More than a year ago, the EU Parliament proposed reforms to European electoral law, and the member states have so far given one reaction – silence. Next Tuesday, the European ministers will discuss the proposals. In preparation, the Swedish presidency sent out a questionnaire a few weeks ago, to which almost all governments responded. However, opinions are “very different”, as one EU diplomat puts it.
France and Germany are in favor of transnational electoral lists, as is Cyprus, for example. Poland, on the other hand, is firmly opposed to an EU-wide constituency with 28 additional seats, as called for by the Parliament. On the top candidate principle, the fronts are similar, though somewhat less rigid. The countries have not yet been able to agree on the single election day of May 9 proposed by the EP.
The Swedish presidency will therefore first discuss less contentious issues on Tuesday: technical questions such as equal access to the election also for people with disabilities or the publication of election results. The reform will not take place until the European elections in June 2024, and even 2029 will be a challenge in view of the current pace.
As a reminder, the latest (and less ambitious) reform of 2018 has still not been ratified by all countries. Spain and Cyprus are missing, preventing the changes from taking effect in the upcoming election. Germany also took a whopping five years to pass the act a few weeks ago.
I wish you a dynamic day and a relaxing weekend!
The EU Commission is now working on a pricing model for the agricultural sector to achieve the ambitious EU climate goals. This is intended to help make agriculture more climate-friendly. According to the European Commission, the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the EU have hardly changed over the past 20 years on average, accounting for more than 10 percent of all emissions in the EU.
Since the extension of the European Emissions Trading Scheme to the transport and buildings sectors (ETS2), agriculture is the only relevant sector whose greenhouse gas emissions are still not subject to any pricing. As before, emissions from the agricultural sector fall under the so-called Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), which provides for national reduction targets. Until now, these were to be achieved primarily by aligning the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies accordingly.
This is based on a report by the European Court of Auditors from the end of 2021, according to which around 100 billion euros were earmarked for climate protection measures in the last CAP funding period, more than a quarter of the total budget. The results were: nothing.
For example, the CAP was not designed to limit livestock farming, which accounts for about 50 percent of agricultural emissions. Farmers who cultivate drained peat soils (about 20 percent of emissions) have even been supported. This is profoundly contrary to the polluter pays principle prescribed by law, says ACA agricultural expert Jonas Kathage, co-author of the report.
This is now set to change, as the potential is great: “The agricultural sector, including its value chain, can become the first sector to achieve climate neutrality“, said Alexandre Paquot, Director of the Directorate-General for Climate at the EU Commission, at an event in Brussels. The authority has already commissioned a study on pricing, involving the Institute for Environmental European Policy (IEEP) and the Ecologic Institute, among others.
IEEP agricultural expert and co-author Julia Bognar provides initial insights into the study, which is still underway. What is clear is that the challenges are great:
The existing ETS covers around 10,000 emitters from industry and energy, which are responsible for around 1.5 gigatons of CO2 equivalents. This contrasts with more than nine million, predominantly small agricultural operations, which emit around 0.4 gigatons of CO2 equivalents.
“Getting them all involved is highly complicated administratively”, Bognar says. The effort required to implement a pricing model must be as low as possible in order to achieve a meaningful cost-benefit effect. Especially since there is still no adequate solution for the necessary monitoring of emissions on the individual farms.
In addition, emissions in agriculture come from many different sources. Most of them are in the form of methane from animal husbandry or nitrous oxide from overfertilization. According to IEEP, it would, therefore, also be conceivable to cover only individual areas and thus at least a large part of agricultural emissions. Another possibility is to look at the value chain rather than the farms themselves and to start with fertilizer manufacturers (upstream) or milk and meat processing (downstream), for example.
Another difficulty is that agricultural products are traded internationally on a large scale. Similar to the existing ETS, pricing could therefore lead to emissions-intensive production sectors being relocated to third countries (carbon leakage). To prevent this, a kind of border adjustment (CBAM) or free allowances could also be introduced in the agricultural sector, Bognar said. In addition, social compensation must be provided and it must be ensured that no one is left behind. Smaller farms could be exempted altogether, if necessary.
Despite all the challenges, an emissions trading system is still the only right thing to do, Bogner states. A market-based instrument is the most efficient way to ensure climate-friendly innovations and achieve the reduction targets. The principle of cap and trade is more promising than, for example, an EU-wide tax on emissions, which is currently not legally feasible anyway.
The German government has also already shown itself to be open to emissions trading in the agricultural sector. All sectors should be covered by the European ETS, it was recently said from the ranks of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action. This would not conflict with regulatory law. Emissions trading and requirements for high standards could only work together.
