France’s President Emmanuel Macron urged Europe to stand united in Paris yesterday. “We must not let Europe be divided by this war. European unity is key. The division of Europe was one of Russia’s aim of the war.” At the same time, he defended his willingness to maintain contact with Vladimir Putin: France will continue to talk with Russia in search of a peaceful solution, of course in consultation with NATO allies, he said.
The current energy prices fuel particular concern about the division of Europe. Experts from the European Commission now propose a new, multipart approach as an emergency measure against high electricity prices. In his analysis, Manuel Berkel looked at a document from the responsible Directorate-General for Energy, which is available to Europe.Table.
It will still be a while before the next elections in the European Parliament in 2024. But European parties already ask themselves questions, like who will be their top candidates. Particularly interesting will be the EPP candidates, write Markus Grabitz and Till Hoppe: There could be two very prominent female rivals.
My colleague Lukas Scheid also summarizes what is next for EU climate policy this fall: Not only are the trilogues on ETS reform and the introduction of the CBAM entering the decisive round (and they offer a lot of conflict potential). In addition, the UN Climate Change Conference will be held in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, in early November. The countries most affected by climate change are looking primarily to Europe – because the industrialized countries are not living up to their promise of climate funding.
Claire Stam’s culinary-political column today is about French soft cheese – and the future of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), which fears for its budget. Bon appétit!
The EU Commission’s energy experts are in favor of a price cap on electricity generated from nuclear power, lignite and renewable energies. This would decouple these cheaper energy sources from the price of the electricity exchange, which is mostly set by more expensive gas-fired power plants, according to a non-paper from the responsible Directorate-General for Energy, which is available to Europe.Table. This would give member states financial leeway to relieve particularly vulnerable households.
The 23-page paper serves as a discussion basis for the Commission. The authority is currently working at full speed on proposals on how the EU can cope with the recent turbulence on the electricity markets in the short term. In parallel, it is preparing a legislative proposal for a new electricity market design by early 2023. Details on the electricity market design will be available after Ursula von der Leyen’s speech in the European Parliament on September 14. The EU energy ministers will address these issues at an extraordinary Council meeting on September 9.
The enormous price swings recently fueled the political discussion about intervention in the market. The ideas range from a general electricity price cap to the Iberian model and the Greek proposal to divide the market into renewable energy and fossil fuel suppliers.
The Commission’s energy experts are now proposing a modified approach. This idea is to prevent a price drop from causing a counterproductive increase in electricity and gas demand and thus posing a risk to energy security. The proposal involves three elements:
Energy economist Lion Hirth praises this approach: It is “a big step forward in the debate,” says the Hertie School expert, even if “many details remain unclear”. The paper also discusses legal implementation. The authors believe it would be feasible to implement the emergency measures for the electricity market again as a binding Council regulation, as was already done with the gas conservation plan.
The extreme fluctuations on the electricity exchanges have further exacerbated the concerns in politics and the industry triggered by the gas crisis. A Commission representative indicated yesterday in the European Parliament’s Industry Committee that individual industrial sectors could be granted preferential access to gas in the event of a shortage.
“We are looking at the issue of critical industries that are currently not covered by the SoS regulation,” said DG Energy Deputy Director General Mechthild Wörsdörfer, as she explained the gas-saving plan to the industry committee. In the event of a gas shortage, member states would have to provide preferential treatment to previously protected customers. In addition to household customers, this could only include basic social services such as the health sector and small and medium-sized enterprises.
Wörsdörfer said that aluminum and fertilizer producers, among many other industries, have already been hit hard by the energy crisis. “We are looking at what these critical consumers need because our SoS regulation is not suited for crises like this,” the top German official said.
But the deputy director general also urged to continue to save gas. From August to March, EU countries are to cut their gas consumption by 15 percent. According to Wörsdörfer, the Commission expects the first progress reports from member states in October.
The Chair of the Committee on Industry, Cristian Bușoi, criticized insufficient information and raised doubts about the member states’ willingness to cooperate. “It has not yet become clear to us how many member states want to implement this voluntary plan.” Countries that have not curbed gas consumption by the end of the year will find it hard to meet the 15 percent target, he said – even if gas saving becomes mandatory by the end of the year.
