Around four years ago, the Covid pandemic put Europe and the world in a state of emergency. The EU responded with the Recovery and Resilience Facility, known simply as the RRF. For the first time, the EU jointly took on debt on a large scale to overcome a common challenge. The Brussels bubble reacted euphorically and saw the RRF as a blueprint for other challenges that could be solved with European money.
Today, the EU Commission will present its mid-term report on the RRF and show how the disbursements and the associated national reform efforts are progressing. It also wants to demonstrate how things will continue in the program’s second half.
Like most political institutions, the EU Commission is not known for an excess of self-criticism. In addition to the Commission report published today, the European Court of Auditors’ report is thus probably worth reading as well. It complains that the RRF’s performance monitoring framework measures the progress of the implementation of the RRF, but not the outcome.
The result, not a checklist of the used resources, should be the decisive factor in assessing whether the RRF is suitable as a blueprint for other European challenges. A look at the global situation suggests that the challenges will not become smaller or less frequent.
In response to the Europe-wide farmers’ protests, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promised to present short-term measures this month to reduce the administrative burden on farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy. A representative of the EU Commission explained how this is to be achieved during a meeting with the EU member states at the beginning of the week. The Commission intends to officially present its proposals on Thursday.
According to research by Table.Media, the Brussels authority has the following points in mind:
In addition, the EU Commission wants to relax the requirements for maintaining permanent grassland. This concerns GAEC 1, which stands for standards for good and environmental conditions of land. Nine GAECs have been in force since 2023. Until now, the following has applied: Compared to 2018, the area used for permanent grassland may not decrease by more than five percent. The Brussels authority wants to allow deviations from this requirement in the event of “exceptional structural changes” in agriculture. For example, if grassland can no longer be used profitably because the number of livestock has previously been reduced and the demand for feed has fallen accordingly.
The EU countries are also to have more leeway if the national arable area has increased “rapidly” and the proportion of permanent grassland has fallen as a result. In this case, “it could be disproportionate” to insist on compliance with the percentage value, writes the Commission. The Commission had already implemented an exception to the rule for GAEC 8.
In the Commission’s view, the Member States are primarily responsible for reducing bureaucracy as part of the implementation of their national strategic plans. The Brussels authority therefore wants to work closely with the Belgian EU Council Presidency.
However, the Commission is putting off another demand that was brought to Brussels by the farmers’ protests: strengthening the position of farmers in the value chain. Although the Commission wants to tackle this, it is more likely to do so “in the long term,” according to well-informed circles. French President Emmanuel Macron and Spanish Agriculture Minister Luis Planas recently called for the EU directive against unfair trading practices to be tightened up.
The head of the Agriculture Committee in the European Parliament, Norbert Lins (CDU), writes a letter to Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski with his demands on behalf of the Committee. The letter is available to Table.Media. According to reports, Wojciechowski intends to present his proposals to the Member States at the Agriculture Council next Monday. Lins lists six demands:
A political agreement was reached between negotiators from the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Belgian EU Council Presidency in the trilogue on the certification of carbon removals on Tuesday night. The Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) is intended to promote the ramp-up of technological and natural carbon sequestration by enabling transparent and verifiable carbon removal certificates to be offered and monetized on voluntary carbon markets.
The new law distinguishes between different forms of carbon removal:
The Commission is to decide on the inclusion of avoided methane emissions from livestock farming in a revision in 2026. Captured carbon from large industrial facilities or power plants (CCSU) is not affected by the law, as these emissions are covered by the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) and do not represent direct carbon removals from the atmosphere.
The inclusion of carbon farming activities in the certification framework will enable farmers to earn money on the voluntary carbon markets in the future by switching to more climate-friendly agriculture. However, it is not yet clear when this will be possible. The exact methods for certification still have to be worked out by the Commission after the law enters into force and have to be defined by delegated acts. This will take at least two years and offers hardly any say for the co-legislators.