The German Farmers’ Association (DBV), on the other hand, rejects the proposal outright. “An ETS for agriculture is neither reasonable nor feasible. This is because the principle of cap and trade only works if the players have equal opportunities to control emissions and these can be concretely measured or determined”, says Udo Hemmerling, DBV Deputy Secretary-General. But that is not the case in agriculture, he says. This is because emissions of methane or nitrous oxide depend heavily on external factors such as weather or region.
Moreover, the natural processes involved in food production could not be replaced by alternative technologies, as is the case in the energy sector, for example. “In Germany, agriculture has already significantly reduced its emissions in recent years and many farms are willing to reduce their emissions further, but don’t know how. For that, we would need changes in other policy areas, such as breeding or construction law, not emissions trading”, Hemmerling explained.
In view of the numerous challenges, it will probably be some time before an agricultural ETS is actually introduced throughout the EU. On the other hand, emissions from agriculture must already be significantly reduced to meet the 2030 climate targets. Time is running out.
The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) goes even further and calls for pricing emissions from land-use changes. With the phasing out of fossil fuels, the market for bioenergy is expected to grow to several hundred billion euros by the mid-century. The agricultural sector will want to take advantage of these opportunities. This could lead to “enormous emissions,” according to the PIK experts.
The CO2 emissions from modern biofuels could be even higher due to the large-scale deforestation for biomass cultivation than those from diesel combustion, as shown in a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. “Food production could shift, and agricultural land could expand at the expense of natural areas,” explains Leon Merfort, lead author of the study.
Mr. Oettinger, as Budget Commissioner at the time, you proposed the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). The upcoming mid-term review raises the question of whether, in retrospect, the step into debt was justifiable.
The pandemic was an extraordinary event that had a lasting impact on many member states. Even in retrospect, this makes some measures that affect European budgetary law understandable. The task now is to return to normal budget lines. My criticism is not based on borrowing per se. Provided that the debt remains one-off and is consistently reduced, it is fine.
What are you criticizing?
I criticize some of the projects into which the credits have flowed. Too often, these are desirable projects, but they have nothing to do with the pandemic. Stricter care should have been taken to ensure that the debts were really only made for future projects. Now, consistent care must be taken to ensure that the debt is repaid starting in 2027. There will be many a pandemic and natural disaster in the future. I am critical of the fact that present-day politicians are getting into debt and enabling measures that seem sensible, but postponing repayment until the next generations.
Politicians had hoped for a booster for the Green Deal. What has become of it?
Investments in sustainability and climate protection are rightly a priority. However, I am critical of the absoluteness with which the Commission and Parliament, rather than the Council, are pursuing this goal. I don’t believe it when the Commission and the Chancellor talk about us experiencing a green economic miracle. Economic growth is not just associated with the Green Deal. The Green Deal brings growth to some areas of the economy. For other areas, it is a danger and leads to deindustrialization.
What do you demand?
I miss the balance between smart industrial policy, investment in research and jobs, and climate protection.
From 2027, the loans are to be repaid again, and new own resources are to be tapped for the EU in return. Is Europe on track?
Under Mario Monti, a high-level working group was set up back in 2014 to come up with proposals. It has to be said that all proposals for the EU’s own resources have stuck. The EU budget is actually still tied to the allocations of the member states and customs revenues. With the mid-term review of the MFF, now would be the chance to create instruments for own resources – namely also in light of the debt and the promises to pay off the debt.
What about the revenue from emissions trading?
I think it makes sense to allocate some or all of the revenue from the ETS to the European budget. Emissions trading operates at the EU level, emission rights are auctioned throughout Europe, and only the revenue goes to national budgets. This is not right. There will soon be another emissions trading system, ETS 2 for transport and buildings. The obvious thing to do would be to make some or all of the revenue from both systems available to the EU budget.
Calls have long been heard from France, Belgium and Spain to set up a second credit-financed stimulus program at the EU level…
In Next Generation EU, all those involved – the Commission, the member states, the Chancellor and her finance minister at the time, now Chancellor herself – were clearly in favor of sticking to the one-off debt. The current situation, which is associated with stagnation and inflation, is nothing out of the ordinary in economic terms. It must be managed with regulatory measures, bureaucracy reduction and the available financial resources at national and European level. It would be unthinkably unfair to once again incur debt in order to stimulate the economy.
Shouldn’t European debt be more consistently reported publicly?
It is insane that the European Statistical Office calculates and reports the debt for each member state according to the different entities, but suppresses the debt at European level. This is a mistake. After all, the markets that underwrite the bonds look at overall sustainability. What matters to an EU citizen is the total debt that affects them. We are 440 million Europeans, the consideration of sustainability must include all debt. All the more reason to now strictly reject new debt at the EU level, which is not even included in the debt sustainability analysis.
