A capital of up to €55 million, payment obligations of €363 million: the voluntary pension fund for members of Parliament could run out of money as early as next year. A majority in Parliament, however, has opposed the motion of Green politician Daniel Freund, which envisaged asking former deputies with “sufficient pensions from other sources” to voluntarily waive their claims. The European Parliament’s presidium will soon hold a special session to discuss how to proceed. Markus Grabitz knows about the available options and the politicians entitled to an annuity from the controversial fund.
Brussels has been arguing about the Commission’s Nature Conservation Directive for weeks. Above all, the Pesticide Regulation and the Renaturation Law have met with little approval in the agricultural sector – as well as from the EPP. During a general debate in the European Parliament, the conflict now came to light. “Agriculture has to achieve more and more, but the farmers can’t keep up,” said Norbert Lins (CDU), for example. The blockade attitude of the EPP was a “general attack on nature and the Green Deal,” countered Martin Häusling of the Greens. Timo Landenberger was there.
In the opinion section, Anaïs Rios of Seas at Risk appeals to the German government to advocate at the EU level for concrete emissions reduction targets for shipping – already for 2030 and 2040. “Olaf Scholz’s team has a fresh chance to put its climate reputation straight: the global shipping industry,” Rios writes.
The European Parliament is looking for a solution for the voluntary pension fund for MEPs, which is facing insolvency. The fund, which has not accepted members since 2009, still had €50 to €55 million at the end of 2022. Payment obligations total €363 million and are not expected to end until after 2070. The fund could run out of money as early as 2024.
Among the beneficiaries are former members of Parliament, some of whom receive large payments from other pension systems. Daniel Freund (Greens) moved a motion in the European Parliament on Wednesday to ask former deputies with “sufficient pensions from other sources” to voluntarily give up their entitlements. A majority of 272 to 203 MEPs opposed the motion.
A list available to Table.Media, with the names of 660 beneficiaries, includes several well-known names. Claimants to the voluntary pension fund include:
According to reports, the Bureau of the European Parliament will meet for a special session on May 22 to discuss the future of the fund.
There are three options for the European Parliament:
The Governing Board adopted austerity measures that reduced entitlements already in 2018. This extended the life of the fund by two months. Some claimants filed a lawsuit against this. But the ECJ confirmed the cuts were legal.
The fund was set up in 1990 as a voluntary pension system for members of Parliament. At that time, members of Parliament were still covered by the pension systems of the national parliaments. There were no pension systems for MEPs in some member states. In 2009, the Statute for Members of the European Parliament came into force. Since then, MEPs have been paid equally in all member states, and there is a uniform pension system. MEPs who were already members of Parliament before 2009 could choose whether to switch to the new system or continue to receive pay and pensions through the national system.
The voluntary pension system provided that MPs who paid into it for at least two years would receive a pension for life. After death, some entitlements pass to widows, widowers and children. Currently, 112 former deputies are still waiting to reach the age limit and start receiving pension payments. There are 802 people to whom the pension is paid monthly, including 135 surviving dependants.
The amount of pension payments is subject to indexation, as is the payment of EU officials. As of the end of 2022, an MP who paid into the voluntary system acquired an entitlement of €1700 per month after five years, €3400 per month after ten years, and €5100 per month after 15 years. Outflows from the fund are expected to reach €22.35 million in 2023. On average, beneficiaries received a pension of €2206 per month from the voluntary fund at the end of 2022.
For weeks, a dispute over the design of the Nature Conservation Directive proposed by the EU Commission and its impact on agriculture has been simmering in Brussels. During a general debate in the European Parliament on the role of the agricultural sector in the green transition, the conflict now came to the surface. The EPP and the Greens, in particular, engaged in a war of words on Wednesday. The groups accused each other of endangering food production rather than protecting it with their policies.
Due to climate change and the loss of ecological diversity, agriculture is under increasing pressure. Weather extremes are becoming more visible every year. Drought, heat and floods threaten crops. At the same time, much of the industry is still contributing significantly to the climate and environmental crisis.
The EU Commission wants to take countermeasures and put agriculture on the path to sustainability with a bundle of legislative proposals. Above all, the Pesticides Regulation and the Nature Restoration Law are intended to fulfill the self-imposed goals of the Green Deal and the Farm-to-Fork strategy, but they have met with little approval from the agricultural sector.