However, the compromise already stipulates some criteria for certification. Among other things, carbon farming activities must always make a positive contribution to biodiversity, for example, by promoting soil health and preventing soil degradation. All other forms of extraction must “do no significant harm” to the environment.
Furthermore, the additionality principle applies, clarifies parliamentary shadow rapporteur Tiemo Wölken (SPD): “The text contains enough guarantees to ensure no activity is certified that would have taken place without certification.” However, the fact that the member states could count the withdrawals from the CRCF towards their other targets, for example, the national LULUCF targets, could rightly be criticized, admits the environmental policy spokesperson for the S&D Group in the EU Parliament. The Brussels-based think tank Carbon Market Watch criticizes this as double counting. “Unfortunately, it was not possible to achieve more with the Council,” says Wölken.
Viviane Raddatz, Head of Climate Action at WWF Germany, describes the trilogue result as too imprecise and too short-term. The boundaries between carbon reduction and removals would become blurred. This could lead to a lot of greenwashing with a small and short-term impact on the climate. “This is because carbon storage in products or natural sinks, for example, through humus formation or reforestation, is subject to major uncertainties,” says Raddatz. She fears that certified and sold carbon removals will end up as emissions due to droughts and fires. A new sale of indulgences will not protect the climate.
Although Wölken supports the distinction between removal and avoidance, he also points out that emission reduction targets are defined in the Effort Sharing Regulation and the ETS, over which the CRCF has no influence. What companies are allowed to use the certificates for is currently being negotiated in the Green Claims Directive.
Peter Liese, climate policy spokesperson for the EPP, would have liked to go even further. He is calling for the inclusion of at least the technological extraction options such as DACCS in the ETS as soon as possible.
Carbon removals under the CRCF can be counted towards the EU climate targets (NDCs) deposited with the UN, meaning that double counting of certificates is also possible here. However, the EU legislators agreed that carbon removals certified in Europe may not be sold to other countries for their NDCs. This is to prevent the EU from offering other countries offset opportunities.
The trilogue compromise still needs to be formally confirmed by Parliament and the member states. The plenary is expected to vote in its last plenary session in April so that the law can be passed before the European elections in June.
When an agricultural product is imported into the EU, the quantities of pesticides that may be detected are precisely defined. According to the European Commission, there are maximum levels for around 1,100 pesticides. In the past, the focus was exclusively on preventing health risks. Recently, however, the Brussels authority has also included environmental risks.
The EU Commission has been particularly strict with several neonicotinoids, a group of insecticides considered harmful to pollinators and no longer allowed in the EU. Last year, the Commission decided not to allow residues of the neonicotinoids thiamethoxane and clothianidin in imports either. It explicitly referred to their harmful effect on biodiversity.
As part of the farm-to-fork strategy, the Commission had planned to include environmental criteria when determining permitted residues on imported products. However, trade associations are critical. In a recently published position paper, the European trade associations COCERAL, Unistock Europe and EUROMALT warn against alienating international partners.
The trade representatives argue that, in contrast to possible health risks from the consumption of imported goods, biodiversity is only damaged in the country of origin. Restrictions are therefore more difficult to justify in terms of trade policy. This could “easily lead to tensions in dialog with third countries,” the associations write.
The Commission justifies the EU’s interference in production methods elsewhere by arguing that biodiversity is a global asset and that Europe is therefore also affected by its degradation. However, the associations warn that the legal framework must be adapted to create clarity for trade.
This is because the relevant regulation from 2005 dates back to the time before environmental protection became more of a public focus. Since then, Brussels has failed to create legally clear criteria, while at the same time raising political expectations. The associations are calling for internationally coordinated environmental standards agreed via multilateral forums such as the World Trade Organization (WTO).