The reminders to stick to saving gas come shortly after positive news on gas storage facilities. On Wednesday, EU gas storage facilities reached an average capacity of 80 percent. However, MEP Jerzy Buzek (EPP) pointed out that the European Parliament had originally advocated a storage target of 90 percent. The gas savings target of 15 percent may also be too conservative, Buzek said.
German Minister of Economic Affairs, Robert Habeck (Greens), continues to urge the saving of gas. Yesterday, he presented plans for a fifth floating LNG terminal chartered by the German government. It is scheduled to begin operations in Wilhelmshaven in the fourth quarter of 2023 with a capacity of five billion cubic meters (bcm) per year. with Till Hoppe, Claire Stam
The trilogue negotiations on the reform of the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) are gaining renewed momentum with the resumption of political activity in Brussels. Although negotiations officially began before the summer break, at the first meeting the co-legislators merely restated their positions (Europe.Table reported).
The topic will be what contribution the ETS will make to carbon reduction in the EU. The amount and timing of rebasing, i.e. the removal of unused allowances from the market, is still under debate. This will allow the steering effect of the ETS to unfold, as the price will rise and the decarbonization incentive will be strengthened.
Parliament initially wants to remove 70 million CO2 allowances from the market in 2024 and another 50 million in 2026. The usually more ambitious Parliament wants to raise the so-called linear reduction factor for the carbon cap (CAP) to 4.4 percent annually by 2026 and to 4.6 percent from 2029. This would reduce the ETS CAP by a total of 63 percent by 2030.
The Commission and the Council proposed raising the linear reduction factor from 2.2 percent to 4.2 percent from 2024 and reducing the CAP by 61 percent (around 117 million allowances) through a one-time removal. Although the positions are not far apart, an agreement on rebasing has already failed once in Parliament, which is why no concessions are likely to be made in the trilogue.
However, the fiercest debates on ETS reform could revolve around the second ETS for road transport and building heating. In Parliament, the compromise was to separate commercial and residential use of fuels. Private households would remain exempt from the carbon price, but it would still apply to commercial use.
The Commission and Council do not envisage such a separation in ETS 2, nor do they consider it sensible. The German government also believes that all fossil fuels should be subject to a surcharge – similar to what is already done in Germany with the national Fuel Emissions Trading Act (BEHG).
The introduction date of ETS 2 and the social compensation for rising prices are also likely to cause debate. The Commission proposed 2026 for its introduction and launched a €72 billion social climate fund to provide relief for consumers who will be particularly affected. The member states want to postpone the introduction by one year and reduce the size of the fund to €59 billion. The Parliament even wants to introduce the trimmed-down ETS 2 for commercial use only in 2029, which would make social compensation unnecessary.
Schedule: The first technical meetings have already taken place. The next trilogue round at the highest level is scheduled for the second week of October. Negotiations on the ETS and CBAM (and also on the Social Climate Fund) should be wrapped up by COP27 in November. This timetable is unlikely to be met, given the sheer amount of work that still needs to be done.
Stakeholders: Peter Liese (Parliament Rapporteur), Pascal Canfin (Environment Committee Chairman), Frans Timmermans (EU Commission), Czech Council Presidency.
Closely tied to the reform of the ETS is the introduction of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which, in the long term, is intended to replace free carbon emission allowances for the industry as a safeguard against carbon leakage.
The remaining key questions to be addressed include which industrial sectors CBAM will apply to and the rate at which CBAM will replace free allocations. In addition to the sectors proposed by the Commission (iron and steel, refineries, cement, basic organic chemicals and fertilizers), the Parliament demands that CBAM also cover organic chemicals, plastics, hydrogen and ammonia.
Representatives of the German industry demand that the industries themselves should decide whether they want to have the CBAM or continue to use free allocations as carbon leakage protection. The fear is that the new instrument will not be able to achieve its intended effect without an extensive trial phase.
The Commission proposed that, after 2026, free allocations would be reduced by ten percentage points annually in a linear fashion over ten years, while CBAM would increase by the same amount. The Parliament and the Council want phase-in paths for CBAM in which free allocations are reduced at a slower rate at the beginning and then faster at a later stage.
