16th sanctions package against Russia + Criticism of LNG plans + Farm to Fork Strategy

Dear reader,

If that’s not a clear signal: On the day that Donald Trump calls the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a dictator, the ambassadors of the EU states are clearing the way for new sanctions against Russia. The EU foreign ministers will formally adopt the 16th sanctions package on Monday in time for the third anniversary of the Russian war of aggression. Among other things, the association of states lists a further 73 tankers in the Russian shadow fleet, imposes far-reaching import restrictions on Russian aluminum products, and excludes 13 additional banks from the Swift financial communication system. The message from Europe is that anyone who wants to persuade Putin to enter into serious negotiations must increase the pressure further.

At a second mini-summit on Ukraine in Paris yesterday, Emmanuel Macron explored the chances of a European response to Donald Trump’s unilateral action. This time, countries from Canada to Luxembourg, which were not present at the first meeting on Monday, were invited. The French President rejected the impression that his efforts to reach a consensus were unsuccessful. If he has his way, the French and British could form the core of a European peacekeeping force, supplemented by UN blue helmets. Macron wants to prepare the ground with further meetings until Council President António Costa takes over after the parliamentary elections. The EU Council President is not yet in a position to convene an extraordinary summit, said an EU official. A meeting would only make sense if there was a solid basis for a good discussion and a relevant result.

Ursula von der Leyen, for her part, will travel to Kyiv with her team to mark the third anniversary of the Russian war of aggression. The Commission President is also likely to bring a new billion-euro aid package with her on her solidarity visit. At least in Brussels and in most EU capitals, the coordinates are still correct and there is no confusion between victims and perpetrators in the Russian war of aggression.

Have a good rest of the week,

Your
Stephan Israel

LNG: Experts criticize plan to promote exports

By

Manuel Berkel

The Brussels think tank Bruegel sees little chance of a new EU plan to reduce gas prices. In the draft of the Clean Industrial Deal, the EU Commission held out the prospect that it or the member states could support projects to export liquefied natural gas in the producing countries – for example, through subsidized loans or the acquisition of rights to liquefy gas at corresponding terminals. Even if the Commission does not name a specific country, the initiative is apparently to be understood as an offer to the USA.

Just a few days after the US election in November, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signaled her willingness to import more: “We still buy a lot of LNG from Russia. Why don’t we replace it with American LNG? It’s cheaper for us and lowers our energy prices.”

Offer to the USA

A formulation in the new Commission draft also points to the USA: “Among other things, the Commission will propose demand pooling for EU companies that conclude tolling contracts for LNG plants worldwide and LNG supply option contracts with trustworthy LNG producers.”

Tolling contracts are a special financing model for liquefaction terminals that first emerged in Indonesia. In the USA, the company Cheniere has popularized this financing model. The advantage for LNG exporters in the USA is that more companies would sign contracts to support the construction of new terminals, says gas expert Martin Senior from Argus Media.

Effect only in ten years

However, Bruegel considers financial aid for new terminals to be of little help in the short term. “If that were the case with a new LNG export project today, it wouldn’t be able to go into operation until 2035,” Bruegel expert Ben McWilliams told Table.Briefings. It makes more sense to conclude contracts with projects that will be completed in the next few years.

Experts are also critical of the Commission’s insistence on long-term contracts and joint gas purchasing. It is hardly surprising that exporters would like contracts with terms of at least 15 years. The producers’ association IOGP claimed in November that Europe has only secured 70 percent of its gas requirements for the 2030s by contract. “The majority of European LNG imports are currently on a spot basis,” says Martin Senior. However, this exposes Europe to short-term price fluctuations, which explains the Commission’s request.

Central gas purchasing with little support so far

However, it is difficult for the EU to commit to long-term contracts due to climate targets and declining demand for gas, says McWilliams. Another uncertainty factor is the current negotiations with Russia over Ukraine. “A 20-year US LNG contract could suddenly seem very unattractive in a scenario where Russian gas is widely available again.”

Experts also see little chance of the rekindled idea of centralized gas purchasing at EU level. Even at the height of the energy crisis, large gas companies were not very enthusiastic about the control from Brussels.

Mario Draghi recently proposed giving industrial companies access to cheap gas in this way, says Anne-Sophie Corbeau from Columbia University. However, if there is an oversupply of gas again, this model would be more expensive than the market. And two years ago, the EU’s “energy platform” had already failed to achieve joint gas purchasing, summarizes McWilliams from the think tank Bruegel.

Promotion of export infrastructure

The Commission’s move comes at a time when Asian countries are also showing interest in new American LNG capacities. Following a visit to US President Donald Trump, Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said that LNG was one of the areas in which Japanese companies could invest in the US. The country wants to avert higher tariffs in this way.

