Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:07:57.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Private Control of Public Regulation: A Smart Mix?

The Case of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions in the EU

from Part III - Climate Change and Oil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2019

Judith van Erp
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Michael Faure
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
André Nollkaemper
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Niels Philipsen
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
Get access

Summary

This contribution discusses from a legal perspective the role of private actors for controlling compliance with public law greenhouse emission reduction obligations. Compliance is generally the Achilles heel of environmental law. Traditionally, the governments set standards and control compliance. Within the EU, however, the EU legislator is experimenting with involving self-control and verification procedures in view of determining compliance by industries with public law regulations. It does so by introducing in its regulation a mix of governmental and private action in view of effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, in EU law, the public is given wide access to environmental information held by the government, which may also be beneficial, or at least to some extent helpful, for controlling compliance with set rules. In other words, civil society has some means to control governmental action, and, in this vein, the question arises to what extent these rules also apply to information held by the verifier. The contribution focuses on one specific but important case: it will discuss this regulatory mix of governmental and private action by delving into a key measure in EU climate law: the EU emissions trading scheme, thereby particularly investigating the role that private actors may play in checking compliance. In this respect, two categories of private actors will be distinguished: • On the one hand, the so-called verifiers that are tasked with controlling the emission reports of industries covered by the EU emissions trading scheme. In fact, the EU chose to apply a “double” market based approach: firstly, the industries are covered by emissions trading, and, secondly, the private sector (the verifiers) has to compete with each other for winning contracts with industries for conducting the control of the emission reports. • On the other hand, attention will be paid to the actors in civil society who want to check whether industries comply with EU law, in the sense of not emitting more than legally allowed. The role of civil society for strengthening (compliance with) environmental law, and hence contributing to the effectiveness of regulation, is stressed by the Aarhus Convention, giving important procedural rights like particularly the right to have access to environmental information held by the government. This procedural right may be helpful, to some extent, for checking compliant behaviour. However, how and to what extent can civil society check whether duties of industries with regard to controlling emissions are complied with? Can the private verifiers be covered by this access to information laws? In other words, can civil society use the procedural rights for checking the performance of the private verifiers? The ultimate aim of the contribution is to answer the question of how this (experimental) mix of governmental and private action for regulating the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is designed in view of enabling transparency that is seen as a crucial element for reaching effectiveness: to what extent can civil society know about how industries are regulated and controlled, also in view of the fact that private actors (verifiers) have got the task to check compliance? This issue of transparency is chosen since, generally, public control (particularly action by Environmental NGOs) is seen as an effective tool to stimulate ambitious environmental regulatory action (although in this respect, also more research needs to be done on the effectiveness and legitimacy of ENGO action). The concluding section will summarize the findings by pointing at potential problems with transparency caused by the choice of using private actors for checking compliance with public standards.
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bogojević, S. 2013. Emissions Trading Schemes, Markets, States and Law. Oxford/Portland Oregon, Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Cole, D. H. 2016. ‘Origins of Emissions Trading in Theory and Early Practice’, in Weishaar, S.E. (ed.), Research Handbook on Emissions Trading. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 926.Google Scholar
Dales, J. 2002. Pollution, Property and Prices. An Essay in Policy-making and Economics. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar (first published 1968).Google Scholar
Dudek, D. J. and Palmisano, J. 1988. ‘Emissions Trading: Why is this Thoroughbred Hobbled?’. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 13, 217256.Google Scholar
Ebbesson, J. 2011. ‘Public Participation and Privatisation in Environmental Matters’. Erasmus Law Review 4(2), 7189.Google Scholar
Economic Commission for Europe. 2004. Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Report of the First Meeting of the Parties Decision I/7, ECE/MP.PP/2/Add.8.Google Scholar
Etemire, U. 2013. ‘Book review: The Aarhus Convention at Ten: Interactions and Tensions between Conventional International Law and EU Environmental Law, edited by Marc Pallemaerts, 2011’. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 22(3), 371375.Google Scholar
Etemire, U. 2012. ‘Public Access to Environmental Information Held by Private Companies’. Environmental Law Review 14(1), 725.Google Scholar
European Environmental Agency. 2016. Application of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Directive – Analysis of National Responses under Article 21 of the EU ETS Directive in 2015. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Fleurke, F. and Verschuuren, J. 2016. ‘Enforcing the European Emissions Trading System within the EU Member States. A Procrustean Bed?’. In White, R., Spapens, T. & Huisman, W. (eds.), Environmental Crime in Transnational Context: Global Issues in Green Enforcement and Criminology. Abingdon, Routledge Publishing, (Green Criminology), pp. 208230.Google Scholar
Fisher, E. 2010. ‘Transparency and Administrative Law: A Critical Evaluation’. Current Legal Problems 63(1), 272314.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P. & Sinclair, D. 1998. Smart Regulation Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krämer, L. 2011. EU Environmental Law. London, Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Levin, I., Hammer, S., Eichelmann, E. and Vogel, F. R. 2011. ‘Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions: The Prospect of Atmospheric Monitoring in Polluted Areas’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 369(1943), 19061924.Google Scholar
Livingston, P., Lee, C. S. J. and Nguyen, D. 2015. ‘Creation and Third-party Verification of Large Governmental Greenhouse Gas Emission Report’. Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment 34(3), 4362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, M. 2016. ‘The Current State of the Right to Access to Environmental Information’. Master thesis, European Law School.Google Scholar
Peeters, M. 2009. ‘Improving Citizen Responsibility in the North and its Consequences for the South: Voluntary Carbon Offsets and Government Involvement’. In Richardson, B. J., Le Bouthillier, Y., McLeod-Kilmurray, H. and Wood, S. (eds.), Climate Law and Developing Countries. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 337362.Google Scholar
Peeters, M. 2016a. ‘An EU Law Perspective on the Paris Agreement: Will the EU Consider Strengthening its Mitigation Effort?’. Climate Law 6(1–2), 182195.Google Scholar
Peeters, M. 2016b. ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading in the EU’. In Farber, D. A. and Peeters, M. (eds.), Climate Change Law. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 377385.Google Scholar
Romppanen, S. 2015. ‘New Governance in Context Evaluating the EU Biofuels Regime’. Dissertation, Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Available at: http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978–952-61–1763-8/urn_isbn_978–952-61–1763-8.pdf.Google Scholar
Schomerus, T. and Bünger, D. 2011. ‘Private Bodies as Public Authorities under International, European, English and German Environmental Information Laws’. Journal for Environmental and Planning Law 8(1), 6281.Google Scholar
Stewart, Richard B. 2007. ‘Instrument Choice’. In Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. and Hey, E. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law.Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 147181.Google Scholar
Thurlings, T. 2017. Verhandelbare emissierechten in broeikasgassen. Deventer, Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Tietenberg, T. 2006. Emissions Trading: Principles and Practice. Washington DC, RFF Press.Google Scholar
Weishaar, S. E. (ed.). 2016. Research Handbook on Emissions Trading. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Jin, S., Bai, W. and Jin, Y. 2016. ‘Comparative Analysis of the International Carbon Verification Policies and Systems’. Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards 84(1), 381397.Google Scholar
De Witte, B. 2017. ‘EU Law: Is it International Law?’. In Barnard, C. and Peers, St. (eds.), European Union Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 177197.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×