The Visegrad Group Countries, Romania and Bulgaria
Joint Paper on the EU climate and energy framework 2020-2030
Taking into account the March European Council Conclusions, the concrete level of EU
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction ambition for 2030 is still subject to further debates.
The Visegrad Group Countries (V4), Romania and Bulgaria are of the opinion that fair effort
sharing between Member States must be agreed upon – both as regards ETS and non-ETS
sectors –, before the EU agrees on any GHG emission reduction target for 2030.
The 2030 framework has to fully take into account and minimize any possible negative
impact, particularly on competitiveness, security of supply and energy prices as well. The V4,
Romania and Bulgaria agreed that there is no need for any legally binding renewable energy
and energy efficiency targets. A single GHG emission reduction target for 2030 is sufficient to
drive the transition to a low carbon economy.
Having regard to the March 2014 European Council Conclusions, firstly there is a need to
discuss assumptions for possible options for fair burden sharing mechanisms as well as on
other missing elements of the 2030 framework that are necessary to pave the way for a
decision on GHG reduction target by the European Council.
The V4, Romania and Bulgaria present the following elements that need to be further
elaborated and included into the framework in order to achieve a balanced future climate and
energy framework based on national impacts assessments and fair burden sharing, that has to
be based on robust and transparent criteria and data.
V4, Romania and Bulgaria also highlight that the EU level of GHG ambition for 2030 should
take into account the level of contributions from other major global economic players to the
2015 Agreement.
1. COMPENSATION
MECHANISMS
MECHANISMS
AND
FAIR
BURDEN
SHARING
The Commission’s communication states that the expected costs of the achievement of the
2030 emissions reduction target and respective investments would be relatively higher in the
lower income Member States. Thus countries with GDP below 90% of the EU average would
need to make investments in the period 2021-2030 at levels estimated to be some 3 billion
euros per annum higher than the EU average increase in investments in the same period. At
the same time they would have to face significant electricity price increases as well. As all the
V4 countries, Romania and Bulgaria are in this position, namely their GDP falls short of the
90% of the EU average, a fair burden sharing and improved compensation mechanisms
should be developed to bridge that gap and to foster the modernization of the energy sector
without seriously damaging economic well-being of the countries.
The current 2020 package itself offers “mechanisms for burden sharing” reflecting to some
extent the differences in capacities among Member States. This approach in general needs to
be maintained. The following should be considered as a part of possible mix of options of re1
distribution mechanisms and instruments within the new climate-energy framework, as a
starting point for further discussions:
 Fair distribution of GHG emission allowances. Extra allowances for auctioning distributed
to the Member States with low-income per capita in order to strengthen their financial
capacity to invest in climate-friendly technologies and certain percent of auctioned
allowances to take into account the early efforts of the respective Member States (ETS
Directive Art. 10 (2)). The exact criteria and percentages should be subject of further
debates.
 The Burden Sharing mechanism needs to go beyond what was defined in the period up to
2020 in order to effectively support Member States in their efforts and to compensate
them for the excessive costs related to the implementation of the new policy framework
for energy and climate in a sustainable manner. This could be achieved by rethinking the
distribution key and creating funding through allocating extra greenhouse gas emission
allowances to those Member States.
 Reconsidering the current rules of distribution of free allowances post-2020 could further
support the modernization of the energy sector.
2. NEW FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO FULFIL A GHG TARGET
Another mechanism to cover the extra investment burden post-2020 to fulfil the GHG targets
by lower income Member States could be the allocation of GDP-proportionate resources of
financial support to the countries with a GDP below 90% of the EU average from special
financial funds. The situation of economic indicators in V4, Romania, Bulgaria countries does
not support the commitment of public financial resources to invest into new climate related
commitments that would increase the risk of non-compliance with Maastricht criteria while
also hindering the economic development and GDP growth of these countries between 20202030. New financial resources are therefore needed outside of the currently known resources.
3. EQUITABLE EFFORTS SHARING IN THE NON-ETS SECTOR
The collective effort for the non-ETS sector must be allocated among the individual Member
States in a fair, equitable and transparent way taking into account GDP per capita, early
efforts and the need of future development and energy security on the basis of robust data.
Consequently, the broad divergence of non-ETS efforts among the Member States should be
maintained. Providing some flexibility between ETS and non-ETS could help to achieve
reductions at an optimal cost, while ensuring that there are no negative impacts, especially on
stability and predictability of the EU ETS and consequently on EU CO2 price.
In order to generate additional investment in the non-ETS sector, while spurring innovation
and securing the competitiveness of the European economy, establishment of additional
financial support schemes should be considered in the non-ETS sector.
4. CARBON LEAKAGE RULES POST 2020
In the 2030 framework there should be an element securing the treatment of the issue of
2
carbon leakage between 2020 and 2030. The sectors that are exposed to a significant risk of
carbon leakage shall continue to receive free emission allowances at 100% of the benchmark
level. The criteria concerning the carbon leakage list between 2020 and 2030 should build on
the currently existing criteria for the period of 2010-2014 and the proposed 2015-2019 rules
and possibly be extended with necessary changes reflecting the real economic situation.
5. TECHNOLOGY NEUTRALITY AND DOMESTIC ENERGY SOURCES
We do not support any legally binding renewable energy and energy efficiency targets. A
single emission reduction target is sufficient and the most cost-effective way to drive the
transition to a low carbon economy. This target should be achieved by Member States in a
technology-neutral and cost effective way based especially on existing, commercially viable
technologies, reflecting the specific circumstances and political preference of individual
Member States. To that end, EU state aid rules should be modified to take into account the
various alternatives in the transition to a low-carbon economy, including the use of local,
unconventional energy sources available to individual Member States.
6. GOVERNANCE SYSTEM
In line with the Commission’s communication there is a need to simplify and streamline the
current separate processes for reporting on renewable energy, energy efficiency and
greenhouse gas emissions for the period after 2020. Also further exchange of information
between Member States at least at regional level is welcomed, as with interconnected systems
national decisions might have negative impacts on neighbouring energy systems. On the other
hand Member States’ right to determine and shape their energy mix, including i.e. the use of
nuclear power and unconventional energy sources, has to be respected. The current division of
competences in the field of national energy policy development has to be respected: national
planning has to remain in the competence of the Member States and it should not be
coordinated by the European Commission. More detailed and precise information is needed in
connection with the different elements of the proposed mechanism. An agreement is also
necessary on the indicators, among which the security of supply has to receive the top priority.
3