However, Japan is also more independent of the spot markets thanks to its oil-indexed long-term contracts and currently pays low prices for LNG, says Corbeau from Columbia University. In its draft, the Commission writes that it is now evaluating the Japanese model of also supporting export infrastructure in producer countries. The USA and Japan are currently pursuing a project in Alaska, for example.

Spain’s defense spending: Little chance of reaching the NATO target

By

Isabel Cuesta Camacho

Spain is far from reaching the NATO targets for defense spending. At 1.28 percent of GDP, Spanish military spending is below the two percent agreed in 2014 and far from the five percent demanded by US President Donald Trump. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte has called on the allies to reach the two percent target this summer.

Following his meeting with Rutte at the end of January, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez assured that military spending would be increased to two percent by 2029. Nevertheless, Spain is still falling short of expectations. This is because a new spending target of “north of three percent” is to be adopted later this year, as Rutte had called for as a new quota. He insists that Europe must take its security into its own hands, as the defense of Europe is no longer a priority for the new US administration.

Europeanization of NATO

“The current division of labor in NATO is not in the interests of the United States,” says Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. “Since the most powerful European states have the means to ensure their survival, they will not expose themselves to the risk of being invaded by Russia,” Logan told Table.Briefings. If the most important European states defend themselves, the central interest of the US in keeping European power divided is secured, he said.

Countries should spend on their defense according to the threats they face, Logan added: “Geographic location and distance from threats are important factors in how much countries spend.” Italy and Spain are less threatened than Poland, so they spend less as a percentage of their economic output. In addition to Spain, seven other NATO countries have not yet reached the two percent target: Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Portugal and Croatia.

Spain reluctant to increase defense spending

The Spanish governing coalition of socialists (PSOE) and left-wing parties has so far resisted an increase in military spending. In January, Sánchez said at the ambassadors’ conference that “the world has more pressing problems and there is no handbook that says that peace and security can be achieved by increasing weapons arsenals.” The Spanish Vice-President and founder of the left-wing alliance Sumar, Yolanda Díaz, explained that the increase in military spending was not only unnecessary but that “the Spanish economy is not in a position to increase defense spending to two percent of GDP.”

In addition, Sánchez is heavily dependent on agreements with Carles Puigdemont’s separatist Catalan party Junts to get proposals through Congress in this legislative period. As a result, Sánchez has not presented any budgets to Congress since his reappointment in November 2023 because he does not have the necessary parliamentary majority to pass a budget. The budget used by the current government dates back to the previous legislature. Without a budget, Spain would have to use extraordinary funds just to reach the two percent target for military spending.

Sánchez defends the fact that Spain is the tenth largest contributor to NATO in absolute terms. According to NATO’s own estimates, Spain’s economic contribution amounted to around USD 21 billion in 2024. The biggest contributors are the United States (USD 968 billion), Germany (USD 98 billion), the United Kingdom (USD 82 billion), France (USD 64 billion) and Poland (USD 35 billion).

Poland leads the field in terms of GDP

In terms of GDP, Poland invests the most in defense at 4.12 percent, followed by Estonia (3.43) and the United States (3.38). A spokesperson for the Polish Ministry of Defense explains that Poland is one of the few NATO countries that is already planning defense spending amounting to almost five percent of GDP.

“In the budget for 2025, we have secured a record amount of almost EUR 30 billion for national defense, including an increase in the salaries of professional soldiers.” Together with the expenditure of the support fund for the armed forces in 2025, defense spending would reach around EUR 43.22 billion, the spokesman explained.

Study: EU industrial policy needs more focus on strategically important sectors

A large proportion of the state aid approved in recent years has not flowed into strategically important sectors. This is shown in a new report by the Jacques Delors Centre. The think tank examined 280,000 cases of state aid between 2019 and 2024 and classified them using an AI model. The result: “Only 12% of subsidies went to strategic sectors such as battery production, clean hydrogen, semiconductors, software development and biotech,” the report states.

The initiatives under the “Green Deal Industrial Plan” of the last Commission mandate were industrial policy in name only, the authors argue. “In practice, they suffered from too little sectoral focus, poor coordination, and insufficient financial support”.

EU must make difficult decisions

In their paper, the authors suggest using the methodology proposed by Mario Draghi in his competitiveness report. Future technologies in which one wants to be a leader require a different policy mix than technologies that are important due to their high employment. The goal cannot be to achieve a production capacity of at least 40 percent in the EU for every technology, as stipulated by the Net Zero Industry Act, for example, explained Nils Redeker, author and director of the Jacques Delors Centre.