Schedule: The first technical meetings have already taken place. The next trilogue round at the highest level is scheduled for the second week of October. CBAM negotiations are also expected to be completed by COP27 in November.
Stakeholders: Peter Liese (Parliament Rapporteur), Pascal Canfin (Environment Committee Chairman), Frans Timmermans (EU Commission), Czech Council Presidency.
Speaking of COP27, this year’s UN Climate Change Conference in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, is not considered to have the same relevance as the last one in Glasgow. But this assessment is not shared by emerging and developing countries. And the demands of these countries, which are most affected by climate change, should also raise the attention of the industrialized nations. After all, the world also counts on Europe – for example, for climate financing.
The $100 billion pledge by the richest industrialized nations is still unfulfilled. Since 2020, this amount was supposed to flow to developing countries every year from public and private sources for climate adaptation and mitigation. In 2020, it was only $83.3. However, this is less the responsibility of the EU as a bloc than of the member states. Admittedly, they are already setting a good example – Germany, for example, paid €7.83 billion from public and private sources in 2020. But the question is whether Europe can still increase its contribution if the USA and China in particular fail to live up to the commitments they made at the COP in Copenhagen in 2009.
“People in the poorest countries have contributed almost nothing to carbon emissions, but they bear the greatest burden of climate change,” said German Development Minister Svenja Schulze recently. She considered it high time for industrialized countries to recognize “that climate damage exists and that it is precisely the most vulnerable countries that need our solidarity to deal with it.”
Together with the “particularly vulnerable developing countries,” a climate risk protection umbrella is to be worked out at COP27, according to Schulze. This would include social security systems. In the event of a drought, the money would then already be ready.
The continuation of so-called Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) will also be one of the crucial topics at this year’s COP. How can industrialized countries help to ensure that Egypt, Indonesia or South Africa are not even tempted to base their energy systems on fossil fuels and replace them with renewable alternatives early on? Europe, and Germany in particular, constantly emphasize their will to act. At COP27, they could then also prove this willingness.
Schedule: COP will take place from November 7 to 18 in Sharm el Sheikh on Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula – an extension is possible. Preparations for the negotiations have been underway for months and have been in full swing at least since the Bonn Climate Change Conference in mid-June.
Actors: Delegations from member states. For the EU Commission, Green Deal Commissioner Frans Timmermans is leading the negotiations, but the Parliament is also sending a delegation. The German delegation is headed by Jennifer Morgan, State Secretary at the Federal Foreign Office and Special Representative for International Climate Policy of German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. The designated president of the COP27 is Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry.
The “whim of the gods” – or “caprice des dieux” as it is originally called – is a cheese that is known for its oval shape in a universe of traditionally round (like the Camembert) or angular products. It is also the name given to the building of the European Parliament, in an allusion to the supposed privileged status of its residents, but also to its shape, which resembles the box of the famous cheese.
There, in Parliament, the Committee on Budgetary Control will vote on September 26 on the EESC’s budget, which amounted to €150 million in 2021. The report to be presented next week by Spanish MEP Isabel García Muñoz will prepare the meeting.
MPs previously already refused to approve the 2020 budget and did so again at the beginning of this year. The reason? They called for an external investigation by the EESC into several harassment complaints that already led to investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in 2018 and 2019.
That is all it took to reignite a debate that has been going on for years in the Brussels “bubble”: the one about the EESC’s legitimacy and purpose. In addition to the harassment allegations, critics also question the validity of the EESC’s opinions, the efficiency of its management and its budget. Some even believe that the EESC should be abolished.
To properly contextualize the debate, a brief historical review is needed: The EESC was created in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome and, along with the Committee of the Regions, is one of the EU’s two official advisory bodies. It is based on the French model, which was formed in 1946 in the wake of the major social reforms. Like its French counterpart, the EESC was established to allow European civil society actors to officially comment on EU legislative proposals. The Committee represents the interests of consumers, trade unions, employers and farmers, among others.
“The Committee is neither a lobby group nor a representation of particular interests. Our statements are generally based on consensus and express the concerns of European civil society as a whole as a common denominator,” Christa Schweng, EESC President since 2020, summarizes for Europe.Table. “The EESC is a network of networks: Our members come together to discuss important EU issues, and thus contribute to shaping and improving EU legislation.”
