The European Union in Crisis: What Future for the EU in International Climate Policy? IES Policy Brief Issue 2016/18 • October 2016

Despite an apparently ever-growing number of crises in Europe over the past decade, the fundamental rationale of the European Union (EU) and its member states actively and jointly exerting leadership in international climate and energy policy has not changed. The members of the Union remain bound together by common policies closely linked to the single market. They also have a common interest in fighting climate change and enhancing energy security and reaping the many economic opportunities of the ‘new climate economy’. And, with individual member states being vulnerable and lacking clout, they share a strategic interest in jointly shaping evolving international climate and energy governance. The crises therefore do not call for scaling down EU climate leadership ambitions, but for adjusting the leadership strategy

Hard or Soft Governance? The EU's Climate and Energy Policy Framework for 2030

This article investigates the stringency of EU climate and energy governance along the soft-hard continuum as a key determinant of its ability to achieve its ambitions. It introduces four criteria for a systematic and differentiated assessment of the bindingness/stringency of legislative instruments and governance frameworks, namely: (1) formal legal status, (2) the nature of the obligations (substantive—procedural), (3) their precision and prescriptiveness, and (4) the means for effecting accountability and effective implementation. The application of this assessment framework to the EU’s Climate and Energy Policy Framework for 2030 in comparison with the preceding 2020 Framework and the international Paris Agreement on climate change demonstrates the added value of this approach. The focus is on regulations, adopted in 2018, regarding greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy (RE), and energy efficiency as well as the surrounding framework for planning, reporting, monitoring, and enforcement. The EU’s 2030 Framework scores high on the four criteria. Despite implementing the comparatively soft Paris Agreement, it does not fall behind the stringency of the 2020 Framework, as the abandoning of binding national targets for RE is balanced by strengthened obligations to prepare national plans, long-term strategies, and regular progress reports, as well as the enhanced monitoring and supervisory powers of the European Commission. While actual delivery will not least depend on how the Commission will use its established and newly acquired powers and tools, the 2030 Framework reinforces EU interest in strengthening international climate governance under the Paris Agreement

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

The European Union’s international climate leadership : towards a grand climate strategy

Advancing literature on EU international climate strategy, this article offers a fresh and comprehensive assessment of the EU's international leadership on climate change. Conceptually, it provides a framework for systematic analysis of different facets of exemplary and diplomatic leadership taking into account key framework conditions. Empirically, we trace the achievements and challenges of the EU's climate leadership since the early 1990s, with emphasis on contemporary developments. We find that the EU has successfully adapted its climate leadership to evolving challenges over time. However, intensified climate geopolitics has reinforced demand for the EU to enhance its capabilities for a proactive 'grand climate strategy'. Grand strategizing would require coordination of EU institutions and EU member states at highest political levels. In addition to facilitating the maintenance of the achievements so far, it could provide for a stronger integration of domestic and international climate policy and across other policy fields and fora

Interplay: Exploring Institutional Interaction

"Since the development of the Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC) Science Plan in 1998 has become an important subject of inquiry. The Science Plan put institutional interaction on the agenda of global change research when only a handful of scholars had raised the general issue. Their work drew attention to the risk of 'treaty congestion' [...] and to an increasing 'regime density' [...] in the international system. Today it is widely recognized that 'the effectiveness of specific institutions often depends not only on their own features but also on their interactions with other institutions' [...]. Many environmental issue areas are cocoverned by several international institutions with governance also involving institutions at lower levels of societal and administrative organization (regional, national, local) [...]." (excerpt

Paris climate conference: why the EU should redouble its efforts to reach full decarbonisation

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference will be held in Paris from 30 November to 11 December. Drawing on research in a recent edited volume, Sebastian Oberthür and Claire Dupont assess the EU’s progress in reducing emissions in the lead up to the conference. They write that while the EU remains the world leader in efforts to tackle climate change, there are still some substantial challenges that will need to be overcome before the EU can reach full decarbonisation

EU Climate and Energy Policy: How Myopic Is It?

This article investigates the shortsightedness or myopia of recent climate and energy policy (CEP) in the EU. To this end, it develops and applies a measurement tool of short-termism composed of four key criteria: (1) the reflection of science-based long-term thinking in the policy process and its output; (2) the degree to which mid-term greenhouse gas emission targets and accompanying policies align with science-based long-term objectives; (3) the stringency of the legislation; and (4) its adaptability. We use these criteria to assess the levels of short-termism of the EU’s 2020 and 2030 CEP frameworks and the (still evolving) European Green Deal (EGD). Overall, we find that the level of myopia of EU CEP has fluctuated and has advanced far less than the development of the nominal mid-term emission targets might suggest. The EGD’s 55% emission reduction target for 2030 only constitutes a return to the levels of alignment with science-based long-term objectives existing in the 2020 Package (making good on the regression of the 2030 Framework). It is primarily due to the maturing of long-term thinking and a ratcheting mechanism, that EU climate policy under the EGD can be considered less myopic than the 2020 Package (although the assessment remains preliminary pending the adoption of further implementing legislation). These findings lay the ground for future research that not only investigates reasons for the general myopia of (EU) climate policy, but also the drivers of the fluctuations over time