In a developing situation that poses significant implications for the European solar industry, Commissioner Thierry Breton finds himself at the center of a debate. The industry is currently responding to speculations of a new anti-subsidy investigation targeting Chinese photovoltaic (PV) modules. This development raises critical questions about the future of trade relations and industry support within the EU.
Commissioner Breton, who oversees industry matters, is set to conduct an online meeting with top executives of solar companies and ministers from member states. This meeting, coinciding with the first anniversary of the European Solar PV Industry Alliance, was initially intended as a progress review of the reconstruction of European production capacities. However, emerging rumors of possible trade protection measures are now overshadowing this agenda.
In a notable response, a coalition of 429 companies and solar industry associations has issued an open letter to Commissioner Breton. They argue that imposing trade protection measures, such as punitive tariffs, would not only be detrimental to them but also jeopardize the broader energy transition goals of the EU. They cite past experiences where such measures led to declines in employment and investment in the sector.
Walburga Hemetsberger, CEO of SolarPower Europe, emphasizes the need for alternative solutions to support European manufacturers, solutions that are “better, faster, and more effective”. The core of these proposed alternatives is an increase in state funding – a suggestion that comes at a time when EU budgets are increasingly strained.
This situation places Commissioner Breton in a challenging position, as he must balance the immediate needs of the solar industry with the fiscal realities facing the EU. The outcome of the upcoming meeting and the decisions made thereafter could significantly shape the trajectory of the European solar industry and the EU’s broader environmental and economic policies.
Your Manuel Berkel
Feature
Global Stocktake: What countries expect from a COP28 resolution
Delegations will face tough negotiations on the key decision of COP28 on the Global Stocktake (GST). After all, each country and group’s ideas on what consequences should be drawn from the first global stocktake on climate action differ significantly. In some cases, they even oppose each other directly. This is revealed by an overview of the proposals that 23 UN states and country groups and around 50 international organizations have submitted to the UNFCCC Climate Change Secretariat. Table.Media has analyzed the documents.
For the first time since the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, the Global Stocktake reviews the achievements in climate action made since and how to move forward. In September, the findings from the “technical dialog” were summarized. The UNFCCC Secretariat then summed up the results from its perspective. Now, a document must be presented at COP28, which will form the basis for a decision.
COP decision: Who wants what?
There is a great deal of agreement in the previous papers when it comes to identifying gaps in climate protection to date. For example, on the point of reducing emissions. The necessary savings of minus 43 percent by 2030 are not foreseeable. There are also financial deficits. The industrialized countries have not kepttheir pledge of $100 billion in climate aid per year for 2020 and 2021.
On other points, ideas and perspectives differ widely. This is shown by an overview of the most important players and their particular priorities.
EU: Pioneer pushes oil and gas industry
The European Union likes to see itself as a climate pioneer. The bloc of 27 states has reduced its carbon emissions by about 25 percent since 1990, aims for a 55 percent reduction by 2030 under the “Green Deal,” and targets net-zero emissions by 2050. EU member states are the largest financiers in international climate action and seek strategic alliances with emerging and developing countries. Therefore, the EU’s submission includes:
A “course correction” and the political will to get on the 1.5-degree path. However, this would require “drastically step-up efforts.” Emissions must peak by 2025 at the latest – which is putting pressure on China in particular and the IEA already declared realistic.
The international community must removethe barriers to climate financing in the indebted countries of the Global South. Adaptation should be included in all plans and investment strategies.
The EU also wants to see areas that directly affect people’s lives addressed in the GST declaration: Health, water, food, protection of ecosystems, gender equality
Unlike Saudi Arabia, for example, the EU wants to see a sharing of burdens and benefits as a core of climate efforts. When it comes to the negotiation buzzword “equity,” all parties “currently emitting a high share of global emissions at a country level or per-capita,” must contribute to climate action – not just developed countries.
The EU also sees sufficient capital available for climate financing, albeit invested in the wrong areas. It stresses the urgency to increase green financial flows from billions to trillions and build a fossil-free economy.
The EU favors publishing the best examples from the GST in an annex to the declaration, which is not subject to negotiations.
Tripling renewables, doubling efficiency and reducing methane emissions by 75 percent by 2030 are to be anchored as targets for 2030.
The EU wants to “urge the oil and gas industry to deliver on their promise to be a driving force of the just energy transition by investing more than 80 percent of upstream investment in clean energy in 2030 compared to less than 5 percent in 2022.”
China: Protectionism harms the climate
China is perhaps the most powerful player in climate negotiations. The superpower pursues its own goals, suffers from climate impacts, and aggressively promotes renewable expansion domestically. Simultaneously, it depends on the fossil economic model and exports. The country still defines itself as a developing nation to hold together the negotiating group of G77/China. This role is increasingly under pressure, especially in financing matters related to the loss and damage fund. As the current largest carbon emitter, China wants:
Shift the responsibility for the climate crisis primarily to developed countries. It argues that it needs to be recognized that 70 percent of historical industrial emissions come from developed countries. However, more recent figures and a look at land use paint a different picture.
Emphasize the climate action progress that has already been achieved. While the world was heading for 3.5 degrees before the Paris Agreement, it is now at 1.7 to 2.5 degrees at best. Prices for solar energy and batteries have fallen by 85 percent, for wind energy by 55 percent, and expansion is progressing rapidly.
China is calling for a special IPCC report on how the goals of the Paris Agreement can be achieved and what a global adaptation target could look like.
Include the text that the outsourcing of production to emerging countries is driving up their CO2 emissions by two billion tons of CO2 per year, around 15 percent of OECD emissions
Establish that the financing of the loss and damage fund is the responsibility of the developed countries.
China warns of protectionism and sanctions on products for the energy transition. Solar modules could become up to 25 percent more expensive in 2030 due to these measures and 160 to 370 GW less could be produced and installed. New trade barriers could mean that three to four billion tons more CO₂ will be emitted by 2060 than under free trade.
USA: Rules needed for private capital
The United States traditionally serves as China’s major adversary. Washington combines competition and cooperation with this political and economic rival. For the climate process to work, China and the US must see eye to eye. However, in the demands for the final decision of the COP28, the US government, which faces an election year, outlines its positions:
The declaration should strike an “appropriate balance between concern and hope” and be “honest.” Under no circumstances should the Paris Agreement be changed through the “backdoor.” The US expresses concern “about comments that it is up to developed country Parties alone to fill gaps in implementing the Paris Agreement.”
For the USA, a “just transition” does not mean pushing back net zero targets, expanding the use of fossil fuels or justifying a “need for new international finance”. “Just transition” is more a concept for domestic policy than international. This refers to the IRA money in the US and its refusal to contribute to global financing on a large scale.
The US is in favor of the phase-out of “unabated” fossil fuels, i.e., it supports the UAE’s plan for the increased use of CCS.
Regarding adaptation, they also advise identifying projects that are not working well – and above all presenting projects that can be implemented quickly and encourage private investment.
The US also favors better framework conditions for private investment in the highly controversial area of finance. The US cites IPCC data: There is enough money, it is just flowing into fossil fuel infrastructure instead of renewable infrastructure.
Progress has been made on reducing fossil fuel subsidies between 2019-20, as well as on the 100 billion target. Climate financing is not a value in itself, but must be measured in terms of reducing emissions and building resilience.
There is no mention of financing the loss and damage fund or the historically high emissions of the US.
G77 and China
The position of the G77and China is presented by the current chair, Cuba. It is largely in line with the well-known positions of this large alliance of developing countries in the UN (now around 130 states). Its sub-groups such as LDCs or Basic as well as large countries such as China or India also echo many of these positions:
The climate crisis has been caused primarily by the developed countries. They have neither fulfilled their obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions quickly nor provide sufficient funding for climate policy in the Global South. These “historical gaps in the implementation of mitigation actions” and the leadership role of the developed countries must be highlighted.
The implementation of climate action measures (“response measures”) must not lead to socio-economic disadvantages for poor countries. The developed countries must also ensure a just transition in the Global South.
Rapid implementation of the loss and damage fund, the 100 billion pledged for climate financing, and the backlog in technology transfer and capacity building must feature prominently in the text.
“Unilateral coercive measures should not be used for climate action.” Behind this is a rejection of the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism CBAM. Individual countries should not be pilloried and no regulations should be imposed on them.
The G77 refers to the current IPCC report. The effects of climate change on vulnerable countries are to be presented. Examples of progress and ideas for a better financial system will also be presented.
All decisions must be based on the formula of “common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities” (CBDR-RC). This means the sharing of burdens and responsibilities between developed and developing countries.
