Commission tackles major policy challenge on climate change.
Never underestimate the intensity of the battles which can rage inside the European Commission as different policy interests and personalities clash over new EU proposals. There was no doubt some bitter argument and tough bargaining in the Commission’s Berlaymont headquarters when January’s climate change package was being threshed out.
And quite right too, because rarely has the Commission faced so difficult a policy challenge, with such far-reaching implications for Europe’s future.
Just think of the Commission portfolios involved. You can imagine the tensions between Verheugen, worried about global competition and Dimas defending the Bali commitments, between Pielbalgs, Dimas and Fischer-Boel over biofuels, with Kroes concerned about state aid, Mandelson fighting off the threat to penalise imports from countries refusing to act on climate change and Potočnik pushing for a strong research component.
President Barroso seems to have managed the storm effectively, no doubt with strong support from Catherine Day, Commission Secretary General and key co-ordinator of Commission policy.
Barroso presented the Commission’s proposals to the European Parliament on January 23. The MEPs’ response seems to have been rather muted, although as Mark Mardell reported in his blog, the UK Independence Party member Graham Booth poured cold water on the whole idea of global warming and spoke of the inevitable ice age to come. I guess he sees the whole thing as a conspiracy to hoodwink the gullible – just as he does the EU itself.
Subject to Council and Parliament approval, the Commission proposals will shape the direction of the European economy and the conditions of modern living in Europe out to 2020 and beyond. And let’s bear in mind the long-term aim: for Europe to lead the way to a halving of the world’s CO2 emissions by 2050 in order to combat global warming.
You can see the compromises in the final package: 20 per cent cut instead of 30 per cent unless there is a global agreement, which the green groups see as a climb-down; emphasis on sustainability for biofuels, outlawing the use of land with “high biodiversity value” such as natural forest; a commitment to respect WTO rules, which Barroso included in his Parliament speech, so providing “clarification” of his more threatening remarks about imports the previous week; and special provisions for industries forced to relocate outside Europe (“carbon leakage”) because of competition from countries which do not constrain emissions. Steel and aluminium spring to mind.
Most EU countries seem to accept the broad outlines of the package, which do after all reflect commitments made last March by Europe’s leaders. Sweden and Denmark complain that all the progress they’ve achieved up to now has been quite ignored in the share-out of emissions cuts.
Perhaps the most significant feature of the whole package is its timescale. Can you imagine an individual European government setting a comprehensive climate change programme for the next twelve years, in the face of all the domestic pressures which can derail policy? Action at a European level sets the policy at one remove from domestic political demands and so takes the pressure off national politicians.
Technological development will be a key factor in what can be achieved within this timescale and it will be intriguing to see how different national policies evolve, because the spin-off benefits for jobs and economic growth should be considerable.
I see that Germany, for instance, is using the feed-in tariff to stimulate renewables and is being rewarded by a remarkable expansion in solar panel production in former East Germany. The firms which have clustered around Frankfurt (Oder) are confident that the costs of solar power will be dramatically reduced in the coming years, so making it an increasingly viable alternative energy source. The impact on local employment is already impressive.
The Commission’s climate change proposals give the Slovenian presidency a good routine policy issue to get its teeth into. Infinitely more difficult for them to handle is the future of Kosovo. Washington is reported to be putting pressure on Slovenia to accelerate EU recognition of an independent Kosovo, while the Kosovar leadership talks of declaring independence “within days”, which was taken to mean after the February 3 Serbian Presidency election run-off between incumbent Tadic and the more pro-Russian Nikolic. The election was narrowly won by the moderate Tadic by a margin of 50.5 per cent, increasing chances of Serbia’s further involvment with the EU, although the recent decision to send an EU mission to Kosovo remains a serious issue for Prime Minister Vojislav Koštunica’s Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) . Intense diplomatic activity will continue with Commissioner Olli Rehn struggling to keep the EU show on the road.
Another election in the region holds a special interest: the February 17 Greek Cypriot presidential. The independent International Crisis Group believes that 2008 will offer a final window of opportunity to prevent complete partition of the island and the end of any hopes for a negotiated solution. The last attempt at unification was thwarted by the Greek Cypriots before EU entry.
Let’s hope that there is sufficient political will to settle the issue at last, so removing this poisoned thorn from Europe’s side. I do wonder what would have happened if the British (ex-colonial power with a sovereign base on the island) had intervened in 1974 when the Greek junta triggered a coup against President Makarios and gave Turkey a justification for invasion.
The Slovenian presidency is hoping to see more national ratifications of the Lisbon Treaty during its six-month term. Hungary is there first and you can track the progress on this map.
Portugal has decided not to go for a referendum, while in the UK the parliamentary process has begun. Nick Clegg, the new leader of the 62 Liberal Democrat MPs, has made clear that his party will not vote in favour of a referendum, which makes it most unlikely that the Treaty will be put to the electorate in the UK. This leaves Ireland as the only EU country to hold a referendum and, whilst confidence remains high, there is the risk of a repeat performance of the 2001 Nice treaty campaign, which was quashed by a conservative populist alliance.
I see that the European Parliament wants more visibility for all the decisions adopted in advance of the end-game of conciliation. Apparently 64 per cent of co-decision dossiers are agreed with the Council in first reading and many more in early second reading, so Dagmar Roth Behrendt’s working party is proposing signing ceremonies and press releases to mark these approvals. Some may say the Parliament wants more profile before the 2009 elections – and why not?
