EU Performance in the International Climate Negotiations in 2013: Scope for Improvement. IES Policy Brief Issue 2014/01/January 2014

Summary. The European Union (EU) has long been an important player and even a leader in the international cooperation on climate change. In 2013, preparations for a new global climate agreement in 2015 moved centre stage in the international negotiations. This policy brief assesses the EU’s performance in 2013 culminating in the Warsaw conference in November 2013. We find that the EU was actively engaged in the negotiations and pursued partially ambitious/progressive policy objectives, which it was partly successful in realising. The policy brief argues that international EU leadership for a 2015 agreement requires (1) building an international leadership alliance including the EU and other progressive countries and (2) serious homework by the EU to advance domestic climate mitigation efforts both by 2020 and 2030, and to enhance its position on climate finance.

European climate finance: securing the best return. Bruegel Policy Brief ISSUE 2015/03, 11 September 2015

Combating climate change is perhaps the most formidable public policy challenge of our times. Unmitigated climate change will be irreversible. It will place significant costs on future generations, and expose them to unexplored risks. To mitigate climate change, global coordination is indispensable. European Union citizens consider climate change a central problem. The EU and its member states have therefore put in place signficant and costly climate mitigation policies.

REACHING FOR BLUE GOLD - How the EU can rise to the water challenge while reaping the rewards. EPC Issue Paper No. 80, November 2015

Foreword. Climate change is bad news for water resources – and thus for human development, societies, economies, the environment, and local and global security. The increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as droughts and floods serves as a reminder of the effects climate change can have on the quantity and quality of global water reserves, and thus on various other aspects of life. Even though the effects differ from region to region, this is a global challenge with far-reaching consequences to which Europe is not immune. As the world leaders gather in Paris in December 2015 to discuss a new international climate deal, it is worth to remind politicians, businesses and citizens of the water challenge and its wider implications, which already affect us today – and which will only get worse with climate change. However, water-related risks resulting from climate change are not a fatality and damage control doesn’t have to be the only mantra. Placing the water challenge at the centre of political and security dialogues, development strategies and climate mitigation and adaptation measures, and implementing smarter water management, could also bring great economic, environmental and social benefits, in and outside the European Union. It would also contribute to global security. Water matters – now more than ever. This is also what this publication demonstrates. Building on the European Policy Centre’s, two-year “Blue Gold” project, this publication shows the rationale for action, how the EU could use its existing internal and external policy instruments to tackle the water challenge with its various dimensions and the benefits of action.

An Assessment of US Progress towards its Pledge on Climate Change Mitigation. CEPS ECP Report No. 12, 15 October 2012

In 2009, President Obama pledged that, by 2020, the United States would achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of 17% from 2005 levels. With the failure of Congress to adopt comprehensive climate legislation in 2010, the feasibility of the pledge was put in doubt. However, we find that the United States is near to reaching this goal: the country is currently on course to achieve reductions of 16.3% from 2005 levels in 2020. Three factors contribute to this outcome: greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act, secular trends including changes in relative fuel prices and energy efficiency and sub-national efforts. Perhaps even more surprising, domestic emissions are probably lower than would have been the case if the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade proposal had become law in 2010. At this point, however, the United States is expected to fail to meet its financing commitments under the Copenhagen Accord for 2020.

EU Policy on Climate Change Mitigation since Copenhagen and the Economic Crisis. CEPS Working Document No. 380, 5 March 2013