BASIC: Confrontation with the North
The group around Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) sees itself as the leading group of the G77/China. And against the backdrop of geopolitical tensions and the expansion of the BRICS group, which also includes Russia, they are much more self-confident. BASIC’s demands are formulated much more sharply than the G77 declaration. To them, the climate crisis is “the biggest test for humanity is the appalling legacy of colonization and imperialism of the last five centuries.”
BASIC is calling for honesty in Global Stockate. This includes publicly acknowledging the Global North’s failure to reduce emissions and provide financial aid. They demand guidelines on how to implement this (in)justice in climate issues.
BASIC also strongly emphasizes dividing the world into the Global North and the rest of the world according to the CBDR-RC principle – a division the developed countries declare to have ended with the Paris Agreement – after all, all countries agreed to act. However, even for BASIC, “BDR-RC should not be used as an excuse for countries not to act.”
They also refer to the current IPCC report, but warn against uncritically adopting the model calculations because they make no “explicit assumptions about global equity, environmental justice or intraregional income distribution.” In other words, they accuse the IPCC scenarios of not making a distinction in line with the CBDR-RC.
The BASIC countries also disagree with the IPCC about historical emissions. Although they cite the figures according to which developed and developing countries have now released roughly the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, they refer to a per capita calculation that gives developed countries more responsibility.
The BASIC countries are calling for the developed nations to achieve their net-zero targets “much earlier than 2050” – to give emerging economies more time. For the time being, only the Global North should change its consumption and production patterns to reach net zero and be in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Climate finance must “go well beyond the 100 billion US dollars” to compensate for the “trillions of dollars” for climate action and damage costs in the Global South. Namely nine trillion for the climate action needs of emerging and developing countries, or six trillion alone if the Global South is to implement its climate plans (NDC).
African Group: hit hardest
The African countries attach great importance to the declaration linking the sustainable development of their continent with climate goals. Progress on achieving SDGs must be made and the outcome of the GST must under no circumstances “deepen the under-development of African countries.” The primary goal must be to help the 600 million people in Africa without access to electricity and the 900 million without clean water. They also demand to:
recognize that Africais more vulnerable to the climate crisis than other regions, for example, due to sea level rise and storms;
drastically increase investment in renewables in Africa, as the continent has a high potential for green energy;
a global goal for adaptation (GGA) to climate change;
to allow significantly more capital to flow to Africa. These financial flows have hardly increased since the Paris Agreement: On average, it was 18 billion dollars a year while it actually needed 18 to 30 billion annually over 20 years. Overall, Africa is currently only raising twelve percent of the necessary capital for climate action from its own and international funds;
recognize that even if the 1.5-degree limit is maintained, more than 50 percent of Africa’s economic output will still be affected by climate change;
that Africa is grantedthe right to exploit its fossil resources to finance its development. “Africa stands to lose all this as they may be stranded as policies like carbon taxes shifts consumer preferences,” the group warns. Africa also does not have the instruments to draw up climate balance sheets for the European CBAM, for example.
Saudi Arabia: no climate obligations
Saudi Arabia finds itself in several roles. As a dominant oil producer, current prices secure significant profits, and as a traditional blocker in negotiations, tactically acting wisely. The country also aims to play a more important global role and take a significant position in the future of a decarbonized economy. The kingdom’s demands include:
No “specific pathway or timeline for anyone at the global or national level,” including “no new categorizations, sectoral targets, source-based measures, punitive or prescriptive measures.” This is a criticism of carbon tariffs or a decision to phase out fossil fuels.
Recognition of the “considerable progress” climate action has made since Paris. With the current ambitions, the climate targets of the agreement could be achieved.
Criticism of the IPCC: Emission pathways and scenarios are projections, not predictions or regulations, there is no differentiation according to country-specific conditions.
Mentioning that the largest share of historical and current emissions comes from developed countries (which is a controversial opinion).
Strengthen all technical options for reducing emissions, especially CCUS or CDR.
“No space” for eroding “differentiation, CBDR-RC, and equity and establish burden sharing.” According to Saudi Arabia, this contradicts the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. This is directed against the proposals to encourage wealthy emerging countries, such as oil states, to finance global climate action.
Russia: njet to fossil fuel phase-out
Russia traditionally keeps a low profile at the conferences. Especially since the attack on Ukraine, the delegates do not seek the big stage, but are always present in the process. Their demands are shaped by the fact that the Russian economy relies heavily on the export of gas and oil. Therefore:
Russia emphasizes the importance of “transitional technologies and fuels” and nature-based solutions: Gas and the large Russian forest areas.
A njet to the plans for a fossil fuel phase-out. “We oppose any provisions or outcomes that somehow discriminate or call for phase-out of any specific energy source or fossil fuel type,” the submission says.
The country, in which environmental organizations are now prevented in their work and are declared undesirable, states that it understands the “value of working with non-state actors to increase transparency and accountability of their action.”. This is important in order to create “trust among stakeholders” and guarantee a fair restructuring of the national economy.
The Annex II countries of the Framework Convention should lead the wayin climate action and financing. These are the developed countries – excluding Russia and its former republics.
The redirection of financial flows into climate action measures, as agreed in the Paris Agreement, must not disadvantage “social and economic development” – for example “through phase-out or phase-down of critical fossil fuels.”
CAN: one trillion dollars annually for the climate
CAN International, a coalition of more than 1900 environmental and development organizations from 130 countries under the umbrella of the “Climate Action Network,” has been accompanying COPs from the beginning. The experts and lobbyists of these groups are now part of many country delegations. Germany’s climate envoy Jennifer Morgan and the Canadian environment minister Steven Guilbeault used to work here. CAN traditionally provides expertise and represents the voices of poor developing countries and conservation. Specifically, they demand from a statement on the GST:
A phase-out of all fossil fuels by 2050 while respecting human rights and without dependence on CCS.
A decision to stop all public funding for fossil fuels and all private investment in their expansion.
To increase renewable energy capacity by 1.5 terawatts per year and energy efficiency by four percent.
Include sufficiency (“what is enough?”) in the climate plans of the major emitters in particular.
It demands the OECD and Russia to increase climate aid and renewables to one trillion dollars a year.
A roadmap for doubling adaptation funding by 2050.
LDCs: damage even at 1.5 degrees
The Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are often the most severely affected by the climate crisis due to their geographical location, weak institutions, economic structure, and low prosperity. Therefore, their demands are sometimes more extensive. They advocate for various elements in the statement, including:
Even serious climate action and more investment in adaptation can only reduce “loss and damage,” not prevent it. Exceeding the climate target of 1.5 degrees, which science assumes, will lead to further losses and damage.
The goal of the Framework Convention on Climate Change to limit global warming to 2 degrees is no longer compatible with the goals of the Convention on Climate Change.
Collective targets are needed for the expansion of renewables and more investment in developing countries.
Phasing out fossil fuels is key to net zero.
As an adaptation measure, it is important to install early warning systems in all regions of the world, as called for by the UN Secretary-General.
A concrete formulation for the global adaptation target to be adopted next year for the LDCs is: “By 20xx, our goal is to reduce vulnerability and enhance long-term [effective] resilience and adaptive capacity reaching and benefiting xxx billion people and their livelihoods, conserving xx percent of land, freshwater, and ocean ecosystems [in line with the 1.5-degree target].”
In terms of finance, the developed countries are called upon at one point and all countries at another to double adaptation funds, replenish the Green Climate Fund, finance the Loss and Damage Fund and negotiate the new financial target from 2025.
Click here for all previously published articles on COP28.
Klima & Umwelt
UNFCCC
Mobility Package: More rights and data for better service
Travel has become increasingly convenient with modern transportation options and package deals, but it has also become more and more complicated. Who pays, how much and when if a package tour has to be canceled? Why do different passenger rights apply to rail travel than to air travel? Who is responsible if I miss my flight due to a rail delay? There are many shortcomings in the current regulation. This has been demonstrated not least by the Covid pandemic and the insolvency of travel company Thomas Cook.
This has prompted the Commission to present an entire legislative package of new and revised regulations on passenger mobility (Passenger Mobility Package) shortly before the end of its mandate. It is also launching an initiative to create a single European Mobility Data Space (EMDS).
Parliament wants to make improvements
EU parliamentarians welcome the Commission’s proposals, but criticize the timing. “It is fundamentally right to tackle the issue of passenger rights”, says Jens Gieseke (CDU), transport policy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU group. Europe must not leave consumers to fend for themselves. This is especially true when booking portals and transport companies pass the buck to each other. “A uniform reimbursement for travel with different modes of transport would definitely be welcome.”
Thomas Rudner (SPD) believes that this is about “more than just fixing past problems. It is about setting a standard that respects and protects the rights of travelers in the future.” Parliament will examine the proposal closely and also make its own proposals to ensure the protection of passengers and fair practices in the travel industry.