The energy transition, climate protection, the preservation of biodiversity – these are the issues that particularly concern Fabian Ehmann. With a view to the Green Deal, he says: “We can only overcome the climate crisis and the species crisis by creating the right framework conditions at European level.”
A native of Mainz, he is the European policy and energy and climate policy spokesman for the Green Party’s state parliamentary group in Rhineland-Palatinate. Whether it’s the phasing out of combustion engines, the further development of emissions trading, the expansion of renewable energies or the renaturation law – the member of the state Parliament is in close contact with European politicians from his party to assess what consequences their decisions will have for his state.
Just recently, for example, he exchanged views with business representatives and Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee Chair Anna Cavazzini on the impact of the EU supply chain law and corporate due diligence on fair supply chains. “During the Corona pandemic, supply chains proved not to be resilient enough“, he says. Businesses should learn lessons for the future: “Responsible management includes companies paying more attention to human rights, health and the environment when setting up supply chains for products produced or sold in Europe.”
Fabian Ehmann is currently launching an investment program with a volume of €250 million with his parliamentary group and the Ministry for Climate Protection, which municipalities in Rhineland-Palatinate are to use for climate protection.
How do I plan a photovoltaic or wind energy plant? How do I draw up regional and municipal energy and climate protection concepts? These are questions that Fabian Ehmann already dealt with during his studies of energy management and renewable energies and that he still has to deal with as a member of the state Parliament. Parallel to his studies, he began to take to the streets for Fridays for Future and to get politically involved, initially in the Green Youth.
After completing his master’s degree, he worked for about a year as a project developer in wind energy before being elected to the state parliament in 2021. There, among other things, he is committed to lowering the voting age to 16.
Fabian Ehmann also pays attention to sustainability in his private life. “I’m a committed bus, tram and train rider and buy fair-trade clothing and organic food”, he explains. In his free time, he enjoys attending heavy metal concerts and going to the gym. In addition, Ehmann is involved in volunteer work. For example, he occasionally organizes dinners with MEPs on topics such as the renaturation law or the rule of law in Hungary for the non-partisan citizens’ initiative Europa-Union. Janna Degener-Storr
More than a year ago, the EU Parliament proposed reforms to European electoral law, and the member states have so far given one reaction – silence. Next Tuesday, the European ministers will discuss the proposals. In preparation, the Swedish presidency sent out a questionnaire a few weeks ago, to which almost all governments responded. However, opinions are “very different”, as one EU diplomat puts it.
France and Germany are in favor of transnational electoral lists, as is Cyprus, for example. Poland, on the other hand, is firmly opposed to an EU-wide constituency with 28 additional seats, as called for by the Parliament. On the top candidate principle, the fronts are similar, though somewhat less rigid. The countries have not yet been able to agree on the single election day of May 9 proposed by the EP.
The Swedish presidency will therefore first discuss less contentious issues on Tuesday: technical questions such as equal access to the election also for people with disabilities or the publication of election results. The reform will not take place until the European elections in June 2024, and even 2029 will be a challenge in view of the current pace.
As a reminder, the latest (and less ambitious) reform of 2018 has still not been ratified by all countries. Spain and Cyprus are missing, preventing the changes from taking effect in the upcoming election. Germany also took a whopping five years to pass the act a few weeks ago.
I wish you a dynamic day and a relaxing weekend!
The EU Commission is now working on a pricing model for the agricultural sector to achieve the ambitious EU climate goals. This is intended to help make agriculture more climate-friendly. According to the European Commission, the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the EU have hardly changed over the past 20 years on average, accounting for more than 10 percent of all emissions in the EU.
Since the extension of the European Emissions Trading Scheme to the transport and buildings sectors (ETS2), agriculture is the only relevant sector whose greenhouse gas emissions are still not subject to any pricing. As before, emissions from the agricultural sector fall under the so-called Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), which provides for national reduction targets. Until now, these were to be achieved primarily by aligning the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies accordingly.
This is based on a report by the European Court of Auditors from the end of 2021, according to which around 100 billion euros were earmarked for climate protection measures in the last CAP funding period, more than a quarter of the total budget. The results were: nothing.
For example, the CAP was not designed to limit livestock farming, which accounts for about 50 percent of agricultural emissions. Farmers who cultivate drained peat soils (about 20 percent of emissions) have even been supported. This is profoundly contrary to the polluter pays principle prescribed by law, says ACA agricultural expert Jonas Kathage, co-author of the report.