All current regulations on the subject have been adopted by the EU Parliament and the Member States “to ensure the protection of human health and the environment,” writes a Commission spokeswoman in response to criticism from the associations. Jutta Paulus, Green MEP and member of the Environment Committee, also believes that the EU is in the right as long as it only applies the same rules to imports as apply domestically. “What is not allowed in the EU should also not be allowed in imports,” she tells Table.Media.
It is not only in terms of pesticide residues that farmers in Germany and Europe are insisting that the comparatively strict sustainability standards they have to adhere to should also be applied to imported goods. Concerns about supposed competitive disadvantages are a topic of farmers’ protests in many EU countries. However, it is almost legally impossible for Brussels to impose requirements on third countries – regardless of arrangements in free trade agreements. The balancing act between international trade and the protection of domestic production is likely to remain a key challenge in the next EU legislative period.
MEP Gilles Boyer is pushing for a quick nomination of the French Renaissance party’s lead candidate for the June elections and is in favor of Clément Beaune, Emmanuel Macron’s former European advisor.
The campaign for the 2024 European elections must be launched quickly, says French MEP Gilles Boyer, who is close to former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, in an interview with the conservative daily Le Figaro. Gilles Boyer is a member of Renaissance, the party representing the camp of French President Emmanuel Macron. In France, all other parties have named their lead candidates for the European elections on June 9 – except Renaissance.
“I fear that someone will be nominated at the last moment who could be seen as a replacement candidate because they haven’t taken the time to find the best profile. Let’s not run out of time,” he warned. “As a top candidate, you are suddenly in the media spotlight, which is sometimes brutal and requires good preparation. You can’t improvise,” emphasized the MEP. He added: “We are all ready.”
In 2019, the campaign with MEP Nathalie Loiseau as the lead candidate had only started nine weeks before election day. Renaissance MEPs still remember their difficulties during the campaign: the candidate, unknown to the general public and suddenly thrust into the spotlight, saw her campaign damaged by a series of polemics and failed media appearances.
Gilles Boyer believes that former transport minister and former European advisor to Emmanuel Macron, Clément Beaune, “combines all the qualities to lead the campaign”: “the technical expertise”, “the political legitimacy” and “the media experience” needed to top Renaissance’s list. Clément Beaune has just returned to Parliament as an MP after being forced out of the new government by Prime Minister Gabriel Attal. He seems to be politically out of action at the moment due to his opposition to the immigration law. cst
The new Polish government has presented its EU partners with a reform plan for eliminating deficits in the rule of law. The concept presented at a ministerial meeting in Brussels on Tuesday should make it possible to end the Article 7 proceedings initiated in 2017 due to the alleged violation of EU values.
Following the presentation, the EU Commission expressed optimism that the plan could restore the independence of the judiciary in Poland. At the same time, Vice-President Věra Jourová emphasized that Poland still has a lot of work ahead of it. However, she hopes to complete the Article 7 procedure during her term of office. It officially ends on October 31.
Among other things, the Commission recently criticized a ruling by the Polish Constitutional Court, according to which parts of EU law are not compatible with Poland’s constitution. This decision is seen as highly problematic because it could give Polish politicians an excuse to ignore unpopular rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The previous national-conservative PiS government had also carried out highly controversial judicial reforms, which the ECJ also considers to jeopardize the independence of judges.
Poland’s new Prime Minister Donald Tusk now wants to defuse the reforms with his coalition government. This should also lead to the release of billions of euros in EU funds that are currently blocked.
The German Minister of State for Europe, Anna Lührmann, described the plans at the ministerial meeting in Brussels as good news. “The Polish government is showing that it is very interested in rapidly reducing the existing deficits in the rule of law,” said the Green politician. She had great hope that the Polish government would now quickly take the necessary steps, present the necessary laws and appoint new judges. dpa
Christine Schneider was elected as the new Parliamentary Secretary of the CDU/CSU Group in the European Parliament on Tuesday. The Rhineland-Palatinate MEP succeeds Markus Pieper, who will become the EU Commission’s Commissioner for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.