“When the Commission puts forward a proposal for the revision of passenger rights at the end of the legislative period, then you know how important the issue of consumer friendliness is to the Commission”, criticized Markus Ferber (CSU). The fact that the proposals are coming so late in the legislative process means that passengers and their rights are at the bottom of the list. “This is not only adventurous but disappointing.”
New passenger rights for multimodal journeys
The mobility package for travelers proposed by the Commission comprises three areas:
Stronger passenger rights: With the revision of the regulations on air passenger rights, the Commission wants to improve enforcement mechanisms and introduce rules for passengers who have booked their flights through an intermediary. With the proposal on passenger rights in the context of multimodal travel, the package also includes for the first time new rules to protect passengers using different modes of transport (intermodal travel) such as buses, trains, and planes. Passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility are to receive special support.
Protection of package travelers: It is to be improved with the revision of the Package Travel Directive of 2015, especially in crisis situations. The proposed changes are intended to give travelers stronger and clearer rights and clarify the obligations and responsibilities of package tour operators.
Better multimodal travel information services and the creation of a common European mobility data space: The combination of modes of transport (multimodality) can reduce overall transport-related emissions as travelers can choose the most efficient and sustainable mode of transport. The revision of the Delegated Regulation on EU-wide multimodal travel information services (MMTIS) should make it easier for passengers to find real-time information on different modes of transport. The initiative for a common European Mobility Data Space (EMDS) should also serve this purpose. The EMDS is intended to improve access to, pooling, and exchange of data from existing and future transport and mobility data sources.
Data space to allow data exchange
Today, a lot of data still lies unused. In May, a Bitkom survey revealed that only four out of ten companies use data from others or pass on their own data to others. If mobility data from different modes of transport were collected, analyzed, and exchanged, mobility could become more efficient and therefore more sustainable overall. Data spaces, which offer an environment secured by rules and standards, are suitable for this exchange.
The EU is planning several data spaces for different sectors, such as the European Industrial Data Space for data from production or the Health Data Space. The European Mobility Data Space that has now been proposed can build on existing projects – including those from Germany.
“It is a very important development for us that things are coming together at European level”, says Tobias Miethaner, spokesperson for the management of the Mobility Data Space (MDS), which is funded by the Federal Ministry for Digital and TransportAffairs. “We are already in a very good exchange with other initiatives from other member states.” Also, 20 percent of the participants in the German lighthouse project are not based in Germany.
German mobility data space as a blueprint
The Mobility Data Space wants to bring its approach to the European level and has already been heavily involved in the EMDS, explains Miethaner. “Our Mobility Data Space can serve as a blueprint for others.” The MDS is very broad-based and has the most important players in the field of intermodal travel on board. “We are open to other participants, for example from the logistics sector. We are also open to Google.” Ultimately, the aim must be to roll out the concept across Europe; Germany is too small a market. “The EU can be a good interface for this.”
With the Data Act coming into force, there should also be a further basis on which the exchange of data can take place. “But with the Data Act, there are still major uncertainties as to which data must be provided”, says Miethaner. But where new data is provided, networking can take place via the MDS. “Ultimately, however, it’s not just about having as much data as possible on the marketplace, but that there are many use cases and that new business models and added value for the user arise from this.” An improved service, for example.
Events
Dec. 1, 2023; 9 a.m.-4 p.m., Brussels (Belgium)/online ECIIA, ConferenceThe ESG Day During this event, ECIIA will provide a forward-looking overview of the EU Sustainability regulatory developments, with a particular focus on Sustainability Reporting, and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards. The different actors of the 3 lines model will be present and exchange views on the impact of the new regulation on the business model. They will explain how internal audits can assist the organizations and share best practices.INFO
Dec. 1, 2023; 11:30 a.m.-2 p.m., Berlin (Germany) EC, panel discussionHow can the energy-efficient refurbishment of buildings be made consumer-friendly? The Federation of German Consumer Organizations (vzbv) and the European Commission Representation in Germany invite you to a debate on consumer-friendly building refurbishment. INFO & REGISTRATION
Dec. 3, 2023; 8:30-11 a.m., Dubai (UAE)/online FSR, Panel DiscussionThe Evolving Voluntary Carbon Market: Reconciling the paradox between innovation and supervision The event offers an opportunity to discuss the contrasting trends of increasing transparency and innovation in the realm of carbon credits. While harmonized standards and close supervision increase market transparency, they may restrict innovation. How can we reconcile innovation, transparency and integrity through voluntary and regulatory interventions?INFO & REGISTRATION
Dec. 4-5, 2023; Brussels (Belgium) EESC, ConferenceEuropean Migration Forum The European Migration Forum – the dialogue platform on migration, asylum and migrant integration – will meet for the eight time.INFO & REGISTRATION
Dec. 5, 2023; 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., Brussels (Belgium)/online EC, SymposiumRegions 2030 Final Event: Monitoring the SDGs in the EU Regions The REGIONS2030 project is a collaborative effort between the European Parliament, the European Commission and 10 pilot regions to co-design and develop an indicator set for monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at regional level in Europe. The project’s final event aims to showcase the final results of the project and provide insights into the role of using regional indicators in monitoring and achieving the SDGs. INFO & REGISTRATION
News
Renaturation: ENVI gives green light
The European Parliament’s Environment Committee (ENVI) has adopted the outcome of the negotiations on the EU Nature Restoration Law. The Environment Committee has thus made it possible for the draft law to be finally voted on by the plenary.
The committee members adopted the bill by 53 votes to 28 with four abstentions. In order to complete the legislative process, the plenary session of Parliament still has to vote on the bill. This is expected to be in the week of Feb. 26. The Council must then also give its formal approval. As the text already received the green light from the EU member states last week, this is just a formality.
Green light in plenary session likely
This marks the end of a very turbulent legislative journey that began before the summer. The EPP, conservatives, and the far-right ID group had opposed the original proposal put forward by the European Commission. Yesterday’s vote shows that some EPP MEPs now support the current version of the text, which Jutta Paulus, environmental expert and Green negotiator for the renaturation law, welcomes. “I am pleased that some EPP MEPs no longer support their leader Manfred Weber’s campaign against the Green Deal and have voted in favor of the negotiation result. I therefore expect a solid majority in the plenary vote”, she said.
The Nature Restoration Law is one of the most important pillars of the Green Deal. It requires member states to take concrete action to restore 20 percent of all land and sea areas by 2030 and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. 80 percent of habitats in the EU are in poor condition. With this agreement, the EU is the first region to translate its international commitments under the UN Kunming and Montreal Agreements – which have been ratified by 196 countries – into a binding legal framework. cst
ENVI
Environment
Environmental policy
Renaturation
Renaturierung
Industrial emissions: agreement in trilogue
The negotiators of the Council and the European Parliament reached a provisional political trilogue agreement on Wednesday night on the revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) and the regulation on the establishment of an Industrial Emissions Portal (IEP). The agreement is provisional until it is formally adopted by both institutions.
The aim is to reduce pollution to a level that is no longer harmful to human health by 2050. This was stated by Teresa Ribera, the Spanish Minister for Ecological Transition, who represented the EU member states at the talks on behalf of the Spanish EU Council Presidency. “The new rules will set pollution limits at a more effective level and giveindustry clear guidance on the right investments to effectively reduce their emissions”, said Ribera.
The trilogue agreement aims to reduce air, soil, and water pollution from companies by revising existing regulations on emissions and landfills. In addition, a European register for the release and transfer of pollutants, known as the E-PRTR, is to be updated.
Imported goods must also meet requirements
The updated regulations will apply from 2030 to intensive pig farms with more than 350 livestock units – a reference unit comprising more than 1,000 pigs in total, depending on their age and size. It will also apply to poultry farms with more than 300 livestock units of laying hens – which would be more than 21,400 chickens.
The revised regulations would also apply to the industrial mining of ores such as iron, copper, gold, nickel, and platinum. The European Commission could also include the mining of industrial minerals at a later date. In addition, a “reciprocity clause” will ensure that imported agricultural products must meet requirements comparable to those that apply to European farmers.
Exemptions for cattle and criticism of lengthy implementation
“We have kept cattle out of the scope of the Industrial Emissions Directive“, said rapporteur Radan Kanev (EPP) in a statement. “The European Commission must now carry out a new impact assessment and communicate fairly and transparently with farmers before submitting a new legislative proposal to Parliament on the inclusion of cattle”, Kanev added.