Given the Commission’s proposals, farmers lacked faith in a resilient future perspective, said Joachim Rukwied, President of the German Farmers’ Association (DBV), during the parliamentary debate. He called on the EU to support farmers in the challenges ahead “instead of issuing more and more new regulations in parallel that restrict domestic food production.”
Herbert Dorfmann (EPP) shows an understanding of the concerns: “The concept of sustainability is nowhere else lived as it is in agriculture. It is absurd that everyone now seems to know better than the farmers how to manage a farm sustainably,” said the MEP from South Tyrol.
Not everything is perfect and change is necessary. But that only goes in cooperation with the farmers at eye level, which is not given by the Commission’s proposals, he said. “That is why they are so incredibly bad and unsupported by the EPP,” Dorfmann said.
Already last Friday, the EPP adopted a resolution that demands the withdrawal of the Commission’s nature conservation package. In addition, the Christian Democrats want a moratorium on all new agricultural legislation, fearing overregulation of the industry.
For S&D group leader Iratxe García Pérez, this is all “tactical calculation” ahead of the upcoming European elections next year. Traditionally, the Christian Democrats have a large constituency in rural areas and the agricultural sector.
She said environmental protection and support for the agricultural sector are not contradictory, but rather inseparable. “What should the future of agriculture look like if denialist policies turn our ecosystems into deserts?” the Spaniard asked, calling for more courage to change. She said the implementation of the Green Deal is at stake, on which everyone had reached an agreement.
However, it is the farmers who have to implement the many requirements, Ulrike Müller (Renew) countered. In the industry, there is anger, incomprehension and disappointment about paternalism and a lack of appreciation. Müller speaks of ideological prohibition policies and requirements that are out of touch with reality. “We should give support and trust to agriculture instead of regulating the whole industry to death.”
Norbert Lins (CDU) added that the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was already demanding a great deal of agriculture. In addition, there would now be 30 other legislative initiatives with a direct impact on the sector. “Agriculture has to achieve more and more, but farmers can’t keep up.” Thus, he said, the profession is also becoming increasingly unattractive, which exacerbates recruitment problems.
The EPP’s blockade attitude is a “general attack on nature and the Green Deal,” said Martin Häusling (Greens). The MEP accused the group of acting as the “patron saint of agriculture.” In fact, their agricultural policy of recent years has cost millions of farms their existence, he stated. It is “scaremongering to pretend that people are not getting enough food” as long as 30 percent of food is thrown away and 60 percent ends up in the feed trough, Häusling said. “We have to change that now, otherwise, we will miss a unique opportunity.”
Commissioner Mairead McGuinness also defended the Commission’s line Wednesday. “Our proposals protect farmers, they do not harm them,” she told the plenary sitting of Parliament. For example, she said, the decline of pollinators is a severe threat to agriculture. 80 percent of plant foods rely on pollination. 50 percent of soils are in poor condition, she said. That affects productivity as does water scarcity due to droughts, she added.
“We need resilient, regenerative agricultural systems that fit into the circular economy and better nutrient and water management,” McGuinness said. The Commission’s proposals would provide for that but are not set in stone, she said. For example, she said, the Commission is open to alternatives to the planned but much-criticized total ban on pesticides in sensitive areas. It also wants to comply with the additional impact assessment demanded by the Council and invest €9 billion in research and development, especially in agriculture.
Following the German government’s attempts to make gas green last year or to enforce an e-fuel loophole in the combustion engine phase-out in Europe only last month, Olaf Scholz’s team has a fresh chance to put its climate reputation straight: the global shipping industry.
The international shipping sector is one of the dirtiest polluters. Countries – including the European Union – have never been louder than at the United Nations’ summit in March in agreeing that greenhouse gas emissions from ships need to reach zero by 2050.
And while this is a major breakthrough for an industry seen by many as a climate-laggard, on its own it is not enough. This is why the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and six Pacific Island nations are proposing that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – the UN agency in charge of climate regulation of shipping – adopts additional absolute emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2040.
In April, climate Ministers of G7 countries, including Germany, France and Italy, gave nod to ‘some form’ of 2030 and 2040 ambition in their statement ahead of the G7 Summit in Japan – but it is still unclear what these targets would entail exactly.
