A geopolitical EU should offer green innovation partnerships

To reduce tensions and speed up the climate transition, the European Union needs to improve its offer on cooperation with other parts of the world, in particular the so-called ‘global South’, writes Mats Engström.

Mats Engström is Senior policy fellow for the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).

International tensions are growing over Europe’s climate action. At the climate meeting in Dubai, COP28, unilateral trade-related measures such as the carbon border adjustment mechanism were criticized. Trade restrictions to prevent deforestation and green subsidies are also stoking controversy.

To reduce tensions and speed up the climate transition, the European Union needs to improve its offer on cooperation with other parts of the world, in particular the so-called ‘global South’. This is now more recognised by decision-makers and good initiatives have been taken both within the Global Gateway and by individual member states. However, more is needed, in particular in view of competing offers from China.

Much is already done in the field of renewable energy. Now many partner countries are asking for cooperation on green industrial development. Here, the European Union can improve both the content and the coherence of its offers.

Member states can pool part of their income from the auctioning of emission allowances to support low-carbon demonstration projects and supporting infrastructure on other continents. This can be channelled through international institutions such as UNIDO, through a European Co-innovation and Green Tech Diffusion Fund, or both.

Stronger capacity for research and development in the global South is another important task. The mid-term reviews of the development instrument NDICI-Global Europe and the research program Horizon Europe provide opportunities for such action.

For example, more resources from NDICI could be used to fund capacity building for green industrial development. Sure, budgets are strained by support for Ukraine, but it is still possible to do more in this area. Co-financing of research institutes and testing facilities is not very expensive compared to other investments, and the same applies for joint centres of excellence between for example African and European universities.

A bigger part of Horizon Europe can be earmarked for cooperation with regions in the global South, building on what is currently done with Africa. The successful ARISE program, supporting young researchers in Africa, can be expanded to more senior scientists. Current Missions, for example on climate-neutral and smart cities, could be given a stronger international dimension. Programs for cooperation between government institutions in Europe and in other parts of the world, ‘twinning’, can be strengthened.

When preparing the next multiannual financial framework and successors to NDICI and Horizon Europe, more far-reaching reforms are possible.

A specific research program for cooperation could be set up, inspired by the earlier INCO approach with earmarking for specific regions. The budget for ACP-EU research cooperation could be scaled up and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie program could offer more generous possibilities for researchers from low- and middle-income countries. And it should be possible to attract more students from the global South through a reformed Erasmus+ program.

There will certainly be a struggle over direction and resources, but not allowing geopolitical considerations and the need for rapid diffusion of green tech to play a part in decision-making would be a mistake.

Some will claim that scientific excellence should be the only criteria for allocation of research funds. But research and innovation cooperation should be seen in a longer time perspective than today’s list over most highly ranked universities.

For example, such cooperation with Japan was once dismissed by Swedish policy makers since the country in the 1950s was considered not advanced enough. As we know today, Japan rapidly caught up and is since decades a leading research nation. The same might happen in countries of the global South today, and there is already excellent research in such places.

In addition, today’s economy is based on transboundary supply chains and it is in the self-interest of Europe to support low-carbon development in all parts of production networks.

Finally, there is a need for better coordination between different parts of the European Commission, the European External Action Service, and member states. In the next institutional five-year cycle, climate and geoeconomic external relations should be part of the portfolio of one of the executive vice-presidents of the Commission. This should include a more strategic use of research and development programs in building international partnerships.