EU climate and energy policy: hope for more and better climate policy integration? IES Policy Brief Issue 2014/02/January 2014

Summary. With discussions on-going in the EU on the climate and energy policy framework to 2030, it is timely to assess the reality of climate policy integration into EU energy policy. Such an analysis can lead to lessons for the legislative process for the 2030 package, and even for policies in other sectors and beyond 2030. Climate change is a complex, crosscutting, long-term and global problem. Policymakers acknowledge that integrating climate policy objectives into the elaboration and agreement of measures in other sectors represents one method for striving towards coherent policies that respond adequately to the climate change problem. This policy brief presents the results and policy recommendations from the project “climate policy integration into EU energy policy”.

European Energy and Industrial Policy Realigned: Risk or Opportunity for EU Eco-Innovation Strategy? IES Policy Brief Issue 2014/03/February 2014

Summary. Europe’s eco-innovation strategy fuses industrial, energy and environmental policy together in a concept for sustainable economic growth in the 21st century. The latest debate about high energy prices and their impact on energy-intensive industry shows, however, that the emphasis among the three policies has shifted over the years. Some adjustments are therefore necessary in order to reduce evolving inconsistencies. This Policy Brief describes the different dimensions of the EU’s industrial policy, and assesses the options available to policy-makers to increase the competitiveness of energy-intensive sectors without compromising the eco-innovation and sustainability agenda. If several key principles of the European sustainability agenda remain unchanged, strategic development is possible.

From a European to a common security and defence policy. IES WORKING PAPER 5/2010

The Lisbon Treaty has introduced significant changes in the field of EU security and defence. On the one hand, important institutional reforms, such as the creation of a renewed High Representative, have of course a great impact on this policy field. On the other hand, the Lisbon Treaty has also introduced specific innovations in the security and defence of the European Union. The mutual defence clause and the new mechanisms for flexible cooperation such as the permanent structured cooperation, are only some of the key innovations. Generally, the European Security and Defence Policy receives its own section in the Treaty on European Union and is rebranded as Common Security and Defence Policy. Thus, the Lisbon Treaty sets the objective for a common policy in this field. However, does this reform really provide for the means for the realization of such a common policy? Furthermore, does the Lisbon Treaty increase the importance of CSDP or is the increasing importance of this policy field just reflected in the Treaty text? These are the main questions that the present paper attempts to address through the analysis of the new institutional setting of the post-Lisbon security and defence policy, as well as through the examination of the specific innovations in this area.

European Foreign and Security Policy since the Lisbon Treaty – From Common to single? ZEI Discussion Paper C226, 2014

Since the Lisbon Treaty, all organizational conditions have been created for the systematic use of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Military and civil structures, especially the operational headquarters and associated common structures like transport command, have been established. Until now there has been limited activity in crisis resolution, outside of Bosnia and Macedonia, and therefore little has been done in replacement of NATO. It is therefore difficult to assess the development of the common policy on conflict prevention and crisis management and it has been shown that in all cases NATO should come into play as planned from the outset.

The Common Security and Defence Policy: National Perspectives. Egmont Paper No. 79, May 2015

FOREWORD. When one looks at the present state of the CSDP, one cannot help but look on with disenchantment at the energy that appears to have abandoned both institutions and Member States. Commentators increasingly take for granted that nothing much should be expected from this field of EU policy. The reasons for this state of mind are well known: the recent economic and financial strains, which have impacted all EU action since 2008, means that most of the Member States will struggle to keep their defence budgets at their present level in the future, and we may even see reductions. Furthermore, and to put it mildly, most of the recent CSDP operations have also experienced a lack of enthusiasm. Adding to this overall trend, the EU is far from presenting a common vision of what security and defence should really mean. Many of the Member States do not want to be involved in all of today’s international turmoils, and they rarely share the strategic culture which inspires those Member States who see themselves as having special responsibilities in dealing with these crises. In the end it may be that Member States diverge fundamentally on the simple question of whether it is relevant for the EU to engage in most of the ‘hot’ crises Europe faces; many prefer to see Europe as a soft power, mostly dedicated to intervening on less dramatic fronts and more inclined to mend than to fight. For whatever reason given, it remains that if there is a lack of common understanding on what CSDP should really be about, it should not come as a surprise if this policy is presently in stalemate. As an additional blow, the Ukrainian crisis, which dragged on for the whole of last year, could only add to the downward spiral the EU has been experiencing, with a new Russia aggressively confronting Europe in a manner not too distant from the Cold War days. This attitude has triggered the natural reaction among EU Member States to seek reassurances from NATO about their own national security. Coupled with the return of France a few years ago into the integrated military command, NATO’s renewed relevance has sent a strong message to Europe about the military organisation’s credibility with regard to collective defence. Surprisingly, this overall trend was gathering momentum at the same time as other more positive developments. The European Council of December 2013 dedicated its main session to CSDP: it underlined Europe’s role as a ‘security provider’ while adopting a very ambitious road map for Europe in all possible dimensions of the security sector. Hence the impression of a genuine boost to all EU institutions, which have been invited to join efforts and give CSDP a reinvigorated efficiency. In the same way, the increasing instability in Europe’s neighbourhood has also called for more EU operations: most recently in Iraq, Libya, Northern Nigeria or South Sudan. Pressure for further EU engagement has been one of the most constant features of the discussions taking place around these crises. Moreover, a growing number of EU partners in Asia, Latin America or Eastern Europe have shown a renewed eagerness to join CSDP missions in what sounds like a vote of confidence for EU capacities. What kind of conclusion should be drawn from this contradictory situation? Probably that the EU has much more potential than it can sometimes figure out itself, if only it would be ready to adapt to the new global realities. But, more than anything else, an enhanced CSDP needs from all Member States strong political will and a clear vision of what they want this policy to be. Without this indispensable ingredient CSDP may continue to run its course, as it does today. It may even grow in efficiency but it will keep lacking the one resource that would definitely help it overcome all the present shortcomings that have prevented Europe from finding its true role and mission through the CSDP. Member States remain central to EU security and defence policy. This is why this collection of essays is so valuable for assessing in no uncertain way the long road that lies ahead for any progress to be made. Pierre VIMONT Senior Associate at Carnegie Europe Former Executive Secretary-General of the European External Action Service

The EU’s Response to the Refugee Crisis: Taking Stock and Setting Policy Priorities. CEPS Essay No. 20, 16 December 2015

What have been the most important EU policy and legal responses to the 2015 refugee crisis? Is Europe taking effectively responsibility in compliance with its founding principles? This Essay takes stock of the main results and policy outputs from the EU’s interventions in the refugee crisis. It critically highlights the outstanding policy dilemmas confronting the adopted instruments and puts forwards a set of policy priorities to guide the next phases of the European Agenda on Migration.

Shaping sustainable economies-holistic strategies and principles. Policy Brief #2012/03

A society acts sustainably if it ensures the long-term stability and productivity of ecological, sociopolitical and economic systems. In the past, issues of sustainability were typically handled separately, neglecting individual measures’ effects on other elements implied by a comprehensive conception of sustainability. The challenge ahead is to develop a holistic strategy for sustainable economic activity that takes into ac-count interdependencies between the various aspects of sustainability, and does not seek to solve problems of sustainability at other aspects’ expense.