EU ecosocial policies: what can we expect for the future?

As a visiting professor of political science at the ULB/IEE, Paolo Graziano provided students with insights from his research field: governing the Just Transition. Eyes on Europe took the opportunity to interview him about the future of ecosocial policies, understood as policies aimed at both environmental and social goals within the framework of public action. 

The debate on ecosocial policies began about ten years ago but has now entered a more mature phase. Paolo Graziano recently contributed to this debate by focusing on ecosocial policy integration at both European and national levels. The European ecosocial agenda is rooted in a complex, overarching policy paradigm that is not always neither translated nor implemented at national levels. 

Here is Paolo Graziano’s insight on the uncertain future of ecosocial policies.  

How can you describe the evolution of the EU ecosocial agenda?

‘As a matter of fact, there is very limited evidence of a strong ecosocial agenda at the European union level. What has been launched within the European Green Deal was the Just Transition Mechanism aimed at keeping in consideration the social consequences of (especially) green and digital transitions. 

The European Green Deal was the strategy that launched a new generation of environmental policies, including the Just Transition Fund. We still are in its implementation phase and in the most recent documents, such as the Clean Industrial Act, Just Transition is mentioned but it becomes very residual with references to other goals that are primarily the competitiveness of companies and de-carbonization. These are not necessarily linked to social aspects, which have been watered down to some extent. We will see if the social dimension will become less and less relevant. 

We had five intense years of debate on Just Transition and now, the question is about if it’s going to last or not’. 

Regarding the current context within and outside the EU, how does the Union handle the balance between environmental and social concerns? 

‘Let’s not forget that the Just Transition Fund is a very limited fund that addresses only limited territories, so it’s not yet mainstreamed. Empirically, we have to see at the local level where this fund is used. So far, we have mixed evidence: cases of success, cases of failure. I think we will have to wait at least another year before providing an overall assessment of how the Just Transition Fund was spent and if it reached the goals it was intended to reach.

Given the international context, the EU is now going in a completely different direction, with defence and peace being on top of the agenda. But let’s say if somehow we go back to politics as usual in the next months – although it will not happen entirely because the new focus on EU coordinated defence will surely continue – you may have space for other policies that develop further the ecosocial agenda’.

From your perspective, which paradigm is then relevant to effectively understand the European ecosocial agenda?  

‘This is a big issue. Let me take an example:  if you reduce the number of working hours, you may consume less by not using your car. But if you go somewhere else with a plane during the free time you gain, the overall net situation is not necessarily going to reach environmental goals. Clearly, technology can help because some issues can be solved, for example the air fuels will not be as polluting as they are, but this example gives us an idea of how complex a predefined policy paradigm can be. If you want to keep both environmental and social goals, you have to clearly know how to measure the specific impact of new policies, and this is not always very easy to do. 

We need to introduce pilot policies and test assumptions we can have: possibly some people will not consume more if they gain spare time… we are used to thinking in “easyjet terms” because we are privileged. I am not sure, at least it’s not true that anybody who gets to have spare time will pollute. So, a number of things have to be tried out before we can say something about the profile and the impact of such innovative policies. 

What is easy to say is that whatever environmental policy is adopted, adequate compensation in order to avoid negative consequences on the most vulnerable (and on the lower-middle class) is needed’. 

Finally, which priorities do you think will be deprioritized in the near future?  

‘I think that some of the ecosocial policies are going to be watered down – well, there are not so many at the end of the day – but on the other hand, for example, we know from the Clean Industrial Deal that the quality of jobs should remain a priority. Many other social policy goals may be sacrificed: not environmental policies because of the Clean Industrial Act, there is this huge focus on making the economy green. It will remain a priority, maybe not number one, but number two or three, whereas the ecosocial integration will slightly be forgotten, or some experimentations at the local level… For example, it is unlikely that there will be a new edition of the Just Transition Fund. This is where social actors have to be good in lobbying. We could have a mainstream approach, with ecosocial transition funding in the structural funds but the Commission may not automatically go in that direction. We will need the work of NGOs and civil organizations to be really convincing. They will have to show that an ecosocial usage of funds would be also more beneficial for the economy. I’m not saying there will be no chance whatsoever, but there is a very narrow path that has to be followed by civil society organizations really interested in ecosocial policy’.

Juliette Salleras is Editor-in-Chief (FR) of Eyes on Europe and master student at the Institute of European Studies.