The Clean Industrial Deal (CID) must now ensure a clear sectoral focus, he added. “The Commission must clearly state which sectors it considers to be strategically important and exactly what goals it wants to achieve in these sectors,” said Redeker.

It is still unclear whether the EU is prepared to make these politically difficult decisions. The first draft of the CID does not yet make any recognizable distinctions between different sectors. Redeker hopes that the Commission will pursue a clearer goal with its action plans, for example on steel, automotive and biotech. The Institute Director sees it as a positive sign that the CID combines all important instruments from public procurement and trade instruments to state aid.

Despite the lack of focus to date, state aid should also continue to be part of the mix of measures, Redeker demands: “The risk of everyone doing too little is much greater than us falling into a subsidy race.” jaa

Lack of social measures: Criticism of the Clean Industrial Deal

According to trade unionists and Green politicians, the current social chapter of the Clean Industrial Deal is inadequate. “The leaked version of the CID completely ignores the need to put workers at the heart of the green industrial transition,” said Sara Matthieu, who sits on the Greens’ Industry Committee in the EU Parliament.

The draft Clean Industrial Deal leaked on Tuesday contains only a few concrete promises in the social sector. Many things are to be examined, but without clear commitments. For example, a social clause in the procurement procedure or better incentives for investment in training and further education are only noted as requests for review.

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) warned on Tuesday after a meeting with Executive Vice-Presidents Teresa Ribera, Roxana Mînzatu and Stéphane Séjourné that the green transition “must no longer leave workers in the lurch.” ETUC General Secretary Esther Lynch said: “Political decision-makers have been talking about a just transition for a long time, but it has not yet materialized.”

The ETUC points to an urgent situation and massive job cuts in the course of the transformation. In recent months alone, the industrial union IndustriALL has announced job cuts of more than 100,000 industrial jobs.

Greens call for Just Transition Directive

Both the ETUC and the Greens are calling for concrete measures to secure jobs as part of the industrial transformation. Both are calling for a Just Transition Directive. According to their own industrial plan, the Greens in the European Parliament want such a directive to oblige industrial companies to guarantee social dialog, collective bargaining, and the participation of employees in strategic decisions about their future. They are also calling for the right to further training during working hours for upskilling and retraining in sectors with a shortage of skilled workers to be enshrined in such a directive.

The ETUC and the Greens also urge that financial support for companies through public funds at EU and national level must be linked to social conditions. “Public funding should always serve the public good,” say the Greens. The ETUC is also calling for a SURE 2.0 regulation, similar to the one that saved jobs during the pandemic. lei/luk

Vision Agriculture: Commission seals departure from Farm to Fork strategy

The “Vision for Agriculture and Food,” which Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen and Vice-President Raffaele Fitto presented on Wednesday, calls into question a key objective of the previous legislature. The Commission is turning its back on the Farm to Fork Strategy, which focused on environmental protection and healthy nutrition during the last term of office.

Environmental and climate targets will not be thrown overboard, but they will be achieved through incentives rather than targets, emphasized Hansen. This is a trend that has been apparent since the new Commission took office. Failures such as the pesticide regulation (SUR), which the Commission finally withdrew after fierce resistance, must be avoided in the future, said the Agriculture Commissioner.

Pesticide regulation is finally off the table

A new edition of the SUR is not planned, as confirmed by a senior Commission official. Instead, existing legislation is to be better implemented and alternatives to chemical pesticides made available more quickly. The target of 25% organic farming by 2030 is also no longer included in the vision paper.

In the future, the Commission wants to leave nutrition policy largely to the member states. There is no longer any talk of EU-wide standardized nutrition labeling, for example, which was announced in the Farm to Fork Strategy but never implemented. Instead, the focus is now on competitiveness and reducing bureaucracy. The Commission intends to present two “simplification packages” for the agricultural and food sectors before the end of this year.

Thorny future issues left out

However, the paper hardly announces any concrete measures, and some passages have been watered down compared to a leaked draft. An export ban on pesticides banned in the EU, for example, is no longer to be “implemented,” but only “examined.” The Commission is postponing particularly sensitive issues for the time being: On the future of animal husbandry, for example, instead of making substantive proposals, it is announcing a new committee.

According to the Commission, the vision paper is deliberately vague: Instead of setting out a series of guidelines, as in the Farm to Fork Strategy, the aim is to initiate a dialog with stakeholders. jd

FDP parliamentary group calls for a new start to relations with the UK

Leading FDP politicians are in favor of deepening relations with the UK in light of the geopolitical upheavals. “Germany and the EU need a roadmap for a closer partnership with the UK, at the end of which the UK could also return to the EU,” states a position paper written by the two vice-chairmen of the parliamentary group in the Bundestag, Michael Link and Konstantin Kuhle, which is available to Table.Briefings. This is necessary in view of US President Donald Trump’s policies and the growing rivalry with China.