While the EU had the opportunity to back near-term ambition at the IMO last month, it remained silent on concrete action for 2030 and 2040.
The IMO is set to conclude its crucial climate discussion at a summit in early July. Germany has a duty to put pressure on negotiators at the upcoming EU Council meetings and underpin its unequivocal support for concrete 2030 and 2040 targets.
According to the IMO’s own estimates, the global maritime sector is responsible for around one billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year, which is roughly equal to Germany’s emissions balance.
The IMO’s plan, as it stands, is to halve emissions by 2050. This is insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature goal – a fact repeated many times, including by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. As the most recent IPCC report also reminds us, global emissions need to be halved before 2030 across all sectors of the global economy, including shipping.
And who better to lead on this effort than a group of countries that has put in place a strategy that pledges to “give humanity a fighting chance” on the climate crisis. Almost two years ago, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced her ‘Fitfor55’ plan to reduce emissions across the EU by 55 percent by 2030 and achieve climate neutrality by 2050.
Indeed, FitFor55 led to the world’s first-ever shipping climate laws by incorporating the industry in the EU’s carbon market and by setting cleaner fuel targets. FitFor55 demonstrates the EU knows very well what is at stake if we fail to act before 2030.
Acting now rather than later also makes economic sense. A study by the UK government shows that every year of delayed climate action this decade adds about $100 billion to the cost of the industry’s transition every year. Companies can avoid these massive bills by investing in and deploying clean technologies and efficiency measures that limit their fossil fuel use as much as possible right now, such as battery electrification, wind propulsion, reduced speed, smart ship design, and alternative zero-emission fuels.
Fortunately, while it seemed the European Commission had forgotten to bring its FitFor55 speaking points to the IMO last month, EU countries stepped in. Several member states took the floor stating that 2030 and 2040 ambition was necessary to ensure a 1.5°C decarbonization pathway for ships and would give the industry the certainty and clarity that it needs to roll out this transition in full.
The EU has little time to waste to live up to its green self-image. Germany should use its leverage to get member states to support absolute emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2040. Only then can shipping play its proper part in saving the critical 1.5°C global heating limit.
A capital of up to €55 million, payment obligations of €363 million: the voluntary pension fund for members of Parliament could run out of money as early as next year. A majority in Parliament, however, has opposed the motion of Green politician Daniel Freund, which envisaged asking former deputies with “sufficient pensions from other sources” to voluntarily waive their claims. The European Parliament’s presidium will soon hold a special session to discuss how to proceed. Markus Grabitz knows about the available options and the politicians entitled to an annuity from the controversial fund.
Brussels has been arguing about the Commission’s Nature Conservation Directive for weeks. Above all, the Pesticide Regulation and the Renaturation Law have met with little approval in the agricultural sector – as well as from the EPP. During a general debate in the European Parliament, the conflict now came to light. “Agriculture has to achieve more and more, but the farmers can’t keep up,” said Norbert Lins (CDU), for example. The blockade attitude of the EPP was a “general attack on nature and the Green Deal,” countered Martin Häusling of the Greens. Timo Landenberger was there.
In the opinion section, Anaïs Rios of Seas at Risk appeals to the German government to advocate at the EU level for concrete emissions reduction targets for shipping – already for 2030 and 2040. “Olaf Scholz’s team has a fresh chance to put its climate reputation straight: the global shipping industry,” Rios writes.
The European Parliament is looking for a solution for the voluntary pension fund for MEPs, which is facing insolvency. The fund, which has not accepted members since 2009, still had €50 to €55 million at the end of 2022. Payment obligations total €363 million and are not expected to end until after 2070. The fund could run out of money as early as 2024.
Among the beneficiaries are former members of Parliament, some of whom receive large payments from other pension systems. Daniel Freund (Greens) moved a motion in the European Parliament on Wednesday to ask former deputies with “sufficient pensions from other sources” to voluntarily give up their entitlements. A majority of 272 to 203 MEPs opposed the motion.
A list available to Table.Media, with the names of 660 beneficiaries, includes several well-known names. Claimants to the voluntary pension fund include:
According to reports, the Bureau of the European Parliament will meet for a special session on May 22 to discuss the future of the fund.
