What's in a Name? The Covenant of Mayors as Transnational Environmental Regulation

• Date: 01 April 2013
• Author: Veerle Heyvaert
• Published date: 01 April 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12009

What’s in a Name? The Covenant of Mayors as

Transnational Environmental Regulation

Veerle Heyvaert

This article asks whether the Covenant of Mayors –

a transnational network that aims to reduce CO2

emissions in European towns and cities – amounts to

transnational environmental regulation. It answers in

the affirmative. The relevance of treating the Covenant

of Mayors as transnational environmental regulation

is that this triggers qualitative expectations about how

decision-making power will be wielded within the

network. The article indicates that the Covenant is

likely to clear some of these qualitative hurdles, but

may struggle with others. This calls for further delib-

eration on how to bolster the legitimacy of transna-

tional environmental regulation without forsaking its

flexibility and innovative drive. Considering that the

outlook for the swift, successful adoption of a global,

binding regulatory regime for climate change is bleak,

the world will likely remain dependent on alternative,

transnational initiatives as drivers for change. The

ramifications of this debate therefore considerably

exceed the scope of the Covenant of Mayors itself.

INTRODUCTION

The Covenant of Mayors is a pioneering project that

combines forces between public and private organiza-

tions, operating at a local, regional, national or transna-

tional level,1in order to improve the carbon footprint of

European towns and cities towards and beyond their

commitments in accordance with the European Union’s

20 20 by 2020 target.2Its existence serves as both an

indictment of the failure of international politics and

law to respond effectively to the climate change chal-

lenge, and a tribute to the ingenuity that flourishes

when traditional regulatory mechanisms under-deliver

or falter.

This contribution examines the Covenant of Mayors as

an environmental governance regime. It asks whether

this new form of networked policy development, deci-

sion making and financing amounts to transnational

environmental regulation and answers in the affirma-

tive. The relevance of treating the Covenant of Mayors

as a variant of transnational environmental regulation

is that this triggers certain qualitative expectations

about how decision-making power will be wielded

within the network. It indicates that the Covenant is

likely to clear some of these qualitative hurdles, but may

struggle with others. This calls for further debate and

deliberation about how the legitimacy of new variants

of transnational environmental regulation may be bol-

stered without losing their flexibility and innovative

drive. Considering the improbability that a global,

binding regulatory regime for climate change mitiga-

tion and adaptation will emerge in the foreseeable

future, and our corresponding continued dependence

on alternative transnational initiatives as drivers for

change, the ramifications of this debate considerably

exceed the scope of the Covenant of Mayors itself.

The article first reviews the unprecedented pressures

that the climate change challenge exerts on traditional

modes of environmental law and regulation, and dis-

cusses the corresponding emergence of transnational

environmental regulation. It then briefly sketches the

key features of the Covenant of Mayors to enable the

subsequent discussion of whether the Covenant is a

form of transnational environmental regulation. The

following part of the article discusses the consequences

of identifying a particular organization as ‘regulation’

and, on this basis, offers a preliminary assessment of

the Covenant of Mayors as a regulatory regime, identi-

fying both strengths and weaknesses.

CONFRONTING THE

MULTI-HEADED HYDRA OF

CLIMATE CHANGE

‘Climate change is a worldwide problem that requires a

global solution’ – these words have become a mantra

for our age.3Views on what this solution should look

like differ significantly, but there is widespread agree-

1See K. Kern and H. Bulkeley, ‘Cities, Europeanization and Multi-

level Governance: Governing Climate Change through Transnational

Municipal Networks’, 47:2 Journal of Common Market Studies (2009),

309, at 329.

2‘20 20 by 2020’ is comprised of three key objectives: a 20% reduc-

tion in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels; raising the

share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable

resources to 20%; and a 20% improvement in the EU’s energy

eff‌iciency.

3Cf. T. Etty et al., ‘Transnational Dimensions of Climate Change’, 1:2

Transnational Environmental Law (2012), 235.

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 22 (1) 2013. ISSN 0962-8797

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

78