This is now set to change, as the potential is great: “The agricultural sector, including its value chain, can become the first sector to achieve climate neutrality“, said Alexandre Paquot, Director of the Directorate-General for Climate at the EU Commission, at an event in Brussels. The authority has already commissioned a study on pricing, involving the Institute for Environmental European Policy (IEEP) and the Ecologic Institute, among others.
IEEP agricultural expert and co-author Julia Bognar provides initial insights into the study, which is still underway. What is clear is that the challenges are great:
The existing ETS covers around 10,000 emitters from industry and energy, which are responsible for around 1.5 gigatons of CO2 equivalents. This contrasts with more than nine million, predominantly small agricultural operations, which emit around 0.4 gigatons of CO2 equivalents.
“Getting them all involved is highly complicated administratively”, Bognar says. The effort required to implement a pricing model must be as low as possible in order to achieve a meaningful cost-benefit effect. Especially since there is still no adequate solution for the necessary monitoring of emissions on the individual farms.
In addition, emissions in agriculture come from many different sources. Most of them are in the form of methane from animal husbandry or nitrous oxide from overfertilization. According to IEEP, it would, therefore, also be conceivable to cover only individual areas and thus at least a large part of agricultural emissions. Another possibility is to look at the value chain rather than the farms themselves and to start with fertilizer manufacturers (upstream) or milk and meat processing (downstream), for example.
Another difficulty is that agricultural products are traded internationally on a large scale. Similar to the existing ETS, pricing could therefore lead to emissions-intensive production sectors being relocated to third countries (carbon leakage). To prevent this, a kind of border adjustment (CBAM) or free allowances could also be introduced in the agricultural sector, Bognar said. In addition, social compensation must be provided and it must be ensured that no one is left behind. Smaller farms could be exempted altogether, if necessary.
Despite all the challenges, an emissions trading system is still the only right thing to do, Bogner states. A market-based instrument is the most efficient way to ensure climate-friendly innovations and achieve the reduction targets. The principle of cap and trade is more promising than, for example, an EU-wide tax on emissions, which is currently not legally feasible anyway.
The German government has also already shown itself to be open to emissions trading in the agricultural sector. All sectors should be covered by the European ETS, it was recently said from the ranks of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action. This would not conflict with regulatory law. Emissions trading and requirements for high standards could only work together.
The German Farmers’ Association (DBV), on the other hand, rejects the proposal outright. “An ETS for agriculture is neither reasonable nor feasible. This is because the principle of cap and trade only works if the players have equal opportunities to control emissions and these can be concretely measured or determined”, says Udo Hemmerling, DBV Deputy Secretary-General. But that is not the case in agriculture, he says. This is because emissions of methane or nitrous oxide depend heavily on external factors such as weather or region.
Moreover, the natural processes involved in food production could not be replaced by alternative technologies, as is the case in the energy sector, for example. “In Germany, agriculture has already significantly reduced its emissions in recent years and many farms are willing to reduce their emissions further, but don’t know how. For that, we would need changes in other policy areas, such as breeding or construction law, not emissions trading”, Hemmerling explained.
In view of the numerous challenges, it will probably be some time before an agricultural ETS is actually introduced throughout the EU. On the other hand, emissions from agriculture must already be significantly reduced to meet the 2030 climate targets. Time is running out.
The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) goes even further and calls for pricing emissions from land-use changes. With the phasing out of fossil fuels, the market for bioenergy is expected to grow to several hundred billion euros by the mid-century. The agricultural sector will want to take advantage of these opportunities. This could lead to “enormous emissions,” according to the PIK experts.
The CO2 emissions from modern biofuels could be even higher due to the large-scale deforestation for biomass cultivation than those from diesel combustion, as shown in a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. “Food production could shift, and agricultural land could expand at the expense of natural areas,” explains Leon Merfort, lead author of the study.
Mr. Oettinger, as Budget Commissioner at the time, you proposed the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). The upcoming mid-term review raises the question of whether, in retrospect, the step into debt was justifiable.
The pandemic was an extraordinary event that had a lasting impact on many member states. Even in retrospect, this makes some measures that affect European budgetary law understandable. The task now is to return to normal budget lines. My criticism is not based on borrowing per se. Provided that the debt remains one-off and is consistently reduced, it is fine.
What are you criticizing?
I criticize some of the projects into which the credits have flowed. Too often, these are desirable projects, but they have nothing to do with the pandemic. Stricter care should have been taken to ensure that the debts were really only made for future projects. Now, consistent care must be taken to ensure that the debt is repaid starting in 2027. There will be many a pandemic and natural disaster in the future. I am critical of the fact that present-day politicians are getting into debt and enabling measures that seem sensible, but postponing repayment until the next generations.