The most urgent joint task now was to strengthen the European pillar of NATO. To this end, Germany could join the Joint Expeditionary Force led by the UK. The UK’s participation in EU missions should also be examined. In view of the impending trade war with the USA, a coordinated stance would be just as sensible as the creation of an EU-UK customs union to boost bilateral trade. If the British wanted to return to the EU in the end, the door was open to them, Kuhle said. “Brexit does not have to be forever.” tho

Auto dialog: Value chain and batteries topic at Séjourné’s working session

Commission Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné held two working sessions on the value chain as part of the Auto dialog. The first round focused on batteries, with manufacturers such as Northvolt, LG, recycling companies, the industry association ACEA and the NGO T+E represented. The participants presented their positions on batteries, critical raw materials and energy prices to the Commissioner for Industrial Strategy.

The second round focused on the automotive value chain. Suppliers such as Bosch, Mahle and Valeo, and associations such as Hydrogen Europe, CLEPA and ACEA took part: The participants reportedly used the Draghi report as an analysis. It stated that the automotive industry was a prime example of “a lack of planning by the EU, using climate policy without industrial policy.”

Sigried de Vries from the Manufacturers’ Association ACEA pointed out the difficulty of the transformation: “The switch to zero-emission drives is far more than just switching from one vehicle technology to another. We need access to the full breadth of the ecosystem that triggers new partnerships in the value chains.”

It will not be enough to regulate some areas of the value chain for the European industry to lead the transformation and defend its status as an automotive hub. “We need a change of mindset and a dramatic overhaul of how we regulate and stimulate the industry, and we need it fast.” Benjamin Krieger from CLEPA said: “The future of mobility depends on our ability to innovate and whether we industrialize and scale new technologies faster.” mgr

FP10: EU Parliament calls for autonomy and a higher budget

The European Parliament is advocating an independent tenth framework program for research (FP10) with a significantly increased budget. The members of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) adopted a corresponding own-initiative report on Wednesday.

MEPs are calling for a radical simplification of application and administrative processes as well as increased funding for ground-breaking research. More funding is also planned for the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the European Research Council (ERC).

The lead rapporteur Christian Ehler (CDU) called on the Commission to comply with the treaties and to maintain FP10 as an independent Union program. The inclusion of FP10 in the announced Competitiveness Fund would mean aligning the funding of research and innovation (R&I) with short-term political goals, criticized Ehler. “This would be detrimental to basic research and free, knowledge-driven research.”

The background to this is the Commission’s plans to significantly reduce the number of more than 50 spending programs in the EU’s next multiannual financial framework from 2028-2035. Whether this should also affect well-known programs such as the research framework program or the Erasmus exchange program is the subject of controversial debate within the authority. vis

EU agreement on waste prevention provides for greater responsibility of the textile industry

The EU Parliament and the member states reached a provisional agreement on the details of the Waste Framework Directive on Wednesday night. Textile and food waste is to be reduced by 2030 and manufacturers are to bear more responsibility. The EU Commission proposed the corresponding revision of the Waste Framework Directive in summer 2023. The aim is to halve the amount of non-recycled municipal waste in the EU by 2030, i.e. waste from private households, similar facilities such as residential homes and household-type waste from industry.

According to the provisional agreement, two targets are to be achieved in the food sector by 2030:

Waste from the processing and production of food is to be reduced by ten percent (compared to the period 2021-2023)

Per capita waste from retail, gastronomy, food supply, and households is to be reduced by 30 percent (also compared to 2021-2023)

The text also provides for the voluntary donation of unsold food that is still fit for consumption. The member states are to develop appropriate measures here.

Manufacturers responsible for textile waste in the future

Parliament and Council negotiators also agreed to the extended producer responsibility for textiles proposed by the Commission: Textile manufacturers and fashion brands are to be responsible for their own waste. In the future, they will have to pay a fee to finance the collection and trea t ment of textile waste.

In the future, the amount of the fee will depend on how circular and sustainable the design of your product is. Manufacturers of “fast fashion”, whose clothing is only produced for a short period of use, are to pay higher fees. Extended producer responsibility is to apply to all companies. The deadline for this is 2.5 years after the directive comes into force, i.e. probably in 2027. Micro-enterprises are to be given an additional year to prepare.