The trilogue agreement has led to criticism from environmental groups. For the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Europe’s largest network of environmental citizens’ organizations, the agreement “does not do justice” to the objectives of the Green Deal. The “exclusion” of industrial livestock farms from the scope, the “decades-long delays” in transforming the industry, and the “lack of protection” for people affected by illegal pollution “undermine the potential of a regulation that should be a shield for citizens, not polluters”, the EEB went on to say. cst
Klima & Umwelt
AI Act: Data protection authorities call for regulation of basic models
The Conference of Independent Federal and State Data Protection Supervisory Authorities (DSK) has spoken out against removing foundation models from the regulation of the AI Act and instead opting for self-regulation. Legal uncertainty would unsettle citizens and companies, they write in a joint statement.
“The upcoming AI regulation should therefore define the requirements that all parties involved – including manufacturers and providers of basic models – must meet. A one-sided shift of legal responsibility to the final stages of the value chain would be the wrong choice in terms of data protection and economics”, write the data protection authorities. Only with the necessary trustworthiness will there be a high level of acceptance for the opportunities associated with AI.
Together with France and Italy, Germany had proposed dispensing with the regulation of foundation models in the AI Act and opting for “regulated self-regulation“. Other member states also agree with this. In contrast, the majority of the Parliament proposed regulating foundation models in its proposal.
BMWK: ‘Don’t hinder innovation’
In response to an inquiry on Wednesday, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWK), which is in charge of the issue, commented on the German government’s position: “It is about a regulatory framework that addressesthe safety risks of AI applications without slowing down the innovative power of this young, promising technology. Laws and state control should therefore start where the application of artificial intelligence in business and everyday life is concerned. The development of AI models that are not yet in use and have not yet been brought to market, on the other hand, should not be regulated separately by the state.”
The permanent representatives of the member states met on Wednesday to coordinate their position. The negotiations went quite well, according to reports from Brussels. The topic of foundation models is not on the agenda until Friday. The next trilogue, which should actually be the last, is on Dec. 6. The Spanish Council Presidency now wants to reach an agreement quickly. However, there is already talk in German government circles that the Belgians, who will take over the Council Presidency in January, are good and efficient negotiators. vis
Artificial intelligence
Artificial Intelligence Regulation
Künstliche Intelligenz-Verordnung
Car association deplores ‘tsunami’ of cost-driving EU regulations
According to the car manufacturers’ association ACEA, the European Union must calm down when it comes to regulations in the coming years. ACEA President Luca de Meo warned in Brussels on Wednesday of a “tsunami” of new rules rolling towards the industry. By 2030, an average of eight to nine new regulations will be introduced each year. The associated workload for engineers would be too great and the regulations would make cars more expensive.
“The big concern is that if regulation continues like this, it will drive up product costs to such an extent that the European market will become much smaller“, warned de Meo, who is also the head of Renault and will lead the manufacturers’ association for another year. There are scenarios with a halving in the next ten to 15 years.
In a “manifesto” for the European elections and the next legislative period of the EU Commission, car manufacturers are calling for a comprehensive industrial strategy to manage the transition to climate-friendly electric cars. “Piling up regulations is not a strategy – we need a strategy, otherwise Europe will lose ground”, emphasized de Meo.
Association wants tax benefits and more charging stations
The automotive industry is insisting on fair competitive conditions, for example in relation to China. The conditions for investment and employment must remain favorable and energy in turn affordable so that affordable smaller EVs can be built in Europe. Demand must be boostedwith purchase incentives and tax benefits, and the charging station network must be expanded up to ten times faster than before. ACEA Director General Sigrid de Vries added that it was important to set priorities and focus on implementing the climate protection regulations of the Green Deal.
For the coming year, the association anticipates significantly slower growth in new registrations in the European Union than in 2023. According to the forecast, around 10.7 million new cars will hit the roads in 2024, 2.5 percent more than this year. The market share of electric vehicles will increase from around 14 to 20 percent. The current year is expected to end with an increase of twelve percent, meaning that the market will still be around a fifth below 2019, the year before the outbreak of the Covid pandemic, with 10.4 million new cars. rtr
Climate & Environment
E-Autos
E-cars
Industrie
Transport policy
Slovakia extends import ban on Ukrainian grain
The Slovakian government has extended and expanded a ban on the import of certain agricultural products from Ukraine. The original import ban was limited until the end of the year and was restricted to wheat, maize, rapeseed, and sunflower seeds. The new regulation adopted on Wednesday applies indefinitely and to ten further products, including hops, honey, cane, and beet sugar. Poland and Hungary had previously imposed similar restrictions.
Since the Russian attack on Ukraine in February 2022, the country has hardly been able to use its Black Sea ports to export to the rest of the world. As a result, Ukrainian agricultural products are mainly transported to Europe via the country’s borders. The European Union allowed Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary to ban sales on the domestic market in order to prevent prices from being ruined. The EU regulations expired in September. Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia then introduced import bans of their own accord.
Transit still possible
Slovakian farmers have suffered losses of around €110 million due to the import of cheap Ukrainian grain, Slovakian Agriculture Minister Richard Takáč told the TASR news agency. At around €5 million, compensation payments from the European Union only covered a fraction of this. The measure is therefore unavoidable as long as the EU does not return to a common import restriction.
The transit of Ukrainian agricultural products should continue to be allowed but controlled more strictly. Currently, around 80 percent of agricultural products intended only for transit remain in the country, harming domestic producers, said Takáč. dpa
Handelspolitik
Ukraine-Krieg
Opinion
AI can resolve Europe’s Babylonian linguistic confusion
By Patrick Stockebrandt and Anselm Küsters
Patrick Stockebrandt (left) and Anselm Küsters head the Consumer, Health, Digitalization, and New Technologies departments at the Centre for European Policy (cep) in Freiburg.
State territory, state authority, and state people: These are the traditional criteria used by international law experts to measure a state. However, the European Union is more like a mosaic than a monolithic block and is accordingly described as a “federation of states“. The idea of a common “nation-state” stands in the way of deeper European integration. What does this mean for the EU’s current reform and enlargement efforts, which are to be intensified in the coming year?
A nation is formed through a shared sense of belonging, but Europe’s multilingualismhas a double-edged effect here. On the one hand, it is an expression of the rich cultural diversity, but on the other, it is also a barrier to the emergence of a broadly felt European public sphere.
The limits of my language are the limits of my world
In the European Parliament, this division manifests itself in the distribution of seats by member state and in the election of MEPs through national elections. This system brings national identity into the European discourse, but also gives the impression of fragmentation.
The latest successes in generative artificial intelligence offer a way out of the Babylonian language confusion. Thanks to new AI writing assistants, language barriers can be overcome more quickly. By providing accurate translations, technologies such as DeepL and ChatGPT help people from different cultural backgrounds to understand each other’s customs and perspectives. Video apps can even be used to speak lip-sync in different languages and create videos. The global market for such increasingly AI-powered language services is expected to reach $72.2 billion by 2027.
Deus ex machina?
By promoting cross-border dialog, such technological tools allow Europe’s diversity to be transformed into a shared space of experience. Nine out of ten EU citizens consider foreign languages to be very useful. What was previously only accessible to an elite – real-time simultaneous translation in the European Parliament – could soon be part of everyday life for every European citizen, whether in virtual worlds or through portable technology. This would also have a positive impact on the internal market, as consumers prefer to buy products in their native language.
At a turning point in history, when geopolitical tensions are forcing us to think intensively about expansion and reform, exponential digitalization could act as a catalyst for greater integration. The use of AI technologies in foreign language teaching is already leading to remarkable progress in language learning and has a motivating effect.
However, digitalization can also intensify existing differences. This can currently be seen in the divergent social media discussions on the Israel-Hamas conflict. Here, technology not only reflects linguistic differences but also very different values and political ideas. The way in which controversial topics such as migration or armed conflicts in EU member states are discussed online reveals a complexity that is made tangible by the technology, but not necessarily standardized. Generative AI tools can also be used to create deepfakes quickly and free of charge.
Technology is not a panacea
Even the best simultaneous translation cannot always capture the subtle nuances of terms and concepts that originate from different historical and cultural contexts. The history and cultural characteristics of each country shape the perception and interpretation of information, norms, and laws – a fact that has been evident since the beginning of European treaty negotiations.
A common discourse, conducted on the basis of a shared language – even if only via an AI application – at least makes it possible to recognize and negotiate such differences. Only through ongoing dialog can the member states of the EU identify common ground and shape a future that both respects their individual histories and creates a collective European consciousness. First and foremost, this requires a common language, which will increasingly be communicated digitally and experienced virtually.
Dr. Patrick Stockebrandt is Head of the Consumer and Health Department at the Centre for European Policy (cep) in Freiburg.
Dr. Anselm Küsters is Head of Department for Digitalization and New Technologies at the Centre for European Policy (cep) in Berlin.
