The Conference on the Future of Europe begins on 9 May 2021. This political process can become a milestone in EU climate policy making – provided that its recommendations are specific and focus on the EU's ability to act, writes Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf in the Tagesspiegel. He makes three proposals how the conference can support EU climate policies.

The objective of this project is to provide clarity on the legal nature of the allowances of the EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS) excluding the international carbon units (e.g. assigned amount units (AAUs), certified emission reductions (CERs), emission reduction units (ERUs)) pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The policy brief discusses the different policy pathways to reach the climate target, as presented in the EU Commissions Impact Assessement of the 2030 target plan. There are different ways how the EU can reduce emissions to -55%: mainly through tighter regulation and standards, primarily via carbon price or trough a mix of both. The policy mix route may seem most attractive: politically, it is the path of least resistance, as it continues on the current trajectory. And it promises the best of both worlds – the efficiency of carbon pricing and the certainty of regulatory approaches. At the same time, the mix has some conceptual arguments in favor: companion policies, like standards and infrastructure investment, ensure that consumers have more climate-friendly options to choose from and bring down their cost. Thereby, they make it easier to stomach higher carbon prices.

This briefing note, published within the EU-funded Horizon 2020 project NATURVATION, takes a critical look at the value and limits of climate nature-based solutions to deliver on biodiversity goals. Building on research findings from NATURVATION, the brief discusses the question: How can we realise the added value of urban climate nature-based solutions for biodiversity?

The EU has raised its climate target for 2030 to at least -55 %. Agora Energiewende and Ecologic Institute sketch a "Fit for 55" package that can ensure both environmental integrity and solidarity. It investigates four options how to regulate heating and transport emissions, focusing in particular on the pros and cons of expanding emissions trading to these sectors. The paper makes the case for a smart mix of EU-level carbon pricing and companion polices.

Legally binding reduction targets for Member States have been the backbone of EU climate policies since 2009. At a moment where the EU increases its climate ambition significantly, reduction targets for Member States must continue. They should be the unequivocal starting point of reforms to make EU climate rules fit for the EU's new climate targets – a new Ecologic Institute policy brief explains why.

As part of a project to structure the energy law, Ecologic Institute contributed to a discussion paper on conceptual considerations on the concept of plant in the Renewable Energy Act . Based on the functions of the term "plant", the authors recommend a new conceptualization, according to which the current abstract term "plant" is replaced by energy carrier-specific terms "plant", which are first combined in a catalog to form a uniform term "plant". The discussion paper is available for download.

The Climate Action Regulation (CAR aka Effort Sharing Regulation) regulates 57 % of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, the EU cannot achieve its new climate targets without major contributions from the sectors regulated by the CAR. This makes reforming the CAR one of the EU's most important legislative processes in 2021. There are various ideas about how to turn the CAR into a strong driver for achieving the EU's climate targets. This Ecologic Institute paper discusses these ideas, and makes proposals for reform.

The EU is discussing whether its 2030 climate target should be a net target or gross target. Net targets treat CO2 removal and greenhouse gas emission reductions the same, although they are fundamentally different. To avoid a major step backwards, the EU should formulate separate targets for emissions reductions and CO2 removal, argues Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf in his contribution to the Tagesspiegel.

The European Parliament improves the Commission's proposal for a European Climate Law. Gross reduction target for 2030, legally binding climate neutrality targets, emissions budgets and a European Climate Council would make the European Climate Law what it should be: a reliable compass for the path to climate neutrality by 2050, writes Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf in his article for Tagesspiegel.

The new EU climate architecture should include a separate CDR target that builds primarily on restoring degraded ecosystems. This target should be legally binding and quantified – for the EU and Member States. It should not be a combined target which treats reductions and CDRs equally. This EU's CDR target should be enshrined in the European Climate Law.

On 17 September 2020, the European Commission proposed to raise the EU climate target for 2030, so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% compared to 1990. In this policy brief, CLIMACT and Ecologic Institute unpack the Commission's impact assessment for the new target. The brief analyses key policy options and analytical results and compares them to recent studies, in particular CLIMACT's 2030 modelling results. Within the framework of the tightened target, the EU Commission proposes to extend the EU Emissions Trading Scheme to buildings and road transport – a major change to the EU's current climate policy architecture. The team discusses potential implications and provides context to the sectoral developments and policies. The briefing highlights key points where the Commission diverges from other studies, identifying climate mitigation potentials that merit more attention in future analysis.

In this paper the authors, among them Ecologic Institute's Ulf Stein, focus on the governmental bottlenecks in the Implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. The lack of horizontal, inter-sectoral communication; the insufficient land reserves; human resources and; the lack of financing were the areas that emerged as the most pressing issues. Further evidence suggests that the interaction of the WFD with other policy areas regulated at the European level might require closer inspection.

In this publication, Doris Knoblauch (Ecologic Institute), Lorenzo Felicetti, and Ulf Stein (Ecologic Institute) shed light on the untapped potential of ICT solutions in water management across Berlin, Milan, Copenhagen, Paris and Sofia, the five cities analysed in the project digital-water.city. In the analysis, the cross-cutting nature of digital water governance, and thereby its multifunctionality in terms of policy goals became evident.

In Europe, limited information is available about the environmental characteristics of the vehicles stocks and of traded used vehicles in terms of vehicle's air pollutant and CO2 emissions. In this report Ecologic Institute and Fraunhofer ISI explore available national and European data sources of vehicle stocks and trade throughout Europe and compile the available vehicle characteristics. Based on the available characteristics, the authors derive the environmental performance of vehicle stocks and traded used vehicles and assess respective regional differences in the environmental performance of the vehicles stocks and of used vehicle trade flows. The report is available for download.