The EU has long assumed leadership in advancing domestic and international climate change policy. While pushing its partners in international negotiations, it has led the way in implementing a host of domestic measures, including a unilateral and legally binding target, an ambitious policy on renewable energy and a strategy for low-carbon technology deployment. The centrepiece of EU policy, however, has been the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), a cap-and-trade programme launched in 2005. The ETS has been seen as a tool to ensure least-cost abatement, drive EU decarbonisation and develop a global carbon market. After an initial review and revision of the ETS, to come into force in 2013, there was a belief that the new ETS was ‘future-proof’, meaning able to cope with the temporary lack of a global agreement on climate change and individual countries’ emission ceilings. This confidence has been shattered by the simultaneous ‘failure’ of Copenhagen to deliver a clear prospect of a global (top-down) agreement and the economic crisis. The lack of prospects for national caps at the international level has led to a situation whereby many member states hesitate to pursue ambitious climate change policies. In the midst of this, the EU is assessing its options anew. A number of promising areas for international cooperation exist, all centred on the need to ‘raise the ambition level’ of GHG emission reductions, notably in aviation and maritime, short-lived climate pollutions, deforestation, industrial competitiveness and green growth. Public policy issues in the field of technology and its transfer will require more work to identify real areas for cooperation.

Navigating the road from Warsaw towards a climate agreement in 2015. CEPS Commentary, 5 December 2013

The latest round of climate negotiations that took place in Warsaw (Conference of Parties, COP19) finally resulted in a decision to agree on a timeframe for the new agreement due in COP21 in Paris in 2015, and on ways to enhance the levels of ambition in pre-2020 mitigation pledges. Specifically, Warsaw produced two milestones: i) Parties were asked to communicate “intended nationally-determined contributions” by March 2015 and ii) the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action was requested to identify before COP20 in Lima, the information that Parties will provide when putting forward their contributions. This Commentary by Noriko Fujiwara explores what the Warsaw decision means in practice and offers some preliminary ideas about what is still needed.

Too many presidents "spoil the broth"?- What role for the European Commission in global climate change politics?

The European Union is the only supranational organisation to have both implemented ‘domestic’ climate change policy and provided leadership for the international community on adaptation and mitigation measures. Although the competence for action in climate change is shared between the national governments and the supranational level of the European Union, on behalf of the EU the European Commission has played a prominent role in international climate change negotiations. The Lisbon Treaty (in force December 2009) brought a number of changes to the institutional framework of the European Union, most significantly to the European Council and the external role of the EU. These changes appear to have added to the complexity which surrounds issues of the external representation of the EU and not simplified them – are there too many ‘Presidents’ of these institutions vying for a role? This paper questions the extent to which these changes will impact on the Commission headed by Jose Manuel Barroso, Barroso II Commission (2009-2014), particularly on Barroso’s ability to provide leadership on ‘domestic’ climate change policy and hence direction to the approach which the EU takes in global climate change politics.

The European Union’s Role in the Formation of India’s Climate Change Policy. Bruges Regional Integration & Global Governance Papers 2/2012, September 2012

This paper focuses on the role of the European Union (EU) in the formation of India’s climate change policy; an increasingly high profile issue area. It is based on an extensive study of relevant literature, EU-India policy documents and the execution of thirteen semi-structured interviews with experts; many of whom have experienced EU-India cooperation on climate change first-hand. A three-point typology will be used to assess the extent of the EU’s leadership role, supporting role or equal partnership role in India, with several sub-roles within these categories. Further, for clarity and chronology purposes, three time periods will be distinguished to assess how India’s climate policy has evolved over time, alongside the EU’s role within that. The findings of the paper confirm that the EU has demonstrated signs of all three roles to some degree, although the EU-India relationship in climate policy is increasingly an equal partnership. It offers explanations for previous shortcomings in EU-India climate policy as well as policy recommendations to help ensure more effective cooperation and implementation of policies.

Doha/COP 18: gateway to a new climate change agreement. CEPS Commentary, 13 December 2012

Drawing on his recent experience in the climate negotiations in Doha as an advisor and negotiator on a wide variety of issues, Andrei Marcu offers his assessment of the progress achieved in the two weeks of intensive talks. In spite of modest results, he describes the talks as an important and necessary step in the revolution, first ignited at the Montreal negotiations in 2005, that rejected the top-down Kyoto Protocol model in favour of a bottom-up climate change regime. In his view, the decisions taken in Doha enable the start of a new negotiating process aimed at delivering a new global climate agreement.