EU Climate Action Dialogue – Climate Recon 2050 – a dialogue on long-term strategies

Report: Assessment of the national Long-Term Strategies of the Baltic State countries

As amply demonstrated by each passing year, the decarbonisation of our economies is the key societal challenge of the 21st century. In response, each EU member state is required to adopt and regularly update a holistic decarbonisation strategy until 2050, known as a long-term strategy (LTS). This report seeks to analyse the respective documents for each of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), to assess their respective strengths and weaknesses, and highlight a series of cross-cutting issues and recommendations ahead of subsequent updates.

The obligation to develop plans for decarbonisation is formalised within the European Union by regulation 2018/19991 (Governance Regulation hereafter) of the European parliament and Council on 11th December 2018. Given the rather ambiguous and sparse guidance regarding content and format set out therein (Annex IV), a great deal of divergence between individual strategies is expected. Moreover, the respective Baltic strategies were published between 2017 and 2021, during which time the environment related to climate mitigation has continued to evolve, most recently with the European Green Deal and the ‘Fit for 55’ package of measures, as well as the energy policy response to the Russian war on Ukraine (REPowerEU).

The individual strategies do indeed differ in several aspects. Where they in fact scored somewhat similarly due to the adopted methodology despite these differences, it should not be seen as a contradiction. Rather, it is a reflection of the scoring being a vehicle for the qualitative discussion found in the report. For example, the strategies range in length from less than ten to more than 50 pages, with the structure of each being unique. This notwithstanding, it is interesting to note that the strategies did also show certain similarities. All three countries emphasised the role of research and development (R&D) to a greater or lesser extent, and each, behind the structural differences, covered similar areas and suffered from similar weaknesses in terms of relatively limited emphasis on pathway modelling or socioeconomic aspects.

As the countries are relatively small it is important to mention that so far, no attempts have been made to synthesise or integrate efforts across the region. This and the diverging interpretations of the requirements for the LTS further complicate the analysis. Furthermore, each strategy is missing several aspects. On the other hand, there is a silver lining in the requirement for strategies to be further updated, which affords the opportunity to help guide the process and seek best practices across all member states.

Report: Carbon Dioxide Removal options in the National Long-term Strategies of EU Member States

In this report we analysed how EU Member States addressed the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector as well as other carbon removal options in their national LTSs.

In accordance with the Paris Agreement, the global community needs to make its best effort of keeping the global average temperature rise to 1.5°C compared to the pre-industrial average. In the EU, after reaching climate neutrality, net negative emissions must be achieved. To achieve that, each EU Member State is required to adopt and regularly update a holistic decarbonisation strategy until 2050, known as a long-term strategy (LTS). While GHG emissions can be removed by natural sequestration in soils, forests and oceans, technological removals like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) or Direct Air Capture (DAC) are also possible solutions. Further, technological options that avoid additional emissions, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) also contribute in some sectors. In the last 30 years, the carbon sink in the EU has decreased. Currently, the most ambitious scenario (with additional measures, WAM derived from EEA database of LULUCF emissions), entails a sink of -209 Mt CO2e by 2030, while the EU Reference Scenario foresees a sink of -271.1 Mt CO2e in 2050 and the ‘Clean planet for all’ communication includes a sink target of around -400 Mt CO2e by 2050 as well.

The structure and requirements as well as the need to include projected emissions reductions and enhancement of sinks by 2050 in the LTSs are set out in Regulation 2018/1999 (Governance Regulation) of the European Parliament and Council. As the guidance regarding content and format set out in Annex IV to this Regulation is rather vague and sparse, the level of detail and structure of the LULUCF sector was found to be highly variable between LTSs. For example, not all countries have specified the level of emissions reductions in their LTS required to reach climate neutrality. Therefore, in this report minimum boundaries were established for total necessary sequestration based on the stated or implied maximum level of reduction each country has proposed (on average 87% compared to 1990), the so-called sink requirements, and then compared to the EU reference scenario. If no clear emission reduction target was given, a value of 85% from 1990 levels (excluding LULUCF) was used. The same procedure was used for countries who had yet to publish their strategy (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Poland, and Romania) as of August 31st, 2022. Bulgaria by now has published her strategy, and you can find an analysis thereof on this website. Recommendations for Romania are set out here. The analysis in this report highlighted that the assistance natural sink enhancements can play in reaching climate neutrality are not uniformly distributed across Member States.

Natural emission and sequestration processes are found across six different land-categories: forest land, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements, other land. We analysed to which extent these were covered in the strategies (inclusion of description, measures, and targets). Forestry was separated from other land categories as by far the most information was provided on this. As agriculture will soon be combined with LULUCF in the EU and the Governance Regulation also treats them together, agricultural measures were sometimes included in the analysis from the land use emissions perspective. LULUCF and natural removals cannot be viewed with tunnel vision, which is why overlaps with using bioresources, biodiversity and adaptation are also included in the analysis. As the countries do not always distinguish CCS/CCU from actual carbon removal technologies (BECCS and DAC), future updates could state more clearly which of these technologies is targeted. CCS and CCU are referenced far more often than BECCS/DAC. No country is currently putting much emphasis on direct air capture as a potential solution within the lifetime of the current long-term strategies.

Reaching climate neutrality in the Baltic States: A closer look at the long-term national strategies in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, 13th of September 2022, 10.30-16.00 EEST

To reach global climate stabilisation, it is crucial that countries develop long-term visions, goals and strategic guidelines for climate policy embedded in the broader sustainability agenda. All Member States are already legally obliged to produce, and periodically update, national long-term strategies in the European Union, as mandated by the Governance Regulation (2018/1999) of the European parliament and Council on 11th December 2018. However, countries have differed significantly in terms of their drafting process, final results, and timing. In the Baltic countries, strategies have been adopted between 2017 and 2021. During that time, the environment related to climate mitigation has continued to evolve, most recently with the Green Deal and ‘Fit for 55’ package of measures, and subsequently in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Although this complicates drawing direct comparisons, a clear distinction with some other member states (such as the Visegrad 4) can be seen in the degree of scenario modelling and the coverage of socioeconomic aspects included in the Baltic strategies. Moreover, limited attempts have so far been made to synthesise or integrate efforts across the region. On the other hand, a positive note is found in the requirement for strategies to be further updated, affording the opportunity to guide the process and seek best practices from all member states. The upcoming event will focus on an analysis of the approaches across the Baltic states to the development of each respective national long-term strategy and current best practices and highlight missing elements and cross-cutting issues.

The event organized by SEI Tallinn focused on an analysis of the approaches across the Baltic states to the development of each respective national long-term strategy and current best practices and highlight missing elements and cross cutting issues.

Below there are available three presentations from the event.

1. Long-term strategies assessment of the Baltic State countries – best approaches and weaknesses (Peter Walke, SEI Tallinn)
2. Assessing the long-term strategies of the Visegrád 4 – how do the Baltic states compare? (Krzysztof Kobyłka, Wise Europa)
3. Balancing the equation: assessing the prospects of natural (LULUCF) and technological sinks (CCS/CCU/DAC…) from across the EU national long-term strategies (Peter Walke, SEI Tallinn)

This webinar presented and discussed the findings of a report by SEI Tallinn. The analysis, conducted as part of the Climate Recon 2050 project, analysed the role of the LULUCF sector in member states’ national long-term strategies. The report describes the current situation, highlights key challenges and shortcomings of long-term strategies, and proposes a way forward for integrating the LULUCF sector into climate neutrality strategies.

The event took place on 13 December 2022 from 10:00 – 11:30 CET, via the Zoom platform.