The Federal Ministry for the Environment is in charge of implementing the EU Waste Framework Directive in Germany. leo

EUROPE.TABLE EDITORIAL OFFICE

Till
Hoppe

Sarah
Schaefer

Lukas
Knigge

Corinna
Visser

Markus
Grabitz

Alina
Leimbach

Eric
Bonse

Manuel
Berkel

Stephan
Israel

Claire
Stam

János
Allenbach-Ammann

Dear reader,

If that’s not a clear signal: On the day that Donald Trump calls the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a dictator, the ambassadors of the EU states are clearing the way for new sanctions against Russia. The EU foreign ministers will formally adopt the 16th sanctions package on Monday in time for the third anniversary of the Russian war of aggression. Among other things, the association of states lists a further 73 tankers in the Russian shadow fleet, imposes far-reaching import restrictions on Russian aluminum products, and excludes 13 additional banks from the Swift financial communication system. The message from Europe is that anyone who wants to persuade Putin to enter into serious negotiations must increase the pressure further.

At a second mini-summit on Ukraine in Paris yesterday, Emmanuel Macron explored the chances of a European response to Donald Trump’s unilateral action. This time, countries from Canada to Luxembourg, which were not present at the first meeting on Monday, were invited. The French President rejected the impression that his efforts to reach a consensus were unsuccessful. If he has his way, the French and British could form the core of a European peacekeeping force, supplemented by UN blue helmets. Macron wants to prepare the ground with further meetings until Council President António Costa takes over after the parliamentary elections. The EU Council President is not yet in a position to convene an extraordinary summit, said an EU official. A meeting would only make sense if there was a solid basis for a good discussion and a relevant result.

Ursula von der Leyen, for her part, will travel to Kyiv with her team to mark the third anniversary of the Russian war of aggression. The Commission President is also likely to bring a new billion-euro aid package with her on her solidarity visit. At least in Brussels and in most EU capitals, the coordinates are still correct and there is no confusion between victims and perpetrators in the Russian war of aggression.

Have a good rest of the week,

Your
Stephan Israel

LNG: Experts criticize plan to promote exports

By

Manuel Berkel

The Brussels think tank Bruegel sees little chance of a new EU plan to reduce gas prices. In the draft of the Clean Industrial Deal, the EU Commission held out the prospect that it or the member states could support projects to export liquefied natural gas in the producing countries – for example, through subsidized loans or the acquisition of rights to liquefy gas at corresponding terminals. Even if the Commission does not name a specific country, the initiative is apparently to be understood as an offer to the USA.

Just a few days after the US election in November, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signaled her willingness to import more: “We still buy a lot of LNG from Russia. Why don’t we replace it with American LNG? It’s cheaper for us and lowers our energy prices.”

Offer to the USA

A formulation in the new Commission draft also points to the USA: “Among other things, the Commission will propose demand pooling for EU companies that conclude tolling contracts for LNG plants worldwide and LNG supply option contracts with trustworthy LNG producers.”

Tolling contracts are a special financing model for liquefaction terminals that first emerged in Indonesia. In the USA, the company Cheniere has popularized this financing model. The advantage for LNG exporters in the USA is that more companies would sign contracts to support the construction of new terminals, says gas expert Martin Senior from Argus Media.

Effect only in ten years

However, Bruegel considers financial aid for new terminals to be of little help in the short term. “If that were the case with a new LNG export project today, it wouldn’t be able to go into operation until 2035,” Bruegel expert Ben McWilliams told Table.Briefings. It makes more sense to conclude contracts with projects that will be completed in the next few years.

Experts are also critical of the Commission’s insistence on long-term contracts and joint gas purchasing. It is hardly surprising that exporters would like contracts with terms of at least 15 years. The producers’ association IOGP claimed in November that Europe has only secured 70 percent of its gas requirements for the 2030s by contract. “The majority of European LNG imports are currently on a spot basis,” says Martin Senior. However, this exposes Europe to short-term price fluctuations, which explains the Commission’s request.

Central gas purchasing with little support so far

However, it is difficult for the EU to commit to long-term contracts due to climate targets and declining demand for gas, says McWilliams. Another uncertainty factor is the current negotiations with Russia over Ukraine. “A 20-year US LNG contract could suddenly seem very unattractive in a scenario where Russian gas is widely available again.”

Experts also see little chance of the rekindled idea of centralized gas purchasing at EU level. Even at the height of the energy crisis, large gas companies were not very enthusiastic about the control from Brussels.

Mario Draghi recently proposed giving industrial companies access to cheap gas in this way, says Anne-Sophie Corbeau from Columbia University. However, if there is an oversupply of gas again, this model would be more expensive than the market. And two years ago, the EU’s “energy platform” had already failed to achieve joint gas purchasing, summarizes McWilliams from the think tank Bruegel.

