Search

Climate change has turned the Arctic simultaneously into an environmentally highly fragile space and a region offering manifold economic opportunities. The notion of 'Arctic Paradox' aptly captures the trade-off between environmental protection needs and economic prospects. We investigate how the European Union has positioned itself regarding this Paradox by asking to what extent its Arctic policy discourse integrates environmental concerns. Analysis involving the main strategies of EU institutions, and the EU's Arctic and major non-Arctic members finds three co-existing coalitions with differing visions of environmental policy integration in the Arctic. The aggregate EU discourse on the Arctic is currently 'green by omission', that is, by explicitly avoiding a clear stance on the trade-off embodied in the 'Arctic Paradox'. We attempt to explain this, and conclude by discussing the likelihood of the EU developing a genuinely environment-oriented Arctic policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the historical dynamics of the relationship between China and the European Union (EU) in global climate governance. The evolution of this relationship is traced through three time periods: the early days of the United Nations (UN) climate regime (1992–2001), the road to the Copenhagen summit (2001–2009) and the post-Copenhagen phase with the launch of the Durban Platform (2009-present). The contribution aims to expose two of the major structural changes that define current global climate governance dynamics, i.e., globalization and the rise of China, and identify key challenges for an increased collaboration between China and the EU. It is concluded that the EU and China are gradually emerging as strategic partners in global climate governance, but that severe uncertainties regarding the future of the climate regime persist. In order to translate practical bilateral cooperation into more tangible outcomes in the multilateral sphere, a fine balance will have to be struck between traditional Chinese sensitivities regarding sovereignty and economic development, and the EU's desire for an international agreement with ambitious mitigation targets.Environmental Practice 15:190–200 (2013) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the relations between the different layers of government in Belgium with regard to a typical multi-level issue, i.e. climate change. It addresses the question to which degree the characteristics of Belgian federalism shape those intergovernmental relations. Three major characteristics are identified: the constitutionally ‘dual’ but de facto ‘cooperative’ federalism, the Europeanization of competences and of relations, and the executive and politicized character of federalism. The impact of those characteristics are studied with regard to crucial cases in recent decision-making on (i) domestic climate change policy in Belgium and on (ii) the position and representation of Belgium in the international climate change debate. It is observed that intergovernmental relations on climate change are to a high degree institutionalized. That is the consequence of the fragmentation in many of the competence areas important for climate change (e.g. environment, energy, transport). The different cooperation mechanisms are based on consensus, as a consequence of the principle of no hierarchy between the two levels of government. Since climate change is a highly sensitive issue involving important interests, consensus-based decision-making has led to lengthy and difficult discussions. In the complex Belgian setting, the EU is often the number one reason to bring the different governments around the same table. Intergovernmental relations on climate change policy in Belgium are triggered by formal requests by the EU to take a stance or deliver certain policy outputs on specific issues. Yet international requirements and deadlines are unable to break domestic gridlock due to political stalemates. Intergovernmental relations are completely controlled by political parties and ministerial cabinets. That becomes problematic in a context of political asymmetry, where the distinct levels of government are ruled by different coalitions. In the case of climate change, the opposition between conservative and progressive climate goals has meant that Belgium was unable to take a stance in recent debates, and it increases the probability of policy failures. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]