1. European Union Energy Security and Climate Change Policy in relation to the Arctic Kathrin Keil PhD candidate Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies (BTS) Freie Universität Berlin Department of Political and Social Sciences Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science Environmental Policy Research Centre (FFU) Picture http://www.maps-world.net

2. Content 1. Relevance of the topic – Why the Arctic? Why the EU? 2. Research Outline 2.1 Question 2.2 Puzzles 2.3 What to analyse? Content 2.4 How to analyse? Means 2.5 Why analyse? Purpose 3. Brainstorming: Scenario-building for EU and Germany 3.1 EU 3.2 Germany

3. The Arctic 20 sq km, 66° North Russia, US, Canada, Norway, Denmark Temp. rise twice as quick (ACIA) Average warming: 1-2°C (IPCC) Ice-free Arctic Ocean: 2030, 2050 (SWP) 13% of world’s undiscovered oil reserves 30% of world’s undiscovered natural gas (US Geological Survey 2008) Picture www.athropolis.com

4. 1.Relevance of the Topic Why the Arctic? Potential Energy exploitation Transport Fishing Challenges Environmental damage Indigenous populations Heightened rivalry

5. Why the EU? Complex actor network  many European interests (and responsibilities!) at stake Starting point: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: The European Union and the Arctic Region, 20 November 2008 Germany’s influence

6. 2. Research Outline 2.1 Questions 1. What is the direction and speed of Arctic warming and what are its effects on economic-political, security and climate change policies? 2. How will the EU be able to exert the role of a positive player in the increasingly complex Arctic governance process? 2.1 multilevel actorness (internal) 2.2 multilevel actorness (external) 2.3 policy area 3. Which role can Germany play in this setting? 4. How do EU integration and policy-making theories account for the importance of multilevel actorness, policy area and differentiated policy-making?

7. 2. Research Outline 2.2 Puzzles 1. New environmental conditions in the Arctic 2. Who will lead and profit? 3. How will climate change challenge develop? 4. Which role will be played by the EU (and Germany) in policy areas of energy security and climate change?

8. 2. Research Outline 2.3 Content Figure 1: Assumptions and Enquiry Table 1: Order of Analysis (empirics) 1.Direction and speed of Arctic warming 2.Aspects of reasonable certainty 3.Interpretative disputes/critical variables 4.Evolution of the EU’s role 5.Evolution and effect of Germany’s role

9. 2. Research Outline 2.3 Content Figure 2: The triangle of security, energy and climate change policies Blue: Increasing climate change problems affect and reinforce energy issues and vice versa. Red: Increasing climate change problems affect and reinforce security issues. Green: Increasing energy problems affect and reinforce security issues.

10. 2. Research Outline 2.4 Means Multilevel actorness –National, regional, global –State and non-state Policy area Differentiated policy-making –External: common voice demand –Internal: diversity

11. 2. Research Outline 2.4 Means Forward-looking research design Start with developments in the Arctic  independent variable(s) Asking questions about consequences/outcome  dependent variables Discourse analysis

12. 2. Research Outline 2.4 Means Table 2: Order of analysis (whole study) 1. State of the art of theories 2. Direction and speed of Arctic warming (facts) 3. Methodology 4. Aspects of reasonable certainty 5. Interpretative disputes/critical variables 6. Evolution of the EU’s role 7. Evolution and effect of Germany’s role 8. Suggestions for theory development 9. Conclusions

13. 2. Research Outline 2.5 Purpose Policy recommendation Theory development –how European integration and policy-making theories live up - or can live up - to the centrality of the policy area, to a multilevel actor approach and to the notion of differentiated policy-making On generalisability

14. 3. Brainstorming: Scenario-building for EU and Germany 3.1 EU 1. Adaptation and intensification of existing EU climate change and energy policies 2. More partnership and exchange Relevant institutions (e.g. Arctic Council, NATO) Non-EU countries (US, Canada, Russia, Norway) Indigenous people 3. Direct EU action and involvement

15. 3. Brainstorming: Scenario-building for EU and Germany 3.2 Germany 1. Relative German inaction 2. Asserting ecological and climate-change priorities 3. ’Honest broker' or a creator of balance and synthesis

16. Thank you for your attention!