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.
Today, the Commission starts putting some flesh on the bones of its plans for EU spending after 2020. Their communication earlier in May set out some broad principles, which we commented on here. Over the next week or so, they will be publishing detailed legislative proposals for the different programmes; and regional affairs Commissioner Corina Crețu set the ball rolling by announcing proposals for cohesion spending.
As the UK and EU negotiators focus on the future relationship, our briefing note looks at how environmental legislation could be treated, and in particular what counts as an “equivalent” commitment. Getting this right matters; both to avoid competitiveness disputes, and to deliver green goals.
The Commission has set out its initial proposals for the next “Multi-Annual Financial Framework” – the planning period for the EU budget which sets the priorities for spending, and shares out EU money between programmes and Member States. We’ve been examining what’s at stake for the environment, sustainable development, and Europe’s future.
European countries have developed a wide range of policies to encourage climate mitigation through land use “sinks”; but as the land use sector is brought fully into the EU’s climate targets, policies will need to be more ambitious, and more focused on results.
Martin Nesbit, head of climate and governance and David Baldock, senior fellow at IEEP spoke at an evidence session of the House of Lords' Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Committee on 28 November.
The Future of Europe is everyone’s business and so is the impact of climate action over the decades to come.
The EU has to make sure it is able to tackle the biggest and longest-lasting policy challenge it faces. IEEP, E3G and the Heinrich Böll Stiftung Foundation have recently joined forces to make sure climate policy gets more attention as part of the Future of Europe debate launched by the Commission.
Over the years the EU has had a major impact on ensuring that governments do what they promise on the environment. As the UK leaves, both the British Government and the EU-27 need to think about how to replicate those benefits in future.
A European system for chemicals regulation makes obvious sense – but Brexit risks leaving the UK without access to that system. Nigel Haigh, former Executive Director of IEEP, explains that even if the UK secures an overall deal, there are big challenges to finding an answer to the chemicals conundrum.
A greater shift towards climate-smart agricultural land management is increasingly urgent if the EU is to reach the emissions reductions target set out in response to the Paris Agreement. To do so requires more emphasis on climate within the Common Agricultural Policy and action to reduce the climate footprint of consumer consumption patterns.
In a study for the European Parliament’s REGI Committee, IEEP examined the experience of climate mainstreaming in Cohesion Policy in the current and previous programming periods and identified the implications of the Paris Agreement in order to offer recommendations for future climate mainstreaming in the post-2020 Cohesion Policy.