Around four years ago, the Covid pandemic put Europe and the world in a state of emergency. The EU responded with the Recovery and Resilience Facility, known simply as the RRF. For the first time, the EU jointly took on debt on a large scale to overcome a common challenge. The Brussels bubble reacted euphorically and saw the RRF as a blueprint for other challenges that could be solved with European money.
Today, the EU Commission will present its mid-term report on the RRF and show how the disbursements and the associated national reform efforts are progressing. It also wants to demonstrate how things will continue in the program’s second half.
Like most political institutions, the EU Commission is not known for an excess of self-criticism. In addition to the Commission report published today, the European Court of Auditors’ report is thus probably worth reading as well. It complains that the RRF’s performance monitoring framework measures the progress of the implementation of the RRF, but not the outcome.
The result, not a checklist of the used resources, should be the decisive factor in assessing whether the RRF is suitable as a blueprint for other European challenges. A look at the global situation suggests that the challenges will not become smaller or less frequent.
In response to the Europe-wide farmers’ protests, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promised to present short-term measures this month to reduce the administrative burden on farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy. A representative of the EU Commission explained how this is to be achieved during a meeting with the EU member states at the beginning of the week. The Commission intends to officially present its proposals on Thursday.
According to research by Table.Media, the Brussels authority has the following points in mind:
In addition, the EU Commission wants to relax the requirements for maintaining permanent grassland. This concerns GAEC 1, which stands for standards for good and environmental conditions of land. Nine GAECs have been in force since 2023. Until now, the following has applied: Compared to 2018, the area used for permanent grassland may not decrease by more than five percent. The Brussels authority wants to allow deviations from this requirement in the event of “exceptional structural changes” in agriculture. For example, if grassland can no longer be used profitably because the number of livestock has previously been reduced and the demand for feed has fallen accordingly.
The EU countries are also to have more leeway if the national arable area has increased “rapidly” and the proportion of permanent grassland has fallen as a result. In this case, “it could be disproportionate” to insist on compliance with the percentage value, writes the Commission. The Commission had already implemented an exception to the rule for GAEC 8.
In the Commission’s view, the Member States are primarily responsible for reducing bureaucracy as part of the implementation of their national strategic plans. The Brussels authority therefore wants to work closely with the Belgian EU Council Presidency.
However, the Commission is putting off another demand that was brought to Brussels by the farmers’ protests: strengthening the position of farmers in the value chain. Although the Commission wants to tackle this, it is more likely to do so “in the long term,” according to well-informed circles. French President Emmanuel Macron and Spanish Agriculture Minister Luis Planas recently called for the EU directive against unfair trading practices to be tightened up.
The head of the Agriculture Committee in the European Parliament, Norbert Lins (CDU), writes a letter to Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski with his demands on behalf of the Committee. The letter is available to Table.Media. According to reports, Wojciechowski intends to present his proposals to the Member States at the Agriculture Council next Monday. Lins lists six demands:
A political agreement was reached between negotiators from the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Belgian EU Council Presidency in the trilogue on the certification of carbon removals on Tuesday night. The Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) is intended to promote the ramp-up of technological and natural carbon sequestration by enabling transparent and verifiable carbon removal certificates to be offered and monetized on voluntary carbon markets.
The new law distinguishes between different forms of carbon removal:
The Commission is to decide on the inclusion of avoided methane emissions from livestock farming in a revision in 2026. Captured carbon from large industrial facilities or power plants (CCSU) is not affected by the law, as these emissions are covered by the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) and do not represent direct carbon removals from the atmosphere.
The inclusion of carbon farming activities in the certification framework will enable farmers to earn money on the voluntary carbon markets in the future by switching to more climate-friendly agriculture. However, it is not yet clear when this will be possible. The exact methods for certification still have to be worked out by the Commission after the law enters into force and have to be defined by delegated acts. This will take at least two years and offers hardly any say for the co-legislators.