There are three options for the European Parliament:
The Governing Board adopted austerity measures that reduced entitlements already in 2018. This extended the life of the fund by two months. Some claimants filed a lawsuit against this. But the ECJ confirmed the cuts were legal.
The fund was set up in 1990 as a voluntary pension system for members of Parliament. At that time, members of Parliament were still covered by the pension systems of the national parliaments. There were no pension systems for MEPs in some member states. In 2009, the Statute for Members of the European Parliament came into force. Since then, MEPs have been paid equally in all member states, and there is a uniform pension system. MEPs who were already members of Parliament before 2009 could choose whether to switch to the new system or continue to receive pay and pensions through the national system.
The voluntary pension system provided that MPs who paid into it for at least two years would receive a pension for life. After death, some entitlements pass to widows, widowers and children. Currently, 112 former deputies are still waiting to reach the age limit and start receiving pension payments. There are 802 people to whom the pension is paid monthly, including 135 surviving dependants.
The amount of pension payments is subject to indexation, as is the payment of EU officials. As of the end of 2022, an MP who paid into the voluntary system acquired an entitlement of €1700 per month after five years, €3400 per month after ten years, and €5100 per month after 15 years. Outflows from the fund are expected to reach €22.35 million in 2023. On average, beneficiaries received a pension of €2206 per month from the voluntary fund at the end of 2022.
For weeks, a dispute over the design of the Nature Conservation Directive proposed by the EU Commission and its impact on agriculture has been simmering in Brussels. During a general debate in the European Parliament on the role of the agricultural sector in the green transition, the conflict now came to the surface. The EPP and the Greens, in particular, engaged in a war of words on Wednesday. The groups accused each other of endangering food production rather than protecting it with their policies.
Due to climate change and the loss of ecological diversity, agriculture is under increasing pressure. Weather extremes are becoming more visible every year. Drought, heat and floods threaten crops. At the same time, much of the industry is still contributing significantly to the climate and environmental crisis.
The EU Commission wants to take countermeasures and put agriculture on the path to sustainability with a bundle of legislative proposals. Above all, the Pesticides Regulation and the Nature Restoration Law are intended to fulfill the self-imposed goals of the Green Deal and the Farm-to-Fork strategy, but they have met with little approval from the agricultural sector.
Given the Commission’s proposals, farmers lacked faith in a resilient future perspective, said Joachim Rukwied, President of the German Farmers’ Association (DBV), during the parliamentary debate. He called on the EU to support farmers in the challenges ahead “instead of issuing more and more new regulations in parallel that restrict domestic food production.”
Herbert Dorfmann (EPP) shows an understanding of the concerns: “The concept of sustainability is nowhere else lived as it is in agriculture. It is absurd that everyone now seems to know better than the farmers how to manage a farm sustainably,” said the MEP from South Tyrol.
Not everything is perfect and change is necessary. But that only goes in cooperation with the farmers at eye level, which is not given by the Commission’s proposals, he said. “That is why they are so incredibly bad and unsupported by the EPP,” Dorfmann said.
Already last Friday, the EPP adopted a resolution that demands the withdrawal of the Commission’s nature conservation package. In addition, the Christian Democrats want a moratorium on all new agricultural legislation, fearing overregulation of the industry.
For S&D group leader Iratxe García Pérez, this is all “tactical calculation” ahead of the upcoming European elections next year. Traditionally, the Christian Democrats have a large constituency in rural areas and the agricultural sector.
She said environmental protection and support for the agricultural sector are not contradictory, but rather inseparable. “What should the future of agriculture look like if denialist policies turn our ecosystems into deserts?” the Spaniard asked, calling for more courage to change. She said the implementation of the Green Deal is at stake, on which everyone had reached an agreement.
However, it is the farmers who have to implement the many requirements, Ulrike Müller (Renew) countered. In the industry, there is anger, incomprehension and disappointment about paternalism and a lack of appreciation. Müller speaks of ideological prohibition policies and requirements that are out of touch with reality. “We should give support and trust to agriculture instead of regulating the whole industry to death.”
Norbert Lins (CDU) added that the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was already demanding a great deal of agriculture. In addition, there would now be 30 other legislative initiatives with a direct impact on the sector. “Agriculture has to achieve more and more, but farmers can’t keep up.” Thus, he said, the profession is also becoming increasingly unattractive, which exacerbates recruitment problems.
