he’ coisutneci in the EU;
•
thc nIecI:ci1y musi
be
prodcii ed
by d
iewly com,titic ted itistilla[’
tor In t’ 2009);
nd
•
Uie quar thy oF cde’utr city produced
tel exported must not betielit from iii
Otll(
I StI[tC it
sO fit
oOtiIii[IVt \cIIIU1Q
iit\Vc cii \;tciiihei Stitc.
tilt! Meoilici Siitc mci third
otiritlics,
enr.trcc
a Lir’eIv
tic oreiic it
Fl.t non
A
Ic
ii
oli)ority of Meinbet
‘Litis tiiihiiiitl III tutu
t\tkt’/\11s diii
liii ho
tliii,
(ci
llitiocitHc 11exihl
iIWl IllInoIs Ill tile ttcisceiliIt
miii
lot1 lot Iclpitc ci flIt ci tile h it
i
c’ii thioui;lt
lii ItsI it
p OtIticill Ii
U H
II il.
Sts
it MenlIlci
si [t’tpi (‘sIll
it’ll
tutioixc
lilt Iii tl cl)OI3Li!iiOii III
irihIci9l
lilt! illtiltiitci
1 pllic’Iitiil liltc it
t lii
t (lttteIdtlih.
Itur so Iii litth
intl
cUon Iii’ hccn tiiitltrtikiic to p tht
olilt iliItitiVtS
rub
on tic e
) iiH
oliitr;ts W.t
itliltoileci
it
ii cisilcet ot eii,im
ii stitista
i
ome1tei’, itiost
O1Uc ipitt’cl
to
lie
iNc
to cX!l0lt CXttSiL Oill’
[ioir MeiilIscr State
iitciit,itctI thit they riiietit iIC(i tic btiosi ilicltclOIilcStIC
c)tIO[I tiiIoliii itilports
ILi totiket tcti triuistc i
clot’
ui1icne, it Lotiki b
pit’cloiiolliirtl supply cloven.
)ite lit tin that truiblv snppiessc’s tVciiihi’i Stites’ lnpctltL tort ltOptflitioti
I
the 10oct11) br ellelCy security,
hid
ttoec’rLiluity about the rinpu
tctouit pi-ojec
I
till ulltlnul;L sujinort sclitliies
Mlncover
tilt slow tipike ot tlexdilc uccechit
15105 lfli lhlttSttlti that, ill Spite 0)1 ChChltr asstlmptlous, tiitrF_ct biscil i1iproacii
ilcell in e\teflslVt
iduiiitiustr,ittve nitrastrut ttllc’ to) tiollilshl
As suil! b ex’ilored ii
the next section, t!lis is)
tSStOil tliit its vividly imposed iKelt ill till
oittext ofLI
I’llliSSiOl)S traiit’i. Siuiiuiarl’, with rcurcI
tl) the ile,tlilc
lilt ch.tn:suii, [or RI
SI-VerilY i/ic uiibc’r Stte iN&t AP assert that,
iii
Ulu
ibscin e of a uiiore detail
rcttth;ctorv traciiework lot st.itstieal transFers Jlld)Oi!)t projects, it ts i!i%ieult to pt
beyc 111(1 f’Ci It Cit
eNl’CSSi I )ill oF approval.
Accesi to the Grid dod GtJ3r]n tees of Or/girt
1 leetne elitiey needs to bc
tech 11110 ‘tile prid’,
1 physic il Ilet\vor (tttrlsiilSsc
md distlybutioli lilieS ciperiteti by one or 0101 C tofu oh centres, to by deluverru it
See
lillpe
ditto c clircipictI lCIlltil/llltlOhi,ll --tcl1tWtItI(--tlltuV--lCttOli -PI1l15—uirt’lt
t”Jti
tor Aiistri,i, Crttilit.
I _5prtlS, lIlt
C iteli Fi,.t1illl)Iil, 1isltliitd, ii(li;iIici, (enhli,lilt
Itet c
I
IIVI.l, ilIlitialtIl
trcIind. lilt t\trtIl tlailtI\
PoI.iict. Port Hutt, ii Ollt;tlll;t, Siovit
Spun, Svc dcii or tilt U K.
1 rant c, Bth1t 11111,
I )c-ici 11,11k,
151 cm];
ancJ
I It inpIty explu’.
a plli’ntl
uulil’Iest tO tltxihtc’ ni(c
iili;Ouc htii 111w no niH -t [111115
1,Huc(
tbu!e tnt,
t ) l)iclar, istoliiu. (Lruuins
it
ant!,
I ichu.,iu.i anti Sill
cntic5
hc’uuic in
1 p0510001 tO) sell ItalS , I too iliaolll
,, Mitia atid Slovenia mdccci
I Icc-v may it’crd
i_cl
1110(11
C ctuitiis’iois
C (tfliliIIlllc
III) on (ltllVc’flltC he
11111111) iCc Inc it lll.trkct
11111 In (511
li
111(11 ttI 1ithi
IIlt(IS’O’fl[lt)ui, 5 Ncts-c’icihr
Ii, SWI 1 (i)I)) 14)1
11111 I.


Rt’flC’iNiil)l( tntrcjy
283
ciselitiltis intl tIIttrirIt. AtIIII’V(’iCit’IIt iii tlic
pt’r
tilt lU
liit.il ciiuiiiiiijt
tIl taiti tliift Iiiiitt’s tiii I. I
tttttlitt (‘IS ttlti.ltIIIil[ t’Itc’t ill’’ J((CS5
((I the
t’iitl.
ilits
IS
lit 0 it tiillatl(tii cii Article l(t
I& II). wInch
ills
or ititli tlic’
velopuitlit intl lint Ii&’i enhi:iiit t’iiIc’iit of tltt’ “iii 1.
it oiiittittl,it’ tht
p1 titlili
iii
of
elet iritilS
fi’oiii
R I
SOiiIt(’S,
Cliii
lli.iIltl;lii’s thu
54eiiihit,r States
lrl\(
iOi’tty (Cr iiataIltet’tl itt’ess tiC R k pituthticets.
Qncc’
c’iic’rty
ciitt’is
[lie
i’lul,
its
soIlrei’ Itettunics
peiit’raiiy nniratt,iltlt.
i
OVcrtuuiiit
this
CrtClClc’iit, AititIc’
IS
I&I’.I ) rc’cpiires
ill Mu’iiiluti
States ti
istiru_’ the lStu;Iii e ota ‘tutIl’IIItC’c’ ill tnIiIii. Whit Ii attests reilewalCIc’ sntirtIiit
he n;tiaiitc’t’ ttiiltjtiis
.1 st;itutLuiulisc’ul set nt iiilirnu:utituii, anct nuisi he I’ec’o
‘cd liv
ill P/lciiillc’t Slates. liuiiittitiiiilv tltttiitli, tin’
‘n,ti,tIItc’t’’s liiiictitii
is
inp]v
I hit:
tiu ttf ol iciiesv.uIiui
St nruitig. As
uiliriiic’tl in rI
HI if 1 case l;iss
-
1 is not c’cltuivaleiit tC) Cliv iciic’wahlc’ it rrc’ cit
t erotic tIc liii a Mc’itilic’r Sat ni,t
sue in tic
CCII text ut a ii,utitni,il support
St liclite.
he Diflicult Qtiociton Of Biohuis
toftiels intl biohic1c:icis
Crc’ ,uIitullc
lit-
cticw:thlu: eItc’flv soiirtestos’ercd in tlic’
Li), hot then ichttl,ituon Pu tiltS
1 ntitutltcr <ii special cii blt’iiCc’s.
I lit
I )irc’cYIvt
tnul;ite’,
Cit :itioss-tlic broil lixctl tat’iu’t ol I)) p’
C c’Iit Vi. nsc’ iii tin’ [I.ttupoit
CX)t. Praciuc;ully, this Lurc,t
will he owl itiostl thioutit’li hittlhcis, \s hit Ii trt,utcs
.ts’ecilit.toul trttsviiitlc’tti,titcI fur tIns p;urtititl;iriU,sottrtu’.
LJnhrtutit;io lv. ili
rt’t’ n tri-clenti,ils of’ biotitcls li,tvc- ‘litUc’ii tltit’stinnaltie’
OflVc’ICtioIl,il bioftic’ls uiid liiohiqnicls, which tie pit icliiceti htii cc’:’eal ;nic] othc
:cO—riclt
rops (ncii
is iiiatie), snpars
mci t)!l crops. dC)
lot tic’cc’Ssuriy
tellieVu
:nLiC,nit (.
V
5aVul)tS
C oiitp.irc’ci
to ‘reicilar
iciels ,:am c’--sctle Loinnmt i
vlncahl a c,ttlitui
ii[eimsisx
iitltui[rV,
inc
is liLly to
aPt
su:iitbc,tiit toil on
cal bittclivc’isutv,
oil,
,utr
hid water rcsonrc cs, l\4orc-ovc’r, [ICc
n[itidtttt oh
of
oftiel ciops tither rc’stuI[ iii ,iulclitiint:il l:tmidl bc’iii cl:nnied (iCr Lurmiti. or in
lit
iitensihi,utitit of Li-tti:ii
practices it ) :iItru lSc’ tiic’ vu c. Ihe c-xpansioli t)
ant
and happens lit cause land is iicssly clc’arc ii hr liiohic’l pmodtictitin (direct land—cisi
chane), or hec,iusc’ it displaces
I raditioniml loud, feeti md textile crops. trtsseuain
tres5tifl’ for c’
O,lilsioiI tir hut utsificit:tti Clsc-\\ Iic’rt’ (nidiruct
I iiicl-ti’c
c lmtim:’c-)
Vhc’tliu
met
t tir iiiciictt, l,nci list’
littOn
lIt’ 11.11
in:i’Jv prt)ltlciilatlc if tli
(md hc’iii cI,00letl
IS
11(11
III
ltitutllvc’rsltv
11111/01 a
proclnt’tivt’
c ,irbon sniP
i’he ii:islttt is that slnkni: li’onm iimcsil
ic Is to hiutticls ni,i’ product i ht jtloiu
in rc’fi’rs to as ‘iiui’,iti vt (il-IC
saviin;s, a well as a sn2iiiit tilt tielt rioritioll of
the natcn,tl envirolliilc’nt.
Art
I (u l& H)
(-t71
2
(lIft
till
ft
(2 IOU(:2tI1’f2ti17; fimnc’d(st’s ot
C -2u,-l:12 tilt)
12 O_ot’id lti’/m’iuitt hC’I i:hU-(
2)ti’f if
117 A:iuti’
)uuft
, ‘lttttnt’ls ‘rtttiilciltlu, Irtde intl n
.mii,IICI
lc’vlttpint-lit hilt rune Issues’
IILI ) Stisi,tii ii
M,irkt’is I)’ its’iit
‘ip
No. 2 (.Oh)(t,
6
1,8 loiciw
I in,
‘1 ,wt
1111Cm: Ihttlti ls:A Pic ip.) -Aecil Aiiifys ot the 1:ilicillcstil Union
I3:C)tncIS ( uiti)lcttiolt Rt-t’tnies till
lilt’ ( I-an
I lofopilti
MCtlC,iIlISlli
(21)1 I) 24(1)
jtiitmuI /1 uut’ltttituu
tul Lit’ —tO
.1).


211<1
Climate t_huitge
111010)15
itu ilso totiiu easIly tr:lllSpOit.li)l1 thin, sly, iiiti Ut oLu -])OWC’It’(l
t’ntigy. ( ‘i’tjtieitth ,
in tluveIopiiif
1 ieginlc ioi
Ill
‘flVll 1)111)0 OIlily sound
1lCl0Yflu(’tiI
ol lutdnels,
lit’ l1 1 ntlist
tiLt’ into tt’eono
.metn itton;ii ti,ide.
Slllu
univ ol tit<
ilesJitlx’( cthoii
ioU envitoiliiitittti
nipiels ol hioloels t’
.1
oiisepitiic’t- ol hose they
itt ,<tJti<d
die :,U bids
iseib
iii a ibiii’iiil anti
lt’piiiy )t’t’tii’ioit sltti,itioll. i1e (‘l)Vit’l)llllielit;il Sl)titchlt’sS Ill prttiittt’tion typltiily
does Hot 5llii\t tip iii tile too pi’t)thtict, whli lilealls tii.it envlt’onioelilai ‘egtii:t[ltni
1111)51 1tr’e[ the proees itseh. Hut proeess stttidai’rJs arc’ dilHeiiit to fliniicti:itc’ and
bi,nclt.r
to nitnntor,
<‘spet tills’ when
titi
Oiot:nt 11)111
i,iLs plate tiuiisdc’ LU
tiosilit tint. Mort’o i r, sttoJtrls rho it til,ite p10111
titOl
tilt
prot ‘55111L iiteth—
tis t1PM)
lit
i
:u:te
risk ol’ viol.tttiii’ itite:ii.ttioitil u,tb&’ hiss titm product
it
1 Is
I ow, iwo, dot’s LU law rts’otiti to die
t
hOle; ticS OHes oishy iiten’.tttnt
liciliiis lilt) tIN it’Ot’Sd.hOic
‘ttt’rt\’ tr)tt’),y:’ t\ itsittal
),IIVIS:lllh li Artc’ie
7 t&El)
O hilt
tv’, this n ‘nitO)l)i5ty t’iltt’iia br iiiohitqs. iii
c’titt’ili ttirt spoilt1 with
ho’,’ i,ittl
11151))
itt
It’ .Ht1) Joel ‘‘nitity
)m etiVc’,
hn ii
into’, part
0 the
‘tielgy
c’dicic’iit’y
lilac
ut the bUs elliot’ ehaity
p;t’Lap’
Inti
n;tticlates
1
p
tt’m
‘dtietitit
.t (,HC
t’lhllSSiOt’S
‘v 21P1)
‘,‘o
c otnit tow.n’,ls tlit’
ii pci tint; P.1’. Lle,c 1, hioitft’IS must iiic’i’t lilt’ oiIowitti
111101 111111 ti)
•
ltoielc mu’) ichiuvc g ,‘‘tih(052 gas ravinoc o at k’;tt 35 per cOlt
contparison to osil iueis. This ceungs :eqtidn ti
ns’s o SO p°t crnt in
2017. t )Q 18, it ilsos
citt to hO C/t COOl 10 00 lItiC
11)1 plOfli
tflStaIil
Ott 2016. Afl lilf’( i/CC’
02105)0,1’ Ct 0 LOl
010
0
riOt vvhc n cictiit
gmtrrho: i’” gt
;avincJ’.
this rtr.htirlcs cmt’,ston: Lotit
Ct tiO0StjOi
0:0
)
sop nm
•
dto; 11011, 0 nOt coot
touk not
‘
‘ovel
imput
the Co 000 caactcy at
II
(it
C
C
0 th
nt
Hon
,
‘‘‘ii
C’ nos o
‘to
be
,irr’
in
irOi’
tutii’t’i,J ttttt
land with pr’!)
eph catrbort stock
smh us svt’tnncls 0 romsts, or from land eroytog a Ogh odtit’: ‘1.
value, or torn land that was ior’tteny ‘er)’p
I Lii 01011 kihl, “1 ‘i ide 1. tv, t.onsti,ituuts to B. <‘new bIt’ K ‘ioui.d }tnt’rgy Support Schemc’
10 tVi,irjio Peetc’is ,nid ‘I hoiui,is St ht)nHrtis teds.), Rriu’itsth1e
1 iw’y Lint’ in ih1 EU Lçit(
Pt i.prthli’t
. ill Boltnn- iuj .‘IPIllHUIi s (1dsvan] lti4.ti’, 21)1 4), 43.
Wi ti u A Ken’ and
I
till t Loppachc’i
I riding ittoiut’ls
. Will liit ‘rn,ittotiil Trade Lats
lIe a (onstrauiit5’ (2)1(15)
(1
( ,uitrt’itt ,t’ncitllior, intl and
Resource 1u<’,, 50—O2, at 5);
Stt’phiailic Sw:iyer,
lntetn,tuuii,iI lt;ik’ 1...iw ii c: ‘flit’ t;tivroitioc’iit
I )estOnnl) a Le,
init’work 10 (,uiLil ti it’ 1iiiott oi’Unsustainai,ly Pi odttei.’d
lit) uti’
‘ (2ttI 7) (.. ( )]oiir,al /
Jolt i),iiH)fl,tl
1111111
1,011111111 POll)’ .lt(—44.
91
1)ttt’ctts’t:
2)11)0, 31)/P.C
tint ndiii
. )ire, u’
95, ‘0/1
as re.att5
1)11 spt’ttltC,ttion
iii
prtrttl, cht’el
1110 gus oil IOU liii ‘otitltihi
a oit’cliani’in to nlt)flitoi’ ,ii,d recluc e gwenhour
ciulJSIr)ns,
t )j 2titttl
1 1411,55, Art


