To mark the State of the Union Forum organised by ten think tanks - Bertelsmann Stiftung, Bruegel, CEPS, Confrontations Europe, Egmont, EPC, Friends of Europe, IFRI, Madariaga and SWP - in cooperation with Agence Europe on Tuesday 25 January, this edition of European Library is devoted to the most recent publications which these think tanks deserve attention. The themes dealt with match those of the Forum - climate, migration, the budget and the economy and the EU in the world.
*** The Treaty of Lisbon: A Second Look at the Institutional Innovations. Joint Study. Brussels: Egmont - Royal Institute for International Relations (69 rue de Namur, B - 1000 Bruxelles. Tel. (32-2) 2234114 - fax: 2234116 - Internet: http: //http://www.egmontinstitute.be/papers/10/eur/Studia_Lisbonne_II-copyright.pdf CEPS and EPC. 2010, 197 pages.
With the Treaty of Lisbon entering into force at the end of 2009 and gradually being implemented throughout 2010, three Brussels think tanks (EPC, CEPS and EGMONT) thought it useful to undertake a preliminary assessment of how the many institutional changes are being implemented or likely to be implemented in the futue. This Joint Study forms the follow-up to a similar exercise carried out in 2007 (Joint Study “Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations”, November 2007) at a time when the Treaty was still awaiting ratification and its future was all but clear. Although still too early to pass a final judgment on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the EU institutional framework, the authors nonetheless identify some general trends. On the basis of the ten topics singled out for analysis and collective reflection, it is concluded that: the institutional system has become more complex, the institutional balance has changed and 'joint management' is ubiquitous. Considering that even the best possible institutional framework cannot work without a high level of personal engagement and political commitment, the authors conclude that the Treaty's success will ultimately be made - or unmade - in and by the member states.
*** PHILIPPE HERZOG: Une tâche infinie. Fragments d'un projet politique européen, Editions DDB/du Rocher (28 rue du Comte-Félix-Gastaldi, 98000 Monaco. Tel.: (33-1)40465407 - Internet: http://www.editionsdurocher.fr ), October 2010, 350 pp, €20. ISBN 978-2-268-07006-3.
The author provides a lucid and constructive diagnosis of the current moral, economic and political crisis in France and Europe. He picks up the mantle of hope and explores the path of social transformation and a new European democracy. He also illustrates the different component parts of a visionary European policy up to 2012. He draws on his extremely extensive and unique experience, ranging from that of leader of the French Communist Party to that of his current tasks as Special Adviser to the European Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services. He has been an MEP for fifteen years and in 1992 he set up Confrontations Europe. Based on a far-reaching reflective project on our culture, political economy and anthropology, Philippe Herzog urges us to take part in the renewal of democracy and to make civilisation really work.
*** COLLIGNON STEFAN, N. COOPER RICHARD, KAWAI MASAHIRO, ZHANG YONGJUN (Gütersloh 2010): Rebalancing the Global Economy, Four Perspectives on the Future of the International Monetary System, http: //http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-405FD3E1-7A296BFF/bst/europe_in_dialogue_2010-01.pdf
Europeans can be proud as they look back on fifty years of peaceful integration. Nowadays, many people in the world see the European Union as a model of how states and their citizens can work together in peace and freedom. This achievement, however, does not automatically mean that the EU has the ability to deal with the problems of the future in a rapidly changing world. For this reason, the European Union needs to continue developing its unity in diversity in a dynamic way, with regard to energy issues, the euro, climate change or new types of conflict. Self-assertion and solidarity are the fundamental concepts that will shape the forthcoming discourse. “Europe in Dialogue” wishes to make a contribution to this open debate. The analyses in this series subject political concepts, processes and institutions to critical scrutiny and suggest ways of reforming internal and external European policymaking so that it is fit for the future. “Europe in Dialogue” is not, however, merely trying to encourage an intra-European debate, it is also seeking to include authors from non-EU states. Looking at an issue from a different angle or from a distance often helps to facilitate a crucial change of perspective, which in turn makes it possible to continue to develop Europe in a meaningful way and to engage in a crucial and yet courteous discourse with other civilizations and continents. This study contributes to the current debate about global imbalances and the question of how global actors in general, and in the European Union in particular, should deal with the growing disequilibria among the major currencies.
