Brussels, 03/03/2014 (Agence Europe) - An ambitious, realistic and sufficiently flexible Climate/Energy framework between now and 2030, in order to allow the EU to succeed in its transition towards a decarbonised economy whilst taking due account of specific national characteristics and making an effective contribution to the fight against climate change; this need for flexibility was a recurrent theme at the first public guideline debate held by the environment ministers of the EU28, in Brussels on Monday 3 March, on the framework for action for the climate and energy policies 2030 (which was presented by the European Commission on 22 January of this year, featuring its cornerstone of a binding objective of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared to 1990 figures and a structurally reformed European carbon market). Overall, the ministers stated that the framework proposed struck a good balance between ambition and flexibility, and was a good working basis to be built upon, particularly as regards the reduction objective, the target for renewables (27% of consumption) on which some countries, such as Poland, are not at all keen, the new system of governance and the creation of a stability reserve for the ETS.
There is, however, a dividing line between, on the one hand, the most ambitious countries (Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Slovenia and Estonia), which want the EU to table an ambitious offer at the global climate summit convened by Ban Ki-moon for 23 September of this year, in other words well ahead of the climate conference of Paris (COP 21) to be held in late 2015 and, on the other, the countries of the Visegrad group (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia), plus Bulgaria and Romania. They are stressing the concerns of competitiveness (but they are not the only ones: France, Germany, the UK and Luxembourg also want the transition to preserve the competitiveness of the electricity-intensive industries, which are at a high risk of carbon leakage) and are opposed to the EU showing its hand until it is known how the burden will be shared out among the member states and until the other parties to the international negotiations have shown theirs.
“We are all in agreement. The citizens and investors want policies to be characterised by transparency in the future. We agree with the objective of the future framework and on the need for a balance between three elements: environmental sustainability, consumer protection and the security of energy supply. We need a complete approach to cohesion between the member states and between policies, we have to keep energy prices as low as possible and keep jobs in the EU”, said Yiannis Maniatis, the minister for the environment, energy and climate change, after the debate he chaired. Summing up the tendencies which emerged, he noted similarities of opinion in the ministers' desire to limit greenhouse gas emissions whilst preserving the greatest possible degree of flexibility for the member states, and in their preference for decisions which are as effective as possible for the economy. “Questions nonetheless subsist on the implementation of the targets, particularly for renewable energies, and on the governance framework. Certain member states want other objectives. Some of them wish to reach an agreement quickly. Others want more time, taking account of the international negotiations. The ETS is recognised as a fundamental tool, but there are still question marks over how it will function in the future in the non-ETS sectors. Certain delegations feel that the distribution of efforts between the member states is very important, and they insist that the situations of the states be taken into account”, the President of the Council added, stating that he would take account of these points of view alongside those to be expressed by the Energy Council of Tuesday 4 March, when drafting his letter to the European Council of 20 and 21 March.
Maciej Grabowski, the Polish Environment Minister, argued for the timetable laid down at the COP 19 in Warsaw, which gives enough time for office to be submitted in the first quarter of 2015, to be respected. He feels that the EU's contribution should be presented as a potential contribution right up until the Paris conference. “The Commission is sending out the wrong message by presenting its specific targets. We are not ready at this stage. First of all, we have to translate them into national targets. Otherwise, how will they be implemented? The framework must respect the principle of subsidiarity. However, there is nothing of the kind in the text. In view of the fact that the cost of reductions will be the highest for Poland, this member state wants to know how much the reductions will cost and expects the European Council to put forward compensation mechanisms. The Commission should present options”, the minister said.
The United Kingdom is hoping for “clear decisions on the package from the March summit” and would take the reduction target to 50% in the framework of a full agreement. A report has been published on the website of the Department for the Environment for the ventilation of costs for each member state to achieve a reduction of 40%. Sweden says that it wants a 50% reduction and for the “European Council to make considerable progress”. Belgium takes the view that it could be possible to go beyond a 40% reduction in the framework of an international agreement. Italy, which is in favour of this objective, feels however that it will be possible “only if the United States, China and Russia come into line”. Luxembourg regrets the fact that there are not three targets and observes that “some states will put forward their contribution at Ban Ki-moon's climate conference. The Union cannot be lagging behind, this would jeopardise its very credibility”, the minister stressed.
Portugal has defended a more ambitious package with at least 40% for reducing emissions, 40% for renewables (binding target) and 30% for energy efficiency but also interconnection targets (10% for the current period, 20% in 2020 and 25% for 2030). All the different studies, as well as the economic and employment data justify this package from a competitiveness and investments predictability perspective. Austria has indicated that the cost of inaction also has to be taken into account. It said that “this approach is necessary for the EU to play a proactive role in international negotiations and demand commitments from its partners”. It would like 30% for renewables and believes that guidelines for achieving the target on renewables should be clarified. Germany considers that the approach is an “excellent basis for the European Council to make crucial decisions”. Germany also believes that the EU should go to the international negotiations with ambitious targets: a reduction of at least 40% in emissions, of 30% in renewable energies in the final gross target and improved energy efficiency. The minister pointed out that, “we could go further with a certificate for reducing the effects of climate change”. The minister also indicated that they needed to see what effect ETS quota back loading would have.
Denmark explained that the 40% reduction in emissions is, “completely realistic and necessary” and distributing the costs is, “acceptable if the distribution between the ETS sector and non-ETS sector is taken into account”. Denmark believes that with regard to ETS they need to cancel out surplus rights, strengthen the reserve condition and provide stricter rules for emissions trading. Spain stated that, “strengthening interconnection mechanisms is vital. This question, however, did not receive the attention it deserved”. Spain would like to see a floor threshold introduced.
Lithuania is of the opinion that the framework action ought to help stimulate long-term investment by enhancing industrial competitiveness. The 40% threshold will only be achieved by taking into account economic capacity and the socio-economic repercussions. Lithuania would also like country and sector impact analyses and a fair balance between climate/energy targets and the resources that member states have. Slovakia thinks that a 40% emissions reduction is “too ambitious and too expensive for low-income countries”. The Czech Republic supports a single binding target - a 40% emissions reduction, “on the condition that all the world's polluters agree to meet their commitments and if this is not the case, the EU target will only be 35% by 2030”.
The Hungarian delegation welcomed the efforts made by the Commission to present a “comprehensive and detailed framework, which constitutes a milestone in the journey towards a low carbon fuel Europe”. The country did, however, emphasise that this framework should be “linked to state aid and implementation targets”. On the question of burden sharing, they should take into account competitiveness and differences between member states on the basis of a reliable calculation. “Security of supply and maintaining competitiveness is the most important”, it argued. It opposed binding targets on renewables and expressed misgivings about the condition on governance because it believes it is necessary to respect the autonomy of member states, which have the prerogative for deciding their respective energy clusters themselves.
The Italian minister would like guidelines on, “the scale and implementation of national plans” for this new governance (our translation throughout). (AN)