However, the compromise already stipulates some criteria for certification. Among other things, carbon farming activities must always make a positive contribution to biodiversity, for example, by promoting soil health and preventing soil degradation. All other forms of extraction must “do no significant harm” to the environment.
Furthermore, the additionality principle applies, clarifies parliamentary shadow rapporteur Tiemo Wölken (SPD): “The text contains enough guarantees to ensure no activity is certified that would have taken place without certification.” However, the fact that the member states could count the withdrawals from the CRCF towards their other targets, for example, the national LULUCF targets, could rightly be criticized, admits the environmental policy spokesperson for the S&D Group in the EU Parliament. The Brussels-based think tank Carbon Market Watch criticizes this as double counting. “Unfortunately, it was not possible to achieve more with the Council,” says Wölken.
Viviane Raddatz, Head of Climate Action at WWF Germany, describes the trilogue result as too imprecise and too short-term. The boundaries between carbon reduction and removals would become blurred. This could lead to a lot of greenwashing with a small and short-term impact on the climate. “This is because carbon storage in products or natural sinks, for example, through humus formation or reforestation, is subject to major uncertainties,” says Raddatz. She fears that certified and sold carbon removals will end up as emissions due to droughts and fires. A new sale of indulgences will not protect the climate.
Although Wölken supports the distinction between removal and avoidance, he also points out that emission reduction targets are defined in the Effort Sharing Regulation and the ETS, over which the CRCF has no influence. What companies are allowed to use the certificates for is currently being negotiated in the Green Claims Directive.
Peter Liese, climate policy spokesperson for the EPP, would have liked to go even further. He is calling for the inclusion of at least the technological extraction options such as DACCS in the ETS as soon as possible.
Carbon removals under the CRCF can be counted towards the EU climate targets (NDCs) deposited with the UN, meaning that double counting of certificates is also possible here. However, the EU legislators agreed that carbon removals certified in Europe may not be sold to other countries for their NDCs. This is to prevent the EU from offering other countries offset opportunities.
The trilogue compromise still needs to be formally confirmed by Parliament and the member states. The plenary is expected to vote in its last plenary session in April so that the law can be passed before the European elections in June.
When an agricultural product is imported into the EU, the quantities of pesticides that may be detected are precisely defined. According to the European Commission, there are maximum levels for around 1,100 pesticides. In the past, the focus was exclusively on preventing health risks. Recently, however, the Brussels authority has also included environmental risks.
The EU Commission has been particularly strict with several neonicotinoids, a group of insecticides considered harmful to pollinators and no longer allowed in the EU. Last year, the Commission decided not to allow residues of the neonicotinoids thiamethoxane and clothianidin in imports either. It explicitly referred to their harmful effect on biodiversity.
As part of the farm-to-fork strategy, the Commission had planned to include environmental criteria when determining permitted residues on imported products. However, trade associations are critical. In a recently published position paper, the European trade associations COCERAL, Unistock Europe and EUROMALT warn against alienating international partners.
The trade representatives argue that, in contrast to possible health risks from the consumption of imported goods, biodiversity is only damaged in the country of origin. Restrictions are therefore more difficult to justify in terms of trade policy. This could “easily lead to tensions in dialog with third countries,” the associations write.
The Commission justifies the EU’s interference in production methods elsewhere by arguing that biodiversity is a global asset and that Europe is therefore also affected by its degradation. However, the associations warn that the legal framework must be adapted to create clarity for trade.
This is because the relevant regulation from 2005 dates back to the time before environmental protection became more of a public focus. Since then, Brussels has failed to create legally clear criteria, while at the same time raising political expectations. The associations are calling for internationally coordinated environmental standards agreed via multilateral forums such as the World Trade Organization (WTO).
