Feed aggregator

Une émission de Public Sénat

Cette recension d’ouvrages est issue de Politique étrangère (3/2015). Mathilde Isler propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Stefan Aykut et Amy Dahan, Gouverner le climat ? 20 ans de négociations internationales (Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 2015, 752 pages).

La Conférence de Paris doit aboutir à un accord contraignant, avec des engagements concrets de diminution des émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES), afin de limiter le réchauffement climatique en dessous de 2 °C. Cet ouvrage permet de bien comprendre les tenants et les aboutissants de cet enjeu : pourquoi un accord contraignant ? Quelles positions des différents acteurs face à cet enjeu ? Quelles contraintes au niveau national ? Pourquoi cette limite des 2 °C ? Quel lien entre le monde scientifique et le monde politique ? Quelles sont leurs interactions ?

La négociation climatique n’est pas à part dans la sphère internationale : elle suit les grandes tendances géopolitiques mais elle est un théâtre où les équilibres basculent rapidement. Alors que de petits pays insulaires réussissent à attirer l’attention sur les problématiques qui les touchent à très court terme, certains pays n’hésitent pas, par des positions dogmatiques, à bloquer les négociations (l’Inde, entre autres). Les États-Unis et la Chine, parmi les plus gros émetteurs de GES, sont attendus pour des engagements ambitieux et réalistes, mais doivent composer avec des pressions internes fortes quant à la préservation de leurs intérêts nationaux.

Ce manuel entre en profondeur dans la mécanique de la négociation internationale sur le climat. Plusieurs chapitres sont consacrés à la gouvernance de ses institutions, à ses blocages, à ses opportunités d’évolution. Les auteurs défendent l’idée que le climat devrait être placé au centre du système de négociation internationale, notamment à l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC), pour être défendu à son juste niveau. Et pourtant, l’échec de la création d’une Organisation mondiale de l’environnement qui aurait eu pour but de renforcer et crédibiliser la prise en compte de cette thématique sur la scène internationale, a démontré, lors du sommet Rio+20 en 2012, que le monde n’était pas prêt à mettre l’environnement et les négociations climatiques au cœur de débats qui restent centrés sur l’économie.

Une réflexion très intéressante est également menée par les auteurs sur la question de la temporalité : souvent critiquée pour sa lenteur, la négociation climatique s’inscrit dans le temps long, mais doit également composer avec l’accélération des modes de communication liée aux nouvelles technologies et aux médias. La négociation climatique a été rythmée par des momentum qui ont permis de mettre en lumière certains sujets et d’acter certaines avancées, comme le protocole de Kyoto en 1997 ou la création du Fonds vert en 2010. Chaque COP, chaque année, est une fenêtre d’opportunité pour une progression majeure ou non (Copenhague, 2009) des négociations, et dépend beaucoup du contexte et du rapport des forces en présence. La Conférence de Paris sera-t-elle déterminante pour l’avenir du processus ?

Face au constat d’échec du système de négociations climatiques établi tout au long du livre – malgré de réelles avancées, la situation actuelle semble paralysée –, le dernier chapitre se penche sur la question du changement de paradigme nécessaire pour une véritable lutte contre le changement climatique. Peut-on vraiment faire évoluer nos modes de vie vers plus de durabilité ? Doit-on abandonner le capitalisme pour sauver la planète ? Ces réflexions nous poussent dans nos retranchements. Tout le monde veut le changement, mais qui veut changer ?

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

Colonel Richard J. Edwards is the Strategy, Plans and Policy Director on the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Agency's (JIDA's) coordinating staff, also known as the J5. Through the  Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, JIDA's

Poland and Lockheed Martin have signed a contract worth $500m for 40 units of the company’s AGM-158 Joint

Since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force in December 2009, major efforts have been made to implement the new institutional set-up it created: the EU has acquired legal personality, the post of Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has been created, the European External Action Service has been operationalised, and the EU Delegations around the world have boosted the EU’s presence and increased diplomatic and policy outreach. The European Parliament has also acquired a greater role thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, particularly in the fields of foreign policy oversight and budgetary scrutiny. Nevertheless, many provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, designed to provide a boost to foreign, security and defence policies, remain non-implemented owing to a lack of political support stemming from the fears of some EU Member States of the creation of a ‘two-speed Europe’ and loss of control over these fields in favour of the EU institutions.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force in December 2009, major efforts have been made to implement the new institutional set-up it created: the EU has acquired legal personality, the post of Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has been created, the European External Action Service has been operationalised, and the EU Delegations around the world have boosted the EU’s presence and increased diplomatic and policy outreach. The European Parliament has also acquired a greater role thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, particularly in the fields of foreign policy oversight and budgetary scrutiny. Nevertheless, many provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, designed to provide a boost to foreign, security and defence policies, remain non-implemented owing to a lack of political support stemming from the fears of some EU Member States of the creation of a ‘two-speed Europe’ and loss of control over these fields in favour of the EU institutions.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

In case you haven’t heard it enough yesterday, the European Commission unveiled its long-awaited Capital Markets Union (CMU) Action Plan.