Riflewahit iii trq
285
ri1,ll.,),llll.lhlill\
iiltrI:l h)r
ttofjit)c are ttirtlicr cictiiitti to cut’ _t) 5 l(ittiijt-i
))]rec livet
whit ii ttt
tios
to iht
t Iiiiian tittiie risks posed by itt
wtel
intl use
chant
(I I
It
1 lie Biolciels
I )tr
Ove, inter tilia, tilintis tlit ho
per cent ener(v
•;aviitis ctttl iiirttdntcs au
nidtc:ttive 0.5 per cent 1aret mr
icivauic ed Ititiftick’,
whit Ii
tic
eitecitetI (itilit
loll lotidsociitc’s;tiidliiiotstlicltti-eofluofnelsfrouii
crops it0Wii Ott .t)tit(lItclltI Lnttl that (ill be citiniteci towircis the 20)2)) tarets to
cell).
lie I,ttt
tip
is
iitiilktiitlv
11101 L eiierons than the 5 pci
cciii
naxinillilt iii the oriiii,il Contini.ssic ii propt)sttl
Winch excet-citci tile tilihililt
ofthe liintptiii Pai ll;inieitt (slippnriiiii’ a h per t ciii cap) nici, piltieniliJy.
1 litise
j
of the
( ticincti, which
htvtnirech 7
tel
cent.t
hue titfletcucts
iii
tiltitilton
Onsuite
tout tltc
u)ohllliti seitsilts’itv .tiid hull tic’pt’iicieiicy 0) eiiel’y
ocllc In;
stritct calVe ]:tuvu’ tlio() iii
lie
ttiiitllttt o) toiivtiltitln;ti liiouiit’is
hat ciii
t 01(111
owiruis the Rh tin;et iiiuv ihrtiier eliVIlolintelital objet tcs’es, lint It liil tinder
nine lilvestliteilt cittices ionic on liii’ basis it) tite 2000 ttru;ets, intl
etc1 It)
iii
OVCIsllp)ilY iii hiolciel crops, -tsllltIii;
vtd.ttii. ty anti
itt reset
piesstu e nit
the
I
icrut iuhucirii sector.
crc (Oll, tile jlitil tt)Wt)ds
SVlil
Wills lot chniatc
Clint’ lll!tl!tIlllil. enci; vt ttity .iid eo lietitlvelless IltoVet itiore \\ilitii1l)
mci irettlttrttlls Ill plo tic (llll tile till ocy sttc;Lcls.
c) assess tnllpll;nlee wIth the sllstiiliablllty erlierta the
U rite
tilt ((111(0
I
0011 Schlellies.
I )owever, tilest’ St heiiies
ir
lint rtitl by either tile
C
ontiiiissucui or
flatloil;ti
I I
Illittlt y anthctritjts
it liii’ Metiiber htate level; they
ire nlniIc’c 2 by
•
a vilely oh tt,lttsii,itltl,lI
l(tiui’; Shell
is
lltt,lVt)te)ilttletltti
b!( 2
nd hulsvusntiauloos.
it
t)illltiissltilS Jill)
IS It)
it ci i l)eitt It uttrts
un
V
CCellilI)Ie ( eitllic,itit)ti
titetties
mid
It ei1e oil teqitests Ito rtcoc;intictit
ithilul
Ct)
by certlhc,itictn
Chit
lie ttpct,(tuis
lie l)Obtl1S Stil,)Ill,ll)lJit lt2iilt
luireltitu
V
ehec
tilt
itt
tutu
p,hl)ott ol
itiltiut
alit) pri.tte .uetors, Whit It
nlay (illetltc
it
nterl)ltltil),
I
it ;tooti 01 (stub) lltttttoal Jes’eis, (It scenic tiuc ecieetive till )lentc it
ttloli ol
15 llitlil,I
It
it
Wiit’iltS
ill
idvunc ccl
11)1 ill Ill liii) lIt 11)11.11
01 ‘itybi ci
S
multi- Itti
‘ovi i)))ilt1
Wile
I
IS
110
ii
er hlilllted to tile Ilnetit (Itt
I iiet\keen
tIe
-:111 ilptsill ,tiid 1(0 Mtiiil,
‘tiie level, bitt incoilipIssi’s a htrttaili’i
tSiil)c
t)t
transtitt icni.ih
itiolS
12
I)iict Ott
Ott)
2t)It/Ittt.t
of
lIlt
ttiopciit
t rlutuittiii
tiici
u)
iii’
( (11110)
It)
t) Sc’picniitc I
‘(1)5 iiittiiiliti
) ietttsc
‘i17)t
C
t )lol it) liii- c)li.tIlty ti)
tiiti
tilt)
tinsel (tick intl tutcotinin I )rc tilt t
ttttt0/211
C
ttii lilt puonlittitil ii) tlit
list
of ciinii
Icon ill lets il it
sunlit’s, I l 2)) (5
I
- it),
)
-
Prtipti’
1 (nra I lint tlvt’
it ilui
.liio(tto Ririt,tlll,nl aol) It) li
C
tttittt ii ililll)IIllt I hit’1 liv
Y5/7ttt
C
i 11110’ tct the (tdl.lhls
il [‘I’ll
I
tnt)
Ii
-
I ttmt-ls IlId
lot ltl1itl
I )irt tIne
1tl1)’t
2H/It
- ttll
lilt’ (Jioltioilcltl n) lilt’
tJSC cii
c’itc’ii.tv
11)111
ti_lit \‘,iitii
t’NrtiS
t
C
f)n,ti. 17
C )tittht i 2)02.
icitcI (Vt ‘I’
I
(Is ho 51tit
ii Hittuitel Rcttriii’, I i\J)S I lttttjtr 5 i.initus 2)05.
‘
-
ben liii [lii
I d’i,til
tilt thu
I titi
iii] lii lit
-
tnti
t t:rnii,,intio proc I
SIC
I in,
( ,ovciiitutt
tuoltiuls, 50
6 (1 Vt’tlic
I (tv,lert,
Whit’s
lit
.t N nit
hilt
I ttven.ini
if ISle cr
is
I rtnsi,,tiu ‘itt)
[Iilviiutiiiiieittti i&t-onh,itic,it
(20)) .s) tl( I) Rt i’it ii
tij I ui1
liii
( tituJtl,tIiit
flu
IItlrnllt(illit’
lii) Jut
— t
‘)t)


liii tjutst itlI
et itsitir
is \viit’tliui
tlit’ (()
pti
i tilt
s,ivliits
ihiiicti seit
tilt•
clislill Ilitilit V ii
I
t lii ,tiii
I
U
Ii I,
l
I etti Ut
Hunt
or bi
tiit’is tint (otini tO\VliIS tbt rt’ni’\vil)lt’
‘Itt ittV tat ‘it
itt
P
IltipItibit with intcr
tttttoip.iI ihiilt l.iss.
I lit
Us hitIiiis litlitY itlii,)IiiS, thus Iii, UUttttti itii this
stOIC’, bitt
,i iitiiitht’i
lit tilt,
5Ui%9V’St (liii
it
injy lit
stiJnt’ppblt
It)
ii,IlitIitt.
As ubst’ivt’iI c’aditr,
tilt Wit)
I )isititt’ Si’ttltliit’tit liocht’s (I )istfl ti.itii)iiiihilly
1
inner hli
\Vit it
PM b,ist’il
t’Si
it lions titan stili piotltit t
tiiititilit’nts.’
I lit
ii
hiotiteis
ni
visions liv
un1 ititc
iii within
lit
uniter
,ttcttNy
II
PillS) iititit,ti hiiti
I
,ii
1)ii5i)it’itti ‘h!,
‘itttitipts’
Lii tIitnt
biitliicls Unit
pitt’) tile
C ,l ]( ‘,iviut’s ,nI ,usttiii,ihility tnILlt a, It nity h’ very tittlit Lilt Itti the
1k to
ustily its f10ft’ti
ip.’ IVottost’i, ,ilthOtUii
:ist,ie
t.)5t liSt
SlIi’4t’5tS
lit W
I ( ) I )SB stotulti
oltibly
it
t’1’t
litutie thi,tiltc iiiu,isiiits
is ustihible
St cit iii
to
tilt UN I •i
itt’
I
Itt
st t’st niptltuls,
‘
I its is ye) to lie t’:piicitly
iiiti lit ti
intl it liiIV lit)) s,)lVit’ tiit Lt
i)piO ti)
1 it
IS
I t)iisitlt’i ‘ii .tthititniiy
Lii
list rlItIili,itt
ln’uwttlt
siisi,iiii,ihb
intl ctutil,ti
l)tt)tit’is.
N (it fl 0)1 St ‘tP)
/ °
As ohseiviil in the 1(1,)
‘Mcnihui
St,itts have tliii’it’itt
it’lit \U.tl’lt
tile)
Phit’itilis intl opt’ritt
tUk rtiit stIit’incs tu
Stlpflt)it
for
nieit tltt’it’.
For
iiisi.tiite, Meiiht’r ‘at tlt’ tna botist icnt’sv,ibht
ent’nuv productioii tlicotitli ureen
iuttsy tt’rt ii c,iticiit. IU iht
,ist’, ttnt’v,ihiu t’i1t’rty
Ititit Cr5 iett’i\ C. tt’rrtttcates
II))
eVt’ry ptt’tit’tt IlIllilitI t1ii,itlfltV itt IU
piinlcuteii. whit ii they
lily sell either
it,t tlit’r with tilt’ t ittity or st.ptr;itt’Iy.
ht’ scheme set iss ni
i fiitiblii,itlon with
tlotiwstttaily Set ttio)lS tilt) tttjnlic lhh itt ii pirties (whit h
110W bc tie fl
titcirs, the scipplieut
01’ tilt
cOUSClitit’rs)
Li) submit green
iertjlit,ites to covet
a
l)roptttion
of
their
overthl
t’u]urtV
protitietitlu,
tlitti’il)LltitHl
or
use
Phe
t etilicatt’ gets
il(lLiliti tilt’ sit,bhtnt tHat, OUt I
lcd iito the grid. the prove
nii)ct’ ot ent’rgy s haiti Ii) tract’, by eri’atinup rc’tonS
‘snout ol
JtV
ration an
ui,iktn ti)iS
nroot trat:tble, Green tti tilleation was the .i;tproaeh Li) stiniulatni
RI, t olLlllUflt.t)fl t!i;i )tDit)tlt’tl by tht’ bnrost’t
uniun;ssutn, which in the earb
.9ttt(is aS’iIet. to t’levatc
it to die
iiitifliflSt’i.
U inrtiut’ii to Ri. SUS)t7ort,
I however, the il)itiatiVi’ did ito) iiiid l;ivoiir With)
1 IttIItil)C’r ol Vlenilst’r States.
iiiniuiliinç Spani anti Genii,niy, whit hi prtleiied ahterii,itive schemes such as teed
‘ See un
9,3 md 91, ,iI)ivt
‘ Attn Sss iith,nil nid Cii still
I )itntblei,’
tniprivmv hU I)iotutk Polk y? (ii einhouse Ci
l,nnssions, Polity
P
tilts. intl WTU
tiulintihilut’,
‘ (2(t 3) 47(4)jnintii
‘1 II ‘told Tri,l
SI --K)4
An
t I
Ill
nit1 XX ( A I
[V WI’O Appchl.itt’ Body Report, United Slatcs
—— Ifli it’
Prohibition 4)1
C ‘t’ni.uht Shi imp auth Sun tip P
tlnis (US
Shrimp), W’I / I )S58/AB/ l
,ttn
it .1 i Novunilsc
l
)9S; WI C) Apinilait t3otv RI1 oil,
I, J ituted States
Standards
‘
itt)tiiitiil,tt,.tI
lilt1
,oii,t’iittOiI,t
C
(lie (US
t tsolnt). Wl/l)S2,AICR, idopi
2tt M,i
I 991
HIt)
Ut), 1i’etmhIt’, 25.
Pluruii ity trout renewable t titi sw soun t S tilt! the in krnal elet wit ity iiiarkei.
ommissi
V
sstrkut tlt)i titlit’iit
Si ( ()‘))4
it tin,iI, 13 April )))
286
tIuttili’ Cliinge


lititewahie Energy
iii
nih.
C
ii
Ill iii 1k
niilIiiltt Rb prodnttrs ittess to the tritl
it a fiXed
tariff,
iii ithi
i i.’,d
1
fl( lit lii i
liii lot
Ijt’ii
iii ol tiliic.
I ted-ui i,iiilf
iic
clestitlcti tni
ii iilitt
oiii Let
itt tSS lii tlit
tIllISitiOli ptnioti titUliil hitli
it
is
dihilt lot
1kw ninki
tUUalits
to
oiler
i iioipt tulve pt
onip.iicd to tiit’
utttiiiiioiits.
LJItiiiitt’iv,
lIttililts
to
litiitioitist’
tiatioital support sc’henies
I
lath-il
tilt
.tt(I’) Ri’,l
I htivis
lit ilioiit’ of
SC Ilittit
iii the Mt-other ‘tltt
md,
iflstC,ltl,iti(tlst’soi) iiiriiioiitsiiitltcieiierilioiitlittmsfortiieitiipit’iiieitt;ttioiiof
I
itch sciuott’s. ibis, Artult
I (2) rcoircs thu
tilt
tc’tiiiocai speiiiii ittcios that
Ltciiitic
Titlist unit
to) cjtiiitiy for tt,itiiiitai support should he citar]v dehied md.
where ivitbaldc, lie txpitsstd ivitit Ttie[eflce [<I inltopeail stoidtrcis.
Wini ficvii support sciittiic
is
irtft neil
it
h ttiuoiial Itvti, a few
tot’rif
poliie
hioi.iiiti out-thou
inst
under boson’s-is too,ii coiidittous tilt bU is
iredicitil to Liii short of
Is i)
itt
cttit
1<1’, tilget 1w O2tI. Suppott stilcitics
art.
hi-it fort.
iii tiitritisti
iirt
iii
lit’ lU’s clunate thitttru policy. SecoitcP’t,
esttlihisin-J liatli itid support scitcuics ssull typo ii1y otily support clot tc i (tile
prdiii cii it
hiss ,ihlc elicrs
I 1t
b’ ii) fort-sit” tht possibility of iittct—Stttt
tochici.lt oil lint
is citsclissi’il tither
so fir isv i\4tttthit’r ttts
list
silowil
ti it ii liii it huh
tt
p015111
it
it Is
St thin its
ti!
it
it
diii
ici
V Ut
tiop
inciit
itt
itvcl.ss lit-hit. itlv Uottit’sttc lUcos of nitiotial support stIic tilts pits
sittitii,il kb
ltilttits
11Th
.i ptitttitiil
(Olhicoll
Course
ss itli hti
ltlosc’tttt’llt
ptuiplts,
tIlt1
iii]) OS’tls the
it liSilili
l)ttWi’tTl
C olliiittiitn
i iiiitcptitdisittoo’
•
o coihijittitivcocss
itici
liii OV
sctiirttU
as
i
liitltiiiil
CCI,
iltttltiti\’ti\
i bun Opt itt
iii nil itt
tiee Mo Vt n itii ol TonewAh/n I noi qj’ /iI ti/a
iin flCi wren the oak 0, i / the
‘the, dli i /0/i
I flh/// 0/ imeii
/ /1 Oi
U/On P/iC’ N HO) / I (0/li! a! ot,ei tfleI9J/
!0l/CJ/
I hi
i oiiip oh’ its ti do iii 5th
1
ii
T
Sit ipili t
Si lit lilt S 55 th thc
Ii cc
iTio\
C
lit lit
prtseiljittcols oi Artic it’ ,‘j i liLt iii’, [
cii the stihiect lila c
mpact mit r cii vent
cisc
lw.
l’lic’ lust l.iiitiiiiirL case, (.ini/ill
( )IL°1 cciiiceroctl
to irish
icqutli ii tilt lit iiitit uii.ii oil
c iiiopiiites soctit c ,i
Uo
iii lion ol ti1cr od Ircitit all
!n.th reltotry. /Utltoiiih [lit
iutani
thriven hc’iituid the ptdicy sets to seiurc’ tile
icoiiotiiii viiliiiity iii tilt rthuciy,attcliitFoothc ci olltitott iustlhcitoiisasa role
ianllot lie invoked to extitip itt’ li-ct’ fllovcllitllt nc’strictiottt
tilt CJFU pcotii[tc U
the recitllleilleot. Jo its sihuiitssioii, the
iishi ovc rlllot’itt eiii.h,ss t’ thin kecpiiiu
the rehuiery opc’rititilili Sea, a iiiit(t’l (ii 5t itt”lc CIlIllOllilIt e iici IluttF0il siiOl]t\
jUt the Irish I&eputbbu
f )o this liusis, tilt
(
Jl Li rc,noiicd that the rccioiletilcitt fell
wtthlli the polk P ‘but
i\ecptli)u) ifl At iii’- 0 ‘[‘[-IL!.
I IililiiiLss,o it al,
I&cCii:sll’i
Iii’r,tlc’s, lieu
I 10
I )ot’rit Ioiiiiiit
intl ]houi,i
[1. iohni.ssio
‘tlui’pt.ni tnt’
11111
ili-r’s
t’ohcs
ii
C.iossni,itls
tills oii
t Ic-tout itv
uppirl Mci liiinsiiis’
2itot-t)
Iti(l I)
I iiiiy I’ell:y
•itt71i -lttt
04
72./U It ‘f.I;It!A
it/H:2,t,


