The continued effort sharing approach in EU climate law: Binding targets, challenging enforcement?

• Author: Natassa Athanasiadou,Marjan Peeters
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12356
• Date: 01 July 2020
• Published date: 01 July 2020

RECIEL. 2020;29:201–211.  

|

  201wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/reel

1 | INTRODUCTION

The European Uni on’s (EU) ‘effort sharing’ a pproach in tackling c limate

change covers the ma jority of greenhous e gas emissions in the Unio n.1

The approach , in essence, is simple. It co nsists of individua l binding

emission reduc tion targets for M ember States, which a re given various

options to achieve co mpliance in a supposedly flex ible, cost-effective

way. The origin of this ef fort sharing appro ach lies in the specific r egu-

latory choice adopted in the Kyoto Protocol, which includes individual

emission limitation and reduction commitments for certain developed

States for the pe riod 2008–2012, as well as various emi ssions trading

options (in this ar ticle referred to as f lexibility instr uments) to help

achieve these commitments.2 Basically, the EU has implemented the

Kyoto Protocol following this specific regulatory approach, thereby es-

tablishing an individual emission reduction commitment for each

 1The Effort Sh aring Regulat ion (Regulatio n (EU) 2018/842 of the Euro pean Parliam ent

and of the Coun cil of 30 May 2018 on bin ding annual gre enhouse gas emi ssion

reductio ns by Member State s from 2021 to 2030 c ontributing t o climate actio n to meet

commitment s under the Par is Agreement a nd amending Reg ulation (EU) No 525/2013

[2018] OJ L156/26) exclude s emissions from t he EU emissions tr ading system ( ETS) (ibid

recital 14 and ar t 2(1)). Land use, l and-use change a nd forestr y (LULUCF) activ ities are

also exclude d from its scope , although an exc eption is made in t he sense of makin g

available LULU CF removals as a way t o compensate for e missions that ha ve to be

reduced und er the Effort S haring Regulat ion (ibid recit al 22 and art 2(2)) . On LULUCF

and the Effor t Sharing Regu lation, see als o A Savaresi, L Per ugini and MV Chir iacò,

‘Making Sen se of the LULUCF Regu lation: Much Ado a bout Nothing? ’ (2020) 29 Review

of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 212.

 2Other commo n expressions a re flexible me chanisms, or fl exibilities . See, e.g., D

Freestone an d C Streck (eds), Lega l Aspects of Im plementing th e Kyoto Protocol Mechan isms

(Oxford Uni versity Pres s 2005); and J de Ce ndra de Larra gán, ‘The Kyoto Pro tocol, with a

Special Focu s on the Flexibl e Mechanisms’ in D Fa rber and M Peeter s (eds), Climate

Change Law (Edward Elgar 20 16) 227.

Received: 2 Marc h 2020 

|

  Accepted: 18 June 202 0

DOI: 10 .1111/reel .12356

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

The continued effort sharing approach in EU climate law:

Binding targets, challenging enforcement?

Marjan Peeters  | Natassa Athanasiadou

This is an open ac cess article und er the terms of the Crea tive Commons Attr ibution License, w hich permits use , distribution an d reproduction i n any medium,

provided the o riginal work is prop erly cited.

© 2020 The Autho rs. Review of Europea n, Comparative & Inter national Environm ental Law publishe d by John Wiley & Sons Ltd .

Correspondence

Email: marjan.peeters@maastrichtuniversity.

nl

Abstract

With the Effor t Sharing Regulation, Membe r States are challenged to steer t heir so-

cieties – partic ularly the agriculture, buildings , waste and transport sectors – tow ards

lower greenhouse gas e missions. The Effort Sha ring Regulation illustrate s the large

extent to which the Euro pean Union (EU) relies on the use of hard l aw for addressing

climate change, includin g binding enforcement provisions. The approa ch of the Effort

Sharing Regulation is, in essence, simple: it consists of individual binding emission reduc-

tion targets for M ember States, which are given vari ous options to achieve compliance

in a supposedly flex ible, cost-effective way. In this sense, the effor t sharing approach

is a continuation of the regu latory approach put for ward by the Kyoto Protocol. The

Effort Sharing Re gulation can also serve as a n example for third countries to a dopt

binding emission redu ction targets, and it can b e considered whether it would be ben-

eficial to link such bindi ng targets of third countries wit h this EU mechanism. However,

a closer look at the Regul ation highlights the challenge s for its implementation, a nd the

correct use of flexi bilities, together with the proper app lication of the monitoring and

enforcement provisions wi ll be key for a successful outcome. The reput ation of the EU

taking leader ship for combating climate change hinge s on demonstrating compl iance

and on taking effective enforcement action where needed.