Promotion of export infrastructure

The Commission’s move comes at a time when Asian countries are also showing interest in new American LNG capacities. Following a visit to US President Donald Trump, Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said that LNG was one of the areas in which Japanese companies could invest in the US. The country wants to avert higher tariffs in this way.

However, Japan is also more independent of the spot markets thanks to its oil-indexed long-term contracts and currently pays low prices for LNG, says Corbeau from Columbia University. In its draft, the Commission writes that it is now evaluating the Japanese model of also supporting export infrastructure in producer countries. The USA and Japan are currently pursuing a project in Alaska, for example.

Spain’s defense spending: Little chance of reaching the NATO target

By

Isabel Cuesta Camacho

Spain is far from reaching the NATO targets for defense spending. At 1.28 percent of GDP, Spanish military spending is below the two percent agreed in 2014 and far from the five percent demanded by US President Donald Trump. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte has called on the allies to reach the two percent target this summer.

Following his meeting with Rutte at the end of January, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez assured that military spending would be increased to two percent by 2029. Nevertheless, Spain is still falling short of expectations. This is because a new spending target of “north of three percent” is to be adopted later this year, as Rutte had called for as a new quota. He insists that Europe must take its security into its own hands, as the defense of Europe is no longer a priority for the new US administration.

Europeanization of NATO

“The current division of labor in NATO is not in the interests of the United States,” says Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. “Since the most powerful European states have the means to ensure their survival, they will not expose themselves to the risk of being invaded by Russia,” Logan told Table.Briefings. If the most important European states defend themselves, the central interest of the US in keeping European power divided is secured, he said.

Countries should spend on their defense according to the threats they face, Logan added: “Geographic location and distance from threats are important factors in how much countries spend.” Italy and Spain are less threatened than Poland, so they spend less as a percentage of their economic output. In addition to Spain, seven other NATO countries have not yet reached the two percent target: Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Portugal and Croatia.

Spain reluctant to increase defense spending

The Spanish governing coalition of socialists (PSOE) and left-wing parties has so far resisted an increase in military spending. In January, Sánchez said at the ambassadors’ conference that “the world has more pressing problems and there is no handbook that says that peace and security can be achieved by increasing weapons arsenals.” The Spanish Vice-President and founder of the left-wing alliance Sumar, Yolanda Díaz, explained that the increase in military spending was not only unnecessary but that “the Spanish economy is not in a position to increase defense spending to two percent of GDP.”

In addition, Sánchez is heavily dependent on agreements with Carles Puigdemont’s separatist Catalan party Junts to get proposals through Congress in this legislative period. As a result, Sánchez has not presented any budgets to Congress since his reappointment in November 2023 because he does not have the necessary parliamentary majority to pass a budget. The budget used by the current government dates back to the previous legislature. Without a budget, Spain would have to use extraordinary funds just to reach the two percent target for military spending.

Sánchez defends the fact that Spain is the tenth largest contributor to NATO in absolute terms. According to NATO’s own estimates, Spain’s economic contribution amounted to around USD 21 billion in 2024. The biggest contributors are the United States (USD 968 billion), Germany (USD 98 billion), the United Kingdom (USD 82 billion), France (USD 64 billion) and Poland (USD 35 billion).

Poland leads the field in terms of GDP

In terms of GDP, Poland invests the most in defense at 4.12 percent, followed by Estonia (3.43) and the United States (3.38). A spokesperson for the Polish Ministry of Defense explains that Poland is one of the few NATO countries that is already planning defense spending amounting to almost five percent of GDP.

“In the budget for 2025, we have secured a record amount of almost EUR 30 billion for national defense, including an increase in the salaries of professional soldiers.” Together with the expenditure of the support fund for the armed forces in 2025, defense spending would reach around EUR 43.22 billion, the spokesman explained.

Study: EU industrial policy needs more focus on strategically important sectors

A large proportion of the state aid approved in recent years has not flowed into strategically important sectors. This is shown in a new report by the Jacques Delors Centre. The think tank examined 280,000 cases of state aid between 2019 and 2024 and classified them using an AI model. The result: “Only 12% of subsidies went to strategic sectors such as battery production, clean hydrogen, semiconductors, software development and biotech,” the report states.

The initiatives under the “Green Deal Industrial Plan” of the last Commission mandate were industrial policy in name only, the authors argue. “In practice, they suffered from too little sectoral focus, poor coordination, and insufficient financial support”.

EU must make difficult decisions

In their paper, the authors suggest using the methodology proposed by Mario Draghi in his competitiveness report. Future technologies in which one wants to be a leader require a different policy mix than technologies that are important due to their high employment. The goal cannot be to achieve a production capacity of at least 40 percent in the EU for every technology, as stipulated by the Net Zero Industry Act, for example, explained Nils Redeker, author and director of the Jacques Delors Centre.