2
Clirnale Chanqt
uI1ptll
( )i/ shows a
I
clIpetil ( ocirt thu
is cn;tuuhlv J)t
ISSIVe in itS tilIClel
stucilicu, ol the
[)El1)llC ptthi’y
eXC’C’[)liOti
us upphecl tu) C’tI11W [1010 V. p.nittiitnIy
cCuiStdeflic tile overtly disencnnuctury cuttte ol the lrtslu scheme. Yet in assesscccg its
IC lcV.Iuiie tc JeIC 01111k
lilt
ic:1Icty oh IIttionti SuSpolt scicecoes Eluder the 1< H),
two ,tdd:tcott.tl
IcOns teed to he couishred.
‘Ira, the lrish [101115 In
1ttit1tus Oil
Was
clot
custuhieti
011
iii’
1)1515 ol
cttVIloItIiIectt,ti
II IISIJC’tatIo)uIS
SC’1 III)Cil/, the
dtlISiOIl
[11CC eCles [lie 0110011:’
(.111(1 snil Iit(InipIetC
U plC)Iltltillt( tI)tv,ti(I5 the
huheruhisitcoic
(II etIC’rt5
i1]:11kI’tS
hI) lltidC’lSt nid hose these ttetors
t
up;tc
on the
cn1ii ItCbl{ItV oh Il:tn(iiI,’l sEtppict
SC hollies \Vitht AittiI
3 I IU’U. We nOIsE turn El)
the ieCcsauuus in P rI!’,5I’ttljl*)it, .‘111011C
ecJkrtJt till, oust [CI ently, 1:0 it).
In
,uc hi
C :tse, the c outtestec
Ilue,i’,turc seas pcrt of a ti ttiocu,cl s)ratC tv to p1011111k
Il, P
cochiict -ott: a
:CCEuirC client
ticat lt
I uSC
tv
I’
t,1i)cI S SOtliCC’
a
[1 clOOrtlOul
01
titer electricity
rIot wino :,Il’IIIS in )u’c:cu’tclIu’ktis
.111th a I’eCICIIIC’inC
ii thit C’clel’CV
i:stnhuiuus tilt) ili:t)O1 Cci
s stihutut iueIt enuuy 1:c’c titui,itus It)
111)001111 II El) [lIeu
‘Ill rI SIll
.ttith liSt’ Ill .‘NSI’ltl tuol
IttciIs
I j;tlL’n:/i.
oh p1)1cc V over\litc)cul uuiiy 01
hics:sulv Its OWl’)
1i0111C’Sttl RE prt)Cluuccr’: Only
1 o’rtul,lct wtictl Itu’itr;
C’OUbC
SCtf)’Jhy
c lectutc ity to
ft t,thes
littler the sIhiCull’
cit
Prt’ctst’iJ/ti Ii)
,tIiCI only
CItittlitCi issticd it th1 Ss eC)iSi) (,‘ill!IlIP
cttJiist/t) or Phetccesic (1ccc Ut) atttlioc’ittc
111 tIter
tI1V,t[CIS Ote llCtlct,tS. ict iii,tlIy :1)) the eertiicC,tes, lU; pc’ttCfltCl’ft u]eecje(
to he established
ispi C ttvely in Sweden or Norway (,1tii1.
tOl!!Sl1!/t) Or :3ChClClcIl
I lcst’ict)
,Niltivcthstlccc11t11! tile stltllt.ttlttl’s, Pii’ii.csi’ti1Ii’I’itt, .,IctutL
I ‘i1,cIkrc’/
lilt1 bsst’n
elI I] have a dcstcu]etcve
eatnis’
Put’ttsst II:/I’Rtca was Cli
1 ICICCI in 21)1)1
, when tit
!cheralis,tcoci
1101 ttctes’aOi)u1 oILU enetpy Il),Ii’kt ts was lac less ;tihvtuucccl thacu
t is
lOW, ilk SCilefl)e cci 1051)/f was ailopted uccdec’ tile preuecessors iii the 2t
(IC) Rh
1 )cn’ctuves 20)1/77
oud 2t)03/54), which asked Member States to develi,)
il1(11C,ltlV(’ RE t.o’sc’ts but CUt, not Ic)cpo-e clc,tc)0;1t11:’y I1,ttiOtLli t,It’’Ut5 br R_h
t
.1 OCcpOu’tIotI O bIll
f7Ct’05’
(1)1)1 CIflilt tOIL
‘tui,til, ahthC)CtSl1 the CJEU ruhtr
pieeeiles the iii [15)01) in
sst it, the ucceastuics ucudursec’uuuty iii .‘lltcictls H-cdkraji, it
bitt 151, were
hi
hi st
It) hi-
rC’v:eweCl
i/l tne
C0iite2, [
oh the
201)1) R_s.
1sduressun1 t:le question wetiter nat I)))),
Stt’fl(tl’t
SC’helnes that
:tvour
alt
)t)tecit)aily uIsadVaulta-cC
utattoclal nrodtictwt ot
cit cv aNt ecuery
to’ eaudht 115
tIll’
1, 1) ib [lot
c
on trade restrIctions cn Article 34
i U , the (3 bU in
eac
iuust;tnee ,turwert’u cic tile ,lt,irnltlLVt’,
ibis means U1.it tltttlo)lL1l SC4)[1Ott IISCISItI
for ruitewabit
C nei’
Ire not exempt bioiii (J; U si oILily. I -lowever, in cac.
ot
the thc re eases the t )iL] also tound that thic’ eontestert nieastures weru ‘useful for
I lie protection ol the envronntecut tnasunnch as jtttey C CIntobutef IC) till’ reduct
In greenhouse
ras c’mIssiotus, wh:ch are
tuhconist the noun
e,iuses of
ClU1l.t
I hauue thtat
the Lnrrupeaiu
Union and
its Member Stites have
)hedged tu
___________
uui
ut
110
\sJlc Ic
15
1111)11
hI
1)1111
obsc i vi d tli It
in mt ii isi d use of R
05
‘
57l) 0/i Pocco’ctl (ct-ut
‘Ci I.I.ti(0fll :1(c)); (S7,t/l2
-1rcncl
I ‘c’udktctjt ECLIi
-
1
:21)14 2)))?,
1010cc!
(uSes
It
C —St 1-12
did
C’
- /00
I’
l:ittc’i
Itil’ttittc
LULl: l
‘:2))) ‘I 2 1 Ct)
I or I icrthuec dc neoC,:)
- Set’ list) I htcpier t
IOu
ccItt
ci 0!, lIe mlii: icc
i/ct-dc,
II 75.


the Challenge ol a Reçju Inlion—i3asetl Market
289
•iiitrilsiites iowncls lie poit et Hull tit
lie lie,iitlt .ntil life of Ittintins,,nnnt,ils anti
ant, (lie pub
V iatntiiis ensinnieul ni Aiti ic
Itt
I ti.1
on
lie iutsts of which
)eiither Si,ites nity
nstiPy trade restrit tivc nie,isnres, even if they ne dist rune
itory iii ciesin or ililpiti,
is the 1<
n,ititun,iI support schlentes were. Morettvei,
lie deeisicun to exclude ioreii’n RL pinclitici’s, or c-sicuiiiIIy eneiited eerttuIeites
iii tile case ot I:cct’ijt, liotn tile scope oh the soppori scheme was in teceptihie way
nra Meniber State to ensore (flat Its i< str,Itey would effectively stnnnlite kI
odtic
iTt
is s’’ell as coitscln(ptituii
witiliii (lie
Menilser Siate
intl to exercise
—
a tieiree Cli eoiiti’()l user the iiahon.ti eilert’
niX.
I lie
t tulitesteti nteisi res were.
eretore, in
tuttipinette ss; (It the proporttnuluty punt ph
‘I lIe
litiicctti12iktii—,ln,ttl.’,
I utill,’tii/(— hso’ni
triiu(Vili
settles
titi’
cftlestltoi
1)1
lietiter taLonal Rl sti—ateties nta’ i;tvoiir local P
I
fsrotict(t;u)ii.
[ however, tite
itdnr;niee of the ( ,IPU’s vision nay be less n,ii,ititet’ti th,nt the iniit s infancy of
runtentation
ni the thiet’
cit
nients .Siine5(S. list, tile
t ieatttin cita i’,tutt)sac’;iti
nci
Union by pocthn
soiti C ss
ttitiui nit
ii it
ish ttt 11105 nid Uilttnt
ift
it
2
‘tatiiw power vts t•v
third eutnittes,
is a puitnity ,i’eida point of’ tile
cntekei
Oflt(ilissioti.
It
is
cjri
tIo]ab:e whethcr
ti:ititiii,ii c.ttdersttndtnt;s ot enety
ecuitty, suhteh technic s’lIliti!niess [ci rely on enerf’\ supply if’oiii other
niiiei
tttes, will
eontntcte to ht witlltit
t cinibed
nicutic
I that
c]uirely iianie.s s-iier\
cm its
its
iii is nc
is ciii c
t st
nit upt ni
in s tons
t’/tu iii osc i
[Iii
IS
I oil
tennl tenet cut the ()LU s ue,ionnti is sve.tk. As c’inphiisisc ii
Acivoc its (tnei,ii
•
lots ( piiitoti5 ifl both
‘lands
ntlktift ,tiid t.siiu(, haunt a elnn,ite c lint
e pefc
ave itdtue not n,tttcr wlic’tc
eift’\c’:l[)ic ener
is
enc’c,teci !ii’ii,hiy, tile nclnsion
if hitet’it
itoduc
‘is in ui,tuuuii,il siip1siutt stiieiitc s ecuitlcl buster
tilliculines of scale
nd titus
iii ks [hi
ti C)tittc tictit (Ii
icc (ciii
5 tilts
i
ttst
c llct (is
lot ic t)ttld in
inn speed up market penetration
i s’itlentiy die CJPU dc’eidcd di(ireiitly, but the
uG opinions sits’s
is
i cuu St Oil
iii id
tlt it
t ciittinits
[ci
tilVitc
dis
ttssioii
iici
sotetit tfl
iii O5 (hut tttoii
10 115
tltc c \Ts[c
it
ill iii nd
tot
n it on ii Is
t
i
t ts
in uilauidu
null o’lt ph wici
i si
itific
itt p ut
01
t
pl ntn;t
ths
tics ci k)t Mc nibs i
States to 1 sip
t (tint ii ntci on ulonis slit sncit,y p OclUc [too und
t si
c p tttcois Yct
inrnd:aois Lit ieis wtll expire in 2t)2t), ,nni ssiii lot lie rc tssnuC fur tIlt’ 21)2))
ttI)i
penod. It in ty hut be a det isis’s eletiis:tt
— ths iuaeicdrcip of
ticicatiss’ tr’os itt
t55f’nt diii litit StOft the ( niirt front tilitSit ernti tite c’xehtistoii oficcia ox t certihit
itt
eceptable
bitt it is
it utothte tctor that cititittlis its to keep a witelitol t’ye on tin
re aewible i’iit’igv
cners’y st etttsiy- ni,nket lis’tiitsitisci nexos
The Challenge of a Regu’ation-Based Market
Uitqctesttouabls tile tilcust i,itiicitts tenet cti the i U’s (Innate (lintip Pit kwe i
the hiiusstoits
ruing Systt’ili (J’S to iii b IS)
‘lie
1 5 was t st:hiiilied iii
Je,iit
C ttndejmtt kt’r, ‘A Nc’w Start br itirnpe Mv Anincit or cths Growth, I tiness and
I)c’itioc’i,iiie Ch.tniie Itohitic,tl (,titdt lint
Fir tht Nixi Fttrcipetn (tlntillissictit’. Opt oiie
St.tc’ittcnt in thi’
1 urolc’irt
I ‘iiijinieij I
I ‘lc’Tllrs Sc’sioti (Si rasbourt, 22 C )crober 2)) 1 4),
tv,nItbic
ct: Iotp
/ec,cutt’ p c.u ii p
tutOR
dos s
i_s’n.pcIt t!fiat;s’
it


Climate C5aiige
tin UtU lniisstons
1 tacim l)1nc live (l I
I ))uut .cud atiojin a ctp-.Ini [tacit
.ilpn)ach
((1 t’illtSSii)ils e
tt’ni. Opc’r.ttotc it
tcei
ii
In
I Ii)
ctJcccie ( d
ittuensive .sceturs such asi Iant. steel nulls oid,
ittfli\ etsutlIv. lolOhilti
ciii atrhites (see above.
(
civecJ
ihterp[is tints) ohtatii ciltssotts .iiiow
hues,
t’.it it
it ihi Ii
t olives’s
lit
iltt
tel
t.’tiitt
liii.’
tilitlie
ot
I)
tot its
tcithivtiehit
lit ttltiilht
tiXItit’ or flehlititlic)e,tthOfl) intl .iiintially suurrcticlc’r sum
etch)
tiiosv.iiit t’ to teevc
I their
iutis’,iteii,
I itt’ iocii ituutbt
cit ,tliow.itiees
isscit ci coO esuonds to
to
ces cecil
oiisstoii
cap sshicii, as ot Phase
ill of rite
I ),
is de
liiite
etcticliv leer .ll (Vie othi r i
cite1 sioe h
1c crc eses by
i/I ccci
III toictitily.’
I lii tip
çi’d at a (evil lien slueicckl c;ulriubtc e that,
Icy
‘t 12(1.
1
5
cOil
s ill hive iedcc
c
h’ec fh If, eiuits’iotis Icy
it
ietst
per
ciii
Otii.iI,t 1
i
‘))O
in icc itoltitic with
die
eec oIly .tdopted
U ))
()t) stitci”
ei
1hasu
V, ( dl(
unissioci
svhtlluut tlic
I
‘1 sectorS ,ure
tel LIII)!)
tU
tilt ittOtl,t!
(1 per tint hs 2)) (1)1
to .u luieve thus.
lit over]!
s:ili rheen let
c cOlic
Lion ii by .2.2 pet- ccitt ,iiiuie.t liv loin 201 I
I hii Iiitse IV
icrhtis
tic-
otultruite-
itt a ))I5
eiittlillsi(lit eoeciI to
tim
lit, the
Ii), anti
tIc
Vc’t 10 1)1’ tii ccl
11)011 by tilt Council ,uiiii
ni Lineal]
‘it lint iii.t
The IIS as i/1ar/.e-5a7d i?gu/aflOn
the LU LI’S is a pratud cxpurubcwnt
iii iu.uiket-based rem:tclattott, ‘ctt,tcc;mtl
ccrp,tsscetp nieviotcs itiodels (such
us the US Acid
Rain Pteprt,cttt)t ti
tilt1 titer
itativc
e.trboit markets in scope
acid
seal-.
it
is clc-sittcd to
Itritess tnarkci
tic cht.tiisttts
iii
service
of
bc
eitietetit
ciehverv
of
rc’pctlatory outcome
)pcrtttr that tiwit excess
tlhosv.uetcc’
caut trade these on th
opeut miarin
which shcnch! tilt entivisc
cii Vestuneitt in nrecn ifloUvatcon
hrottph the tinloli
LOS
)tuca
iSv
2(103/57
L(
01
the
]-uiiopeaii
P.imic,ciieent
intl
ot
the
( ocincil
cit
3 ( )c cohn
‘15)3 etihIushiiic a schniuie tnt c;rceiehnucsc
uls eunusstditis .eflciwiuiec traditi
wct)iei
tilt
I
0hhihlilOtUe
.ini)
,00inc(lic
ouencii
I )urut si
i)11 ((
I t
OJ
2))(i
I 275/32.
tel Atinc’c I, ti It
lilt tllip)eIchtn[utohe iii t)i IIl ) is cirseciused iii elefftiici phases, the stall anti cod claw- of
which
C Ocelchcic With key points iii II.) ,uid iiitirti,itutitiiI t )IctIit
clteocc’ policy. the mill
period (Picc I; sItite cit the cilicy 1111cc (01cc of the
I
I 1)111 2)11)5 iiul ran until 21)1)5. Phi
II covered
thc
Kyotc)
c onuptiane e period between 21)1)5
end
2(112. Wc are
citrently 0
Phase’ III, which wilt cxpcu e
ni 2(12)).
ill
[he oct
i umotnbc’r of ailoss .mc,s
I icr 201 7 i
031 ,244,KOt I.
Assci onin the
e ontmer
nit muon of lilt
UI< in the
I hU El’S, this
I ot.th will reduce’ by 35,261 264 .eIlowcn
pit veil nnt ci 2(120.
ii 2 Set’ ii, 30, above.
I ii See hutp:/ /ecturop.t.c’u
e II ciii! polie;e / ets/mcicxc’n.litm.
0-i
Proposal
or
a
1)11cc tvc
tel
thee
1tirope.tn
I’arhenct ni nd
1)1
the
I
eccineui
colt tic
l)hicc
cut
2)5)35 ‘/]t
to cohticcc
c ecst-etlcttivt
enhissie
115 It Cliii
11015
cod iow—caticofl
ccvc-st ccc ccl-, (/)M(2)) (5)337 final, 15 July 11)15.
0 A.
I Ii icc c’
/,.t-tcocn,
P.eit I,. Joskeisu. R;c lard
Sc biiialrttsec
, jti.cti-Ptblt Mctntt’tt)
upt
liuz,bern
(VI
lilt v
3lcerke’/i lilt
I leuec
lu
The
t
S elite! Rain
lttecce,t,et
If
cmhtc,
l.JuiItel,hiS I’tcss, 2)11)1)1.
i
I


Iho Chull(’nqe of a Requiation-Based Marltot
291
l)ireetive,00
i’niissntn
RediliticHi
Units
(bRUs)
obt:tinetl
via
onci
icleiit’iit,ttcn
iichr
iii’ kyoto Proto iii, intl ( ericlittI l:iitissiott kc’tliiitioiis
((IR’,) issiittI by the ( le:cii
iteeltifunent Met lintisin ((.1 )f\4), liii be ccuiveriecl
Ott) ,illtt\V:ili( (‘S nut uttiset tc;tnist 1:15 eccussiocus within lice l I. l[ie jo)ssihclity 1)1
tiacitici; ,tllow,tutts, (it hil:iiitii)f clcincesite entisioits \s’i Ii eiiuissinccs redtcc lion’
iCilceVitI oictsitfe tilt’
U, ltltls otit the proililse 1)1 eiltisscotlis iedtittions h:ippc’ci
niore eost—t’f}eetively than wider a etinunucidund —c ctccirol
cpprtt:ttit with
uni(triit ecinssions reiliiticticc st:tuid,trtls Under ntirkc’t —bisect re’tiI:ctcon, sectors
that e:cii luciovute
Iteiply ss’ill ni;cke the trc’atc’si tilts Ill t’ctnssiotis.
ilinse fin
whom c’nnssctms reductions ire expensive svill hold
00k) (heir allowances and, it
necessity, pun hitse illt)Wtitdl’s lrec’cf tip tlcittntçh C’nnSsit)cts recfnctioits elsewhere
kncussiitstu,itlnili,isitc’enie,i pitt of the
I iiiopettt rt’-nl;ittiry itnidsc:ipe, yet
Its nit ititluc
iii was flit front nnpicdtletit:ttie :tnd its fittine Soc cr55 reut:ctits lcicçltls
precino is
‘‘he history td the IL)
:15 oIlers a sve;cltfi ot lessou.s ft
lie Ic: ,:tl
chalfeit:es tii,n
nt’ninp;ttiy iii
cfehib rite tte,ctioit nIt new market tic sic
port
a rc:nl,ctory str,ctecy. ‘lucy
tic
title, to n:cnie but
a less:
lie le:,tl tussles ovei
ac’tepttlle icaitoical
iiloc,iitttii
ol :ilfoss:liices
iii
conipictiuce ssctli thi
ttver,iil
cap;1
/
lit iuyri;td cli,ihleui:’,
‘; involved
ci
lie e.st:ihhshioeitt oirt liable, venilable
cud eouipctlitle inhililtorni:
systelits
1(0’ eiiiissions
hid
re:istr:ctitn recrcliics
or
:ihlow,cutest
(lie scope iItr
nit1 teed to touih;ut )r:titd cci thlos’aicces title;
tlct
tfuestciiiis surriucitilici; the ie.ti st,itdis ii c’niis’cons :ihlow:cnics as a newly eie,uted
connitoclity;
L
I
mu
so utic
‘l’hie
I
I Ph’s has .cfso nivc:’or:cietl extd’n’ iS’’ c:eb:cts
,chonf tlic’ pros
ciii) eons of ilidtiltiVC’ based ie;ulition eoccipit’eci to counnanci
cod-control ,lUdl/t ,iltc’i titlist
rei;ul;ciory appntitehes
nid about the extent anti
ethics of conoiiochifi it hilt
liii’ sc’ctions hic’lo\\ ln:hili:lo two Iniportuit nu’ss,c”es [hit enieroe (roni [lie
sU hiS esp’t utcic’ htcit thu
iii) potr’utilb (iinsc cud
tilt
context cii (El(
t’missioii’,
ti
duct;
lb
P1’S reveals
tutu
attempts to harness the
iii,irket
for
‘erul;it oct iii
c a htit;h de’ree of complexity ifltd) re
tulatoc’s desi
n and cleec,n)h1
iciikiut’.
I irst, they introduce a new acid ehialicci:nu: ilarrtitivt’ hilt)
fL’etiveciess
:ussessnients,
i touchy, thi
use of niarket
b,cseci retulatiocc his resulted in thit
‘onslmnctcci of
,u lie,is iv i’ctnlatcou b,iset] ni,trc’t
Kit pine this ucarket ,tlltuit
1i6
)ict’dtcvi’ 211111
Ilul
id
t,i,Itc hi :
1 sclcc’ccic for
‘ri
culicic’c’ as t’iuccSSiccui .illccw,tneu
tr;cdccu; wiuhccc the C
cuuiicccc:i5
ccc cc’spc cccl ihi Kycic Pccttctccl’spcoject ciii iic,ccioccix ( )J
21)0.1 12th
1K.
F.,
ktn
plc
Ithluruiu:’r
cccii
Andic’t
Iicite
‘Misccuu
tucipc’scbl!?
0cc
the
I t;icicucccv,iuccnc ol N.ci:ccit.tt All
chico tuf,icl tctuctcr the Pt) I ucus’coui’ ‘I r cliii
‘ I lilt) live
(2(1(15) 2
it JctttucuI cf RIM/itt
i,ncttccc
K 1-
18 5, lilt titec,cnu’ nt’Vccs
ut V.clt’ntct ii ff,tc’ci ‘-dcl., ‘Monitoniuct’, K ptcrico:cnf Verilyict:
1iuuissccciis tic liii
C Yccn,cuc’ Ii c)ctccicly
(2(tt -c) 5 ,\‘,itciu t )ictcl’ (lit/uS H)-32h
iS K;ctltt-rcnt’ N:
(ii
cud
Kit rio l nut. ‘Print] on the itincpoin Ucucoui Lccusscotis ‘I’rcticn:;
Sc’ltc’ccu’:
I t1uis, \/chtccichcltct*,ccicl It,cxtcl,iiccis I&i’ictiicc’ (‘((hi) 21(
I uuctpc’cict Icuc’oycitcd
I ‘cct’:cuttccc’cct,i/ i_itt’ Rrc’ic ci’ 25’s _2h)
i20 S,cbcci,i M,c,’,
‘t lc-t:itui:’ Fuuiussucicts Pnicttccucectts in thc
I inistitutuouc
ot the It] Fuulisstc)lcs
1 radii
‘ sic’iic’ (21112) ((2) ‘ISituccuch’c’ctc/ Etc’otutccuctct,i/ Liii’ 2(13-3 U


