A European Deposit Insurance and Resolution Fund - An Update. CEPS Policy Brief No. 283, 11 September 2012

Cross-border banking is currently not stable in Europe. Cross-border banks need a European safety net. Moreover, a truly integrated European level banking system may help to break the diabolical loop between the solvency of the domestic banking system and the fiscal standing of the national sovereign. This policy paper first sketches the building blocks of a banking union. Importantly, a new European Deposit Insurance and Resolution Authority (EDIRA) should start simultaneously with the ECB assuming supervisory powers. A combination of European supervision and local resolution cannot work because it is not ‘incentive compatible’. Next, this paper proposes a transition period to gradually phase in the European deposit insurance coverage. Finally, we calculate that a European Deposit Insurance Fund would amount to about €30-50 billion for the 75 euro area banks that were subject to the EBA stress tests. This Fund could be created over a period of time through risk-based deposit insurance premiums levied on these banks. Once up and running, the Fund would then turn into a European Deposit Insurance and Resolution Fund to also deal with the resolution of one or more of these European banks.

REACH: A killer whale for SMEs? CEPS Policy Brief No. 307, 9 December 2013

REACH is a very demanding system for any business either large or small, yet right from the start one of the more serious concerns was whether and how SMEs could cope with the Regulation. After all, some 27,600 companies in EU chemistry are SMEs (95% of all firms). Seven years down the line, many of these fears are materialising. Assuming no significant changes are introduced to REACH, this paper suggests the following recommendations: Above all, we strongly encourage SMEs to start early and develop a strategy for REACH compliance well before 2018. Address the potential competition law implications of current SIEF arrangements, e.g. through a Guidance document from DG Competition by 2014 (in time for 2018) Facilitate the exchange of information along the value chain by adopting pragmatic approach to the content and format of Safety Data Sheets. More can be done on the IT front as well, for instance by developing tools that generate compliant Safety Data Sheets. Improve the communication of REACH and its intended goals, that is, the health and environmental benefits, to the wider public. SMEs regret the unawareness of the public in the light of the enormous efforts they have to undertake. In the event of a later review of REACH, the logic should be risk-based rather than hazard-based.

Carbon Leakage: Options for the EU. CEPS Special Report, March 2014

This CEPS Special Report builds on the first deliverable of the project entitled “Carbon leakage: Options for the EU”. It identifies carbon costs, and the ability to pass through carbon costs, as the main risk factors that could lead from asymmetrical carbon policies to carbon leakage. It also outlines and evaluates, based on criteria discussed in the paper, options for detecting and mitigating the risk of carbon leakage in three jurisdictions, with special attention to the EU ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme). Based on the analysis of approaches currently used in a number of existing carbon pricing systems, it identifies the balance between the number of sectors identified as being at risk, and the amount of compensation provided as a risk mitigation measure, as the critical element in providing an optimum approach to address carbon leakage risks. It also identifies a risk-based approach to identifying sectors at risk as allowing for a better reflection of reality in a counterfactual argument. Finally, the paper concludes that while, with some exceptions, there has been limited carbon leakage until now, the past may not be a good reflection of the future and that measures need to be put in place for the post-2020 period. While examining a number of approaches, it identifies free allocation as the most likely way forward for mitigating the risk of carbon leakage. While other approaches may provide interesting options, they also present challenges for implementation, from a market functioning, to international trade and relations, points of view. A number of challenges will need to be addressed in the post-2020 period, with many of them part of the EU ETS structural reform package. Some of these challenges include, among others, the need to recognise, and provide for individual sectoral characteristics, as well as for changes in production patterns, due to economic cycles, and other factors. Finally, the paper emphasises the need for an open dialogue regarding the post-2020 provisions for carbon leakage as no overall Energy and Climate Package is likely to be agreed on until this matter is addressed.