*** PIERRE DEFRAIGNE: “L'Europe dans l'Etau de la Crise”, Madariaga - College of Europe Foundation (14, av. de la Joyeuse Entrée, B - 1040 Bruxelles. Tel.: (32-2) 2096210 - fax: 2096211 - Courriel: info@Madariagaorg - internet: http://www.madariaga.org ). Collection “Madariaga Papers”, Vol. 3, No. 4 (July 2010).
Europe is confronted with long-term challenges posed by the shift of power towards East Asia and growing pressures on natural resources. Within this framework, a new round of political integration cannot be put off for much longer. A change of vision, however, matters more than institutional changes. The issue at stake is how to manage a decade of anaemic growth within a context of mounting populism and protectionism. As the Eurozone is at the core of this challenge, it should be endowed with triple sovereignty. In addition to monetary policy, it should be allowed to act at the level of financial regulation and tax policies. This is the only way in which the member states will realize that they share not just a currency, but a common destiny too.
*** FABIAN ZULEEG: In danger of breakdown: Is the EU approaching budget stalemate? European Policy centre (Résidence Palace, 155 rue de la Loi, B-1040 Brussels. Tel: (32-2) 2310340 - fax: 2310704 -internet: http://www.epc.eu ). EPC Issue Paper Collection. 2011.
This EPC Issue Paper examines the implications of the changed political environment in which the up-coming debate on the next multiannual financial framework will take place. It posits that all that was hoped in the budget review is unlikely to be achieved, not only as a result of entrenched negotiating positions, but also because of a hardening of positions resulting from the economic environment of public finance austerity and political changes in key member states. While the European Parliament has clearly been given a more important role, it remains to be seen how it will use its new powers in practice. The debate on the annual budget for 2011 has already shown that negotiations are likely to be long and difficult. With a new Lisbon Treaty provision allowing the preceding multiannual financial perspectives to be extended if no agreement can be found, at best, the tendency will be to maintain the current status quo and, at worst, the lack of agreement will herald in a period of paralysis, with the EU unable to achieve jointly agreed political objectives.
*** FRANS VANISTENDAEL: “Revisiting Taxation in the Wake of the Crisis: National Sovereignty or EU Taxing Power? Tax Competition or Tax Harmonisation?”, Madariaga - College of Europe Foundation. Collection “Madariaga Papers”, Vol. 4, No. 3 (January 2011).
Against a background of twin opposition between: i) tax competition and tax harmonization or coordination and ii) opposition between national sovereignty and EU taxing power, the aim of this paper is to answer three questions related to taxation in Europe in light of the crisis: first, which tax policy should be followed in Europe to rebalance the member states' budgets? Second, how can the tax burdens between labour and capital be rebalanced? Third, where will the EU find the resources to stimulate demand through long-term investments in European public goods? A temporary Eurozone federal authority for times of crisis might play a role of paramount importance, but as long as the conundrum of its democratic accountability remains unresolved, there will not be any change in the current distribution of competences between the EU and the member states.
*** FRANKLIN DEHOUSSE, TANIA ZGAJEWSKI, with the collabotation of Karel Van Hecke. 2010. The EU Climate Policy after the Climate Package and Copenhagen - Promises and Limits. Egmont Paper 38. Brussels: Egmont - Royal Institute for International Relations. http: //http://www.egmontinstitute.be/paperegm/ep38.pdf
This paper aims to provide a global assessment of the European Union's climate change policy after the Climate Package and Copenhagen. In order to do so, the paper firstly describes the climate threats to Europe, as well as the EU climate and energy package and objectives adopted in 2009. The different components in this package are then highlighted: the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the obligations of the non-ETS sectors, the 20% renewable energy objective, the promotion of carbon capture and storage and the framework on environmental subsidies. Thirdly, the other EU climate policy legislations are examined, comprising: energy efficiency; GHG emissions of cars; GHG emissions of fuels, and the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). Adaptation to climate change is also discussed, before examining the international aspects of the EU actions after Copenhagen. As part of its conclusion, the paper assesses EU climate policy through four main questions: What has the EU achieved so far? What will the costs be? What will be the impact on the European Union? Is EU action sufficient?