Politicians had hoped for a booster for the Green Deal. What has become of it?
Investments in sustainability and climate protection are rightly a priority. However, I am critical of the absoluteness with which the Commission and Parliament, rather than the Council, are pursuing this goal. I don’t believe it when the Commission and the Chancellor talk about us experiencing a green economic miracle. Economic growth is not just associated with the Green Deal. The Green Deal brings growth to some areas of the economy. For other areas, it is a danger and leads to deindustrialization.
What do you demand?
I miss the balance between smart industrial policy, investment in research and jobs, and climate protection.
From 2027, the loans are to be repaid again, and new own resources are to be tapped for the EU in return. Is Europe on track?
Under Mario Monti, a high-level working group was set up back in 2014 to come up with proposals. It has to be said that all proposals for the EU’s own resources have stuck. The EU budget is actually still tied to the allocations of the member states and customs revenues. With the mid-term review of the MFF, now would be the chance to create instruments for own resources – namely also in light of the debt and the promises to pay off the debt.
What about the revenue from emissions trading?
I think it makes sense to allocate some or all of the revenue from the ETS to the European budget. Emissions trading operates at the EU level, emission rights are auctioned throughout Europe, and only the revenue goes to national budgets. This is not right. There will soon be another emissions trading system, ETS 2 for transport and buildings. The obvious thing to do would be to make some or all of the revenue from both systems available to the EU budget.
Calls have long been heard from France, Belgium and Spain to set up a second credit-financed stimulus program at the EU level…
In Next Generation EU, all those involved – the Commission, the member states, the Chancellor and her finance minister at the time, now Chancellor herself – were clearly in favor of sticking to the one-off debt. The current situation, which is associated with stagnation and inflation, is nothing out of the ordinary in economic terms. It must be managed with regulatory measures, bureaucracy reduction and the available financial resources at national and European level. It would be unthinkably unfair to once again incur debt in order to stimulate the economy.
Shouldn’t European debt be more consistently reported publicly?
It is insane that the European Statistical Office calculates and reports the debt for each member state according to the different entities, but suppresses the debt at European level. This is a mistake. After all, the markets that underwrite the bonds look at overall sustainability. What matters to an EU citizen is the total debt that affects them. We are 440 million Europeans, the consideration of sustainability must include all debt. All the more reason to now strictly reject new debt at the EU level, which is not even included in the debt sustainability analysis.
The energy transition, climate protection, the preservation of biodiversity – these are the issues that particularly concern Fabian Ehmann. With a view to the Green Deal, he says: “We can only overcome the climate crisis and the species crisis by creating the right framework conditions at European level.”
A native of Mainz, he is the European policy and energy and climate policy spokesman for the Green Party’s state parliamentary group in Rhineland-Palatinate. Whether it’s the phasing out of combustion engines, the further development of emissions trading, the expansion of renewable energies or the renaturation law – the member of the state Parliament is in close contact with European politicians from his party to assess what consequences their decisions will have for his state.
Just recently, for example, he exchanged views with business representatives and Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee Chair Anna Cavazzini on the impact of the EU supply chain law and corporate due diligence on fair supply chains. “During the Corona pandemic, supply chains proved not to be resilient enough“, he says. Businesses should learn lessons for the future: “Responsible management includes companies paying more attention to human rights, health and the environment when setting up supply chains for products produced or sold in Europe.”
Fabian Ehmann is currently launching an investment program with a volume of €250 million with his parliamentary group and the Ministry for Climate Protection, which municipalities in Rhineland-Palatinate are to use for climate protection.
How do I plan a photovoltaic or wind energy plant? How do I draw up regional and municipal energy and climate protection concepts? These are questions that Fabian Ehmann already dealt with during his studies of energy management and renewable energies and that he still has to deal with as a member of the state Parliament. Parallel to his studies, he began to take to the streets for Fridays for Future and to get politically involved, initially in the Green Youth.
After completing his master’s degree, he worked for about a year as a project developer in wind energy before being elected to the state parliament in 2021. There, among other things, he is committed to lowering the voting age to 16.
Fabian Ehmann also pays attention to sustainability in his private life. “I’m a committed bus, tram and train rider and buy fair-trade clothing and organic food”, he explains. In his free time, he enjoys attending heavy metal concerts and going to the gym. In addition, Ehmann is involved in volunteer work. For example, he occasionally organizes dinners with MEPs on topics such as the renaturation law or the rule of law in Hungary for the non-partisan citizens’ initiative Europa-Union. Janna Degener-Storr
