Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Europe Author Anna Korppoo

1. Linking an EU emission reduction target beyond 20 % to energy security in Central and Eastern Europe

Author:
Anna Korppoo, Thomas Spencer, Kai-Olaf Lang, and Martin Kremer
Publication Date:
03-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The Central and Eastern European Member States are expected to play a key role in the debate around future EU climate policy, including the potential move beyond a 20% greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target by 2020. Hungary and Poland hold the rotating EU Presidency in 2011, and energy security has been placed as a priority issue on both Presidency agendas. At the same time, energy security is a key issue in climate policy, particularly for the Central and Eastern European (CEE) Member States. Hungary's ambassador for Energy Security, Mihaly Bayer, made the link explicit, saying “if we can settle energy security then we can deal with climate change more calmly”. It is important to gain an understanding of the actual underpinnings of the energy security debate in CEE, and of the impact of a more stringent 2020 reduction target for this region.
Topic:
Climate Change and Energy Policy
Political Geography:
Europe, Poland, and Hungary

2. The EU and the global climate regime: Getting back in the game

Author:
Anna Korppoo, Thomas Spencer, and Kristian Tangen
Publication Date:
02-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The Copenhagen climate summit was seen as a set-back for the eu. It was left out of the final meeting between the usa and major developing countries which lead to the Copenhagen Accord, and had to accept a deal that fell below its expectations. Due to the impact of the economic crisis, the eu's current target of a unilateral 20 % reduction is no longer as impressive as it seemed in 2007–2008; this is undermining the eu's claim to leadership. In order to match the higher pledges of Japan, Australia and the us, as well as shoulder its fair share of the industrialized countries' aggregate 30 % reduction, the eu would have to pledge a 35 % reduction. The eu's practise of attaching conditionalities to its higher target gives it very little leverage. However, there might be a case for the eu to move unilaterally to a 30 % reduction in order to accelerate the decarbonisation of its economy and capture new growth markets. Doing so could support stronger policy development in other countries such as Australia and Japan, and help rebuild trust among developing countries. But on its own it would be unlikely to have a substantial impact on the position of the other big players—the usa, China, India, and Brazil. The incoherence of the eu's support of a “singe legal outcome” from the Copenhagen summit, based on the elements of the Kyoto Protocol, was a major cause for its isolation. The us remains domestically unable to commit to this type of a ratifiable treaty while developing countries are not yet ready to commit to absolute targets. A return to a two-track approach, involving the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and the negotiation of a new instrument for the usa and major developing countries, may be a more politically and practically feasible approach, while retaining the goal of working towards a legally binding instrument for all key participants over time.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, India, Brazil, and Australia

3. Can the EU budget support climate policy in Central and Eastern Europe?

Author:
Anna Korppoo, Thomas Spencer, and Agata Hinc
Publication Date:
11-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
In October 2010 the Commission released the long-awaited review of the EU budget, setting out the parameters of the debate around the next financial perspective, 2014-2020. The Budget Re view outlined a rather conservative programme for reform of the Cohesion and Common Agricultural Policy, largely envisaging the preservation of existing objectives and instruments. However, policymakers have also called for a stronger integration of EU climate policy with EU fiscal policy, particularly with regard to the Central and Eastern European (CEE) Member States; the budget has also been proposed as a mechanism to compensate for the potential loss of surplus Assigned Amount Units under the Kyoto Protocol. Likewise, the 20/20/20 climate and energy targets were placed at the heart of the EU 2020 strategy. The question therefore arises: What role should the EU budget play in supporting climate policy in CEE Member States?
Topic:
Climate Change and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Europe

4. Tools for building EU climate concensus: Bringing the CEE Member States on board

Author:
Anna Korppoo and Thomas Spencer
Publication Date:
05-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Despite the lack of a global agreement in Copenhagen, momentum remains for the further development of EU climate policy, as indeed it does in many other countries. A 2010 Deutsche Bank report surveying the development of climate policies worldwide concluded that "…'the race is on' for countries to achieve a green economy". A wide range of EU initiatives on energy and climate are expected this year, providing opportunities to enhance the coherence and impact of EU policy.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe

5. The Dead Souls: How to deal with the Russian surplus?

Author:
Anna Korppoo
Publication Date:
09-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The 10-15% reduction target by 2020 announced by Russia reflects neither the country's efficiency potential, nor modeled emissions trends. With emission reduction measures, Russia could commit to a target of ca. -30% by 2020. Transferring the surplus emission allowances Russia gained under the Kyoto Protocol due to the economic restructuring of the 1990s represents an extreme threat to both the environmental and market integrity of the Copenhagen agreement as it could be used to offset real domestic emission reduction measures in other countries. But it seems politically unlikely that Russia would join without transferring the surplus under the Copenhagen agreement. Countries should recognize the threat posed by the surplus, and offer a cooperative strategy to deal with it. However, pushing through a 'cancel or discount' approach to the surplus problem by three-quarter majority, which could be brought together without the co-operation of the surplus-holding countries, should be kept as a reserve strategy. More ambitious targets - beyond the 25-40% suggested by the IPCC - for the Annex I industrialized country group, especially for the surplus holding countries including Russia, could absorb the transferred surplus. However, given the current low pledges of Annex 1 countries, higher targets are unlikely to absorb the whole surplus, and therefore, a basket of approaches should be applied. To gain credibility on this issue of vis-à-vis Russia and to avoid Russia setting the tone, before Copenhagen the EU must adopt an internal solution to deal with the surplus of its new member states. If expecting to transfer the surpluses, the other surplus holding countries including Russia could announce national surplus use plans prior to the Copenhagen climate talks. In order to minimize a scenario of Russia blocking the Copenhagen process in the final hours, key countries should publically engage Russia on climate and the Copenhagen talks. Important Annex I countries, especially the US, should send very high-level representatives to Moscow like they have sent to China and India.
Topic:
Climate Change and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Europe, India, and Asia

6. Russian pledge vs. business-as-usual: Impelementing energy efficiency policies can curb carbon emissions

Author:
Anna Korppoo, Aleksandra Novikova, and Maria Sharmina
Publication Date:
12-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
In June 2009, President Medvedev announced that the Russian Federation could limit its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions growth to-10 to 15% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. In August 2009, this commitment was confirmed by the Russian delegation as Russia's midterm target. Russia further committed to limiting emissions by 22-25% in comparison to the 1990 level by 2020 in the EU-Russia Summit in Stockholm in November.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe