Wednesday 15^th December 2010, A Fabian EU in a G2 World Seminar

Speakers: Peter Vis (Head of Cabinet Hedegaard, European Commission), Ruth Davis (Chief Political Advisor, Greenpeace), Titus Alexander (Board Member, Action for a Global Climate Community), and chair Michael Jacobs (Former No 10. Special Advisor).

On Wednesday 15th December the Fabian Society, in partnership with Business for New Europe, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, ICAEW and TheCityUK convened a number of high-level panelists and delegates in Westminster to explore and examine the role of the European Union in developing a global agreement on climate change and how this fits into a broader narrative on European economic policy.

The Kyoto agreement was recognised as the high point of European climate diplomacy and subsequent interventions in international fora have contributed to Europe’s global prominence on the issue. The seminar asked therefore, what lessons should the EU take from the 2009 Copenhagen Summit towards negotiating a deal in the 2010 Cancun follow up.

 One voice, 27 states

A theme that has emerged throughout the series is the difficulty of finding consensus between 27 member states as a barrier to constructing a united European response; in this case, to international climate negotiations.  Copenhagen marked a new starting point, and while the EU was instrumental in Kyoto and pioneering the ETS, it has been criticised for spending too much time dealing with internal factions rather than outreaching on the international stage. National interest can conflict with an overall European consensus and it was hoped that the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty would make European diplomacy easier – with a more direct role for the Commission and the rolling Presidency.

Some in the group however questioned this assumption, suggesting that despite the creation of such new EU global roles, a number of members have shown reluctance to existing practice, with signs that the next three presidencies will demonstrate such a mindset. 

Flexibility in negotiating and the ability to respond creatively to delivering on agreed targets therefore continues to pose a problem for the EU diplomacy. One participant advocated giving the Commission a stronger mandate, where one trusted and appointed person could negotiate on the day. Given both the President and Commission are representing in Cancun, along with a large diplomatic entourage from each member state, the dynamics of diplomacy is inevitably affected.

 Others felt that to maintain democratic legitimacy, any agreements made on targets must be developed by member states themselves. With public skepticism around the institutions of governance at an all time high, both at a national and international level, the need to earn permission from the public on environment policy action was an imperative.  Greater EU cohesion and coordination in diplomacy also depended therefore, on recognising the reality of different perspectives and interests inside the EU.

Diplomatic coordination outside the EU

From an outsider’s point of view, it was suggested that diplomacy can only succeed by demonstrating leadership and action on a domestic level and conveying a real commitment to that.  The EU was commended for its record on the environment, essential for negotiations where those taking part need to be trusted to deliver on the bargain. Enthusiasm for a globally binding piece of legislation on climate change, however, has been found to be different among member states and outside the EU. One participant pointed to a particularly dismally low record from developing countries, where increasing rates of emissions were being managed by false accounting and manipulating data. More proactive and larger nations, such as the United Kingdom, therefore should use their leverage to lobby and persuade other states to build a consensus on the issue.

Disappointingly that the potential of Africa has been neglected; state representatives, it was argued, are willing but denied access to some of the networks of negotiation. One participant advocated a more bilateral response.  Often the EU can be seen as irrelevant, arrogant and confusing, with too many different agencies to work with.  And with 192 countries involved in the agreement process in Cancun, a legally binding agreement looks to be a virtually impossible task.  Rather than negotiating on such a large scale, variable targets and bilateral relationships could align countries that are economically close to each other. Exploring this arrangement outside of the EU could be the engine for wider international negotiations. 

 Participants also addressed the impacts of a G2 world order on climate diplomacy. The relationship between China and the US is fairly fluid, with rapidly growing concern about China in a way that was not apparent 10 years ago. It was suggested that China has acknowledged the need to be ‘seen to’ react, as well as future economic opportunities through the UN, and may begin to increase pressure in negotiations once strategy has been formed. Right now, however, China is reluctant to commit longer term time scales beyond 2020, a key barrier to the negotiation process, while the US continues to be the biggest contributor per capita to rising carbon dioxide emissions. 

 Making the economic argument

Climate change was accepted as integral to an economic recovery package for both the UK and EU.  In 2050 the EU’s Low Carbon Roadmap is due to be published. A 2030 target is being advocated, moving closer towards the 60% reduction by 2050 that the UK is leading on. But it was agreed that ambitions need to be set high to move beyond the 20% target for 2020.  Businesses, acting on self interest and energy security, need predictability in these targets and rules set out by the EU to achieve them. However, seemingly the Commission has been pushing back against this agenda, in favour of strategy based purely on economic and job growth.  In response, it was suggested that member states should use their leverage in EU negotiations to ‘carbon proof’ the budget as a test of effectiveness and tool to bargain within the EU.

 Overall it was felt the EU had been successful diplomatically in part, but now needed to take a more determined approach to reducing emissions and offer stronger leadership. Already EU treaties have created enhanced cooperation between states, and while there is a general consensus that negotiations should be enshrined in law, the greatest need is to strengthen European collaboration at a national, EU and international level.  Framing the debate is not only about Europe’s ‘relationship’ but its own role and purpose. A fear is that both state and international priorities for job and economic growth could supersede the climate agenda, and a key priority for the EU should be to make a stronger link between climate change and sustainable growth in a low carbon economy

This series is kindly supported by