292
Climate Change
((lUll itk
ii
t ii U i
iiC
Jt ut
1 t
\‘est 11(11
(If
c”U
itt II
t’S(
I It US
ii 1(1
II
(
I
I
I
5’
(iauglng the L7 ecr!/en954 o
il/i.aIet-.8aSeC/ [?t!httio,
\ lust
soil
the
C
ISI-Cuelli is of
it1
)tiiIi iltt’iil vt
l)lSt(l (lIC’liOiiillC’ll
iii stl,itt’iut’s ku
tilt’
lilt tptli:ilsitioti of
i
ifituiy
litiveiicss.
I lie lU l’!’
spent lit
C SfiClW tliit, wheu It collie:, iii cv,
l.Itiili
C ks tlVc’lk’S’, Iii.iihUt perfor
in it
,ì it!
ci Si
ii
ic-i
ii
pet in un u e
1ii’c
)c’Ct III1C’
uIet’tIy
ti it
1 ilc.l
flit
111)51
fi utfili iii i\’
115CC1 ci
iii—
ill !,iilI0 fitIw
..‘‘ Ii (oi
f)t)OCly)
fit’ 1’ I’S is
\ciuil’,lllt’
i’
lit
lilt
Ii
tilli’tSiOiiS .illiuwiti t’
cli
C,ltl)t)iI prI1t. ‘I lit-re is sonic
1151110 ,OlttIl for tins: t’COilOii)ts[, eStiii,ttt’ iii
,libCiul .eiiw,iiis,
tiLt ittIS’ ttaci—
1111 at
i-f)rC)\;lni1els C4.7 (lilt,
wtiiilt
liCCif to h’
i(C’i) •it (l) or
hove to
sIiuilil.ltt’ lUhic\.lticlli
At fC)W(’i pOttS, it ieiil.iiilS 1(101 C’ eIhtiiit 11)1 OIi ititOS tO
Out 11,1st
ii
,iflt)\V,uiii
‘5
ii, it) lIi\’est iii
ii: It’.
tilt C, llhItkt
thlilSitLiOflS
(iii
11(11) ‘f)ii’tl
hf) ui1
lit’
if
ililicIVattohi
lilt!.
tot’ uiti.Illl/,
I tI,il)ic
liii
kt,_J to
tiiliiilll
to
iflC)i’C
,tiiihttot iSO’ tiilti
15,1
U,iO’i’[,
till
231
ti
It’LL
‘,i’h{’tjSlIe.
Vfo:covei, tlit ,i\,ili,uIhihIIy t)i
1 tliiii firit C as a til.iuhifict., Straichtk)iW,li’U hc’uch—
iii.uk of
ciul,ltuiv 50CC 155 IS It
lily IVlpt. 111114 it) ,iiiafysts o
e”,utiiitiy t’lh cOve
iiess, 141 Veil tilt’ Wt’li (!i)ttiilleiite(l
C (liii lc(Oty (ILlct’tiu’:ltCIy issessitie the iii
act of’
ItR)iC ti,iditiou,if ilIe.lsLiius such as ccii ssious limits ,iuc tt’c’huc’ai staitci,ids
lit’
C’tfUitlOii
tit
lhi,ifkt’i
:)erfc)ntt:ilu c’ with
envluoiill)cu[.i! pemfor 11(111CC
15,
hiowcvcr not tunpioblcinoi
t\u:,u,thiy,
2
((ill Oil tilt’ ‘tIaclc’
‘tiILi
of tie cap
21111 triclu tc’iiinc’ tliVl’rts (Itit’lltit)fl away from
thc’ d’l’S’s true chl(4liIt
it)’ ehange,
it,00elV, tlic’ tritlu:lhfy 1:’
tt’lIiii14 cap.1 lIihc cap is eg’itively c
ihti’t
c, reduc
[loll tiii%UtS will be net
I’C
it’tllt’S) ol thi,’
C :u’hou
lOUt.
liii t’d, it iS osstble ti
I lint t:IVC’ itt SCt’u,it’iOs V,lit’)
ile t,irbtli)
lOUt is mw yet Lilt’ euVirOtliltuutat tar14Cl
tit the
lti4ltflU
aic’ bc’iii
cubit vt-ti, fir eaIci lIc
it oaer;irors oust-i their GUt
t’flhlssiofls ,114(UflSt meduct (IllS cfiievcci iii
I (IC cleVclopitls4 5,’i)i’IC( (st’t btlow). Thci
IS,
tflci’t lore,
a risk
tiat
a low
c((rtlOcl 2ICU
COtuic
hi
used
(1) dist’i’ccit tb
Let tivetlSs of 1(U Clmnlite
C Oaui14t’ politic’s that,
rilni
fl t’nvirounit’uLi :P
tive, are nonetht’!ess de]ivei iii:;. l\Ao’covc’r,
etrott.s
LI) suiport the
unarset
mit
,illOWailccc icily
lot
lit-c C’SS,U ily be thc’ most t’fc’ tlvc’
to ithieve iapid G1i
etiiSS)llS reductions.
1c)tc’iltliilly, rt’gtlfatory ititilC)t’itit’S t’otilCu bt’ led to poonti
‘ilvunu’ the (:11111(4 c,mi’hon ni:irket uive :uvest:n the Lt*t1 e idito r s’sou
at their disposal into
;mltc’ruativc
,
pc’rflapS more effective, approaches
tOW2t
1
tliiiiate change uhitliatlon
flit’ 2f) ii
dilOit4tvefl’t’ut httweeii erstwhile neu
( cullnhls’liotser f )ettiu(et and (1liniate ( hantc’ ( OfihilliSSlOllUF I iedetaard Ox-i
I )at 3
1 v,li!.ihlt’
ti
www aC: -
- coIn’ c-i’ll / Ill
-
‘
tVlc’ iii
j ),
I Sf
,
,tt)000icsts
“tVaru
of
“Lost
I )c’c’adt’” Risk
[Or EU
C,mi’hou Mark
-
I K
-u’Ntuir-,’ .f II ,,v ,:a:’lc’ at: www. Itt t orc, _Ii f 5 / I 1_f,’
K/ecouomsts -W21 n—of—ft
tit-u ithc’ —risk— Ioi
- i II - Ii 0)011 -inarket/
123
I ):uuc]
Ilitcf,uich -j,
‘flu
‘frt
md
(,‘,sift of
1-lU tihhtmttrtil
Lnmtiritlimi’utat
l.ciu’ (Hr v
Uiihvt’lciiy lilt
, 2(110), 251 2S
1/4
‘lnli’i
1 hi
I l;Ui,itt- is No (uiiitimodmty


[tic
C haflenqe o a Regulation-Based Market
293
\viiCtli(’i
111I11(l,IlOi
‘otry (lilt
tilt ‘>7
t:li’irets slio
Itt hI’
iIiI[)t)St’CI (iii the hIS
ector’, Ilus itt’s itt’ t(’flSlOT), Alilittiicli
tiitrihuitiit. to tltiitate chtii,
Lou, the coilteril
55 is rued hit chit leiny si,iiuthirds wttiild tiest,tliillst’ he ni,irket
or eniissioiis ,LlloW;lIl( c’s anti should
lierefoit’ itt
ivctidecl,
“ It appears that the
hoice liii’ the iiiatke
liiIV
li1VC’
1
severely
restrictive
iiiiitit
Oil
recuihttoiy
cite ri iut iv e
‘4anag/ng a /?egu)tion-Based lf4arket
ic
hit l,ttter oissers’;itic)iis hiiik to tl)e 51100(1,
iiiiahly iiiost ieSOiiiidiflB
lCSSOii
Imptrtetl ;iiter ,i cleenle ol the
‘.11 IsIS: iui.irLets est.Ilslishtetl
hr
cccli relil.itioii
ire loch
ll],tiiuieii:Iiiee toot ‘tutlittlis. [‘roiii the tiitSei,
hit’ hid t,crhttii iii:irket mis
been pl;i:itecl by tleticieiutu c’
nid itut(heil)C iltttIit.iiit e. lhiihluii it buck froiii tIle
lion!.: of ohl,inc’ :uppe.urc ti he a cttltst;tiut lecoh,itttiy Ut
eavctiii’. [Ins is
irlciisicic
once nile ot the tuitiehi viitt’it
eiiehts of iit:irkei--h,tsetl o’ciil:itltto over
ciiui
‘i
tnand—aiid eoiiti’cil is
fLit thit’ ltn’iitei’ ‘trodiit c’s hiss nt1 tapt
: recul:ttot’s
u-c’ iee to
:OCUS oii the Iiui
slttilre whihc’ tin’ m,tcbei sst)tks
COlt the
tt chiu:e:ti tfet,itls.t
l
)ever,ui f;itiin’s of the t’I’h iii its tsricutu;uf tle-cicit help to expliin the puvvle.
rhe A/location olAllowance’
lVaiiv 01 th
key e:itisc-s
ill
cit
sIiiccisli
‘U tahiti
i
tii.iiket
ire traceable in
tLstritiitttto:tl tilolem utu:lthu’
it tile
Ict’fitc(tit of tilt’ hI ), l\/etst
:icriiifii’;iiirfv, thc
Oetlsicuii 55:15 iliacle to
,lll(O21c’ tiit tivec’whieliniuit uocforlts/ of ,tiioss :iiic’es
I Phase
•
1 dii tIll
ft
111th Uhti,
it
I ht
ii OSf’tC
t)f lit t
iihtisv tict
S itt
tic
liii 050
Hi ctc ci by
it
t
) hibu
hl’1
It)
C sHill itt
151
1
u sisso ii
voin nc
55 hit h
ifcu tcd
fit
iii tiil
C tic ii)
1101)5 Ito tht
ovti tIb
C
[5
itt
t 5(11k tI
iii dir
ovc
]ot
lit’ i
of
itios ,tttt t
I
misc gilt itl
dir
c
w us litthi
Si C 5501 C
Oil thc
1 s
Lctois to
C itlic I
tc cliii
c
iliSsin is hi 5/ond btisiuii 55—0
051111 P
(iou
(it
tu
DC
Cli
i
icIt itiofl ii
hltts
110(5
ii tict
m lily to Itt (
11it
ttc ipt of
his in wl
tie tc d issc t
is
i
tiittl ill
tii
C ct tn wh cli ss IS P1555t1 (ii) to thit
C Oflstimrr
I
‘I’he trade --supprc’ssm! ilup:tet ot r’:td,t ei’uib was exaeerbateo by the rcgiiiic in
pCe liii’ the LI)- s’-’ichc’ ,ilh)Ccut0O (ii .IIIC)tvatiet” dni’i iV Phases I (f)(f5 dt)(t7)
intl
ii f2(RRt
7(11.7) of tIe
Ci’L, It was up it) the IV:c’tohc’r St,iic’s to draw tip Natioii:ti
Jdioc’,itiou P]ans (NA Ps) s-.’iticli sc’t out both an
cvii LI estonatu’ of euitissioos and
he tiiitoh ,tblot,ttttiii oh; floss’
cit Cs iaer CeUtOi, tiowtu to the
iiiSt,lhfatt(ii
involved, lii tfi s task of estciii,it(oli
ml ,thlcie,itoi i, ‘Ioo:cl
t tint ellis oh chiii;tt
i hahn’ ;iiicf iiatioiiaf c’ohicet’ns tec’,u’cfiiic the c’olilpetiflvei:ess of the ETS Set;toi’s
i:ltenhi:ticiecf. C oiisetpieiiLv, NAPs telldteo to cli Oil the sick ofu’neotsitv. this
25 ]--Irs suIt ‘I ttvt’niouc ( ‘hiio,tt-
t ‘h-nit”,
26 Brute A, At’kt’rnt,un
intl iCut’lrt,’rl B. ‘twirl
‘ltc(ttiiiliit,’
‘its ic’tiuits iii,il I,,tw
((9(15) 37
S1tu/tl I,,uut’ Rt’u’it’u
233--f 1(5,
ut ‘II in
1337 ,uid (212
(.i I
27
hue;t l&ubiiti nut trt’7;tI bc’’nu
Whio’ii Stttp tilt
tl.,tiitP /tl!ttc,uit
Liunsoon Athctv’,mct’s
for Free:
1,nsirtiniu,t’ni,iI
Ptihit ,
‘ ttt
itt,
till Wit I
‘iuuNttl5
t,,iw’ (20(2)
1(2)
iI’titi2litlfi’ul -I t tui’ttt’teutt iii
I I tilt’
179— 5’t


234
Climate Change
jestilieti,
lint,
it
,lttiittitliitttt’, cliSltti[(4 l)t’tWteIt
tltc
fVlcilIi)t.’t Stilt,
111(1
IuiC’
ti) 11ms’,Ioi i, ss lilt. Ii wi’, t,i’Lc ii tvii ,ijttt oviit
stiltii
It cli N AIS ,iitd.
ti
4)44,1—
51011, Withltcili this
tlr)Itt\’ ii
S
tttill. tl’
‘c tilt tIlt’, c’,iIilI.ttc’S itiiilit.t colt
it ll)ttlc’Cl iii owl ,tlit)t ito tti.
lVIt’tnhci
St.itc
,ilhto
thou
lii’, nov
hect
teUlt,illsc’cl .ttici
IS,
itt
,l
Sit’iiilk
liii
tlc’tiec,
55sicI.i,iit’,4’{!
thitttttthi
lilt
,ittilti,tI
tiilttcitiltl
itt
hit.’ tt\(i,tIl
,If
i)y
I il
)c
Cr111
ttl tct 2i121i.
,i,ttttlt,iilut. IIuI4,
ill
(11111,
is t;i.ttltitlfv tei)liCetl by
ltttittit, \Vltlc It kilt i S ito
I.
S
,c
ttti it) nitcruiliSc-
lit
051’, ot (1 it
c’tins
iitttS tIltt, tints, cioUtlics 14 14311
I nt,irLI’t ‘,it,il tii Sti))1tttti idc’itiiss,tttis it’cillc timi
and
titttav,tllttii. 1v 201
1, slt:;IitIs ttsc r It) ptu ceult cli ttttisslctIts llIftw,tltces were
tilt (ittuleti.
O\\tVt’C.
a
till \VltCh
(it .uutttl(tlult:
is prilvill:’
tttTitt’ithitttis
:15
l\sIc’iithç Stiles tic Itt’rvtlcis ,i[ttttll ilie hitilpic
1 1)1
C tisi ti1tt’iiIItutttl,lIl,Ittt)ul oh
liii’
lttlt,th Cithlt’tc’tl(lVc tic vs tO
bc
IS sc c
ttrs. ( )rt’’tti,til ‘,cltt unit U to 1w itotipiriecl
ht
2))
tIlt!
tttslt
titsVjtt
,ttttttitIltIit
lit)’,’,’
ittoks hl(l5
lit
ite sttspeuicletb
I lie I tohtc 2))
1
1: Cl
. 1011(1 ktt)Itttti)li alliruiit’cI tloit:
Irecallo 44)01 will not ‘xpiic; existim. nicarurc
will cort)inut’,tftct 2020 tt) pievt’nt (0
ri’,k of c4iibnti IaIoqt’ lite to Cii ld. ciIict
115 lung us
it. (00J3r.id. II (iiOtk art
tinder
ken in other in. ijor economics, with the ohjt cOve of providing ipproprial
levels
of
suppor
for
sectors
at
risk
of
cOng
intemat:onal
cotnprtitivel to
The wnc hcnarkr for free altar, lion
vaIl he pr rirdicIhy eviewed in lint vaith iechtt
logical pmgiess in the
spec live irdustrystctois Both clint aid indinc Ic n0on cot
will hi’
i:e
rib
(Coot), in
re with the
U
it: aid wIt
SO 115 tO t’uuit’ a It
pityittc unIt)
lit order tI) nlOintait
ifltetflObOiial coinpet:iivc’’iess, the
lint) cHic
unst.sltt’o’it in thur
;nrtnt,
autO not I
tu
mUon taitbuti costs tetdng In cart,’
loakaqc
1)0
Hie cihst!rvatH)i]s
il-C
1111 tiui:)tirt,i)t ftiiilittlc
that itiiti:ttoiy tb
tees
Ire detei
tubed by tunic titan c ()ttsideiatiohts ol ctsiciney. As clnu’lnU the st.irt-tip phase, tilt
sntc ess of the lU hIS is uO lily denntc (‘tiC Ott tile \CtlIlhittleSS
1)1 ilit’ Metiibi
Slairs Cc’ snbport iirb repttnc
Intl 01 tIle eliergy—tutc’listve Sec 1cn$ to c oiulply Wtth it’
prc’sc rlpilollu;.
lii :ciil:It;iit
md
rekwuuutiu:; tIle his. the 1U
itlttsi
nuantin
a cltlfiectit b,tlattcc
IlttWc’eul citvifl)iiutieiiial etiectiveutiss,
cc OtIOtttIC
tIticients
nmd poiittcal acec’ptability.
Recession <md Ttimriationol Offsetting
Iwo .iticlt[tot tO lactors that stppi essed the carbon price were the iwihiutlity il
uxieniilI
c reated credos ,uiuil the
t’i nilonuuc
i’ecessioii,
Ihe latter flCiatIVt
‘‘ Sec
e.g. (use C-2i7’
I I P (%tninikcitit V. IIu’Itt IC ‘Lt:EU:( :2(113:021; Casc C-S05,i
P
i .ttttlhu14ittt!
1lui IT.] I:1’,U:( :2(112:1 7tj. ( ,isr
C 1—nt)4/t)t) P
C tttilititt’uttt v. PoI,t,
LI Lt:t.U:t :2012:1 7K.
129 Sec ht gt
ct .t ttrctpic’u/thint politic’s! civ ant’nnn:IICC’ ntdt’ .c’ui .lii.ui
131)
II ..‘),,itto’,e.
i ht:siot:ci
Truip ,iud
I 111) Zhtnt.’, ‘I.rssttius
1 runt t&cOct( ittunt Caihotui
C )n,, t Mart
i
fIllS) .lI)
I rtstt,tu,ut,tn,il 1:tti’ittttttttt tttl Liii (tO—lOll,
it KU—KB.
I