*** SUSANNE DRÖGE (Ed.) International Climate Policy - Priorities of Key Negotiating Parties. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik / German Institute for International and Security Affairs (3-4 Ludwigkirchplats, D - 10719 Berlin. Tel.: (49-30) 88007-0 - fax: 88007-100 - Courriel: swp@swp-berlin.org - Internet: http://www.swp-berlin.org ). Collection “SWP Research Paper” 2010/RP 02, March 2010, 111 pages.
International climate policy received unprecedented attention in 2009 and 2010. The 194 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the Copenhagen Summit in December 2009, however, did not achieve a new international binding treaty for climate protection, adaptation, technological cooperation or financial transfers. A political declaration, the Copenhagen Accord, was set up instead. This includes a number of important cornerstones for a future regime. While the Accord declares that significant amounts of money will be transferred by 2012, it lacks a clear path for reaching the two degrees target proclaimed as the overarching goal. Given the slow progress, efforts by Germany and the EU should, more than ever, focus on the national interests of major economies and emitters, particularly the US, China, India, and Russia. They should also focus on cooperating more closely with the proactive climate negotiators, Brazil and South Africa. This Research Paper presents the climate policy priorities of the six countries and the EU. It is based on how they wish to pursue their role in international negotiations and the role climate policy plays in their foreign policy agenda. In addition to being major international players, all countries target economic growth, which subsequently impacts on their willingness to take action against emissions - an argument that is being played out to the full in current international negotiations. International efforts to combat climate change need a much broader political basis incorporating economic and development cooperation. Our research on the six countries and the EU provides an insight into specific bilateral and multilateral common interests. This could help to promote international cooperation on a future legal framework and also, more importantly, help to develop effective action against rising emissions.
*** MAÏTE JAUREGUY-NAUDIN: Wind Power: A Victim of Policy and Politics? Institut français des relations internationals (Paris, Ifri, Ifri report, 2010, by Maïté Jauréguy-Naudin (http://www.ifri.org )
Renewable energy is in the front line of the battle against climate change and the related necessity of significantly reducing CO2 emissions. Europe has set out a 20% renewables target for end-use energy consumption. This will translate into a 33% target for electricity production (the largest CO2 emitting sector in the European economy), which is responsible for more than 40% of CO2 emissions. The potential promised by wind power led to rapid growth, which is expected to continue at a robust rate.
In a farsighted report of around sixty pages, Maïté Jaureguy-Naudin, a researcher at the Ifri energy programme, unveils a sector experiencing optimum expansion levels and which benefits from a policy brand image. She points out that seven of the European countries most committed to wind power sometimes have worse CO2 emissions rates, inflated energy prices and sector profits that are increasingly open to debate. Maïté Jaureguy does not, however, develop a totally disparaging appraisal. This has already been done by the markets and states, which have punished the sector and reduced their financial support for developing wind power. The author focuses more on the fundamental reasons and lack of coordination for national policies, which suffer from the absence of wind power sector development support plans. Repurchase prices have also created distortion by artificially maintaining a sector outside the normal conditions of competition. Wind power is analysed in a more comprehensive and pragmatic context of the energy sector, which goes beyond its usual caricature.
In the long term, the electricity sector should be able to make the transition towards the use of intermittent sources of electricity. To this end, significant investment is necessary to enhance infrastructure, develop information exchange systems and electricity current flows. The challenge is both environmental and industrial. Politicians who need to take into account these different factors, can be sure of one thing, selling wind power will not be as easy to sell to European citizens as energy efficiency. In a functionalist perspective, confident in the tools provided by the common market, the report provides an unambiguously European outline to what direction should be taken.
*** CLAUDIA MAJOR, CHRISTIAN MÖLLING: EU Battlegroups: Evaluation and Prospects for further developments. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik / German Institute for International and Security Affairs. “SWP Research Paper” Collection. 2011.
EU-Battlegroups (EUBG) have been at the centre of recent debates about the Common/European Security and Defence Policy (C/ESDP) and its operational activities. The member states followed two objectives when they decided to set up this rapid reaction force: a) transformation: motivate and support member states in the transformation of their armed forces, in view of improving the readiness and deployablilty of EU national armed forces for international crisis management operations; b) operation: the units should enable the Union to react independently from NATO more quickly, flexibly and subsequently more effectively, in different crises, ranging from humanitarian to peace enforcement operations.