As such, the EESC is in a privileged position to express opinions on the Commission’s legislative proposals. Although these opinions are not binding, the ideas they present can easily feed into the deliberations of the Commission, the Council and/or the Parliament. “A concrete example of this is that the EESC was the first to call for a true European health union,” says Schweng.
And what does she have to say about the allegations? “In my capacity as President, I listened carefully to each of the victims of harassment or serious misconduct identified by OLAF in order to reach fair solutions. The EESC departments then followed up on this process and in all cases came to an agreement with the victims. On 13 April 2022, in a public statement on the EESC’s internet portal, I again officially apologized on behalf of the Committee to all the victims of the case at hand.”
Schweng explains that the European Parliament’s decision to postpone the discharge of the EESC to 2020 was based on the delayed implementation of the settlement agreement with one victim of bullying and delays in concluding such agreements with two other victims of serious misconduct. “The process has indeed dragged on longer, but this is for the essential reason that we have worked beyond purely legal obligations to find the best solutions for victims.”
The EESC now provides monthly updates to the EP rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs for the 2020 discharge.
But we can also dig deeper into the question of legitimacy and turn the problem the other way around: If the EESC is abolished, will the Committee of the Regions also be dissolved? And who could then represent the voice of civil society in a city where an estimated 48,000 lobbyists work, the majority of them from the industry?
So it is no coincidence that the Conference on the Future of Europe demands a strengthening of the EESC’s institutional role in its final recommendations presented on May 9. Acknowledging that “a vibrant civil society contributes to fulfilling the conditions for EU membership,” the conference proposes empowering the EESC as a “facilitator and guarantor of participatory democracy activities, including structured dialogue with civil society organizations and citizens’ panels”.
In times when political debate can very quickly degenerate into fistfights and shitstorms, it seems more than necessary to be able to preserve everything that promotes “structured dialogue” and calms politically, since it is based on the culture of compromise – which is far from being the dirty word it is always made out to be – between citizens and their institutions.
With this in mind, one might think: Yes to a restructuring of the governance of the EESC, but not to its abolition. This would certainly improve the “whim of the gods”.
France’s President Emmanuel Macron urged Europe to stand united in Paris yesterday. “We must not let Europe be divided by this war. European unity is key. The division of Europe was one of Russia’s aim of the war.” At the same time, he defended his willingness to maintain contact with Vladimir Putin: France will continue to talk with Russia in search of a peaceful solution, of course in consultation with NATO allies, he said.
The current energy prices fuel particular concern about the division of Europe. Experts from the European Commission now propose a new, multipart approach as an emergency measure against high electricity prices. In his analysis, Manuel Berkel looked at a document from the responsible Directorate-General for Energy, which is available to Europe.Table.
It will still be a while before the next elections in the European Parliament in 2024. But European parties already ask themselves questions, like who will be their top candidates. Particularly interesting will be the EPP candidates, write Markus Grabitz and Till Hoppe: There could be two very prominent female rivals.
My colleague Lukas Scheid also summarizes what is next for EU climate policy this fall: Not only are the trilogues on ETS reform and the introduction of the CBAM entering the decisive round (and they offer a lot of conflict potential). In addition, the UN Climate Change Conference will be held in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, in early November. The countries most affected by climate change are looking primarily to Europe – because the industrialized countries are not living up to their promise of climate funding.
Claire Stam’s culinary-political column today is about French soft cheese – and the future of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), which fears for its budget. Bon appétit!
The EU Commission’s energy experts are in favor of a price cap on electricity generated from nuclear power, lignite and renewable energies. This would decouple these cheaper energy sources from the price of the electricity exchange, which is mostly set by more expensive gas-fired power plants, according to a non-paper from the responsible Directorate-General for Energy, which is available to Europe.Table. This would give member states financial leeway to relieve particularly vulnerable households.
The 23-page paper serves as a discussion basis for the Commission. The authority is currently working at full speed on proposals on how the EU can cope with the recent turbulence on the electricity markets in the short term. In parallel, it is preparing a legislative proposal for a new electricity market design by early 2023. Details on the electricity market design will be available after Ursula von der Leyen’s speech in the European Parliament on September 14. The EU energy ministers will address these issues at an extraordinary Council meeting on September 9.