In a developing situation that poses significant implications for the European solar industry, Commissioner Thierry Breton finds himself at the center of a debate. The industry is currently responding to speculations of a new anti-subsidy investigation targeting Chinese photovoltaic (PV) modules. This development raises critical questions about the future of trade relations and industry support within the EU.
Commissioner Breton, who oversees industry matters, is set to conduct an online meeting with top executives of solar companies and ministers from member states. This meeting, coinciding with the first anniversary of the European Solar PV Industry Alliance, was initially intended as a progress review of the reconstruction of European production capacities. However, emerging rumors of possible trade protection measures are now overshadowing this agenda.
In a notable response, a coalition of 429 companies and solar industry associations has issued an open letter to Commissioner Breton. They argue that imposing trade protection measures, such as punitive tariffs, would not only be detrimental to them but also jeopardize the broader energy transition goals of the EU. They cite past experiences where such measures led to declines in employment and investment in the sector.
Walburga Hemetsberger, CEO of SolarPower Europe, emphasizes the need for alternative solutions to support European manufacturers, solutions that are “better, faster, and more effective”. The core of these proposed alternatives is an increase in state funding – a suggestion that comes at a time when EU budgets are increasingly strained.
This situation places Commissioner Breton in a challenging position, as he must balance the immediate needs of the solar industry with the fiscal realities facing the EU. The outcome of the upcoming meeting and the decisions made thereafter could significantly shape the trajectory of the European solar industry and the EU’s broader environmental and economic policies.
Your Manuel Berkel
Feature
Global Stocktake: What countries expect from a COP28 resolution
Delegations will face tough negotiations on the key decision of COP28 on the Global Stocktake (GST). After all, each country and group’s ideas on what consequences should be drawn from the first global stocktake on climate action differ significantly. In some cases, they even oppose each other directly. This is revealed by an overview of the proposals that 23 UN states and country groups and around 50 international organizations have submitted to the UNFCCC Climate Change Secretariat. Table.Media has analyzed the documents.
For the first time since the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, the Global Stocktake reviews the achievements in climate action made since and how to move forward. In September, the findings from the “technical dialog” were summarized. The UNFCCC Secretariat then summed up the results from its perspective. Now, a document must be presented at COP28, which will form the basis for a decision.
COP decision: Who wants what?
There is a great deal of agreement in the previous papers when it comes to identifying gaps in climate protection to date. For example, on the point of reducing emissions. The necessary savings of minus 43 percent by 2030 are not foreseeable. There are also financial deficits. The industrialized countries have not kepttheir pledge of $100 billion in climate aid per year for 2020 and 2021.
On other points, ideas and perspectives differ widely. This is shown by an overview of the most important players and their particular priorities.
EU: Pioneer pushes oil and gas industry
The European Union likes to see itself as a climate pioneer. The bloc of 27 states has reduced its carbon emissions by about 25 percent since 1990, aims for a 55 percent reduction by 2030 under the “Green Deal,” and targets net-zero emissions by 2050. EU member states are the largest financiers in international climate action and seek strategic alliances with emerging and developing countries. Therefore, the EU’s submission includes:
A “course correction” and the political will to get on the 1.5-degree path. However, this would require “drastically step-up efforts.” Emissions must peak by 2025 at the latest – which is putting pressure on China in particular and the IEA already declared realistic.
The international community must removethe barriers to climate financing in the indebted countries of the Global South. Adaptation should be included in all plans and investment strategies.
The EU also wants to see areas that directly affect people’s lives addressed in the GST declaration: Health, water, food, protection of ecosystems, gender equality
Unlike Saudi Arabia, for example, the EU wants to see a sharing of burdens and benefits as a core of climate efforts. When it comes to the negotiation buzzword “equity,” all parties “currently emitting a high share of global emissions at a country level or per-capita,” must contribute to climate action – not just developed countries.
The EU also sees sufficient capital available for climate financing, albeit invested in the wrong areas. It stresses the urgency to increase green financial flows from billions to trillions and build a fossil-free economy.
The EU favors publishing the best examples from the GST in an annex to the declaration, which is not subject to negotiations.
Tripling renewables, doubling efficiency and reducing methane emissions by 75 percent by 2030 are to be anchored as targets for 2030.
The EU wants to “urge the oil and gas industry to deliver on their promise to be a driving force of the just energy transition by investing more than 80 percent of upstream investment in clean energy in 2030 compared to less than 5 percent in 2022.”
China: Protectionism harms the climate
China is perhaps the most powerful player in climate negotiations. The superpower pursues its own goals, suffers from climate impacts, and aggressively promotes renewable expansion domestically. Simultaneously, it depends on the fossil economic model and exports. The country still defines itself as a developing nation to hold together the negotiating group of G77/China. This role is increasingly under pressure, especially in financing matters related to the loss and damage fund. As the current largest carbon emitter, China wants:
Shift the responsibility for the climate crisis primarily to developed countries. It argues that it needs to be recognized that 70 percent of historical industrial emissions come from developed countries. However, more recent figures and a look at land use paint a different picture.
Emphasize the climate action progress that has already been achieved. While the world was heading for 3.5 degrees before the Paris Agreement, it is now at 1.7 to 2.5 degrees at best. Prices for solar energy and batteries have fallen by 85 percent, for wind energy by 55 percent, and expansion is progressing rapidly.
China is calling for a special IPCC report on how the goals of the Paris Agreement can be achieved and what a global adaptation target could look like.
Include the text that the outsourcing of production to emerging countries is driving up their CO2 emissions by two billion tons of CO2 per year, around 15 percent of OECD emissions
Establish that the financing of the loss and damage fund is the responsibility of the developed countries.
China warns of protectionism and sanctions on products for the energy transition. Solar modules could become up to 25 percent more expensive in 2030 due to these measures and 160 to 370 GW less could be produced and installed. New trade barriers could mean that three to four billion tons more CO₂ will be emitted by 2060 than under free trade.
USA: Rules needed for private capital
The United States traditionally serves as China’s major adversary. Washington combines competition and cooperation with this political and economic rival. For the climate process to work, China and the US must see eye to eye. However, in the demands for the final decision of the COP28, the US government, which faces an election year, outlines its positions:
The declaration should strike an “appropriate balance between concern and hope” and be “honest.” Under no circumstances should the Paris Agreement be changed through the “backdoor.” The US expresses concern “about comments that it is up to developed country Parties alone to fill gaps in implementing the Paris Agreement.”
For the USA, a “just transition” does not mean pushing back net zero targets, expanding the use of fossil fuels or justifying a “need for new international finance”. “Just transition” is more a concept for domestic policy than international. This refers to the IRA money in the US and its refusal to contribute to global financing on a large scale.
The US is in favor of the phase-out of “unabated” fossil fuels, i.e., it supports the UAE’s plan for the increased use of CCS.
Regarding adaptation, they also advise identifying projects that are not working well – and above all presenting projects that can be implemented quickly and encourage private investment.
The US also favors better framework conditions for private investment in the highly controversial area of finance. The US cites IPCC data: There is enough money, it is just flowing into fossil fuel infrastructure instead of renewable infrastructure.
Progress has been made on reducing fossil fuel subsidies between 2019-20, as well as on the 100 billion target. Climate financing is not a value in itself, but must be measured in terms of reducing emissions and building resilience.
There is no mention of financing the loss and damage fund or the historically high emissions of the US.
G77 and China
The position of the G77and China is presented by the current chair, Cuba. It is largely in line with the well-known positions of this large alliance of developing countries in the UN (now around 130 states). Its sub-groups such as LDCs or Basic as well as large countries such as China or India also echo many of these positions:
The climate crisis has been caused primarily by the developed countries. They have neither fulfilled their obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions quickly nor provide sufficient funding for climate policy in the Global South. These “historical gaps in the implementation of mitigation actions” and the leadership role of the developed countries must be highlighted.
The implementation of climate action measures (“response measures”) must not lead to socio-economic disadvantages for poor countries. The developed countries must also ensure a just transition in the Global South.
Rapid implementation of the loss and damage fund, the 100 billion pledged for climate financing, and the backlog in technology transfer and capacity building must feature prominently in the text.
“Unilateral coercive measures should not be used for climate action.” Behind this is a rejection of the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism CBAM. Individual countries should not be pilloried and no regulations should be imposed on them.
The G77 refers to the current IPCC report. The effects of climate change on vulnerable countries are to be presented. Examples of progress and ideas for a better financial system will also be presented.
All decisions must be based on the formula of “common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities” (CBDR-RC). This means the sharing of burdens and responsibilities between developed and developing countries.