liii’ Cli ili’ngi’ of d Rc(jtllatioTlBisetI Marlcvt
295
if’ (Ct1
Io Will III
lit
i. I S Stttttl, pr0tllltlTtf lilt’ (,ttillltllt’tli\’ \‘cI\ tub) silver
dot
lit
iIit’ti’lt’ it ititisly ,iliot,iicci
illoss liii iS
iliiplS
t 05(1cc1
OililY
t.i(ctis (d I(
c’iinssions. As to the tttiiiivr, the tiptioti of
t titivt’ltiiltt (1 )M
Ins tutu
,iiioSS,iltttS,
1101 of Ilsilit converted treclits to tOVCI ii. t
iu.ist ci c-oils
lix, Ilitielseci (lit’ liiiilihtr itt ,iilut\5,ilit Cs IN tiuttliatloit, tills lIi’ tilt’ t ,uibttu pot
c
IVIl.
itt
lhIc’oly, the .tsiti.tittiity of (‘I )fvl ciecii, should
Intl luci.itlvtIy tIlt-i
I
riluer tilt’ U5ll for uliitoVatloli or t]tliii(t’ CilOt1C tItltiiitittii 0111 tIohii stilt,
tine thit
çlc’iter ease
illoitis to
I U—based operators iii iOt’t’(ili[ their ohtiipiiittn’
l1tet auaiiist ullvestnlcn( ill .lCCli (cc’hnctltt
v nit1 (,FI(
ciiiissioits rtdiuctitto in
j
lit
t.ievehctpiiiu
wcitlci.
tnfitrtunnc-l,
11
ttttci
proves
c\tleolt’iv cltllic tilt
ttl
ii iv xvi itt lit r Ci )M pi oc’cts treat e
c’i
ci iii
‘,uitiii 1)1)1 lit y, t hit is, sviietl ti
ti-v rcclnt c, (1 If, c’iiiissioii- lieyoiitl
lit
ptttllt thiit xvttohti ii,i\’c ittctt
itt heti
ittlerst;tltti;irtittitwthl piitjittlolis. Ui, lttw carbttttpiitjc’cts ioiphtt score wc’ii tin
eitiissioiis, lint pt rtoriit
itc)oriy
ss’ithi
tec’,trci
to the bro,itler ytrcistlcl
ttf
itviroliiilelit,iI sust.itlliI)thtv.
Mtti c’ovc i, purtcttllll ly thttriiit tts st;tti
tip yeil
Itt (1 )M pots cti vctliteitidc’ to weikoessus in ctrbttii u(tociiituli ntd torruptioli.
tic ttlthc- lutist suviti c-x.ttitpies xx is
iii str ttecW .tcioptcd by
i nttiiihut of
c ttttl,iiit
tories
iii
lit
cievc’litpltt-
s oi’lcl
to rani
cip (lit’ prttdttettoii tit
I If ‘l( ‘—22.
( ‘PC—22 is a rc’litierant uid lc’etlstock
or t ert.nll plastlt s. it plociuct tilt releases
1 liy—f3rtttltltt_
hf
22, a C
C that is hl./t)t) tones illctre flettelit thou (‘0..
t)itspan (‘5 tic’]ibcritt is’ t rcttc’ti 110)1 t
I
(
22 iii order to
t iptclre titti ‘t’5ti ttv it,
id Janit (tic’ crc ciii.
i’iic’ liii tlt it, as <unit nit ( itcksni,tn ieptlrt, Itt pci cviii itt
II Ci )M ccc tilts c’eiic’i.iteci Itets ccli tilt
‘st. bhisliotetit iii
dic’ (‘I)M
nit1 2()i2
CtC
155- inteci to relricer,ittt proctttct’rs,11
sii- -ests thit tin
was by
iit
llt.ills
1 rare occti ri ci liv.
El S prcs’stt lOs it’
n tin tc f ‘I )lV1 oIl c’tl .t i’
li,isc been toiisicic iabiy tii itt-ned to
itanace tic- above clc’sttbcti risks. Wiit reis tilt’ ttric’ni if
I ittkttt I )lrectls’t
uittpttst’i I
to tllnltlill lit
If) Oil (l5t olnitern.ltlolc,if tic tIns Intl tuistciti It’ll tins ni,ittci to b
i-tvninnetl lt the Mt’niber States,
bc 2t)13
‘Cc’ctl.icco-t netitleiltuit
the Li I)
tipulates thit t-xtstdIi itisttll,ittttiis iiiiy oll’et to c’ithc r the .ilOtilit itlortit.’tl theiii b
lie
!tt4c.liibc-r State
lilldvr
Pli,usc- ti,
()1’
to
I
I
pci
cent
it) their freely
uilctc .ncc
iilowancc
1.11 New lust ihlitlotos nii\ only cillstt up to
1.5 pci
t ent itt thit-n total
niissiolis Vititililt’. flit Colollitsx((ni hit been crnitecf t4Teater ,itllllttfltU to ec Jude
tlOblc’llii(lt
(
I )M prOtetts
‘0111 the
11.11111
of
tilt’ Idl [‘I’S,
inch
(it ellstire thai
I )M tllitt,lt’Vt 5 mutt
t
fC’t t
(Ii ills oil ens iittttiiit’i iii sti ,i,ilti,tl)li,(5
32 Iv,i
I civiti illti
t’t
ii.,
‘(
iutsbiut
tilt
i
C titnnty
(
iL
U)
(;iutbui
I lix iltinloc ill
Gctx eriu.uitt I
I
C ttlit
Iltibo
iii
I ulic’lt’bltt’
Cf iV
tsl.ti Lit’
(._nnt)i
ti()
( ,ltltl/
l-itt’nttiiutit 11111/ lttllitt t ‘—i
1(1(1,
.11
I ((I
11,1 ‘ihiokct i’,,tluute ,iutd i&tthc’lt C
C ho Lttti.uii,
‘A
t ttitip.iu
tic t
Aut,utvst.
01
1uci utnntaluluis
Mci
tilt tittt
(Itt
I
t ttsystt’ilu
“t rs its M,,rLt i
in lilt
Uulutt’ui SIll
-—
Inc1 tltc’
I illitpt
ii
Ltnntll
Ii) 2(2),
1
tic ulti(iu’uuil I tli’ttutttttit intl Liit
)—2K.t
ii 2(9.
34 kc’ttil.uittti
(PC)
Nuu.
( i22/2U13
tIlt
i Icit Ilittlttlit’
iitic’rrt,tiittnut
( ,rcdit Illililt lIt
ItT
ptirsluuull Ii)
I )uruc liSt’
)( (((
‘ If
t tf ih
I tlrttptlli iirIu,tuutt-mti
iii of the C ,ttUltcli
(
3 J
uit(
t.
135
\ltift tiltt /lt,tlutc
-i c’Stuults’, i
8


Cliniate Change
Addrce,si,tcj tfk Uoithit ot //i Pd51: /3dt k/Odt]U?(] dnd th
IVIar/cr’t 1ahIh(y
Reserve
I he cIiti’c, tti ilIciw,uiee
iNOcittciii
ukl
lii the ippt(ii(li to
iiuttiiitiotiiI t)i—
set
ii
ic
ii Liv help to foot
S out
Lit iii I clips
ti tic
t irbt ii iuu Let, lout
icy dii itot
address the etstiiic surplus ot ippoiociiul;iuely 2 1itlIi
c’s.
o tickle this,
ilk
I upreed to
(ic Llt)11l
uiloiwito
s [hat Were clue to Ix
ituet totted iii Pltts
Itt,
000Stfitolitfl
titeit itttiOcliicUoitl
llttC) tIlt ititiket cuttul 2Ul) )(Ui) by which
I tic, it is hoped, dcii
itt! \s ill have picked up
(ticLhiiclit,
IS
1 (lift
oIl bt. As
.i uioie citdtiriuir, sustuittihilc soitttion to the
oiStO
illoo
itcoo
hdl1u11
ilk
ISU
hiS
100W
licOtCt
ki the t’stih!idiiiicot
1)1
a
Mirket
t,il)iluty
i&tSo(Sc
Whitlil
will hoi1
opuritivo
ii
2010
I hit
<eseive ss ill itt as ,i hitiloco to disoitli titirket Shot !s, leiidto!’ 0(tter stithihty
plc clictilithity to the
itbou p11cc. d ss’ihi. u the woods (ii the ( OoittiiSSiOil,
opt litc’
tittitly
icc ottliti
to
Oft
cieluiecl
tiles Witithi s’uidcl hive (it)
io the I
OlituiliSSicot, or tV)cOOllc
tittS in its
Li
urohtuti titeti
t
!touivo!y
hiilloadoii
iblovooo osuU,
,i IVIti’itt St;ibiht5
Reseivc
duty lielo
IC) stthihse
Itt
tuiboit tttuu-ket anti keep owhuit pi-iecs ai
a
level
that
LIt eiitts’iscs the
siS
sectors
to
exph)re low
c,iti)u{i
avenues
loweve, itt Cit wiLe of the uitiiy adjttstineos tuid
ut ltIo)OaJ oiLs c1opted [ii
step [lie carbon iiiiirket afloat out
tltieStIOO beeotties li:irt to Lt1Oi. ho wh:i
extent will the resttltiti illaucetiocut’, still rcstuuble a
euittitic
iiiar1t t Wil] th
supportlotr oueasures ,ictcually iiic’Jitatc trade, or will they itistetd trOi[orm thi
i itiJOti tttittket tuitc)
a ceutrahused, sophustc ttcd variant on an CU wide GH(
p0 ruutittuii remune? hrouiu a chini,tk cliatlee persptetivt, the uuswtr to this quc:
ion may be of hunited nuiportattee. As a test oldie workability tttd rc sihenee oh
f
iirte--st-ale tnarktt—b;used recpt]:itioii, on the other hind, it cottlc] busily be rno
I ttiCl.tl.
Remarks
( htoiatt ehuoe has,tht;tiattciiiy cda;tCed the landscape of LU cu VlrotlITh1II
eputl:otioti Most evidently, it has led the LU to adu:it swathes of tiew les1atoi
to
c ctithiit this cr:odefititttv t’h,il!etiit
It hits caused the LLttopeatl Union to
its leitCet-shto mettle in the utiternatuouti arena, attcl his utvited the Luropo n
XettiLiVe to ethuttk its inist]tttttonai ore,at1tsttsoui. It hits ttticttestiout;tbj onsets tIc
profile oi
sU envurotiniental policy, yet its hugh visibility may at the same tiii
have east a shadow Ott other, uton
t Iiuiiate-related issttes. Becatuse of the chit
136
ointnisston I
Uulanou
1: U) Nt.
I 76/2t) t 4 o125 1c’hni;uy 2ttt 4 unending 1&es;ulcc
1
(EU) No
ttt3 I /2(111) itt partui uhir to diterunine the volcti ut’s oFgrcenhuocuse gas emisso
allowinees to bc itiCtoucc in 2ti1 3—2tt, I )J 201 4 L56/ 11.
)ecusuoui
(I: U)
21) t 5
t 8 I ‘4
of the
I tirOt)ean
Pothiinic’ut
and
of the
I ounc ‘I
b ()ctobct 2(11 5
cci icern cur Cit istiblisin (ciii .iti C c ct cUutt
0 )f a ii tarket tubibty reso
lou tiit Ututou I:uoetiliocise o’ co
oo tin oi sc hucinc atid totidi
);l-cctivt’ 200.1
1st, ( )J 1015 Nit
‘ See hltip://ec.eucuo1ic Ctu/c htiie loIn
c’
[5 totinnj mdo’x cut lutni


Concluding Remadts
297
nd
l(l).tl
iiiiltre
ot tin
tirohleiii, the (ieVelot)iiieiit
nid iittpleineiitaticui ot
Ittati’ hnIc jli)tit tes have reticnrecl nut It Itiore .ids ntitti eflorts of deternun
;Sttiteit. (lOh(,tritlOil and eOOi’UJnittOfl tttan tire other pcihev area wttlnn or
litsifie
lit envnunnheittil ietitit. lie deve]optitent of ite US has converted the
itrltet—Itiseil iproacit ficuit iii optiottil side dish i]tO a staple of env;roriinental
ii
[ eivinc isicle, thrtttith iteeessit’’, the tremendously thorny and tiob
ly eoilclttionil clitestiult ofwltctlier lU eltititte e haiie law will be seici esstul in
lit nuhti’ ebb
I WaritilnLç 10 the
iSUt( ci to 2 cc rees Celsius teniperattire rise, it
s ittpt
stide to ititore the deep itipu
t of ittiitc
C h;tiice 1,15k on the EU’s let.i]
d 1etttlitor\
tent ti’.
1
,
a


Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rnrl20
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
ISSN: 0264-6811 (Print) 2376-4538 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rnrl20
The judicial interpretation of the Habitats
Directive by the CJEU: a high water mark for
offshore renewable energy developers
Célia Le Lièvre
To cite this article: Célia Le Lièvre (2018): The judicial interpretation of the Habitats Directive
by the CJEU: a high water mark for offshore renewable energy developers, Journal of Energy &
Natural Resources Law, DOI: 10.1080/02646811.2018.1491194
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2018.1491194
Published online: 12 Jul 2018.
Submit your article to this journal 
Article views: 3
View Crossmark data


The judicial interpretation of the Habitats Directive by
the CJEU: a high water mark for offshore renewable
energy developers
Célia Le Lièvre, Marine and Renewable Energy Ireland (MaREI) Centre, Environmental
Research Institute, University College Cork, Ireland. Email: celia.lelievre@ucc.ie
(Received 5 March 2018; final version received 9 June 2018)
This paper offers a strong critique of the particular interpretation of the
precautionary principle by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
under the appropriate assessment procedure of the Habitats Directive. The CJEU
favours a ‘criminal-like’ standard of proof whereby project developers must
provide the necessary evidence to inform national licensing authorities beyond
all reasonable scientific doubt of the absence of threats to the integrity of nearby
marine Natura 2000 sites. This strict application of the precautionary principle is
no
longer
suitable
with
respect
to
nascent
offshore
renewable
energy
technologies. It erects a standard of proof that cannot be realistically met by
project developers in the marine environment and stands as an obstacle in the
way of technologies that are needed to tackle the greatest environmental threat of
climate change.
Keywords: Habitats Directive; precautionary principle; offshore renewable energy;
scientific uncertainty; ecological integrity
1.
Introduction
Licensing processes represent a significant regulatory obstacle to many developers of off-
shore renewable energy (ORE) projects due to current uncertainties regarding impacts of
these nascent technologies on marine ecosystems.1 The term ‘offshore renewable energy’
primarily refers to offshore wind, wave and tidal energy systems. A ‘paradox’2 exists
betweenthelow-carbonenergytargetsadoptedbytheEuropeanUnionandcurrentrequire-
ments for environmental assessments in licensing processes. While the ORE sector pro-
vides an innovative source of low-carbon energy, developers of ORE projects still face
significant regulatory challenges to meet the licensing requirements relating to environ-
mental assessment processes. The Renewable Energy Directive3 requires that Member
States ensure that permitting procedures for renewable energy projects are proportionate
and necessary.4 In a similar vein, the amended Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
1
Le Lièvre C., O’Hagan A.M., Culloch R., Broadbent I., (2016). Deliverables D. 2.3 & 2.4. Legal feasi-
bility of implementing a risk-based and compatibility with Natura 2000 network. RICORE Project. 53
pp.
http://ricore-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RICORE-D2-3D2-4-Legal-feasibility-Final-
1.pdf accessed 6 July 2018.
2
Term used in: MA Masterton, ‘Promoting Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy and Managing Environ-
mental Risk: Toward an Adaptive Management Strategy’ (2014) 5 Journal of Energy and Environ-
mental Law 71, p 72.
3
Directive 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable energy
sources [2009] OJ L140/16 (Renewable Energy Directive).
4
Renewable Energy Directive, Art 13(1).
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2018.1491194
© 2018 International Bar Association