The enormous price swings recently fueled the political discussion about intervention in the market. The ideas range from a general electricity price cap to the Iberian model and the Greek proposal to divide the market into renewable energy and fossil fuel suppliers.
The Commission’s energy experts are now proposing a modified approach. This idea is to prevent a price drop from causing a counterproductive increase in electricity and gas demand and thus posing a risk to energy security. The proposal involves three elements:
Energy economist Lion Hirth praises this approach: It is “a big step forward in the debate,” says the Hertie School expert, even if “many details remain unclear”. The paper also discusses legal implementation. The authors believe it would be feasible to implement the emergency measures for the electricity market again as a binding Council regulation, as was already done with the gas conservation plan.
The extreme fluctuations on the electricity exchanges have further exacerbated the concerns in politics and the industry triggered by the gas crisis. A Commission representative indicated yesterday in the European Parliament’s Industry Committee that individual industrial sectors could be granted preferential access to gas in the event of a shortage.
“We are looking at the issue of critical industries that are currently not covered by the SoS regulation,” said DG Energy Deputy Director General Mechthild Wörsdörfer, as she explained the gas-saving plan to the industry committee. In the event of a gas shortage, member states would have to provide preferential treatment to previously protected customers. In addition to household customers, this could only include basic social services such as the health sector and small and medium-sized enterprises.
Wörsdörfer said that aluminum and fertilizer producers, among many other industries, have already been hit hard by the energy crisis. “We are looking at what these critical consumers need because our SoS regulation is not suited for crises like this,” the top German official said.
But the deputy director general also urged to continue to save gas. From August to March, EU countries are to cut their gas consumption by 15 percent. According to Wörsdörfer, the Commission expects the first progress reports from member states in October.
The Chair of the Committee on Industry, Cristian Bușoi, criticized insufficient information and raised doubts about the member states’ willingness to cooperate. “It has not yet become clear to us how many member states want to implement this voluntary plan.” Countries that have not curbed gas consumption by the end of the year will find it hard to meet the 15 percent target, he said – even if gas saving becomes mandatory by the end of the year.
The reminders to stick to saving gas come shortly after positive news on gas storage facilities. On Wednesday, EU gas storage facilities reached an average capacity of 80 percent. However, MEP Jerzy Buzek (EPP) pointed out that the European Parliament had originally advocated a storage target of 90 percent. The gas savings target of 15 percent may also be too conservative, Buzek said.
German Minister of Economic Affairs, Robert Habeck (Greens), continues to urge the saving of gas. Yesterday, he presented plans for a fifth floating LNG terminal chartered by the German government. It is scheduled to begin operations in Wilhelmshaven in the fourth quarter of 2023 with a capacity of five billion cubic meters (bcm) per year. with Till Hoppe, Claire Stam
The trilogue negotiations on the reform of the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) are gaining renewed momentum with the resumption of political activity in Brussels. Although negotiations officially began before the summer break, at the first meeting the co-legislators merely restated their positions (Europe.Table reported).
The topic will be what contribution the ETS will make to carbon reduction in the EU. The amount and timing of rebasing, i.e. the removal of unused allowances from the market, is still under debate. This will allow the steering effect of the ETS to unfold, as the price will rise and the decarbonization incentive will be strengthened.
Parliament initially wants to remove 70 million CO2 allowances from the market in 2024 and another 50 million in 2026. The usually more ambitious Parliament wants to raise the so-called linear reduction factor for the carbon cap (CAP) to 4.4 percent annually by 2026 and to 4.6 percent from 2029. This would reduce the ETS CAP by a total of 63 percent by 2030.
The Commission and the Council proposed raising the linear reduction factor from 2.2 percent to 4.2 percent from 2024 and reducing the CAP by 61 percent (around 117 million allowances) through a one-time removal. Although the positions are not far apart, an agreement on rebasing has already failed once in Parliament, which is why no concessions are likely to be made in the trilogue.
However, the fiercest debates on ETS reform could revolve around the second ETS for road transport and building heating. In Parliament, the compromise was to separate commercial and residential use of fuels. Private households would remain exempt from the carbon price, but it would still apply to commercial use.