The EPP’s blockade attitude is a “general attack on nature and the Green Deal,” said Martin Häusling (Greens). The MEP accused the group of acting as the “patron saint of agriculture.” In fact, their agricultural policy of recent years has cost millions of farms their existence, he stated. It is “scaremongering to pretend that people are not getting enough food” as long as 30 percent of food is thrown away and 60 percent ends up in the feed trough, Häusling said. “We have to change that now, otherwise, we will miss a unique opportunity.”
Commissioner Mairead McGuinness also defended the Commission’s line Wednesday. “Our proposals protect farmers, they do not harm them,” she told the plenary sitting of Parliament. For example, she said, the decline of pollinators is a severe threat to agriculture. 80 percent of plant foods rely on pollination. 50 percent of soils are in poor condition, she said. That affects productivity as does water scarcity due to droughts, she added.
“We need resilient, regenerative agricultural systems that fit into the circular economy and better nutrient and water management,” McGuinness said. The Commission’s proposals would provide for that but are not set in stone, she said. For example, she said, the Commission is open to alternatives to the planned but much-criticized total ban on pesticides in sensitive areas. It also wants to comply with the additional impact assessment demanded by the Council and invest €9 billion in research and development, especially in agriculture.
Following the German government’s attempts to make gas green last year or to enforce an e-fuel loophole in the combustion engine phase-out in Europe only last month, Olaf Scholz’s team has a fresh chance to put its climate reputation straight: the global shipping industry.
The international shipping sector is one of the dirtiest polluters. Countries – including the European Union – have never been louder than at the United Nations’ summit in March in agreeing that greenhouse gas emissions from ships need to reach zero by 2050.
And while this is a major breakthrough for an industry seen by many as a climate-laggard, on its own it is not enough. This is why the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and six Pacific Island nations are proposing that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – the UN agency in charge of climate regulation of shipping – adopts additional absolute emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2040.
In April, climate Ministers of G7 countries, including Germany, France and Italy, gave nod to ‘some form’ of 2030 and 2040 ambition in their statement ahead of the G7 Summit in Japan – but it is still unclear what these targets would entail exactly.
While the EU had the opportunity to back near-term ambition at the IMO last month, it remained silent on concrete action for 2030 and 2040.
The IMO is set to conclude its crucial climate discussion at a summit in early July. Germany has a duty to put pressure on negotiators at the upcoming EU Council meetings and underpin its unequivocal support for concrete 2030 and 2040 targets.
According to the IMO’s own estimates, the global maritime sector is responsible for around one billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year, which is roughly equal to Germany’s emissions balance.
The IMO’s plan, as it stands, is to halve emissions by 2050. This is insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature goal – a fact repeated many times, including by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. As the most recent IPCC report also reminds us, global emissions need to be halved before 2030 across all sectors of the global economy, including shipping.
And who better to lead on this effort than a group of countries that has put in place a strategy that pledges to “give humanity a fighting chance” on the climate crisis. Almost two years ago, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced her ‘Fitfor55’ plan to reduce emissions across the EU by 55 percent by 2030 and achieve climate neutrality by 2050.
Indeed, FitFor55 led to the world’s first-ever shipping climate laws by incorporating the industry in the EU’s carbon market and by setting cleaner fuel targets. FitFor55 demonstrates the EU knows very well what is at stake if we fail to act before 2030.
Acting now rather than later also makes economic sense. A study by the UK government shows that every year of delayed climate action this decade adds about $100 billion to the cost of the industry’s transition every year. Companies can avoid these massive bills by investing in and deploying clean technologies and efficiency measures that limit their fossil fuel use as much as possible right now, such as battery electrification, wind propulsion, reduced speed, smart ship design, and alternative zero-emission fuels.
Fortunately, while it seemed the European Commission had forgotten to bring its FitFor55 speaking points to the IMO last month, EU countries stepped in. Several member states took the floor stating that 2030 and 2040 ambition was necessary to ensure a 1.5°C decarbonization pathway for ships and would give the industry the certainty and clarity that it needs to roll out this transition in full.
The EU has little time to waste to live up to its green self-image. Germany should use its leverage to get member states to support absolute emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2040. Only then can shipping play its proper part in saving the critical 1.5°C global heating limit.
