Singapore: How to Attract More Investment in Renewable Energy?
Singapore has limited renewable energy potential due to its small surface area and the limited space available. Solar power has the greatest potential. Given the country’s limited spare land, rooftops and vertical spaces on high-rise buildings are of particular importance. Singapore set a target of producing solar energy to cover 350,000 households in 2030 that would be equivalent to 4% of the country’s current electricity demand. In 2019, solar energy accounted for less than 1% of Singapore’s total energy mix. We propose four actions to improve the investment climate for renewable energy in Singapore: develop incentive and regulatory support mechanism; consolidate solar energy governance; mobilise equity investors and lenders; specialise in the long-distance trade of renewable energy, especially in the form of hydrogen.
The Philippines: How to Leapfrog from a Complicated Renewable Energy Sector to an Attractive One
The Philippines set the target of increasing the share of renewable energy in its energy mix from 16.9% in 2019 to 26.9% by 2030. This ambitious target requires significant additional investment in renewable energy. It has been estimated that the Philippines could attract USD 20 billion in renewable energy investment through auctions between 2020 and 2030. To achieve this, the investment climate for renewables needs to be improved. Over the last few years, other ASEAN countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand have been viewed as more attractive markets by foreign investors. We propose five actions that can improve the attractiveness of Philippines’ investment climate for renewable energy and help it join the regional race for investment: prioritise renewables in the energy governance system; enforce existing regulatory and fiscal policies; raise the targets and develop an investment roadmap; facilitate market entry for renewable energy investors; build capacity for renewable energy governance.
Sjømatnæringen og Europa: EU-medlemskap, EØS eller NOREXIT?
EEA is a comprehensive agreement with thousands of legal acts incorporated into Norwegian law and practice. The number of legal acts varies strongly across areas and in some fields, implementation is more important than new legislation. In 2020, Norway had 96 agreements with the EU, og which 46 can be called trade agreements. Switzerland has comprehensive cooperation with the EU and without the EEA, but the relationship is under pressure. A summary of the book chapters indicates that, in economic terms, there is potentially more to lose from abolition of the EEA than there is to gain from membership.
Norges handelsforhandlinger med EU gjennom 50 år: Sakskoblinger og forhandlingsmakt
The chapter provides an historical review of Norway’s trade negotiations with the EU from 1973 until today, with particular focus on results for the seafood sector. Around 1990, EFTA provided bargaining power in spite of industrial differences. The 1991 EEA negotiations had issue linkages across several areas, and substantial tariff cuts were obtained for seafood. Later negotiations have been conducted along parallel tracks with weak issue linkages. With reduced bargaining power, Norway has been forced to accept ever increasing EEA grants, but free trade for seafood has never been achieved even if sizeable tariff rate quotas have been granted as a compensation for earlier free trade agreements with new EU members.
Sjømatnæringen og Europa. EØS og alternativene
The book examines the importance of the EEA for the seafood sector and the consequences if the EEA is replaced by EU membership or another type of trade agreement: NOREXIT. This is analysed in areas of particular importance for the seafood industry, such as tariffs, veterinary and border control; migrant workers in the fish processing industry; catch quotas after Brexit; and cross-border investment. In addition, the book includes background chapters on the EEA agreement, the Norway-EU negotiation history and the legal aspect of the EEA. The book is the result of an inter-disciplinary project with emphasis on economics and political science. The contributions are written by key experts from Norwegian universities and research institutions. The book has no political agenda of replacing the EEA with one alternative or another; it is a peer-reviewed academic contribution to greater knowledge about the EEA and the alternatives.
Fra «fiskebrevet» til EØS: Betydningen av toll for norsk sjømateksport til EU
An “archeology of tariffs” reveals how current tariffs for Norwegian seafood are based on trade agreements negotiated with the EU over 50 years. Furthermore, the economic impact of tariffs and tariff rate quotas under the EEA, EU membership and abolition of the EEA is quantified. The trade agreements reduced tariffs from 2.3 to one billion NOK in 2018. 2/3 of the tariff savings were due to the EEA, and less than 1/10 due to the “fisheries letter” of 1973. Abolition of the EEA may lead to an export loss of up to more than three billion NOK for harvest-based fisheries, whereas EU membership will lead to increased exports, particularly for aquaculture.
The Nordic Balance Revisited: Differentiation and the Foreign Policy Repertoires of the Nordic States
Nordic governments frequently broadcast their ambition to do more together on the international stage. The five Nordic states (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway) also share many basic goals as foreign policy actors, including a steadfast and vocal commitment to safeguarding the ‘rules-based international order.’ Why then, do we not see more organized Nordic foreign policy collaboration, for example in the form of a joint ‘grand strategy’ on core foreign policy issues, or in relation to great powers and international organizations? In this article, we draw on Charles Tilly’s concept of ‘repertoires’ to address the discrepancy between ambitions and developments in Nordic foreign policy cooperation, highlighting how the bundles of policy instruments—repertoires—that each Nordic state has developed over time take on an identity-defining quality. We argue that the Nordic states have invested in and become attached to their foreign policy differences, niches, and ‘brands.’ On the international scene, and especially when interacting with significant other states, they tend not only to stick to what they know how to do and are accustomed to doing but also to promote their national rather than their Nordic profile. While Nordic cooperation forms part of all the five states’ foreign policy repertoire in specific policy areas, these are marginal compared to the distinctive repertoires on which each Nordic state rely in relation to more powerful states. It is therefore unlikely that we will see a ‘common order’ among the Nordic states in the foreign policy domain in the near future.
Liberal fred
Over the last years, the EU has become a more important actor in international security relations. Whereas its core objective used to be to prevent a return to Europe's bloody past, EU is now increasingly a defender of liberal values and the international order. In Norway, this security dimension of the Union has not been very present in the EU-debate. But is should be now.