BASIC: Confrontation with the North
The group around Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) sees itself as the leading group of the G77/China. And against the backdrop of geopolitical tensions and the expansion of the BRICS group, which also includes Russia, they are much more self-confident. BASIC’s demands are formulated much more sharply than the G77 declaration. To them, the climate crisis is “the biggest test for humanity is the appalling legacy of colonization and imperialism of the last five centuries.”
BASIC is calling for honesty in Global Stockate. This includes publicly acknowledging the Global North’s failure to reduce emissions and provide financial aid. They demand guidelines on how to implement this (in)justice in climate issues.
BASIC also strongly emphasizes dividing the world into the Global North and the rest of the world according to the CBDR-RC principle – a division the developed countries declare to have ended with the Paris Agreement – after all, all countries agreed to act. However, even for BASIC, “BDR-RC should not be used as an excuse for countries not to act.”
They also refer to the current IPCC report, but warn against uncritically adopting the model calculations because they make no “explicit assumptions about global equity, environmental justice or intraregional income distribution.” In other words, they accuse the IPCC scenarios of not making a distinction in line with the CBDR-RC.
The BASIC countries also disagree with the IPCC about historical emissions. Although they cite the figures according to which developed and developing countries have now released roughly the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, they refer to a per capita calculation that gives developed countries more responsibility.
The BASIC countries are calling for the developed nations to achieve their net-zero targets “much earlier than 2050” – to give emerging economies more time. For the time being, only the Global North should change its consumption and production patterns to reach net zero and be in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Climate finance must “go well beyond the 100 billion US dollars” to compensate for the “trillions of dollars” for climate action and damage costs in the Global South. Namely nine trillion for the climate action needs of emerging and developing countries, or six trillion alone if the Global South is to implement its climate plans (NDC).
African Group: hit hardest
The African countries attach great importance to the declaration linking the sustainable development of their continent with climate goals. Progress on achieving SDGs must be made and the outcome of the GST must under no circumstances “deepen the under-development of African countries.” The primary goal must be to help the 600 million people in Africa without access to electricity and the 900 million without clean water. They also demand to:
recognize that Africais more vulnerable to the climate crisis than other regions, for example, due to sea level rise and storms;
drastically increase investment in renewables in Africa, as the continent has a high potential for green energy;
a global goal for adaptation (GGA) to climate change;
to allow significantly more capital to flow to Africa. These financial flows have hardly increased since the Paris Agreement: On average, it was 18 billion dollars a year while it actually needed 18 to 30 billion annually over 20 years. Overall, Africa is currently only raising twelve percent of the necessary capital for climate action from its own and international funds;
recognize that even if the 1.5-degree limit is maintained, more than 50 percent of Africa’s economic output will still be affected by climate change;
that Africa is grantedthe right to exploit its fossil resources to finance its development. “Africa stands to lose all this as they may be stranded as policies like carbon taxes shifts consumer preferences,” the group warns. Africa also does not have the instruments to draw up climate balance sheets for the European CBAM, for example.
Saudi Arabia: no climate obligations
Saudi Arabia finds itself in several roles. As a dominant oil producer, current prices secure significant profits, and as a traditional blocker in negotiations, tactically acting wisely. The country also aims to play a more important global role and take a significant position in the future of a decarbonized economy. The kingdom’s demands include:
No “specific pathway or timeline for anyone at the global or national level,” including “no new categorizations, sectoral targets, source-based measures, punitive or prescriptive measures.” This is a criticism of carbon tariffs or a decision to phase out fossil fuels.
Recognition of the “considerable progress” climate action has made since Paris. With the current ambitions, the climate targets of the agreement could be achieved.
Criticism of the IPCC: Emission pathways and scenarios are projections, not predictions or regulations, there is no differentiation according to country-specific conditions.
Mentioning that the largest share of historical and current emissions comes from developed countries (which is a controversial opinion).
Strengthen all technical options for reducing emissions, especially CCUS or CDR.
“No space” for eroding “differentiation, CBDR-RC, and equity and establish burden sharing.” According to Saudi Arabia, this contradicts the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. This is directed against the proposals to encourage wealthy emerging countries, such as oil states, to finance global climate action.
Russia: njet to fossil fuel phase-out
Russia traditionally keeps a low profile at the conferences. Especially since the attack on Ukraine, the delegates do not seek the big stage, but are always present in the process. Their demands are shaped by the fact that the Russian economy relies heavily on the export of gas and oil. Therefore:
Russia emphasizes the importance of “transitional technologies and fuels” and nature-based solutions: Gas and the large Russian forest areas.
A njet to the plans for a fossil fuel phase-out. “We oppose any provisions or outcomes that somehow discriminate or call for phase-out of any specific energy source or fossil fuel type,” the submission says.
The country, in which environmental organizations are now prevented in their work and are declared undesirable, states that it understands the “value of working with non-state actors to increase transparency and accountability of their action.”. This is important in order to create “trust among stakeholders” and guarantee a fair restructuring of the national economy.
The Annex II countries of the Framework Convention should lead the wayin climate action and financing. These are the developed countries – excluding Russia and its former republics.
The redirection of financial flows into climate action measures, as agreed in the Paris Agreement, must not disadvantage “social and economic development” – for example “through phase-out or phase-down of critical fossil fuels.”
CAN: one trillion dollars annually for the climate
CAN International, a coalition of more than 1900 environmental and development organizations from 130 countries under the umbrella of the “Climate Action Network,” has been accompanying COPs from the beginning. The experts and lobbyists of these groups are now part of many country delegations. Germany’s climate envoy Jennifer Morgan and the Canadian environment minister Steven Guilbeault used to work here. CAN traditionally provides expertise and represents the voices of poor developing countries and conservation. Specifically, they demand from a statement on the GST:
A phase-out of all fossil fuels by 2050 while respecting human rights and without dependence on CCS.
A decision to stop all public funding for fossil fuels and all private investment in their expansion.
To increase renewable energy capacity by 1.5 terawatts per year and energy efficiency by four percent.
Include sufficiency (“what is enough?”) in the climate plans of the major emitters in particular.
It demands the OECD and Russia to increase climate aid and renewables to one trillion dollars a year.
A roadmap for doubling adaptation funding by 2050.
LDCs: damage even at 1.5 degrees
The Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are often the most severely affected by the climate crisis due to their geographical location, weak institutions, economic structure, and low prosperity. Therefore, their demands are sometimes more extensive. They advocate for various elements in the statement, including:
Even serious climate action and more investment in adaptation can only reduce “loss and damage,” not prevent it. Exceeding the climate target of 1.5 degrees, which science assumes, will lead to further losses and damage.
The goal of the Framework Convention on Climate Change to limit global warming to 2 degrees is no longer compatible with the goals of the Convention on Climate Change.
Collective targets are needed for the expansion of renewables and more investment in developing countries.
Phasing out fossil fuels is key to net zero.
As an adaptation measure, it is important to install early warning systems in all regions of the world, as called for by the UN Secretary-General.
A concrete formulation for the global adaptation target to be adopted next year for the LDCs is: “By 20xx, our goal is to reduce vulnerability and enhance long-term [effective] resilience and adaptive capacity reaching and benefiting xxx billion people and their livelihoods, conserving xx percent of land, freshwater, and ocean ecosystems [in line with the 1.5-degree target].”
In terms of finance, the developed countries are called upon at one point and all countries at another to double adaptation funds, replenish the Green Climate Fund, finance the Loss and Damage Fund and negotiate the new financial target from 2025.
Click here for all previously published articles on COP28.
Klima & Umwelt
UNFCCC
Mobility Package: More rights and data for better service
Travel has become increasingly convenient with modern transportation options and package deals, but it has also become more and more complicated. Who pays, how much and when if a package tour has to be canceled? Why do different passenger rights apply to rail travel than to air travel? Who is responsible if I miss my flight due to a rail delay? There are many shortcomings in the current regulation. This has been demonstrated not least by the Covid pandemic and the insolvency of travel company Thomas Cook.
This has prompted the Commission to present an entire legislative package of new and revised regulations on passenger mobility (Passenger Mobility Package) shortly before the end of its mandate. It is also launching an initiative to create a single European Mobility Data Space (EMDS).
Parliament wants to make improvements
EU parliamentarians welcome the Commission’s proposals, but criticize the timing. “It is fundamentally right to tackle the issue of passenger rights”, says Jens Gieseke (CDU), transport policy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU group. Europe must not leave consumers to fend for themselves. This is especially true when booking portals and transport companies pass the buck to each other. “A uniform reimbursement for travel with different modes of transport would definitely be welcome.”
Thomas Rudner (SPD) believes that this is about “more than just fixing past problems. It is about setting a standard that respects and protects the rights of travelers in the future.” Parliament will examine the proposal closely and also make its own proposals to ensure the protection of passengers and fair practices in the travel industry.