The Commission and Council do not envisage such a separation in ETS 2, nor do they consider it sensible. The German government also believes that all fossil fuels should be subject to a surcharge – similar to what is already done in Germany with the national Fuel Emissions Trading Act (BEHG).
The introduction date of ETS 2 and the social compensation for rising prices are also likely to cause debate. The Commission proposed 2026 for its introduction and launched a €72 billion social climate fund to provide relief for consumers who will be particularly affected. The member states want to postpone the introduction by one year and reduce the size of the fund to €59 billion. The Parliament even wants to introduce the trimmed-down ETS 2 for commercial use only in 2029, which would make social compensation unnecessary.
Schedule: The first technical meetings have already taken place. The next trilogue round at the highest level is scheduled for the second week of October. Negotiations on the ETS and CBAM (and also on the Social Climate Fund) should be wrapped up by COP27 in November. This timetable is unlikely to be met, given the sheer amount of work that still needs to be done.
Stakeholders: Peter Liese (Parliament Rapporteur), Pascal Canfin (Environment Committee Chairman), Frans Timmermans (EU Commission), Czech Council Presidency.
Closely tied to the reform of the ETS is the introduction of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which, in the long term, is intended to replace free carbon emission allowances for the industry as a safeguard against carbon leakage.
The remaining key questions to be addressed include which industrial sectors CBAM will apply to and the rate at which CBAM will replace free allocations. In addition to the sectors proposed by the Commission (iron and steel, refineries, cement, basic organic chemicals and fertilizers), the Parliament demands that CBAM also cover organic chemicals, plastics, hydrogen and ammonia.
Representatives of the German industry demand that the industries themselves should decide whether they want to have the CBAM or continue to use free allocations as carbon leakage protection. The fear is that the new instrument will not be able to achieve its intended effect without an extensive trial phase.
The Commission proposed that, after 2026, free allocations would be reduced by ten percentage points annually in a linear fashion over ten years, while CBAM would increase by the same amount. The Parliament and the Council want phase-in paths for CBAM in which free allocations are reduced at a slower rate at the beginning and then faster at a later stage.
Schedule: The first technical meetings have already taken place. The next trilogue round at the highest level is scheduled for the second week of October. CBAM negotiations are also expected to be completed by COP27 in November.
Stakeholders: Peter Liese (Parliament Rapporteur), Pascal Canfin (Environment Committee Chairman), Frans Timmermans (EU Commission), Czech Council Presidency.
Speaking of COP27, this year’s UN Climate Change Conference in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, is not considered to have the same relevance as the last one in Glasgow. But this assessment is not shared by emerging and developing countries. And the demands of these countries, which are most affected by climate change, should also raise the attention of the industrialized nations. After all, the world also counts on Europe – for example, for climate financing.
The $100 billion pledge by the richest industrialized nations is still unfulfilled. Since 2020, this amount was supposed to flow to developing countries every year from public and private sources for climate adaptation and mitigation. In 2020, it was only $83.3. However, this is less the responsibility of the EU as a bloc than of the member states. Admittedly, they are already setting a good example – Germany, for example, paid €7.83 billion from public and private sources in 2020. But the question is whether Europe can still increase its contribution if the USA and China in particular fail to live up to the commitments they made at the COP in Copenhagen in 2009.
“People in the poorest countries have contributed almost nothing to carbon emissions, but they bear the greatest burden of climate change,” said German Development Minister Svenja Schulze recently. She considered it high time for industrialized countries to recognize “that climate damage exists and that it is precisely the most vulnerable countries that need our solidarity to deal with it.”
Together with the “particularly vulnerable developing countries,” a climate risk protection umbrella is to be worked out at COP27, according to Schulze. This would include social security systems. In the event of a drought, the money would then already be ready.
The continuation of so-called Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) will also be one of the crucial topics at this year’s COP. How can industrialized countries help to ensure that Egypt, Indonesia or South Africa are not even tempted to base their energy systems on fossil fuels and replace them with renewable alternatives early on? Europe, and Germany in particular, constantly emphasize their will to act. At COP27, they could then also prove this willingness.
Schedule: COP will take place from November 7 to 18 in Sharm el Sheikh on Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula – an extension is possible. Preparations for the negotiations have been underway for months and have been in full swing at least since the Bonn Climate Change Conference in mid-June.