Directive5 mandates proportionate monitoring requirements.6 Interestingly, compliance
withtheserequirementsishamperednotonlybytheadministrativecomplexityoflicensing
procedures in national jurisdictions,7 but also by the legal requirements for environmental
assessments deriving from EU Directives.
The appropriate assessment (hereafter AA) procedure of Article 6(3) of the Habitats
Directive8 is one of these regulatory barriers. The Court of Justice of the European
Union (CJEU) has given an important doctrinal function to the precautionary principle
in order to interpret the requirements of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. The
Court favours a ‘criminal-like’ standard of proof whereby project developers must
provide the necessary evidence to inform national licensing authorities beyond all
reasonable scientific doubt of the absence of threats to the integrity of nearby marine
Natura 2000 sites. Such ex ante standard of proof is extremely difficult to establish
in dynamic marine environments, particularly in the context of novel and untested tech-
nologies where data and scientific evidence is still being collected. This holds particu-
larly true for wave and tidal energy projects given the nascent nature of these
technologies. While knowledge on the ecological implications of offshore wind
energy farms has been steadily increasing as empirical evidence from commissioned
wind farms is accumulating,9 wave and tidal energy devices are still in a pre-commer-
cial stage. The magnitude and nature of the potential impacts of these nascent technol-
ogies on marine ecosystems are still poorly understood due to limited experience of
full-scale deployments.10 Evaluating the full effects of new ORE technologies on
Natura 2000 sites and their qualifying features may not be possible until the first
arrays of turbines are actually authorised, deployed and monitored in real-sea con-
ditions.11 If the strict application of the precautionary principle under Article 6(3) is
to be upheld in future planning permissions for full-scale projects, this will certainly
result in any novel offshore technology suffering from disproportionate environmental
scrutiny and low levels of certainty for investors. To comply with the judicial principles
of the Habitats Directive, licensing authorities are inevitably inclined to adopt an overly
risk-averse approach to decision-making, imposing very extensive monitoring require-
ments on developers to inform an appropriate assessment procedure. To date, the
approach has been to request large amounts of environmental data and information:
an expensive and time-consuming approach for developers of offshore renewable
energy technologies. In the absence of strategic mapping and planning systems afforded
5
Directive 2014/ 52/EU of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [2014] OJ L124/1 (EIA Directive).
6
Ibid, Art 13(1).
7
C Le Lièvre and AM O’Hagan, ‘Legal and Institutional Review of National Consenting Processes,
Deliverable
2.2’
(RiCORE
Project,
2015)
http://ricore-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/
RiCORE-D2.2-Legal-Institutional-Review-Final-1.pdf.
8
Directive 92/43/EEC of the Council of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora [1992] OJ L206/7 (Habitats Directive).
9
Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Review of Post-Consent Offshore Wind Farm Monitoring
Data Associated with Licence Conditions (MMO Project No: 1031, 2014) 121 www.gov.uk/
government/publications/review-of-environmental-data-mmo-1031.
10
Copping, A. (2018). The State of Knowledge for Environmental Effects: Driving Consenting/Permit-
ting for the Marine Renewable Energy Industry. Report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL). pp 25.
11
A Copping and others, ‘The State of Knowledge for Environmental Effects: Driving Consenting/
Permitting for the Marine Renewable Energy Industry’ (Position paper, January 2018).
2
C Le Lièvre


by governmental authorities, existing data gaps are only addressed by project develo-
pers in the licensing procedures.
There is a need to diversify our renewable energy portfolio. Up-scaling wind energy
plants on land to meet national and EU targets for renewable energy is becoming more dif-
ficult due to the scarcity of locations with appropriate exposure.12 Development of onshore
wind farms face increasing public opposition characterised by the so-called ‘Not in My
Backyard’ objection.13 New forms of renewable energy technologies must be deployed
further offshore. Offshore wind energy is certainly the most mature and viable renewable
energy technology deployed at sea but it provides an intermittent source of energy with
variable revenues. Wave and tidal energy present a number of advantages compared to
wind energy. In particular, wave energy and tidal stream converters come with fewer
visual impacts and ensure predictable and often continuous renewable energy output gen-
erated from waves and current flows. The Court should therefore be careful not to impose
unrealistic ex ante requirements for certainty as this may restrict opportunities to diversify
our energy mix portfolio to include novel forms of renewable energy technologies.
The strict precautionary principle under the authorisation criteria of Article 6(3) was
first adopted by the CJEU in the Waddenzee case14 at a time where Natura 2000 sites
were predominantly designated on land15 and the ORE sector represented a marginal pro-
portion of our energy mix. The time has come to acknowledge that the interpretation of
Article 6(3) is no longer acceptable. The CJEU has set a very high standard of proof
that cannot be realistically met by developers of renewable energy technologies deployed
in the marine environment. While the establishment of the terrestrial network of Natura
2000 sites is now complete, additional sites will have to be proposed by Member States
to complete the marine network of Natura 2000 areas.16 As the marine network of
Natura 2000 sites expands, future ORE proposals will be more likely to be systematically
subject to the authorisation criteria elaborated by the CJEU under Article 6(3). The expan-
sion of the marine Natura 2000 network is clearly necessary to halt the loss of marine bio-
diversity.17 Yet, biodiversity objectives should not mean dismissal of the achievement of
climate-energy policy objectives adopted by the EU under the 2020 Climate and Energy
Package18 and the more recent 2030 Climate and Energy Framework.19
12
E Willsteed and others, ‘Obligations and Aspirations: A Critical Evaluation of Offshore Wind Farm
Cumulative Impact Assessments’ (2018) 82 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2332.
13
JK Kaldellis and others, ‘Environmental and Social Footprint of Offshore Wind Energy. Comparison
with Onshore Counterpart’ (2016) 92 Renewable Energy 543.
14
C-127/02 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot
Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Waddenzee)
[2004] ECR I-07405
15
European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission on the implementation of the Directive 92/43/
EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna’ (Communication) COM
(2003) 845 final.
16
European Commission, ‘Fitness Check of the EU Nature Legislation (Birds and Habitats Directives)’
(Commission Staff Working Document) SWD (2016) 472 final, p 33.
17
European Commission, The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (Publications Office of the European
Union 2011).
18
European Commission, ‘20 20 by 2020: Europe’s climate change opportunity’ (Communication) COM
(2008) 30 final.
19
European Commission, ‘A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030’
(Communication) COM(2014) 15 final.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
3


This paper does not intend to challenge the utility or legitimacy of the precautionary
principle nor does it intend to challenge the Habitats Directive. The objective of this
study is to offer a strong critique of the particular application of the precautionary prin-
ciple under the AA procedure of the Habitats Directive. The CJEU has not had the
opportunity to confirm the application of its strict legal precautionary standards of
Article 6(3) in cases involving licensing for ORE developments. The major purpose
of this paper is to highlight what could be the consequences of applying the inflexible
precautionary standards of the Court in planning procedures for offshore renewables.
Using the onshore and the ORE sector as case studies, the author raises the important
question of how realistic the application of the precautionary principle by the CJEU is
in the context of offshore renewable energy projects.
2.
A ‘criminal-like’ standard of proof under Article 6(3) of the Habitats
Directive
2.1.
Important preliminary remarks on the precautionary principle
The precautionary principle is enshrined under Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union20 (TFEU) as a guiding principle of EU environ-
mental policy.21 The TFEU does not define either the precautionary principle or the
threshold of uncertainty that triggers its application. Pursuant to the EC Communi-
cation on the precautionary principle, the application of precaution is relevant in the
event of a potential risk, even if this risk cannot be fully demonstrated or quantified
because of insufficient or inconclusive scientific evidence.22 It is settled case law
that where there is scientific uncertainty as to the existence or extent of a risk to
the environment because of insufficient, inconclusive or imprecise evidence, protec-
tive measures may be taken without having to wait until the reality and seriousness
of those risks become fully apparent.23 The CJEU has explicitly enshrined the pre-
cautionary principle as a general legal principle of the EU.24 Consistent with its
status as a general law principle, the precautionary principle applies outside the
scope of the environmental policy across a wide range of policy areas including
energy policy.
The precautionary principle has been implemented with varying degrees of weight by
European courts.25 Broadly speaking, the level of precaution has been primarily influ-
enced by the standard of protection set out in secondary law ranging from weak to
strong application of the principle.26 Hence, a ‘weak application of the precautionary
principle is commonly characterised by a high threshold of scientific evidence to
20
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/49
(TFEU).
21
TFEU, Art 191(2).
22
European Commission, ‘Communication on the Precautionary Principle’ (Communication) COM
(2000) 1 final, p 13.
23
C–157/14 Société Neptune Distribution [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:823, para 82; C–77/09 Gowan [2010]
ECR I–13533; C–343/09 Afton Chemical Limited [2010] ECR I–07027, para 76.
24
C–132/03 Ministero della Salute [2005] ECR I–04167, para 35.
25
R Lofstedt, ‘The Precautionary Principle in the EU: Why a Formal Review Is Long Overdue’ (2014) 16
Risk Management 137.
26
P Jiang, ‘A Uniform Precautionary Principle under EU Law’ (2014) 2 Peking University Translational
Law Review 490.
4
C Le Lièvre


invoke precautionary measures and a preference for risk management’.27 Conversely,
Garnett and Parsons found that a strong application of the precautionary principle ‘has
a lower threshold of uncertainty and tends toward stringent actions, such as prohibition,
even if there are only weak grounds for believing that a project may be harmful’.28 In its
strong version, the precautionary principle epitomises the rationales for proactive restric-
tions or prohibitions in the face of uncertain environmental impacts. Trouwborst better
summarises this approach ‘as erring on the side of caution, in favour of the environment:
in dubio pro natura’.29 This is exactly the interpretation of the precautionary principle
that theCJEU contemplateswhen interpretingthe requirements ofthe appropriateassess-
ment procedure under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.
2.2.
The application of the precautionary principle under the appropriate
assessment procedure of the Habitats Directive: ‘in dubio pro natura’
The Habitats Directive lists nine marine habitat types and 16 marine species30 for which
Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are required.31 The Birds Directive lists 60
species of sea birds whose conservation requires Special Protection Areas (SPAs).32
SPAs must also be designated to ensure survival and reproduction of all regularly occur-
ring migratory species not listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive.33 SACs and SPAs
constitute the Natura 2000 network.34
Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, any ORE development located in the
vicinity of a Natura 2000 site and likely to have a significant effect thereon, either indi-
vidually or in combination with other projects, must be subject to an AA of its impli-
cation in view of the site’s conservation objectives. Competent national authorities are
to authorise a development only if they have made certain that it will not adversely
affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 site concerned. If the findings of the AA conclude
that a development is likely to have a significant impact on the integrity of a designated
site, then that development cannot go ahead, unless it meets the criterion of overriding
public interest under Article 6(4). The AA procedure of Article 6(3) applies mutatis
mutandis with respect to SPAs designated under the Birds Directive.35
The Habitats Directive does not specifically refer to the precautionary principle for
the purpose of Article 6(3). The Waddenzee case36 is seminal in this respect in that it clari-
fies the nature of the precautionary principle that is to be applied to the authorisation of
ORE projects. In Waddenzee, the CJEU endorses a strong application of the precaution-
ary principle by requiring a very low threshold of scientific evidence to carry out an AA
and prohibition of new developments in the face of scientific uncertainty.
27
K Garnett and DJ Parsons, ‘Multi-Case Review of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in
European Union Law and Case Law’ (2017) 37 Risk Analysis 502.
28
Ibid.
29
A Trouwborst, Precautionary Rights and Duties of States (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006) 29.
30
See further: Appendix 2 Lists of existing marine Habitat types and Species for different Member States
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm.
31
Habitats Directive (n 9), Annex I and Annex II.
32
Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds [2009] OJ L20/7 (Birds
Directive), Art 4(1), (2).
33
Ibid.
34
Habitats Directive, Art 3(1).
35
Birds Directive (n 33).
36
C–127/02 Waddenzee (n 15).
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
5


The trigger to carry out an AA is a ‘very light’ one.37 The precautionary principle
applies for this purpose. Any renewable energy project that is likely to have a signifi-
cant effect on a Natura 2000 site shall be subject to an AA of its implication for the site
in view of the site’s conservation objectives. The CJEU subordinates the requirement
for an AA to the condition there is a mere ‘probability or a risk’ of significant effect
on a Natura 2000 site.38 The CJEU held that ‘in the light of the precautionary principle,
such a risk exists if it cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information that the
project will have significant effects. In case of doubt, an appropriate assessment must be
systematically carried out’.39
The conclusion of the AA shall inform the question as to whether a project will have
an adverse effect on the integrity of marine Natura 2000 sites. This stage of the AA pro-
cedure is referred to as the ‘integrity test’ of Article 6(3). The CJEU favours an inflex-
ible application of the precautionary principle whereby competent authorities shall
refrain from granting development consents where a ‘reasonable scientific doubt’
remains as to the effect of a plan or project on the integrity of nearby Natura 2000
sites.40 According to the Court, the competent authorities may authorise a plan or
project only if they have made certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of
the site, namely, ‘where no reasonable scientific doubt’ remains as to the absence of
such effects.41 The CJEU justifies its position in light of the precautionary principle
and performs a very light proportionality test according to which ‘the authorisation cri-
terion of Article 6(3) integrates the precautionary principle and makes it possible to
prevent in an effective manner adverse effects to the integration of protected sites; a
less stringent authorisation criterion under Article 6(3) could not ensure as effectively
the fulfilment of the objective of site protection intended under that provision’.42 This
jurisprudence has been consistently repeated in a number of recent decisions.43
The Court further clarified the threshold of precision that an AA must meet for the
purpose of Article 6(3). An assessment is not appropriate if it ‘contains gaps and lacks
complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing all
reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects’ of a project on the integrity of a site.44
Further, to be lawfully conducted, an AA must identify, in the light of the best scien-
tific knowledge in the field, all aspects of the development project which can, by itself
or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site’s conservation objec-
tives.45 It is therefore the developer’s duty to ensure that the Natura Impact Statement
has no gaps and that the science relied upon includes the best scientific knowledge in
the field.
37
European Commission, Study on the precautionary principle in EU environmental policies. Final
Report, November 2017, pp 114, 21.
38
Ibid, para 43.
39
Ibid, para 44.
40
Ibid, paras 56–57.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid, para 58.
43
C–142/16 Commission v Germany [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:301, para 42; Joined Cases C–387/15 and
C–388/15 Hilde Orleans [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:583, para 45; C–182/10 Marie-Noëlle Solvay and
Others [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:82, para 67.
44
C–304/05 Commission v Italy [2007] ECR I–7495, para 69; C–404/09 Commission v Spain [2011]
ECR I–11853, para 100.
45
Waddenzee (n 15) para 54.
6
C Le Lièvre


Interestingly, the CJEU has not defined the notion of reasonable scientific doubt.
From a common law perspective, this evidentiary burden appears to equate to the crim-
inal standard of proof of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. In the common law system, the
prosecution has the burden of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt.46 This is the
highest standard of proof which contrasts with the lesser civil standard of proof of
balance of probabilities. An often quoted case of the US Supreme Court defines the
burden of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as follows:
‘Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a proof that leaves jurors firmly convinced of the
defendant’s guilt […]. If based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly
convinced that the defendant is guilty you must find him guilty. If on the other hand,
you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the
benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.’.47
It is therefore the prosecution’s responsibility to prove its case by more than a mere pre-
ponderance of the evidence. ORE developers embody the role of both the prosecution
and defendant in that they must prove their ‘innocence’ by providing sufficient evi-
dence to convince licensing authorities beyond a reasonable doubt that their projects
and associated ancillary works will not adversely affect the integrity of Natura 2000
sites. If competent licensing authorities consider that ‘there is a real possibility’ that
a project and its ancillary works will adversely affect the integrity of the site, develop-
ment consent must be refused.
More recently, in People Over Wind and Sweetman,48 the Court has confirmed that
the strict precautionary standards of Article 6(3) similarly apply with respect to the
authorisation of ancillary cable works associated with an onshore wind farm. This
case concerns a reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article
6(3) submitted to the CJEU by the Irish High Court. The CJEU had to decide
whether mitigation measures could be taken into consideration at the screening stage
to determine whether an AA was necessary with respect to cable works connecting
the wind farm to the electricity grid. In People Over Wind and Sweetman, the CJEU
repeated its seminal case law according to which Article 6(3) integrates the precaution-
ary principle and makes it possible to prevent adverse effects on the integrity of Natura
2000 sites; a less stringent criterion of authorisation could not ensure as effectively the
objective of site protection.49 In the light of this established jurisprudence, the CJEU
considered that taking into account mitigation measures at the screening stage would
be liable to deprive stage 2 of the AA procedure (ie, integrity test) of its purpose and
create a risk of circumvention of that stage, which constitutes an essential safeguard
provided by the Directive.50
46
Jack B Weinstein and Ian Dewsbury, ‘Comment on the Meaning of “Proof Beyond a Reasonable
Doubt”’ (2006) 5 Law, Probability and Risk 167.
47
Victor v Nebraska, 511 US 1, 27, 114 S Ct 1239, 1253 (1994).
48
C–323/17 People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:244.
49
Commission v Germany (n 44) para 40.
50
People Over Wind and Sweetman (n 49) paras 37–40.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
7


2.3.
The judicial interpretation of ‘integrity of the site’: a catalyst for precaution in
the face of uncertain impacts on Natura 2000 sites
As discussed above, the granting of licences is conditional upon the findings of the AA
meeting the legal test of no reasonable scientific doubt. Remarkably, the concept of eco-
logical integrity had remained undefined under the Habitats Directive until the Sweet-
man decision.51 In the Sweetman case, the CJEU has given an important doctrinal role
to the precautionary principle by relying on it to inform a purposive approach to
interpretation of ‘integrity of the site’.52 According to the Court, a project adversely
affects the integrity of the site:
if it is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the
site that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation
was the objective justifying the designation of [that site]. The precautionary principle
should be applied for the purposes of that appraisal.53
The CJEU justified its reasoning in the light of the precautionary principle:54
‘It is to be noted that, since the authority must refuse to authorise the plan or project
being considered where uncertainty remains as to the absence of adverse effects on
the integrity of the site, the authorisation criterion laid down in the second sentence
of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive integrates the precautionary principle and
makes it possible to prevent in an effective manner adverse effects on the integrity of
protected sites as a result of the plans or projects being considered. A less stringent auth-
orisation criterion than that in question could not ensure as effectively the fulfilment of
the objective of site protection intended under that provision. Such an appraisal applies
all the more in the main proceedings, since the natural habitat affected by the proposed
road scheme is among the priority natural habitat types […]. The competent national
authorities cannot therefore authorise interventions where there is a risk of lasting
harm to the ecological characteristics of sites which host priority natural habitat types’.55
This decision is remarkable. The purposive method of legal interpretation provides a
clear-cut example of how the doctrinal role of the precautionary principle is being
used by the Court to deal with uncertain ecological risks in the AA procedure. The
Court clearly endorses a restrictive approach to the notion of ‘ecological integrity’
by considering that the permanent loss of a small portion of a priority habitat (0.5
per cent of the total surface of such priority type habitat) constitutes an adverse
impact on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, hence leaving no leeway for a de
minimis exemption under Article 6(3). Typically, a de minimis exemption would
allow competent authorities to permit projects which, despite the existence of a loca-
lised impact on a Natura 2000 site or its qualifying features, would not compromise
the entire ecological integrity of the site and as such its capacity to meet its conserva-
tion objectives. The precautionary function associated with the purposive approach
has been endorsed by Advocate General (AG) Sharpston as a legal interpretation
51
C–258/11 Peter Sweetman and Others [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:220.
52
See further: O McIntyre and J O’Halloran, ‘The Gulf between Legal and Scientific Conceptions of Eco-
logical “Integrity”’ in E Byrne, G Mullally and C Sage (eds), Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Tran-
sitions to Sustainability (Routledge 2017).
53
Sweetman (n 52) para 48.
54
Ibid, para 41.
55
Ibid, paras 41–43.
8
C Le Lièvre