“When the Commission puts forward a proposal for the revision of passenger rights at the end of the legislative period, then you know how important the issue of consumer friendliness is to the Commission”, criticized Markus Ferber (CSU). The fact that the proposals are coming so late in the legislative process means that passengers and their rights are at the bottom of the list. “This is not only adventurous but disappointing.”
New passenger rights for multimodal journeys
The mobility package for travelers proposed by the Commission comprises three areas:
Stronger passenger rights: With the revision of the regulations on air passenger rights, the Commission wants to improve enforcement mechanisms and introduce rules for passengers who have booked their flights through an intermediary. With the proposal on passenger rights in the context of multimodal travel, the package also includes for the first time new rules to protect passengers using different modes of transport (intermodal travel) such as buses, trains, and planes. Passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility are to receive special support.
Protection of package travelers: It is to be improved with the revision of the Package Travel Directive of 2015, especially in crisis situations. The proposed changes are intended to give travelers stronger and clearer rights and clarify the obligations and responsibilities of package tour operators.
Better multimodal travel information services and the creation of a common European mobility data space: The combination of modes of transport (multimodality) can reduce overall transport-related emissions as travelers can choose the most efficient and sustainable mode of transport. The revision of the Delegated Regulation on EU-wide multimodal travel information services (MMTIS) should make it easier for passengers to find real-time information on different modes of transport. The initiative for a common European Mobility Data Space (EMDS) should also serve this purpose. The EMDS is intended to improve access to, pooling, and exchange of data from existing and future transport and mobility data sources.
Data space to allow data exchange
Today, a lot of data still lies unused. In May, a Bitkom survey revealed that only four out of ten companies use data from others or pass on their own data to others. If mobility data from different modes of transport were collected, analyzed, and exchanged, mobility could become more efficient and therefore more sustainable overall. Data spaces, which offer an environment secured by rules and standards, are suitable for this exchange.
The EU is planning several data spaces for different sectors, such as the European Industrial Data Space for data from production or the Health Data Space. The European Mobility Data Space that has now been proposed can build on existing projects – including those from Germany.
“It is a very important development for us that things are coming together at European level”, says Tobias Miethaner, spokesperson for the management of the Mobility Data Space (MDS), which is funded by the Federal Ministry for Digital and TransportAffairs. “We are already in a very good exchange with other initiatives from other member states.” Also, 20 percent of the participants in the German lighthouse project are not based in Germany.
German mobility data space as a blueprint
The Mobility Data Space wants to bring its approach to the European level and has already been heavily involved in the EMDS, explains Miethaner. “Our Mobility Data Space can serve as a blueprint for others.” The MDS is very broad-based and has the most important players in the field of intermodal travel on board. “We are open to other participants, for example from the logistics sector. We are also open to Google.” Ultimately, the aim must be to roll out the concept across Europe; Germany is too small a market. “The EU can be a good interface for this.”
With the Data Act coming into force, there should also be a further basis on which the exchange of data can take place. “But with the Data Act, there are still major uncertainties as to which data must be provided”, says Miethaner. But where new data is provided, networking can take place via the MDS. “Ultimately, however, it’s not just about having as much data as possible on the marketplace, but that there are many use cases and that new business models and added value for the user arise from this.” An improved service, for example.
Events
Dec. 1, 2023; 9 a.m.-4 p.m., Brussels (Belgium)/online ECIIA, ConferenceThe ESG Day During this event, ECIIA will provide a forward-looking overview of the EU Sustainability regulatory developments, with a particular focus on Sustainability Reporting, and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards. The different actors of the 3 lines model will be present and exchange views on the impact of the new regulation on the business model. They will explain how internal audits can assist the organizations and share best practices.INFO
Dec. 1, 2023; 11:30 a.m.-2 p.m., Berlin (Germany) EC, panel discussionHow can the energy-efficient refurbishment of buildings be made consumer-friendly? The Federation of German Consumer Organizations (vzbv) and the European Commission Representation in Germany invite you to a debate on consumer-friendly building refurbishment. INFO & REGISTRATION
Dec. 3, 2023; 8:30-11 a.m., Dubai (UAE)/online FSR, Panel DiscussionThe Evolving Voluntary Carbon Market: Reconciling the paradox between innovation and supervision The event offers an opportunity to discuss the contrasting trends of increasing transparency and innovation in the realm of carbon credits. While harmonized standards and close supervision increase market transparency, they may restrict innovation. How can we reconcile innovation, transparency and integrity through voluntary and regulatory interventions?INFO & REGISTRATION
Dec. 4-5, 2023; Brussels (Belgium) EESC, ConferenceEuropean Migration Forum The European Migration Forum – the dialogue platform on migration, asylum and migrant integration – will meet for the eight time.INFO & REGISTRATION
Dec. 5, 2023; 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., Brussels (Belgium)/online EC, SymposiumRegions 2030 Final Event: Monitoring the SDGs in the EU Regions The REGIONS2030 project is a collaborative effort between the European Parliament, the European Commission and 10 pilot regions to co-design and develop an indicator set for monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at regional level in Europe. The project’s final event aims to showcase the final results of the project and provide insights into the role of using regional indicators in monitoring and achieving the SDGs. INFO & REGISTRATION
News
Renaturation: ENVI gives green light
The European Parliament’s Environment Committee (ENVI) has adopted the outcome of the negotiations on the EU Nature Restoration Law. The Environment Committee has thus made it possible for the draft law to be finally voted on by the plenary.
The committee members adopted the bill by 53 votes to 28 with four abstentions. In order to complete the legislative process, the plenary session of Parliament still has to vote on the bill. This is expected to be in the week of Feb. 26. The Council must then also give its formal approval. As the text already received the green light from the EU member states last week, this is just a formality.
Green light in plenary session likely
This marks the end of a very turbulent legislative journey that began before the summer. The EPP, conservatives, and the far-right ID group had opposed the original proposal put forward by the European Commission. Yesterday’s vote shows that some EPP MEPs now support the current version of the text, which Jutta Paulus, environmental expert and Green negotiator for the renaturation law, welcomes. “I am pleased that some EPP MEPs no longer support their leader Manfred Weber’s campaign against the Green Deal and have voted in favor of the negotiation result. I therefore expect a solid majority in the plenary vote”, she said.
The Nature Restoration Law is one of the most important pillars of the Green Deal. It requires member states to take concrete action to restore 20 percent of all land and sea areas by 2030 and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. 80 percent of habitats in the EU are in poor condition. With this agreement, the EU is the first region to translate its international commitments under the UN Kunming and Montreal Agreements – which have been ratified by 196 countries – into a binding legal framework. cst
ENVI
Environment
Environmental policy
Renaturation
Renaturierung
Industrial emissions: agreement in trilogue
The negotiators of the Council and the European Parliament reached a provisional political trilogue agreement on Wednesday night on the revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) and the regulation on the establishment of an Industrial Emissions Portal (IEP). The agreement is provisional until it is formally adopted by both institutions.
The aim is to reduce pollution to a level that is no longer harmful to human health by 2050. This was stated by Teresa Ribera, the Spanish Minister for Ecological Transition, who represented the EU member states at the talks on behalf of the Spanish EU Council Presidency. “The new rules will set pollution limits at a more effective level and giveindustry clear guidance on the right investments to effectively reduce their emissions”, said Ribera.
The trilogue agreement aims to reduce air, soil, and water pollution from companies by revising existing regulations on emissions and landfills. In addition, a European register for the release and transfer of pollutants, known as the E-PRTR, is to be updated.
Imported goods must also meet requirements
The updated regulations will apply from 2030 to intensive pig farms with more than 350 livestock units – a reference unit comprising more than 1,000 pigs in total, depending on their age and size. It will also apply to poultry farms with more than 300 livestock units of laying hens – which would be more than 21,400 chickens.
The revised regulations would also apply to the industrial mining of ores such as iron, copper, gold, nickel, and platinum. The European Commission could also include the mining of industrial minerals at a later date. In addition, a “reciprocity clause” will ensure that imported agricultural products must meet requirements comparable to those that apply to European farmers.
Exemptions for cattle and criticism of lengthy implementation
“We have kept cattle out of the scope of the Industrial Emissions Directive“, said rapporteur Radan Kanev (EPP) in a statement. “The European Commission must now carry out a new impact assessment and communicate fairly and transparently with farmers before submitting a new legislative proposal to Parliament on the inclusion of cattle”, Kanev added.