Well technically they did more than that … On top of announcing their detailed and long-term plan to achieving better integrated and functioning financial markets in Europe, they also published a first package of proposals – a new framework for securitisation as well as a new regime to better calibrate risk for infrastructure investments by insurers. And if that was not enough (try and keep your breath on this …) they also launched a consultation on covered bonds, venture capital and a cumulative impact assessment of the agreed legislation passed in the last five years on financial services in Europe….well if that isn’t something?

But, before we dive into the significance of all of this – let’s start at the beginning:

Let’s go back: What was this all for again?

Jobs and growth, my dear Watson! Jobs and growth …

Since Juncker’s team came into office, almost a year ago, we have seen its motto being repeated over and over again and this is no surprise when you take a look at the EU’s current economic situation. To overcome the bleak economic outlook, Commissioner Jonathan Hill was given the task to use the potential of financial markets to complement bank lending, “unlock funding for Europe’s growth” and support the Investment Plan and in general make the financial world a better place.

With a Green Paper out earlier this year – the Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services, and Capital Markets Union has certainly been busy trying to find ways to remove obstacles to investment and making sure that capital markets better serve end-users – whether they may be corporates, SMEs, investors or citizens.

And this CMU Action Plan: what exactly is it supposed to achieve?

Undeniably, what was published yesterday is quite extensive! From trying to improve funding and access to finance for SMEs, via encouraging infrastructure investments, boosting pension funds, insurance, and fund managers, to supporting retail and citizens’ investments and savings opportunities – all the while trying to remove legal barriers to cross-border financial services activities.

 

Source: European Commission

That said, yesterday’s CMU Action Plan also aknowledges the role of banks which finance 75% of the real economy in Europe. The Simple, Transparent, Standardised (STS) Securitisation proposal also proposed yesterday by aiming to increase credit availability and reduce cost of funding for banks stands as one of the proposals recognising that freeing up banks’ balance sheets will support bank lending.

In addition, it is also about deeper integration and financial stability. The end-game results being that more uniform and integrated capital markets are supposed to help Member States share the impact of economic shocks and strengthen Europe’s resilience.

More than that, it is about reflecting and recalibrating complex and (most of the time) inter-dependent financial services legislation. This second attempt at looking at the cumulative impact of recent texts will also set an interesting benchmark for the next few years.

So what now – and where do we go from here?    

 This is probably the million-dollar question everyone will want the answer to.

You could argue yesterday’s stream of publication stands as an undeniable success. And it does because it delivers on the political promise that Commissioner Hill made at the start of his mandate to have a sound plan in place to achieve a ‘true and genuine’ CMU by 2019. It is also ambitious with a first set of proposals on infrastructure and securitisation also published yesterday – which anchors CMU as a concrete and immediate project.

You could also be dumbfounded by all the rest of the actions set down in Lord Hill’s plan for CMU – from (possible & set) legislation, launch of studies and working groups, support to industry-led initiatives and ongoing recalibration work: it is a lot to do in a limited timeframe.  Remember Bolkestein’s 1999 Financial Services Action Plan … so 2019 seems perhaps quite ambitious to carry out all these (experimental) investigations to better integrate financial markets in Europe.

Delivering on what Lord Hill often refers to as the ‘classic single EU market project’ will take time though and involves a lot of actors beyond the usual financial services crowd. Insolvency law and securities ownership legislation will mean national Justice Ministries will have to get on board if this project is going to be a success.

By nature, it will be a step-by-step project whose tangibility and impact will be hard to define – especially when you have 28 Member States at different stages in the development of their financial and banking markets. Completing it all also won’t have a symbolic ending line – which was the case for Banking Union. There are no plans to establish a single EU supervisor for financial markets here as Lord Hill alluded to in his press conference (despite Juncker in the 5 Presidents reports calling otherwise).

What’s for sure is that keeping track of all these initiatives, and making sure they stay coherent with each other and in line with the CMU objectives, could already be difficult enough for the Commission. But when you think of the unfinished business for financial services legislation and what’s to come –  bank structure, the introduction of the Leverage and the Net Stable Funding ratios, an expected CCP Recovery and Resolution Plans to name a few – coherence could then be even harder to achieve.

At least, we can be re-assured that a plan exists and wait for the next wave of CMU-related regulation. The review of the Prospectus Directive – to facilitate SMEs’ access to financial markets – is expected as soon as November.

Sandrine Lapinsonnière

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Versenyképes nemzeti innovációs rendszer a felsőoktatás, a kormány és a vállalatok együttműködése nélkül nem képzelhető el, az innovációs hivatal pedig katalizátor szerepet lát el a szereplők között - mondta Pálinkás József, a Nemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs Hivatal (NKFIH) elnöke.

The US does not have the popularity it used to have. Russia's policy in the Middle East is very subtle, because we have our bitter experience. Therefore, Russia is acting strictly within the framework of international law. The Americans are planning to plunge the Middle East into bigger chaos to aim this wave of instability at China

Dauer des Videos : 178'
Sie können dieses Video manuell herunterladen im WMV (1.6Gb)-Format

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2015 - EP