This study offers the first comprehensive evaluation of the EUBG and analyses the political, military and operations aspects of the forces. The EUBG have turned out to be a success on the political balance sheet but have shown mixed results in military terms and are non-existent operationally. They have encouraged member states to get involved in defence policy and military transformation on a permanent basis and have subsequently helped to develop EU defence cooperation. The reform effects are, however, limited to a small portion of the national armed forces, particularly planning and command, as well as logistics. Deficits in political decision-making processes and logistics endanger rapid deployment. Deployments have failed to take place, which is mainly due to differences in strategic cultures among the EU-member states.
The study concludes with recommendations that take into account both the results of the analysis and the security challenges ahead. It calls on the EU and member states to: - establish a permanent civil-military EU planning and command structure; - widen the Battlegroup deployment spectrum to cover civil-military tasks; - expand funding opportunities for EU operations, particularly through a moderate expansion of the areas jointly financed by the EU; - make more extensive use of pooling and sharing logistics; - further develop the armed forces, focusing on the key points of reinforcement, expansion and gradually increased integration; - entrust the certification of Battlegroups to the European Defence Agency; - create new incentives for the transformation of the armed forces through Permanent Structured Cooperation; - inform policy-makers in Germany as fully as possible about the specifics of Battlegroup deployment and regularly simulate the required decision-making processes.
*** DOROTHÉE PRUD'HOMME: Des directives à la Charte, Dorothée Prud'homme, Note de l'Ifri, November 2010 (http://www.ifri.org ).
In this report, Dorothée Prud'homme provides a critical examination of the European policy for fighting racial discrimination. The author points out that over a period of around fifteen years, the struggle against racial discrimination has acquired a fundamental position within the European legislative arsenal and has expanded the political and social dimension of the Union. The adoption of directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/780/EC, in addition to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, provides a unique platform for developing standards on this issue worldwide. Including racial, ethnic and religious discrimination in the directives, constitutes unprecedented progress in the fight against discrimination in Europe. The two directives establish an extensive system of protection against different forms of discrimination by differentiating and defining direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and incitement to commit discrimination. Further progress comes with reversal of the burden of proof and the fact that it is now incumbent upon the defendant to provide evidence. Nonetheless, these texts suffer from a terminological imprecision, which has led to differences of interpretation during their transposition in to national law. France is an EU member state that prohibits the compilation of statistics on ethnic, cultural or religious difference. Proof of a victim's discrimination due to his/her belonging to a specific group and which is based on statistical evidence, cannot be submitted to a judge. The notion of indirect discrimination is unambiguously undermined by the rejection of the collective dimension of discrimination, which is considered to be the antithesis of republican equality. In light of this rather imperfect transposition, the controversy between the French government and the European Commission can be understood. This involves the document published on 5 August 2010 and which on several occasions emphasised the importance of evacuating the, “Roma (encampments) as a priority”. The terminological imprecision created here does not only affect the rights of migrants, ethnic minorities and other groups in France. While the Union is looking at ways of adopting a single directive incorporating all the different grounds for discrimination, greater harmonisation of legislation is necessary on the basis of clearer terminology.
*** Prioritizing Integration: The Transatlantic Council on Migration, Bertelsmann Stiftung (http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xchag/SID-4F80D7D8-583F5B9D/bst/hs.xsl/publikationenen_ 103884.htm)
The global recession is having a major impact on the integration of immigrants. With cuts in public budgets and a rise in anti-immigrant feeling across the Atlantic, many governments have made short-term decisions responding to the economic crisis, which will have long-term implications for immigrants and society as a whole.
This book examines the impact of the crisis on the integration of immigrants in Europe and the United States. It identifies areas in which immigrants have lost out and examines levels of funding for educational programmes, employment rates, trends toward protectionism, public opinion and levels of discrimination.
This systematic exploration of where and how immigrants have been affected by the recession provides us with a deep insight into how governments can use the recovery period as an opportunity for making more meaningful and targeted investments in integration- investments that will boost economic competitiveness and improve social cohesion.
The book concludes with a number of priorities for the integration-related investments national and local governments should be making in the coming decade.