The trilogue agreement has led to criticism from environmental groups. For the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Europe’s largest network of environmental citizens’ organizations, the agreement “does not do justice” to the objectives of the Green Deal. The “exclusion” of industrial livestock farms from the scope, the “decades-long delays” in transforming the industry, and the “lack of protection” for people affected by illegal pollution “undermine the potential of a regulation that should be a shield for citizens, not polluters”, the EEB went on to say. cst
Klima & Umwelt
AI Act: Data protection authorities call for regulation of basic models
The Conference of Independent Federal and State Data Protection Supervisory Authorities (DSK) has spoken out against removing foundation models from the regulation of the AI Act and instead opting for self-regulation. Legal uncertainty would unsettle citizens and companies, they write in a joint statement.
“The upcoming AI regulation should therefore define the requirements that all parties involved – including manufacturers and providers of basic models – must meet. A one-sided shift of legal responsibility to the final stages of the value chain would be the wrong choice in terms of data protection and economics”, write the data protection authorities. Only with the necessary trustworthiness will there be a high level of acceptance for the opportunities associated with AI.
Together with France and Italy, Germany had proposed dispensing with the regulation of foundation models in the AI Act and opting for “regulated self-regulation“. Other member states also agree with this. In contrast, the majority of the Parliament proposed regulating foundation models in its proposal.
BMWK: ‘Don’t hinder innovation’
In response to an inquiry on Wednesday, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWK), which is in charge of the issue, commented on the German government’s position: “It is about a regulatory framework that addressesthe safety risks of AI applications without slowing down the innovative power of this young, promising technology. Laws and state control should therefore start where the application of artificial intelligence in business and everyday life is concerned. The development of AI models that are not yet in use and have not yet been brought to market, on the other hand, should not be regulated separately by the state.”
The permanent representatives of the member states met on Wednesday to coordinate their position. The negotiations went quite well, according to reports from Brussels. The topic of foundation models is not on the agenda until Friday. The next trilogue, which should actually be the last, is on Dec. 6. The Spanish Council Presidency now wants to reach an agreement quickly. However, there is already talk in German government circles that the Belgians, who will take over the Council Presidency in January, are good and efficient negotiators. vis
Artificial intelligence
Artificial Intelligence Regulation
Künstliche Intelligenz-Verordnung
Car association deplores ‘tsunami’ of cost-driving EU regulations
According to the car manufacturers’ association ACEA, the European Union must calm down when it comes to regulations in the coming years. ACEA President Luca de Meo warned in Brussels on Wednesday of a “tsunami” of new rules rolling towards the industry. By 2030, an average of eight to nine new regulations will be introduced each year. The associated workload for engineers would be too great and the regulations would make cars more expensive.
“The big concern is that if regulation continues like this, it will drive up product costs to such an extent that the European market will become much smaller“, warned de Meo, who is also the head of Renault and will lead the manufacturers’ association for another year. There are scenarios with a halving in the next ten to 15 years.
In a “manifesto” for the European elections and the next legislative period of the EU Commission, car manufacturers are calling for a comprehensive industrial strategy to manage the transition to climate-friendly electric cars. “Piling up regulations is not a strategy – we need a strategy, otherwise Europe will lose ground”, emphasized de Meo.
Association wants tax benefits and more charging stations
The automotive industry is insisting on fair competitive conditions, for example in relation to China. The conditions for investment and employment must remain favorable and energy in turn affordable so that affordable smaller EVs can be built in Europe. Demand must be boostedwith purchase incentives and tax benefits, and the charging station network must be expanded up to ten times faster than before. ACEA Director General Sigrid de Vries added that it was important to set priorities and focus on implementing the climate protection regulations of the Green Deal.
For the coming year, the association anticipates significantly slower growth in new registrations in the European Union than in 2023. According to the forecast, around 10.7 million new cars will hit the roads in 2024, 2.5 percent more than this year. The market share of electric vehicles will increase from around 14 to 20 percent. The current year is expected to end with an increase of twelve percent, meaning that the market will still be around a fifth below 2019, the year before the outbreak of the Covid pandemic, with 10.4 million new cars. rtr
Climate & Environment
E-Autos
E-cars
Industrie
Transport policy
Slovakia extends import ban on Ukrainian grain
The Slovakian government has extended and expanded a ban on the import of certain agricultural products from Ukraine. The original import ban was limited until the end of the year and was restricted to wheat, maize, rapeseed, and sunflower seeds. The new regulation adopted on Wednesday applies indefinitely and to ten further products, including hops, honey, cane, and beet sugar. Poland and Hungary had previously imposed similar restrictions.
Since the Russian attack on Ukraine in February 2022, the country has hardly been able to use its Black Sea ports to export to the rest of the world. As a result, Ukrainian agricultural products are mainly transported to Europe via the country’s borders. The European Union allowed Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary to ban sales on the domestic market in order to prevent prices from being ruined. The EU regulations expired in September. Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia then introduced import bans of their own accord.
Transit still possible
Slovakian farmers have suffered losses of around €110 million due to the import of cheap Ukrainian grain, Slovakian Agriculture Minister Richard Takáč told the TASR news agency. At around €5 million, compensation payments from the European Union only covered a fraction of this. The measure is therefore unavoidable as long as the EU does not return to a common import restriction.
The transit of Ukrainian agricultural products should continue to be allowed but controlled more strictly. Currently, around 80 percent of agricultural products intended only for transit remain in the country, harming domestic producers, said Takáč. dpa
Handelspolitik
Ukraine-Krieg
Opinion
AI can resolve Europe’s Babylonian linguistic confusion
By Patrick Stockebrandt and Anselm Küsters
Patrick Stockebrandt (left) and Anselm Küsters head the Consumer, Health, Digitalization, and New Technologies departments at the Centre for European Policy (cep) in Freiburg.
State territory, state authority, and state people: These are the traditional criteria used by international law experts to measure a state. However, the European Union is more like a mosaic than a monolithic block and is accordingly described as a “federation of states“. The idea of a common “nation-state” stands in the way of deeper European integration. What does this mean for the EU’s current reform and enlargement efforts, which are to be intensified in the coming year?
A nation is formed through a shared sense of belonging, but Europe’s multilingualismhas a double-edged effect here. On the one hand, it is an expression of the rich cultural diversity, but on the other, it is also a barrier to the emergence of a broadly felt European public sphere.
The limits of my language are the limits of my world
In the European Parliament, this division manifests itself in the distribution of seats by member state and in the election of MEPs through national elections. This system brings national identity into the European discourse, but also gives the impression of fragmentation.
The latest successes in generative artificial intelligence offer a way out of the Babylonian language confusion. Thanks to new AI writing assistants, language barriers can be overcome more quickly. By providing accurate translations, technologies such as DeepL and ChatGPT help people from different cultural backgrounds to understand each other’s customs and perspectives. Video apps can even be used to speak lip-sync in different languages and create videos. The global market for such increasingly AI-powered language services is expected to reach $72.2 billion by 2027.
Deus ex machina?
By promoting cross-border dialog, such technological tools allow Europe’s diversity to be transformed into a shared space of experience. Nine out of ten EU citizens consider foreign languages to be very useful. What was previously only accessible to an elite – real-time simultaneous translation in the European Parliament – could soon be part of everyday life for every European citizen, whether in virtual worlds or through portable technology. This would also have a positive impact on the internal market, as consumers prefer to buy products in their native language.
At a turning point in history, when geopolitical tensions are forcing us to think intensively about expansion and reform, exponential digitalization could act as a catalyst for greater integration. The use of AI technologies in foreign language teaching is already leading to remarkable progress in language learning and has a motivating effect.
However, digitalization can also intensify existing differences. This can currently be seen in the divergent social media discussions on the Israel-Hamas conflict. Here, technology not only reflects linguistic differences but also very different values and political ideas. The way in which controversial topics such as migration or armed conflicts in EU member states are discussed online reveals a complexity that is made tangible by the technology, but not necessarily standardized. Generative AI tools can also be used to create deepfakes quickly and free of charge.
Technology is not a panacea
Even the best simultaneous translation cannot always capture the subtle nuances of terms and concepts that originate from different historical and cultural contexts. The history and cultural characteristics of each country shape the perception and interpretation of information, norms, and laws – a fact that has been evident since the beginning of European treaty negotiations.
A common discourse, conducted on the basis of a shared language – even if only via an AI application – at least makes it possible to recognize and negotiate such differences. Only through ongoing dialog can the member states of the EU identify common ground and shape a future that both respects their individual histories and creates a collective European consciousness. First and foremost, this requires a common language, which will increasingly be communicated digitally and experienced virtually.
Dr. Patrick Stockebrandt is Head of the Consumer and Health Department at the Centre for European Policy (cep) in Freiburg.
Dr. Anselm Küsters is Head of Department for Digitalization and New Technologies at the Centre for European Policy (cep) in Berlin.