technique that prevents ‘the “death by a thousand cuts” phenomenon, that is to say,
cumulative habitat loss as a result of multiple, or at least a number of, lower level pro-
jects being allowed to proceed on the same site’.56 The exclusion of a de minimis
exemption under Article 6(3) will ensure that no unexpected adverse effects on the
integrity of Natura 2000 sites will occur as a result of the ‘ripple effect’ of direct loca-
lised minor incursions.
Paradoxically, the CJEU also establishes a holistic requirement to consider the eco-
logical characteristics of the site ‘that are connected to the presence’ of a Natura 2000
qualifying feature. The applicants in the main proceedings before the Irish High Court
in the Sweetman case57 argued that the integrity assessment of Article 6(3) ‘was
designed to deal with the situation where an effect on the site, although not a direct
one, might nevertheless undermine the integrity of the site’.58 This would be the
case in situations where upstream activity might have an adverse impact on water
quality or qualifying habitats and species situated downstream.59 Without permitting
a de minimis exception, the specific reference to ‘the characteristics of the site’ indicates
that the Court has therefore envisaged all situations where a project may have an indir-
ect adverse effect on the site or its qualifying habitats or species because of affecting
other relevant ecosystem processes or functions that are important to sustain the con-
servation status of the habitat types or species of interest. In Bund Naturschutz in
Bayern,60 the CJEU has shed some light on the notion of ‘characteristics of the site’
when deciding on the type of ‘appropriate’ protective measures to be adopted by
Member States in respect of proposed Sites of Community Interest. The CJEU opts
for a broad understanding of the notion of ‘characteristics of the site’ to include
other ecological features that are not per se the habitat types or species for which the
site has been classified but contribute to the conservation of these qualifying habitats
and species. The Court held that the characteristics of the site ‘must reflect a number
of factors including the degree of representativity of the habitat type, its structure
and functions, the feature of the habitats which are important for the species concerned
and the value of the site for the conservation of the habitats or species’.61 The approach
of the Court is consistent with the ‘integrity of site checklist’ of the EU methodological
guidance on Article 6(3).62 The ‘integrity of the site checklist’ highlights that the integ-
rity test of Article 6(3) requires a broad ‘ecosystem’ consideration to assess the effects
of a project on other ecological factors such as: (1) any vital defining aspects (eg, nutri-
ent balance) that determine how the site functions as a habitat or ecosystem;
(2) dynamics of the relationships that define the structure and/or function of the site;
as well as (3) water dynamics or chemical composition.
This emphasis on the ecosystem approach indicates that natural values which make
the site fit for the qualifying Natura 2000 species or habitats must be equally considered
56
Sweetman, Opinion of AG Sharpston, 22 November 2012, para 67.
57
Peter Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála [2009] IEHC 599.
58
Ibid, para 61.
59
Ibid.
60
C–244/05 Bund Naturschutz in Bayern [2006] ECR I–8445.
61
Ibid, para 46.
62
European Commission, Methodological Guidance on the Provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habi-
tats Directive 92/43/EEC (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2002) 29.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
9


in the integrity test of the Article 6(3) regime.63 In line with this, Rees and others argue
that assessing whether the integrity of Natura 2000 sites in the sense of Article 6(3) will
be adversely affected requires ‘the complex task of understanding the ecosystem organ-
isation at one location in terms of the ecosystem structure, functions, processes and con-
nectivity’ in relation to the conservation status of protected marine natural habitats and
species.64 Scientific knowledge, however, usually lags far behind what is required by
law to inform regulatory decision-makers.65 This is particularly the case in relation
to understanding and measuring the complex interactions of ecological processes and
functions in relation to the conservation of Natura 2000 species and habitats.66 In the
Sweetman case, the CJEU may therefore have created an additional level of protection
to ensure that no indirect adverse impacts will occur because of insufficient scientific
understanding of ecosystem connectivity.
The judicial understanding of the notion of ecological integrity infers that the legal
standard of no reasonable scientific doubt must equally be satisfied with respect to the
assessment of potential direct and indirect impacts likely to occur by connectivity with
the natural habitats and species of Natura 2000 sites. This has been confirmed in a very
recent decision. In European Commission v Germany (Moorburg),67 the CJEU found
that the environmental assessment of the project being challenged was not situated in
the Natura 2000 areas concerned but rather at a considerable distance from them
(600km upstream), but that this in no way precludes the applicability of the require-
ments of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.68 The legal test of no reasonable scien-
tific doubt applies regardless as to whether the proposed development is located within
a Natura 2000 site or outside the vicinity of the site. Although this case concerned the
installation of a coal-fired power plant, similar reasoning may be applied to offshore
renewable energy plants.
An important question arises as to how realistic the judicial interpretation of the Habi-
tats Directive is with respect to the ORE sector. More precisely, what are the legal con-
sequences associated with the interpretation of ‘integrity of the site’ in terms of standard
of proof required from developers of offshore renewable energy projects?
3.
‘No reasonable scientific doubt’: an unrealistic standard of proof for
offshore renewable energy developers
The jurisprudence of the CJEU, in particular the recent judgment in People Over Wind
and Sweetman,69 raises a number of legal questions regarding the balance to be struck
between technological innovation in the field of renewable energy and environmental
protection. The ex ante standard of proof of no reasonable scientific doubt appears
63
MEA Broekmeyer, CJ Bastmeijer and DA Kamphorst, ‘Towards an Improved Implementation of the
Birds and Habitats Directive: An Inventory of Experiences in Austria, England, Flanders and the Neth-
erlands in Relation to Two Dilemmas’ (Wageningen Environmental Research, Report 2833).
64
SE Rees and others, ‘A Legal and Ecological Perspective of “Site Integrity” to Inform Policy Devel-
opment and Management of Special Areas of Conservation in Europe’ (2013) 72 Marine Pollution Bul-
letin 14, p. 19.
65
JW Moore and others, ‘Towards Linking Environmental Law and Science’ (2018) 3 FACETS 375.
66
Rees and others (n 65).
67
C–142/16 Commission v Germany (n 44) para 29.
68
Ibid, para 29.
69
C–323/17 People Over Wind and Sweetman (n 49).
10
C Le Lièvre


particularly impractical for developers of novel ORE technologies given the high
degree of uncertainty surrounding complex marine ecosystems. The state of marine
ecosystems is rarely known with certainty due to the inherent difficulties of monitoring
life underwater and in offshore environments.70 Impact assessments in the marine
environment are commonly regarded as ‘the most challenging of all’.71 Achieving cer-
tainty beyond reasonable scientific doubt is extremely difficult for reasons that are
inherent to the ecology of marine ecosystems. Marine ecosystems are subject to a
wide range of natural variations and chaotic fluctuations, which means that no scientific
investigation can reasonably meet the standard of no reasonable scientific doubt
without prior experience of monitoring in real-sea conditions. No amount of obser-
vation before a project is actually deployed will reveal, with absolute certainty, what
impacts this project will ultimately have on marine Natura 2000 features.
The interpretation of ‘ecological integrity’ combined with the strict standard of
proof of ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’ puts an unrealistic onus on ORE developers
to prove the absence of threat to nearby marine Natura 2000 sites. Any new technology
installed into the marine system creates a risk to marine biodiversity. This can be the
case even if the devices are deployed outside marine Natura 2000 areas. The application
of Article 6(3) is not limited to the geographical scope of Natura 2000 sites.72 Spatial
areas with connectivity in the marine environment may extend over hundreds of kilo-
metres reflecting the foraging and migratory use of the marine environment by species.
Adverse effects on the integrity of marine Natura 2000 sites may also occur outside the
sites as a result of physical interactions/collisions with their mobile protected species.
Understanding the potential impacts on the conservation status of a species population
requires collecting data on the distribution and density of this species in order to esti-
mate the number of animals predicted to be adversely affected by a development. Gen-
erally, less is known about the distribution and population structure of marine species.
A number of Environmental Impact Statements for recent installed offshore wind farms
report the difficulties associated with tracking marine animals over large geographical
areas.73 Fine-scale representative data on the density and distribution of marine species
population is lacking for a number of representative species. Baseline data may be
lacking or, when available, this may not cover sufficient periods of time to detect impor-
tant seasonal or annual variations in marine ecosystems that are necessary to understand
the potential effects of a project. Some data gaps are simply too broad to be addressed
by project developers.74 Populations of fish, marine mammals and seabirds are highly
mobile receptors with large seasonal and spatial dispersal ranges that significantly
70
B Planque, ‘Projecting the Future State of Marine Ecosystems, “la Grande Illusion”?’ (2016) 73 ICES
Journal of Marine Science 204.
71
A Smith, ‘Impact Assessment in the Marine Environment – the Most Challenging of All’ (28th Annual
Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, Perth, 4–10 May 2008).
72
European Commission, Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’
Directive (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2000) 31.
73
Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd., (2017). Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm: Preliminary Environ-
mental Report. Vol 2 Chapter 7 Marine Mammals, p 11;
Inch Cape, ‘Environmental Statement’
(2013) Chapter 14, at 22; Smart Wind Ltd., (2015). Horn Sea Offshore Wind Farm Project Two–
Environmental Statement Vol 2– Offshore, Chapter 4 Marine mammals (Report No UK06-050200-
REP-0004), at 4.6.133, 4.6.143, 4.6.144.
74
H Lindeboom and others, ‘Offshore Wind Park Monitoring Programmes, Lessons Learned and Rec-
ommendations for the Future’ (2015) 756 Hydrobiologia 169.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
11


complicate the evaluation of potential impacts at the project level.75 When available,
survey data collected by developers is a snapshot of population dynamics and thus
only provides an indication of the number of animals predicted to be affected by a
development.76 Determining whether fluctuations in abundance and distribution of a
Natura 2000 species can be attributed to the presence and functioning of a particular
ORE project or group of projects is also a challenging process. Fox and others point
out that the conservation status of a species population is influenced by multiple exter-
nal stressors (ie, climate change, pollutants, fisheries’ interactions) and large-scale sto-
chastic factors (ie, fluctuation in recruitment rates, alteration of food-web dynamics)
operating outside development sites.77 The influence of these factors on population
dynamics cannot be realistically detected in project-driven monitoring programmes.78
These factors combined with large dispersal ranges of marine species exacerbate the
‘data-rich but information poor’ (DRIP) syndrome, which means that despite con-
siderable monitoring efforts and collection of large quantities of data, the results of
environmental monitoring do not provide sufficient useful information to give
greater confidence to decision-makers in deciding upon development consents.79
Environmental monitoring of all types of ORE projects including offshore wind
energy developments are likely to be DRIP.80 For example, the design of survey pro-
tocols for the United Kingdom Round 2 offshore wind farm developments did not
have sufficient power to detect consistent changes in the numbers of sea birds
because of the important fluctuations of sea bird numbers at any given location.81
Bennet and others observe that for wave and tidal energy projects, the likelihood
of suffering DRIP syndrome may, however, be of greater concern. The smaller
spatial scale of these projects adds to the challenge of designing monitoring studies
that can distinguish the potential effects of these projects from bakground natural
variation in the wider ecosystem.82
Additionally, monitoring techniques in the marine environment present a number of
limitations. Passive acoustic monitoring, which is commonly used to detect vocalising
animals, provides cost-effective and continuous monitoring but is subject to limitations
relating to operating frequencies, the discretion and directionality of vocalisation by
marine mammals (ie, animals do not vocalise continuously and remain undetected).83
Active acoustic monitoring (AAM) can track animals that do not echolocate or happen
75
CJ Fox and others, ‘Challenges and Opportunities in Monitoring the Impacts of Tidal-Stream Energy
Devices on Marine Vertebrates’ (2018) 81 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 1926.
76
Ibid, 1931.
77
Ibid.
78
Lindeboom and others (n 75).
79
F Bennet, R Culloch and A Tait, ‘Guidance on Effective Adaptive Management and Post-Consent
Monitoring Strategies. Deliverables 5.2 & 5.4’ (RiCORE Project, 2016) http://ricore-project.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/RiCORE-D5-2D5-4-Adaptive-Management-and-Post-Consent-Monitoring-
Strategies-Final.pdf.
80
MMO (n 10).
81
IMD Maclean and others, ‘Evaluating the Statistical Power of Detecting Changes in the Abundance of
Seabirds at Sea’ (2013) 155 IBIS 113.
82
Bennet, Culloch and Tait (n 80).
83
Maldini and others, ‘The Importance of a Multi-Method Monitoring Approach to Assess the Effects of
Anthropogenic Activity on Harbour Porpoises’ (Proceedings of the 12th European Wave and Tidal
Energy Conference, 27th August- 1st September 2017, Cork, Ireland).
12
C Le Lièvre


to emit no vocal signals.84 However, AAM suffers from limited detection range and a
poor capacity to identify the species group of detected animals.85 Other techniques
such as visual surveys are also limited by sampling issues (ie, observer error) and the
inability to detect animals during poor weather and sea conditions. Data and parameter
inputs computed into scientific models to derive impact predictions may generate impre-
cise modelling outputs and fail to remove risks. Minor uncertainties caused by a margin
of error may be sufficient to delay licensing procedures even when the environmental
risks posed are relatively low.
Impact assessments in the marine environment will always have inherent uncer-
tainty associated with them. It is therefore unreasonable to expect developers to be
able to fully inform decision-makers beyond all reasonable scientific doubt. The strin-
gent interpretation of the Court can be described as a genuine example of a ‘paralysing’
precautionary principle.86 It typically embodies what Wildavsky refers to as a ‘trial
without error’87 paradigm of risk management whereby ‘no change is allowed unless
solid proof that the proposed undertaking is not harmful’;88 ‘no trial without prior guar-
antees against error’.89 When in doubt, do nothing.90 Sunstein has already warned
against such an absolutist approach to the precautionary principle.91 As observed by
Sunstein, a strong precautionary principle would preclude the introduction of any desir-
able technologies ‘that make human lives easier, more convenient and healthier’.92 In a
similar line of thought, Wildavsky points out that taking the precautionary principle in
its extreme application would make impossible any small innovation because of the risk
of adverse effect.93 Setting a standard of proof that cannot be realistically met by devel-
opers of renewable energy technologies runs afoul of the precautionary principle. It
marginalises the role of science and this may be defeating in the long term if it deprives
both society and biodiversity of the benefits of climate change mitigation. At first
glance, a strict precautionary approach might seem to caution against risks of significant
local impacts on Natura 2000 sites and their qualifying features. However, suspending a
‘Damoclean sword’94 over innovative technologies that are necessary to abate one the
greatest environmental threats, associated with impacts from climate change, will have
far more dramatic consequences. The failure to authorise and deploy low-carbon energy
technologies might pose greater risks to biodiversity as a result of unmitigated climate
change. The protection of Natura 2000 sites will not yield the intended protection out-
comes unless adequate climate change adaptation measures are taken to abate
84
CE Malinka and others, ‘First In Situ Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals during Oper-
ation of a Tidal Turbine in Ramsey Sound, Wales’ (2018) 590 Marine Ecology Progress Series 247.
85
U Verfuss and others, ‘Comparing Methods Suitable for Monitoring Marine Mammals in Low Visi-
bility Conditions during Seismic Survey’ (2018) 126 Marine Pollution Bulletin 1.
86
CR Sunstein, Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (Cambridge University Press 2005).
87
A Wildavsky, ‘Trial and Error Versus Trial Without Error’ in J Morris (ed), Rethinking Risk and the
Precautionary Principle (Butterworth-Heinemann 2000) 22.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid, 23.
90
N de Sadeleer, ‘The Effect of Uncertainty on the Threshold Levels to which the Precautionary Principle
Appears to Be Subject’ in J Applegate (ed), Environmental Risks, vol 2 (Ashgate/Dartmouth 2004) 29.
91
Sunstein (n 87) 26.
92
Ibid, 25.
93
Wildavsky (n 88) 30; see further: O Todt and L Lujan, ‘Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Pre-
caution, Science and Innovation Go Together?’ (2014) 34 Risk Analysis 2163.
94
De Sadeleer (n 91).
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
13


greenhouse gas emissions. Anthropogenic climate change is a major threat to biodiver-
sity.95 Thirty-five per cent of species protected by the Habitats and Birds Directives
have been identified as being ‘very highly’ and ‘extremely highly’ vulnerable to
climate change effects.96
While it is true that the precautionary principle should not unreasonably interfere
with innovation that has promising benefits, on the other hand, pushing the precaution-
ary principle too far, in the way of full relaxation is not desirable either, as this would
favour unproven and potentially environmentally harmful technologies. This is exactly
what the precautionary principle was designed to avoid. There is a need for a ‘middle
ground’ balancing principle.97 In situations where technological innovation is per-
ceived to be necessary but the environmental consequences of these technologies are
uncertain, the very nature of the precautionary principle should be to address scientific
uncertainties in order to maximise the use of beneficial technologies while reducing
undesired effects.
Reducing global warming demands a better understanding of low-carbon energy
technologies. Judicial interpretation of Article 6(3) may significantly reduce possi-
bilities to deploy, monitor and learn about ORE technologies in a way that would
be beneficial to improve environmental management of future projects. Setting a
standard of proof that is too high curtails the possibility of learning from new tech-
nologies as these would not have been authorised in the first place. Not only would
developers and regulators ‘never know what real benefits these technologies may
bring’ but they ‘would also never understand if the possible negative effects
really exist, and if so, if these effects can be resolved and minimised efficiently,
or if they may turn out to be acceptable given the overwhelming benefits
derived from the technology in question’.98 With regard to wave and tidal
energy, Copping and others stress that as industry is now scaling up from single
devices to arrays, ‘there may be positive trade-off between environmental risks
and performance of devices but these trade-offs can only be resolved once real-
scale projects come online’ (p 7).99
The problem is therefore pervasive. The situation epitomises the ‘uncertainty
paradox’ of Van Asselt and Vos, that is, the paradoxical position of regulatory
decision-makers who ‘increasingly rely on science for certainty but science in turn,
cannot deliver decisive evidence on uncertainty risks’ (p 317).100 Better conservation
outcomes can be achieved by means of less restrictive measures without lowering
the conservation standards enshrined in the Habitats Directive. One possible way to
maximise the use of scientific knowledge while balancing the imperatives for biodiver-
sity conservation and renewable energy may be to promote adaptive management. This
95
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment
(Island Press 2003) 10.
96
C Vos and others, ‘Managing Climate Change for the Natura 2000 Network – Assessment of the Vul-
nerability of Natura 2000 Species and Habitats for Climate Change: Species and Habitats Types Most at
Risk’ (ENV B.3/SER/2010/0015r) (Alterra-Wageningen UR 2012) 30–31.
97
C Weiss, ‘Can There Be Science-Based Precaution?’ (2006) 1 Environmental Research Letters, Article
014003.
98
Todt and Lujan (n 94) 2166.
99
Copping and others, ‘The State of Knowledge’ (n 12).
100 MBA van Asselt and E Vos, ‘The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox’ (2006) 9
Journal of Risk Research 313.
14
C Le Lièvre