The Clean Industrial Deal (CID) must now ensure a clear sectoral focus, he added. “The Commission must clearly state which sectors it considers to be strategically important and exactly what goals it wants to achieve in these sectors,” said Redeker.

It is still unclear whether the EU is prepared to make these politically difficult decisions. The first draft of the CID does not yet make any recognizable distinctions between different sectors. Redeker hopes that the Commission will pursue a clearer goal with its action plans, for example on steel, automotive and biotech. The Institute Director sees it as a positive sign that the CID combines all important instruments from public procurement and trade instruments to state aid.

Despite the lack of focus to date, state aid should also continue to be part of the mix of measures, Redeker demands: “The risk of everyone doing too little is much greater than us falling into a subsidy race.” jaa

Lack of social measures: Criticism of the Clean Industrial Deal

According to trade unionists and Green politicians, the current social chapter of the Clean Industrial Deal is inadequate. “The leaked version of the CID completely ignores the need to put workers at the heart of the green industrial transition,” said Sara Matthieu, who sits on the Greens’ Industry Committee in the EU Parliament.

The draft Clean Industrial Deal leaked on Tuesday contains only a few concrete promises in the social sector. Many things are to be examined, but without clear commitments. For example, a social clause in the procurement procedure or better incentives for investment in training and further education are only noted as requests for review.

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) warned on Tuesday after a meeting with Executive Vice-Presidents Teresa Ribera, Roxana Mînzatu and Stéphane Séjourné that the green transition “must no longer leave workers in the lurch.” ETUC General Secretary Esther Lynch said: “Political decision-makers have been talking about a just transition for a long time, but it has not yet materialized.”

The ETUC points to an urgent situation and massive job cuts in the course of the transformation. In recent months alone, the industrial union IndustriALL has announced job cuts of more than 100,000 industrial jobs.

Greens call for Just Transition Directive

Both the ETUC and the Greens are calling for concrete measures to secure jobs as part of the industrial transformation. Both are calling for a Just Transition Directive. According to their own industrial plan, the Greens in the European Parliament want such a directive to oblige industrial companies to guarantee social dialog, collective bargaining, and the participation of employees in strategic decisions about their future. They are also calling for the right to further training during working hours for upskilling and retraining in sectors with a shortage of skilled workers to be enshrined in such a directive.

The ETUC and the Greens also urge that financial support for companies through public funds at EU and national level must be linked to social conditions. “Public funding should always serve the public good,” say the Greens. The ETUC is also calling for a SURE 2.0 regulation, similar to the one that saved jobs during the pandemic. lei/luk

Vision Agriculture: Commission seals departure from Farm to Fork strategy

The “Vision for Agriculture and Food,” which Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen and Vice-President Raffaele Fitto presented on Wednesday, calls into question a key objective of the previous legislature. The Commission is turning its back on the Farm to Fork Strategy, which focused on environmental protection and healthy nutrition during the last term of office.

Environmental and climate targets will not be thrown overboard, but they will be achieved through incentives rather than targets, emphasized Hansen. This is a trend that has been apparent since the new Commission took office. Failures such as the pesticide regulation (SUR), which the Commission finally withdrew after fierce resistance, must be avoided in the future, said the Agriculture Commissioner.

Pesticide regulation is finally off the table

A new edition of the SUR is not planned, as confirmed by a senior Commission official. Instead, existing legislation is to be better implemented and alternatives to chemical pesticides made available more quickly. The target of 25% organic farming by 2030 is also no longer included in the vision paper.

In the future, the Commission wants to leave nutrition policy largely to the member states. There is no longer any talk of EU-wide standardized nutrition labeling, for example, which was announced in the Farm to Fork Strategy but never implemented. Instead, the focus is now on competitiveness and reducing bureaucracy. The Commission intends to present two “simplification packages” for the agricultural and food sectors before the end of this year.

Thorny future issues left out

However, the paper hardly announces any concrete measures, and some passages have been watered down compared to a leaked draft. An export ban on pesticides banned in the EU, for example, is no longer to be “implemented,” but only “examined.” The Commission is postponing particularly sensitive issues for the time being: On the future of animal husbandry, for example, instead of making substantive proposals, it is announcing a new committee.

According to the Commission, the vision paper is deliberately vague: Instead of setting out a series of guidelines, as in the Farm to Fork Strategy, the aim is to initiate a dialog with stakeholders. jd

FDP parliamentary group calls for a new start to relations with the UK

Leading FDP politicians are in favor of deepening relations with the UK in light of the geopolitical upheavals. “Germany and the EU need a roadmap for a closer partnership with the UK, at the end of which the UK could also return to the EU,” states a position paper written by the two vice-chairmen of the parliamentary group in the Bundestag, Michael Link and Konstantin Kuhle, which is available to Table.Briefings. This is necessary in view of US President Donald Trump’s policies and the growing rivalry with China.