All current regulations on the subject have been adopted by the EU Parliament and the Member States “to ensure the protection of human health and the environment,” writes a Commission spokeswoman in response to criticism from the associations. Jutta Paulus, Green MEP and member of the Environment Committee, also believes that the EU is in the right as long as it only applies the same rules to imports as apply domestically. “What is not allowed in the EU should also not be allowed in imports,” she tells Table.Media.
It is not only in terms of pesticide residues that farmers in Germany and Europe are insisting that the comparatively strict sustainability standards they have to adhere to should also be applied to imported goods. Concerns about supposed competitive disadvantages are a topic of farmers’ protests in many EU countries. However, it is almost legally impossible for Brussels to impose requirements on third countries – regardless of arrangements in free trade agreements. The balancing act between international trade and the protection of domestic production is likely to remain a key challenge in the next EU legislative period.
MEP Gilles Boyer is pushing for a quick nomination of the French Renaissance party’s lead candidate for the June elections and is in favor of Clément Beaune, Emmanuel Macron’s former European advisor.
The campaign for the 2024 European elections must be launched quickly, says French MEP Gilles Boyer, who is close to former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, in an interview with the conservative daily Le Figaro. Gilles Boyer is a member of Renaissance, the party representing the camp of French President Emmanuel Macron. In France, all other parties have named their lead candidates for the European elections on June 9 – except Renaissance.
“I fear that someone will be nominated at the last moment who could be seen as a replacement candidate because they haven’t taken the time to find the best profile. Let’s not run out of time,” he warned. “As a top candidate, you are suddenly in the media spotlight, which is sometimes brutal and requires good preparation. You can’t improvise,” emphasized the MEP. He added: “We are all ready.”
In 2019, the campaign with MEP Nathalie Loiseau as the lead candidate had only started nine weeks before election day. Renaissance MEPs still remember their difficulties during the campaign: the candidate, unknown to the general public and suddenly thrust into the spotlight, saw her campaign damaged by a series of polemics and failed media appearances.
Gilles Boyer believes that former transport minister and former European advisor to Emmanuel Macron, Clément Beaune, “combines all the qualities to lead the campaign”: “the technical expertise”, “the political legitimacy” and “the media experience” needed to top Renaissance’s list. Clément Beaune has just returned to Parliament as an MP after being forced out of the new government by Prime Minister Gabriel Attal. He seems to be politically out of action at the moment due to his opposition to the immigration law. cst
The new Polish government has presented its EU partners with a reform plan for eliminating deficits in the rule of law. The concept presented at a ministerial meeting in Brussels on Tuesday should make it possible to end the Article 7 proceedings initiated in 2017 due to the alleged violation of EU values.
Following the presentation, the EU Commission expressed optimism that the plan could restore the independence of the judiciary in Poland. At the same time, Vice-President Věra Jourová emphasized that Poland still has a lot of work ahead of it. However, she hopes to complete the Article 7 procedure during her term of office. It officially ends on October 31.
Among other things, the Commission recently criticized a ruling by the Polish Constitutional Court, according to which parts of EU law are not compatible with Poland’s constitution. This decision is seen as highly problematic because it could give Polish politicians an excuse to ignore unpopular rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The previous national-conservative PiS government had also carried out highly controversial judicial reforms, which the ECJ also considers to jeopardize the independence of judges.
Poland’s new Prime Minister Donald Tusk now wants to defuse the reforms with his coalition government. This should also lead to the release of billions of euros in EU funds that are currently blocked.
The German Minister of State for Europe, Anna Lührmann, described the plans at the ministerial meeting in Brussels as good news. “The Polish government is showing that it is very interested in rapidly reducing the existing deficits in the rule of law,” said the Green politician. She had great hope that the Polish government would now quickly take the necessary steps, present the necessary laws and appoint new judges. dpa
Christine Schneider was elected as the new Parliamentary Secretary of the CDU/CSU Group in the European Parliament on Tuesday. The Rhineland-Palatinate MEP succeeds Markus Pieper, who will become the EU Commission’s Commissioner for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.