approach, better defined as a ‘learning-by-doing’101 management process, may be par-
ticularly useful to improve the conservation outcomes of the precautionary principle
while encouraging technological innovations. Instead of being paralysed by conserva-
tion goals, adaptive management involves ‘authorisation in the face of uncertainty, as
part of a rigorously planned and controlled trial, with careful monitoring and periodic
review to provide feedback and adaptation of management decisions in light of new
information’.102 An adaptive management procedure does not necessarily require a
high level of certainty before delivering necessary development consents. However,
it provides the process to ‘improve relevant knowledge about dynamic ecological
systems, while seeking to minimise risks’ arising from imperfect decisions made in
the face of incomplete information about ecosystem reactions.103 From there,
adaptive management should not be envisaged as an alternative to the precautionary
principle. Adaptive management and precaution are complementary: adaptive manage-
ment integrates the best scientific knowledge that is needed to give an evidentiary basis
to precautionary actions. Monitoring programmes are designed to respond to specific
questions and hence contribute to the wider scientific knowledge base which can be
used in future to refine policy and consenting processes.
The CJEU interpretation of ‘ecological integrity’, when considered in conjunction
with the strict application of the precautionary principle under the Article 6(3) regime,
sets the contextual basis of the approach likely to be adopted by domestic courts. The
subsequent section provides a short review of domestic case law illustrating the legal
and regulatory difficulties resulting from the CJEU jurisprudence. Although the dom-
estic case law reviewed by this author primarily concerns judicial reviews of per-
missions for onshore renewable energy developments, it is worth noting that
domestic courts almost systematically apply the judicial principles elaborated by the
CJEU. It is likely that a similar approach will be taken in future judicial reviews of plan-
ning permissions for offshore renewables.
4.
Application of judicial principles of the CJEU by domestic courts: a
deployment challenge?
The recent judgment in Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd v Secretary of State for Business Energy and
Industrial Strategy104 illustrates the regulatory difficulties faced by developers of renew-
able energy projects to pass the legal test of no reasonable scientific doubt. By way of
background, Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd sought planning permission to install 27 wind
energy turbines in Wales. At issue was the effect of the proposed wind energy develop-
ment on the red kite population of the neighbouring Elenydd Mallean Special Protection
Area (SPA). The Secretary of State refused to grant development consent on the grounds
101 BK Williams and others, Adaptive Management: The US Department of the Interior Technical Guide
(Adaptive Management Working Group, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 2009) 7.
102 R Cooney and B Dickson, ‘Precautionary Principle, Precautionary Practice: Lessons and Insights’ in
R Cooney and B Dickson (eds), Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk, Uncertainty and
Practice in Conservation and Sustainable Use (Routledge 2005) 304–05.
103 DA Keith and others, ‘Uncertainty and Adaptive Management for Biodiversity Conservation’ (2011)
144 Biological Conservation 1175.
104 Mynydd y Gwynt Limited v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2018]
EWCA Civ 231, [2018] Env LR 22 (Mynydd y Gwynt Limited).
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
15


that she was not satisfied that the project would not have a detrimental effect on protected
red kites as a result of the risk of collision with turbine blades. A number of uncertainties
needed to be addressed including the proportion of red kites coming from the nearby SPA
and the level of mortality from collision that the red kite population could sustain before
the site’s conservation objectives would be undermined. The claimant (Mynydd y Gwynt
Ltd) relied on extensive survey data from 2009 to 2015 and guidance provided by Scot-
tish National Heritage (SNH) to argue that there was no connectivity with the SPA in that
the proposed development site was located at more than four km away from the SPA and
no nesting activities had been identified within six km. The maximum foraging range of
red kites in the breeding season was established at six km by SNH. On this basis, the clai-
mant contended that there would be no real risk that the red kites would come from the
SPA to forage. Natural Resources Wales (NRW) argued that Mynydd y Gwynt had no
data to demonstrate the origins of the red kites using the proposed development site
and therefore, it could not be shown that the wind farm, alone or in combination with
other projects, would not have likely significant effect on the SPA. NRW required
additional surveys from within ten km of the proposed development site to account for
the birds’ foraging range during non-breeding seasons. The developer commissioned
further surveys but NRW maintained its position. Unlike NRW, the Executive Authority
concluded that, in light of up-to-date survey data, a reasonable degree of certainty had
been reached to demonstrate that red kites did not originate from the SPA. The Secretary
of State requested further information from Mynydd y Gwynt on the maximum mortality
rates that could occur without adversely affecting the integrity of the SPA. Mynydd y
Gwynt responded to some of the issues but failed to provide further information about
the red kite population. The Secretary of State eventually turned down the application
on the grounds that there were some risks that the red kites using the site originated
from the SPA. Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd appealed the decision on the ground that the Sec-
retary of State erred in her approach by requiring ‘absolute certainty’ with respect to
each element of the data instead of using available information and making a reasoned
judgement based on the precautionary principle.
At the first instance, the High Court held that the burden of proof was on Mynydd y
Gwynt in the sense that it was up to the applicant to provide sufficient information to con-
vince the Secretary of State that there was no real risk of adverse effects as to the integrity
of the red kite feature of the SPA.105 The High Court concluded that Mynydd y Gwynt
had failed to provide information reasonably required to determine the AA.106 The Court
of Appeal upheld the decision. The Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State was
not asking for absolute certainty about the red kite population, rather, the Court held that
the Secretary of State required clarity. The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that
such clarity was not provided by the information before her.107
That said, while it is for the competent authorities to undertake an AA, the onus is
on the proponent of the project to provide the information necessary to secure the
approval.108 The Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd case concerned visible red kite birds on land.
105 Mynydd y Gwynt Limited [2016] EWHC 2581 (Admin), [2017] Env LR 14.
106 Ibid [67].
107 Mynydd y Gwynt Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 231 [34].
108 C Whelton and L Reid, ‘Providing Information to Enable the Decision-Taker to Make an Appropriate
Assessment’ (2018) 186 Scottish Planning and Environmental Law 45.
16
C Le Lièvre


Providing certainty as to the absence of connectivity with any SPA or SAC at sea might
be even more challenging due to difficulties in monitoring species offshore or below the
water surface. Furness and others rightly demonstrate that it is not currently possible to
know with absolute certainty the colonies that sea birds come from, unless strategic
ringing programmes are undertaken.109 Providing more data or information is expens-
ive and time consuming.110 This responsibility should not be borne solely by develo-
pers under the framework of licensing procedures.
In Ireland, in Kelly v An Bord Pleanála,111 the applicant was seeking orders of cer-
tiorari to quash the planning permissions granted by An Bord Pleanála, the Irish statu-
tory planning authority, for two wind farm developments in Roscommon (Ireland). The
proposed wind energy developments consisted in two phases of 16 and 19 turbines
respectively, located in the same vicinity of several Natura 2000 sites hosting bird
species of national and EU interest. The main concerns included inter alia: (1) the dis-
placement of Golden Plover and Lapwing birds; (2) the disturbance of feeding/roosting/
commuting area and natural flight lines of a number of protected birds; (3) collision
strike of birds with wind turbines. The Inspector from the Board argued that the
level of information provided by the developer was insufficient. The Inspector was
also of the view that a higher burden of proof must be required to demonstrate the
absence of adverse effect on the integrity of the SPAs. In particular, the Inspector
argued that the survey did not address the interconnections between the conservation
sites and failed to submit information on flight patterns of Greenland White-Fronted
Geese. The Inspector further stressed that the developer did not provide adequate infor-
mation to prove beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that Phase 1 of the wind farm
developments would not have an impact upon the feeding, roosting, commuting area
and natural flight lines of protected bird species and on the integrity of the conservation
sites. Likewise, the developer had not proven beyond reasonable scientific doubt that
the proposed turbines height would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA as a
result of bird strikes. An Bord Pleanála took a different view. In light of the substantial
survey work carried out by the developer, together with comprehensive data and infor-
mation submitted to the Board, An Bord Pleanála considered that the proposed devel-
opment would not adversely affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites concerned.
Whilst An Bord Pleanála has the ability to disagree with its own Inspector, the
Board has to provide the reasons to do so. In the absence of such determination, the
Irish High Court held that An Bord Pleanála did not have jurisdiction to grant per-
missions. According to the Court, ‘the findings and conclusions reached by the Inspec-
tor in relation to the matters identified as potentially affecting the integrity of Natura
2000 sites are such that the AA could not support a determination that the proposed
development would not adversely affect the European Sites having regard to their con-
servation objectives’.112 The High Court concluded that An Bord Pleanála failed to
carry out an AA that met the criteria of the CJEU jurisprudence, namely that of
109 RW Furness and S Wanless, ‘Quantifying the Impact of Offshore Wind Farms on Gannet Populations:
A Strategic Ringing Project’ (2014) 29 Ringing & Migration 81.
110 Whelton and Reid (n 109).
111 Kelly v An Bord Pleanála [2014] IEHC 400.
112 Kelly v An Bord Pleanála (n 112) [77].
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
17


having complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing
all reasonable scientific doubt.113
Other national jurisprudence exhibits a more flexible application of the precaution-
ary principle. In a recent Irish case, People Over Wind v An Bord Pleanála,114 the Irish
Court of Appeal introduced a refinement to the notion of ‘best scientific knowledge’
arguing that ‘best scientific knowledge’ refers to scientific knowledge that is ‘reason-
ably available’.115 According to the Court, the objective of the ‘Waddenzee formula’
is to ensure that the AA ‘meets proper contemporary standards’ and ‘that the integrity
of the SACs is not compromised by the grant of permission which is in turn premised in
a scientific analysis which is out-dated, flawed or which does not measure up to state of
the art scientific understanding’.116 The applicants were seeking judicial review of a
planning permission authorising the construction of a wind farm situated 12 to
17 km from two SACs in Co Laois (Ireland). At issue was the vulnerability of the pro-
tected fauna of the SACs to the risk of increased sedimentation in these watercourses
during the construction phase of wind farm development. The Irish Supreme Court
refused to refer the question related to the interpretation of ‘best scientific knowledge’
to the CJEU.117 Following the grant of development consent for the construction works,
the developer subsequently addressed the question of connecting the wind farm to the
electricity grid by means of a cable. An application for leave to appeal was made by
People Over Wind to the Irish High Court. The dispute in the main proceedings con-
cerned the question as to whether the developer erred in taking mitigation measures
into consideration at the screening stage to determine if it was necessary to carry out
an AA with respect to the laying of a connecting cable. The High Court decided to
refer the question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. As mentioned above, the
CJEU repeated its strict jurisprudence under Article 6(3) (see section 2.2). Unfortu-
nately, the CJEU did not have the opportunity to confirm whether the flexible under-
standing of best scientific knowledge by the Irish Court of Appeal was consistent
with the Waddenzee test of ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’.118
Overall, the legal test of ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’ raises the more general
question of the standard of review domestic courts are entitled to apply in cases invol-
ving quality of complex scientific evidence. The CJEU requires that projects are exam-
ined using ‘best scientific knowledge in the field’ but does not clearly define what ‘best
scientific knowledge’ means for the purpose of this appraisal. The CJEU case law
would suggest that, in the face of opposing scientific hypotheses or opinions, competent
authorities shall refuse a project to eliminate any scientific doubt. RSPB v Scottish Min-
isters is a seminal case in this respect.119 At first instance, the Scottish Court of Session
(Outer House)120 had to decide whether the conclusions of the AA procedures carried
out for a group of substantial offshore wind farms,121 comprising a total of 335 offshore
113 Ibid, paras [67]–[68].
114 People Over Wind v An Bord Pleanála [2015] IECA 272.
115 Ibid, [50].
116 Ibid, para 25.
117 People Over Wind v An Bord Pleanála [2016] IESCDET 21, [38].
118 C–323/17 People Over Wind and Sweetman (n 49).
119 RSPB v Scottish Ministers [2017] CSIH 31.
120 RSPB v Scottish Ministers [2016] CSOH 103.
121 Inch Cape, Neart Na Gaoithe, Seagreen Alpha and Seagreen Bravo.
18
C Le Lièvre


wind turbines, were capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt. By the same
token, the litigation concerned the question as to whether the findings of contested
scientific fact or methodology were susceptible of judicial review. The scope of the
Court’s powers of review was placed into sharp focus. The modelling options and stat-
istical method (ie, scalar methodology) relied upon by the advisory body of Marine
Scotland to identify thresholds of acceptable biological change on the bird populations
of two SPAs were not approved by SNH. In the Outer House, the Lord Ordinary was
therefore not satisfied that scalar was the best scientific means capable of providing the
best evidence. The Lord Ordinary found that the AA did not satisfy the legal test in that
its conclusions were not capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt. The
decision was quashed in the Inner House on the ground that the standard of review
is that of manifest error of assessment.122 The Inner House held that it is not the func-
tion of the Court, in a judicial review, to decide between differing views of experts in a
technical area.123 The Lord Ordinary ‘trespassed into the province of the fact finder.124
In each area, the judgements to be taken were of an evaluative nature. Even if there may
be errors identified upon a close scrutiny of the data or methodology, none could be
described as manifest’.125 In other words, the existence of reasonable scientific doubt
under the Waddenzee test remains primarily a matter of fact to be appreciated by the
decision-maker and not the judicial reviewer.
RSPB v Scottish Ministers clearly highlights the fact that divergent scientific opinions
may be opposed regarding the monitoring methodologies or parameters utilised in scientific
models. Scientific models may generate imprecise modelling outputs and these scientific
limitations can be invoked against the legality of AAs. Furthermore, it raises the question
of the standard of review domestic courts should apply when complex scientific data is
involved. The CJEU held that the standard of review to be applied with respect to environ-
mental assessments is that of manifest error of assessment.126 Staying within the limits of
this standard may not be straightforward where the legality of an AA depends upon the
capacity of scientific evidence to remove all reasonable scientific doubt. The legal test of
no reasonable scientific doubt may reinforce what some lawyers refer to as ‘scientification’
of judicial reviews,127 a practice in which courts act as ‘a risk assessor’ extending their
review to the scientific merits underlying contested decisions.128
5.
Conclusion
If the Habitats Directive does not place a general ban on offshore renewable energy devel-
opments,129 judicial interpretation of Article 6(3) puts a ‘demanding onus on developers
to prove no risks’ (p 24).130 The CJEU has given an important doctrinal role to the
122 RSPB v Scottish Ministers [2017] CSIH 31 [203].
123 Ibid [204].
124 Ibid [221].
125 Ibid.
126 C–343/09 Afton Chemical Limited (n 24) para 28.
127 AM Janssen and N Rosenstock, ‘Handling Uncertain Risks: An Inconsistent Application of Standards?
The Precautionary Principle in Court Revisited’ (2016) 7 European Journal of Risk Regulation 144.
128 MBA van Asselt and E Vos, ‘The Role of Science in Political and Judicial Decision-Making’ in
HW Micklitz and T Tridimas (eds), Risk and EU Law (Edward Elgar 2015) 126–28.
129 C–2/10 Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini Sarl v Regione Puglia [2011] ECR I–6561, para 46.
130 R Macrory, ‘Habitats Directive Puts Onus on Applicants to Prove No Risk’ (2016) ENDS 502, p.24.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
19


precautionary principle when interpreting the requirements of the appropriate assessment
procedure of Article 6(3). Article 6(3) has been interpreted in such a way that competent
licensing authorities must satisfy themselves beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that
new ORE deployments will not have an impact upon the integrity of nearby marine
Natura 2000 sites. The strict precautionary standard of ‘no reasonable scientific doubt’
has the potential to unfairly restrict the value of new forms of innovative renewable
energy technologies with higher capital costs. Predicting and understanding the potential
environmental impacts of any novel renewable energy technology deployed in the marine
environment is extremely challenging and costly. Data collection in the marine environ-
ment can cost millions and take a number of years to complete. Efforts to reduce uncer-
tainty have resulted in developers facing disproportionate monitoring costs to meet the
evidentiary thresholds of the Habitats Directive. Science is never ascertainable. Science
is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evalu-
ation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. Given the high degree of uncertainty sur-
rounding marine ecosystem dynamics, the risks associated with ORE deployments will
always exist. The CJEU should be careful not to impose unrealistic, front-loaded, require-
ments for certainty as this does not exist in the marine environment.
The particular interpretation of the precautionary principle is the creation of the
CJEU. This is certainly not what is required by the precautionary principle as formu-
lated under the system of the EU Treaties. The precautionary principle cannot be under-
stood to require such a strongly restrictive approach in the ORE sector. While the
precautionary principle is obviously a central pillar of the EU environmental policy,
aiming at a ‘high level of environmental protection’,131 the Habitats Directive ‘does
not stand alone amongst the acquis communautaire’ (p 79) of the EU.132 The conserva-
tion objectives of the Habitats Directive must be balanced with other important objec-
tives that are closely tied to the overarching objective of sustainable development under
the Lisbon Treaty. Combating climate change is now firmly enshrined as one of the core
objectives of the EU’s environmental policy since the Lisbon Treaty came into force.133
Accepting that there will always be uncertainties about the ecological interactions of
new low-carbon energy technologies demands a more balanced approach to the precau-
tionary principle to facilitate ‘win-win’ synergies between the respective EU climate-
energy objectives and biodiversity conservation goals. Given the poor conservation
status of Natura 2000 biodiversity,134 it is clear that a relaxation of the protection
scheme of the Habitats Directive is excluded. However, a refinement of the precaution-
ary principle makes sense to reconcile the important objectives for renewable energy
and biodiversity conservation. A major question arises therefore as to whether there
is not an alternative way to protect marine biodiversity while promoting the exploitation
of low-carbon energy sources at sea. Reconciling EU objectives relating to renewable
energy and biodiversity conservation requires a nuanced approach to the precautionary
principle to encourage the establishment of best scientific knowledge in the appropriate
131 TFEU, Art 191(2).
132 FH Kistenkas, ‘Rethinking European Nature Conservation Legislation: Towards Sustainable Develop-
ment’ (2013) 10 Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 72.
133 TFEU, Art 191(1).
134 European Commission, ‘The State of Nature in the European Union’ (Communication) COM(2015)
219 final.
20
C Le Lièvre


assessment procedure. An explicit approach to adaptive management tied to ongoing
environmental monitoring certainly deserves closer attention as a more realistic and
pragmatic methodology to maximise the use of best scientific knowledge while balan-
cing the need for offshore renewable energy with biodiversity conservation.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisors, Prof. McIntyre and Dr. Anne-Marie O’Hagan from the
School of Law in University College Cork and the Marine Renewable Energy Ireland
(MaREI) Centre, for their constructive review and comments on multiple versions of this paper.
Funding
This material was based upon works supported by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under
Marine Renewable Energy Ireland (MaREI) Centre (12/RC/2302).
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
21