Actors: Delegations from member states. For the EU Commission, Green Deal Commissioner Frans Timmermans is leading the negotiations, but the Parliament is also sending a delegation. The German delegation is headed by Jennifer Morgan, State Secretary at the Federal Foreign Office and Special Representative for International Climate Policy of German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. The designated president of the COP27 is Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry.
The “whim of the gods” – or “caprice des dieux” as it is originally called – is a cheese that is known for its oval shape in a universe of traditionally round (like the Camembert) or angular products. It is also the name given to the building of the European Parliament, in an allusion to the supposed privileged status of its residents, but also to its shape, which resembles the box of the famous cheese.
There, in Parliament, the Committee on Budgetary Control will vote on September 26 on the EESC’s budget, which amounted to €150 million in 2021. The report to be presented next week by Spanish MEP Isabel García Muñoz will prepare the meeting.
MPs previously already refused to approve the 2020 budget and did so again at the beginning of this year. The reason? They called for an external investigation by the EESC into several harassment complaints that already led to investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in 2018 and 2019.
That is all it took to reignite a debate that has been going on for years in the Brussels “bubble”: the one about the EESC’s legitimacy and purpose. In addition to the harassment allegations, critics also question the validity of the EESC’s opinions, the efficiency of its management and its budget. Some even believe that the EESC should be abolished.
To properly contextualize the debate, a brief historical review is needed: The EESC was created in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome and, along with the Committee of the Regions, is one of the EU’s two official advisory bodies. It is based on the French model, which was formed in 1946 in the wake of the major social reforms. Like its French counterpart, the EESC was established to allow European civil society actors to officially comment on EU legislative proposals. The Committee represents the interests of consumers, trade unions, employers and farmers, among others.
“The Committee is neither a lobby group nor a representation of particular interests. Our statements are generally based on consensus and express the concerns of European civil society as a whole as a common denominator,” Christa Schweng, EESC President since 2020, summarizes for Europe.Table. “The EESC is a network of networks: Our members come together to discuss important EU issues, and thus contribute to shaping and improving EU legislation.”
As such, the EESC is in a privileged position to express opinions on the Commission’s legislative proposals. Although these opinions are not binding, the ideas they present can easily feed into the deliberations of the Commission, the Council and/or the Parliament. “A concrete example of this is that the EESC was the first to call for a true European health union,” says Schweng.
And what does she have to say about the allegations? “In my capacity as President, I listened carefully to each of the victims of harassment or serious misconduct identified by OLAF in order to reach fair solutions. The EESC departments then followed up on this process and in all cases came to an agreement with the victims. On 13 April 2022, in a public statement on the EESC’s internet portal, I again officially apologized on behalf of the Committee to all the victims of the case at hand.”
Schweng explains that the European Parliament’s decision to postpone the discharge of the EESC to 2020 was based on the delayed implementation of the settlement agreement with one victim of bullying and delays in concluding such agreements with two other victims of serious misconduct. “The process has indeed dragged on longer, but this is for the essential reason that we have worked beyond purely legal obligations to find the best solutions for victims.”
The EESC now provides monthly updates to the EP rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs for the 2020 discharge.
But we can also dig deeper into the question of legitimacy and turn the problem the other way around: If the EESC is abolished, will the Committee of the Regions also be dissolved? And who could then represent the voice of civil society in a city where an estimated 48,000 lobbyists work, the majority of them from the industry?
So it is no coincidence that the Conference on the Future of Europe demands a strengthening of the EESC’s institutional role in its final recommendations presented on May 9. Acknowledging that “a vibrant civil society contributes to fulfilling the conditions for EU membership,” the conference proposes empowering the EESC as a “facilitator and guarantor of participatory democracy activities, including structured dialogue with civil society organizations and citizens’ panels”.
In times when political debate can very quickly degenerate into fistfights and shitstorms, it seems more than necessary to be able to preserve everything that promotes “structured dialogue” and calms politically, since it is based on the culture of compromise – which is far from being the dirty word it is always made out to be – between citizens and their institutions.
With this in mind, one might think: Yes to a restructuring of the governance of the EESC, but not to its abolition. This would certainly improve the “whim of the gods”.
