With the 2030 benchmark in the horizon, the EU needs to step up the contribution of its trade policy to biodiversity and sustainable development. IEEP identifies concrete opportunities how improving the integration of protected areas into EU trade agreements will help to support global biodiversity conservation as well as multiple sustainable development goals (SDGs).
- environmental governance,
- climate and energy policy,
- EU decision-making,
- rural development polic
Martin Nesbit was Director for EU and International Affairs in the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with particular responsibility for negotiations on the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy, before joining IEEP in 2014. He has a long record of experience in Government and in EU policy-making, including: work on waste policy from 1997-1999; heading the Environment desk at the UK’s permanent representation in Brussels from 1999-2002; responsibility for Rural Development policy from 2002-2005; for greenhouse gas emissions trading from 2006-2008; and Director roles from 2008 in charge of UK domestic climate change policy and EU agriculture policy. He was a member of California’s Market Advisory Committee on the design of a greenhouse gas cap and trade system from 2006-2007.
He speaks English and French.
IEEP report on risks and opportunities of Brexit outcomes: “no deal” outcome poses the worst threats
A new IEEP paper for UK NGOs looks at the risks and opportunities for environmental policy of possible Brexit outcomes. Crashing out without a deal would pose significant risks, while the Withdrawal Agreement has valuable elements which mitigate some environmental downsides of Brexit.
The Brexit negotiations enter what should be the final stages at the end of 2018, with an outline agreement on the future relationship. A new IEEP paper sets out what is needed to avoid the risk of environmental standards being lowered for competitive advantage.
Although the EU has an aspirational goal of an 80-95% GHG emissions cut for 2050, compared to 1990 levels, currently planned measures and intermediate goals are not in-line even with the low end of this aim. Additionally, the EU would have to over perform if 1.5 degrees were the aim, as developing economies cannot realistically be expected to reduce emissions as quickly.
The future-focused rhetorical framing of the State of the Union speech is encouraging. It needs to be followed through by the Commission with a renewed emphasis on environmental sustainability.
Read IEEP Senior Fellow and Head of Climate and Environmental Governance Programme, Martin Nesbit's, analysis of the 2018 State of the European Union speech.