The most urgent joint task now was to strengthen the European pillar of NATO. To this end, Germany could join the Joint Expeditionary Force led by the UK. The UK’s participation in EU missions should also be examined. In view of the impending trade war with the USA, a coordinated stance would be just as sensible as the creation of an EU-UK customs union to boost bilateral trade. If the British wanted to return to the EU in the end, the door was open to them, Kuhle said. “Brexit does not have to be forever.” tho

Auto dialog: Value chain and batteries topic at Séjourné’s working session

Commission Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné held two working sessions on the value chain as part of the Auto dialog. The first round focused on batteries, with manufacturers such as Northvolt, LG, recycling companies, the industry association ACEA and the NGO T+E represented. The participants presented their positions on batteries, critical raw materials and energy prices to the Commissioner for Industrial Strategy.

The second round focused on the automotive value chain. Suppliers such as Bosch, Mahle and Valeo, and associations such as Hydrogen Europe, CLEPA and ACEA took part: The participants reportedly used the Draghi report as an analysis. It stated that the automotive industry was a prime example of “a lack of planning by the EU, using climate policy without industrial policy.”

Sigried de Vries from the Manufacturers’ Association ACEA pointed out the difficulty of the transformation: “The switch to zero-emission drives is far more than just switching from one vehicle technology to another. We need access to the full breadth of the ecosystem that triggers new partnerships in the value chains.”

It will not be enough to regulate some areas of the value chain for the European industry to lead the transformation and defend its status as an automotive hub. “We need a change of mindset and a dramatic overhaul of how we regulate and stimulate the industry, and we need it fast.” Benjamin Krieger from CLEPA said: “The future of mobility depends on our ability to innovate and whether we industrialize and scale new technologies faster.” mgr

FP10: EU Parliament calls for autonomy and a higher budget

The European Parliament is advocating an independent tenth framework program for research (FP10) with a significantly increased budget. The members of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) adopted a corresponding own-initiative report on Wednesday.

MEPs are calling for a radical simplification of application and administrative processes as well as increased funding for ground-breaking research. More funding is also planned for the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the European Research Council (ERC).

The lead rapporteur Christian Ehler (CDU) called on the Commission to comply with the treaties and to maintain FP10 as an independent Union program. The inclusion of FP10 in the announced Competitiveness Fund would mean aligning the funding of research and innovation (R&I) with short-term political goals, criticized Ehler. “This would be detrimental to basic research and free, knowledge-driven research.”

The background to this is the Commission’s plans to significantly reduce the number of more than 50 spending programs in the EU’s next multiannual financial framework from 2028-2035. Whether this should also affect well-known programs such as the research framework program or the Erasmus exchange program is the subject of controversial debate within the authority. vis

EU agreement on waste prevention provides for greater responsibility of the textile industry

The EU Parliament and the member states reached a provisional agreement on the details of the Waste Framework Directive on Wednesday night. Textile and food waste is to be reduced by 2030 and manufacturers are to bear more responsibility. The EU Commission proposed the corresponding revision of the Waste Framework Directive in summer 2023. The aim is to halve the amount of non-recycled municipal waste in the EU by 2030, i.e. waste from private households, similar facilities such as residential homes and household-type waste from industry.

According to the provisional agreement, two targets are to be achieved in the food sector by 2030:

Waste from the processing and production of food is to be reduced by ten percent (compared to the period 2021-2023)

Per capita waste from retail, gastronomy, food supply, and households is to be reduced by 30 percent (also compared to 2021-2023)

The text also provides for the voluntary donation of unsold food that is still fit for consumption. The member states are to develop appropriate measures here.

Manufacturers responsible for textile waste in the future

Parliament and Council negotiators also agreed to the extended producer responsibility for textiles proposed by the Commission: Textile manufacturers and fashion brands are to be responsible for their own waste. In the future, they will have to pay a fee to finance the collection and trea t ment of textile waste.

In the future, the amount of the fee will depend on how circular and sustainable the design of your product is. Manufacturers of “fast fashion”, whose clothing is only produced for a short period of use, are to pay higher fees. Extended producer responsibility is to apply to all companies. The deadline for this is 2.5 years after the directive comes into force, i.e. probably in 2027. Micro-enterprises are to be given an additional year to prepare.

The Federal Ministry for the Environment is in charge of implementing the EU Waste Framework Directive in Germany. leo