Author: Carla Coppola

We are pleased to welcome Luc Bas as the new Chairperson of IEEP Strategic Advisory Council. He is the Director of the new Belgium Climate and Environment Risk Assessment Centre (CERAC), which advises the National Security Council and provides recommendations to governmental partners, as well as explaining more widely climate and environment risks and possible solutions.

Luc has worked at the European Environment Agency as the Head of Coordination, Networks, and Strategy, strengthening international and institutional engagement, leading the modernisation of the country network, the collaboration with the Western Balkans and the EU-neighbourhood and the implementation of the 2030 EEA-Strategy. Until June 2021 Luc was the European Regional Director for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), managing the largest membership-region of IUCN with over 360 governments and NGOs. Previously he represented the Climate Group (TCG) in Brussels and worked as an Adviser on international sustainable development policies in both the Belgium Federal and Flemish Governments

In the context of this new role, Luc reflects with us on the future of the EU and its sustainability ambitions in the new policy cycle.

Luc, where do you think IEEP should focus regarding the geopolitical landscape in the EU and beyond?

I would like to emphasise the need to better understand and address the costs of inaction. A key focus should be on identifying measures to avoid the most damaging consequences of climate change and ecosystem degradation. Unfortunately, the real costs we will face are not adequately considered in many current reports and plans. For example, neither the Draghi report nor the Clean Industrial Deal proposal address this really. Luckily the Niinistö report on readiness and preparedness considers Climate change as a key factor, and this should be integrated into the economic preparations and plans. Think tanks like the IEEP play a crucial role in documenting and illustrating the consequences of inaction and providing actionable recommendations. Preparing for the climate crisis must be an integral part of any resilience plan. We cannot continue to claim insufficient knowledge as a reason to delay action. Demand for more research often serves as an excuse for inaction or slow implementation. The reality is that we already know enough to act. Therefore, we need to accelerate implementing solutions at European, national, regional, and even local levels.

Another priority for IEEP should be to strengthen the case for a circular economy in line with the proposal on a resource management law. While I don’t have all the answers on how to achieve this, much more can be done. Sharing success stories is an essential step. IEEP is already leading the way with initiatives like its network of think tanks Think Sustainable Europe and the Think2030 platform, which gathers voices from different sectors to design science-based policy recommendations.

Finally, in the policy sphere, the concept of competitiveness must be clearly defined. We must ask ourselves who we are competing with, and on what. The actual global capital flow required to achieve net zero and adapt to the effects of climate change is estimated at 6.5 trillion euros annually before 2050 (at 1 trillion today). The European Commission is therefore expected to leverage several instruments; IEEP should be able to steer these discussions with its policy recommendations.

If this competitiveness is based on resources, there are countries far larger and better equipped than us, and we have already lost. Europe’s competitive advantage lies in innovation – both technological and governance-related.  Europe must prioritise targets for material and consumption footprint reduction, and be able to do it also at the international level by building stronger partnerships with India, China, and African countries. These partnerships should go beyond traditional aid models to focus on genuine, equitable commercial partnerships. We need to carefully watch for the next Multiannual Financial Framework not to decrease the funds allocated to the EU external cooperation to make room for domestic priorities. Such a development in an already difficult context with major frustrations expressed by developing economies on EU trade-related measures could further isolate the EU at a time when trusted geopolitical partners may be scarce.

Given the reshaping of the new European Commission priorities, what future do you see for the European Green Deal?

Climate change is unfolding on a scale we have never experienced before, yet we are failing to fully account for it. We claim that if we increase our mitigation efforts – such as driving electric cars, insulating our homes, improving public transport, and consuming less meat – we will then be safe from climate change. While these actions are essential, and provide multiple benefits to society, they are not sufficient to shield us from the impacts that are upon us. This reality is often overlooked. This is why I’m deeply puzzled by our lack of preparation for the impact, especially on our most vulnerable people, sectors and infrastructure. We are beginning to hear calls for meaningful investment in adaptation policies, but the pace and scale of action remain inadequate. Adaptation policies are crucial; they serve as a defence system against the inevitable impacts of climate change. Currently, we are increasing military defence budgets yet are failing to explain to national security councils and Member States that we urgently need a common defence mechanism to fight climate change. It’s time to treat climate adaptation as a vital part of our security agenda and invest accordingly.

We cannot tell people that the EU reductions of CO2 emissions alone will directly avoid climate change that is going to hit Europe. Climate change and its impacts are here, it is not even a probability anymore, the only probability is how bad it will be, which must be of course better calculated, and better analysed. These considerations need to be done at the national level, and they would then hopefully help with the implementation and make countries understand why we should not put the famous pause button now on a broader Green Deal. The European Green Deal Barometer, produced by IEEP, is a good reminder of which policy priorities should not be disregarded in this transition to the new policy cycle.

So where do the Member States stand in all this?

We need to be honest; there will always be winners and losers, trade-offs are inevitable and we will experience them in our European societies as well. Europe is wealthy enough to address its challenges, but it must allocate resources strategically to support a fair transition. Member States’ welfare systems and the European social model should still play a role as the backbone of the transition. Currently, the EU’s fiscal powers for taxation remain limited, while Member States often compete with one another by providing a more preferred taxation system to maintain economic competitiveness.

Some EU countries have demonstrated that their economic resilience is partially rooted in strong social and environmental policies. The EU should evaluate the long-term impact on public finances if resilience is not prioritised. IEEP’s role as a think tank with the ambition to have an impact on policymaking should be able to put these considerations under the spotlight. Failing to strengthen social and environmental resilience risks having economic repercussions that will affect the whole society, businesses included, with the most severe consequences falling on the most vulnerable.