Brussels, 16/10/2008 (Agence Europe) - On the table at the European Council, held amidst economic turmoil and crisis in the banking industry, the climate and energy package came under fire in Brussels on 16 October 2008. The summit managed to prevent the package being watered down and the EU27 agreed that they wanted to sign the package before December 2008, once assurance had been given that there would be full flexibility about how measures are implemented in order to take account of the problems facing each country. Assurance was also given that the December 2008 European Council would have the final say at the highest political level to decide on appropriate measures to match the sheer scale of the challenges of implementing the EU's ambitious climate and energy policy for all sections of the EU economy, and this helped ease the concerns of the most reluctant countries, namely Poland (followed by other new Member States), Italy, Germany and others. It also made it possible for the summit to confirm in its unanimously agreed conclusions document that it is determined to respect the ambitious 'twenty' targets (compulsory reduction of greenhouse gases by at least 20% by 2020, the obligation for renewable energy to provide 20% of energy consumption and a non-binding target of 20% energy efficiency) agreed upon in March 2007 and included in four draft EU directives. It will be up to the European Commission and French Presidency to pull out the stops in the next few weeks in the search for the best possible compromise, explains the European Council conclusions document. (A.N. trans fl)
The French Presidency's guidelines on future work on the package of climate and energy legislation, which it had originally been planned to include in an annex to the European Council's conclusions document (see EUROPE 9762), were removed from the version finally agreed upon by the EU27 leaders. Virtually all delegations refused to be bound by the guidelines.
The role of the European Parliament, which is a co-decision-maker in the legislative process, will be decisive in obtaining an EP-Council agreement, and it has now been decided that trilogue meetings will begin on 3 November and finish around 15 November. Given that December's European Council (11-12 December 2008) will take place at the same time as the UN climate conference in Poznan (30 November-12 December), it will probably be difficult to go to Poznan with a united position, as the EU had wanted. This is all the more so since Poland sees a further opportunity in the December Council to threaten to use its veto once again. Whatever happens, the outcome of the European Council was unanimously considered a success given the uncertainty that reigned at the start of debates.
No matter how high and loud the European Commission and the Presidency of the EU stated that the world economic and financial crisis in no way obviated the urgent need to take action to combat climate change, and, indeed, provided an opportunity if the EU wanted to move towards a sustainable low-carbon economy which is based on eco-innovation and creates jobs, their arguments, initially, failed to persuade EU heads of state and government to willingly accept the constraints in the four texts of the legislative package. It was the glum economic prospects, the cost of the proposed measures and the refusal, in this context, to ask too much of European industry that was behind the initial threat of a veto by Italy and Poland (which was supported in its demands by the new member states) blocking any progress of the energy-climate package if their concerns were not taken into account. This nervousness, not with regard to objectives, but with the how to tackle climate change was overcome, once it was written into the Council conclusions that each specific situation would be taken into account, while ensuring a satisfactory cost effectiveness - in the two and a half months which are left for the French Presidency to find a compromise.
After the meeting, President in office of the European Council Nicolas Sarkozy could not hide his satisfaction that all the member states had agreed to maintain course. The firmness he showed in telling member states that he would not push back the timetable, and the understanding he demonstrated in giving assurances of room for manoeuvre paid off. “The targets stayed the same, the timetable stays the same. It is now up to José Manuel Barroso and me to find solutions for the countries which expressed their worry,” he told press. He is not afraid of the size of the challenge. “We have two and half months to find a solution. Having only a short time helps to find a compromise. In December, every one will assume his/her own responsibilities. We will have done all in our power to have this package agreed,” he said, adding, “Climate is such an important issue that we cannot let it drop because of the financial crisis”. The whole question, he said, was one of knowing whether or not Europe wanted to play a major role in international negotiations, and he was not unwilling to make this clear to delegations.
“I wanted to have a deadline so that our climate policies were not determined by short term views, but by the responsibility we have towards the future of coming generations? It's been done! The deadline is the December European Council,” said Commission President José Manuel Barroso. He went on, “we will not slip in the fight against climate change. It is an illusion to think that combating global warming and tackling the financial crisis are mutually exclusive. The two go hand in glove”. However, there was still “a huge amount of work to be done,” he conceded.
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero said that the crisis must not be an excuse for relaxing efforts. Stressing the need for the EU to have a decided stance to pull others along, he said that “This is how we should show ourselves in Copenhagen if we are to have any clout in the search for international agreement” in December 2009. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was on the same wavelength. The EU, he said, had to have a joint position before the end of the year if it was to be able to negotiate from a position of strength in Copenhagen.
Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, had been requesting a postponement to the package since they had “not taken into account” the technical solutions proposed by Warsaw to respond to the concerns of a country that was attempting to catch up economically and which was 90% dependent on coal for its energy (risk of soaring electricity prices through the auctioning off of 100% of its quotas in 2013), annual socio-economic costs in the package evaluated at 60 billion zloty, around €20bn). He declared that he was satisfied with the result. The reference to the “specific situations of each of them” in the conclusions of the 27 and the prospect of unanimous consensus required at the December European Council was, he believed, “the success of the day” because “if our concerns are not taken into account, we go to a veto”.
Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, is concerned by the annual cost of the measures to the Italian economy (€18bn a year, 180 million of which for companies like Fiat). He did not hesitate in describing as “ridiculous” the auctioning of quotas in the revised emissions trading scheme. Yves Leterme, the Belgian prime minister, said that, “the presidency had cast the net very wide” to obtain a consensus on the conclusions text and that, “there was still a lot to do to get the approval” from the nine reluctant countries.
In her brief declaration whilst leaving the Council after the others, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, welcomed the mention of specific interests being taken into account. She stated that, “this is in our interest as we have a particularly dense industrial fabric”. She also affirmed that, “we will be constructive, we want to find a solution”. (A.N./Aby/MB/CD/trans/fl)