So far, the EU has not had the best of experiences with Thatcher fan Liz Truss – after all, it was Truss who, in her role as Foreign Secretary, proposed a Northern Ireland Protocol bill that would undermine parts of the Brexit treaty. The fear: The conservative British politician could potentially provoke a trade war in the future. Reactions from the EU to the announcement that Truss will succeed Boris Johnson as Prime Minister have been correspondingly mixed. While the EU Commission and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen appeared decidedly optimistic, David McAllister, head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, voiced criticism. Eric Bonse reports.
The planned EU regulation on the use of pesticides is causing heated debate, and farmers in Germany have already taken to the streets. The proposal calls for an overall reduction of 50 percent – as well as a general ban on pesticides in “particularly sensitive areas”. These apparently include all national nature and avian conservation areas, as Europe.Table has learned. This means Germany would be particularly hard hit by the plans. But this is not the only controversial project that is likely to dominate the EU’s agricultural policy agenda in the coming months. Timo Landenberger gives an outlook for this fall.
As Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced yesterday on Twitter, the Commission is working on a proposal for a price cap on Russian gas. Tomorrow, officials from the Directorate-General for Energy want to discuss with experts from the member states how such a price cap could be implemented. Read more about the Commission’s plans in the News section.
As Secretary of State, Liz Truss introduced a bill back in June that would undermine parts of the Brexit treaty. Specifically, it concerns the Northern Ireland Protocol, which regulates border traffic between the British island and EU member Ireland. Relations between Brussels and London have been strained since the introduction of this bill.
Truss’ position on the EU is also causing irritation. She claims to be interested in “a constructive relationship with the EU,” as Boris Johnson’s designated successor had put it. In her party’s internal bid for the office of prime minister, however, she presented herself as a Brexit hardliner who might make her mark at the expense of the Union.
Truss could thus ultimately withdraw from the Northern Ireland Protocol and thus trigger a trade war. There are also disputes over economic, energy, digital and refugee policy. Johnson had propagated a departure from the EU course in these policy areas, which Truss could continue and even step up.
Despite these risks, which are further exacerbated by the Ukraine war and the economic crisis, the EU Commission is optimistic. It hopes for a “new beginning,” chief spokesman Eric Mamer said in Brussels. “Anything that can help move forward in our relationship with the United Kingdom will be very welcome,” he said.
“The EU and the UK are partners,” emphasized Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Twitter not long afterward. Many challenges will be faced together, she said, from climate change to the war in Ukraine. “I look forward to a constructive relationship, in full respect of our agreements,” the German politician added.
European Parliament President Roberta Metsola also congratulated Truss. “Democracies must remain united, in standing against autocracy and aggression,” said the top politician from Malta. The EU Parliament will always remain a partner of the British people, she added.
David McAllister, head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressed a more cautious view. “Ms. Truss is taking over the political leadership of the United Kingdom at a critical time,” the German politician said. “The financial and economic challenges are great. It is crucial that the United Kingdom now gets a stable government.”
As Secretary of State, Truss initiated the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, McAllister said. Such unilateral actions are “simply legally and politically inconceivable“. He added that the EU will continue to work constructively to find pragmatic and flexible solutions within the existing legal framework. “At the same time, we will protect our own interests and preserve the integrity of the single market.”
The Northern Ireland issue is also highlighted by the Green Party’s Terry Reintke. “As the new prime minister, Liz Truss must prove that she will respect the Northern Ireland Protocol and build a constructive atmosphere of mutual trust,” she said. Her predecessor in office, Johnson, had done massive damage to relations with the EU, she said. As Secretary of State, Truss “displayed the same populist attitude as her predecessor,” Reintke said. That has to change, she added.
So far, however, there is no sign of a change of heart. EU Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who is responsible for the post-Brexit talks, returned to Brussels empty-handed after his last visit to London before the summer break. In a recent speech to the British-Irish Association, he reiterated the proposals the Commission had made to defuse the dispute over the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Brussels could imagine creating a special lane in English ports for trucks carrying goods to Northern Ireland. There, the controversial customs checks could be noticeably relaxed. He also said that “sanitary and phytosanitary checks” could be reduced by 80 percent. These and other proposals have never been taken up by London, Šefčovič said. He expressed that he remained available for talks.
The tensions between the UK and France are also causing some unease in Brussels. This is something Truss has also contributed to by saying it’s not clear whether President Emmanuel Macron is a friend or an enemy. “The jury was still out,” Truss said. Against the backdrop of the Ukraine war, this was a diplomatic affront. Macron, however, responded calmly: “The British people, the United Kingdom, is a friendly, strong and allied nation, regardless of its leaders.”
It is an important step toward implementing the agricultural policy goals of the Green Deal: In June, the European Commission presented its environmental protection legislative package. The proposals to restore damaged ecosystems and cut the use of pesticides by half are essential elements of the EU’s biodiversity and Farm-to-Fork strategies.
It will probably be at least another year and a half before the rules come into force. But the controversial plans are already the subject of heated debate and are shaping the EU’s agricultural policy agenda – including at the upcoming informal meeting of the agricultural council in Prague in mid-September.
Above all, the planned regulation on the use of pesticides is stirring up emotions; especially in Germany, farmers have already taken to the streets. This is because, alongside an overall reduction of 50 percent, the proposal also provides for a general ban on pesticides in “particularly sensitive areas”. These include urban parks, playgrounds and sports fields, and nature reserves.
The latter were initially not sufficiently defined in the Commission’s proposal and caused confusion. Now it seems clear: In addition to the EU’s Natura 2000 sites, all national nature reserves and avian sanctuaries are also to be covered by the ban. This stems from a letter from the responsible EU Commissioner Stella Kyriakides to MEPs Norbert Lins and Marlene Mortler (both CDU), which was obtained by Europe.Table.
Thus, Germany is by far the country most affected by the plans. “Because here, this affects 26 percent of agricultural land,” says Lins, Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in the EU Parliament. This is the “completely wrong approach” and not acceptable under any circumstances. The implementation of the plans would lead to a de facto occupational ban for numerous farmers, he said. “This is a general attack on Europe’s rural areas.”
Rapporteur Sarah Wiener (Greens/EFA) also acknowledges that the outrage is “somewhat justified”. Since the ban even includes the use of eco-pesticides, it first needs to be carefully examined whether the proposals can be implemented at all. In general, however, it was right “to ban toxic chemicals from sensitive areas. Why else are they called nature reserves?”, she said.
In fact, Germany has numerous such areas on paper, yet the Federal Republic still lags behind when it comes to species protection. Not least because the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in the majority of nature reserves is still permitted. This is one of the reasons why several infringement proceedings are pending before the European Court of Justice for inadequate implementation of the existing EU nature conservation directives.
“Yet there is one form of agriculture that successfully does without chemical pesticides, and that is organic,” Wiener says. “And after all, we have a target in the EU of 25 percent organic farming by 2030.” Germany wants to increase the organic share of agriculture from the current level of around 10 percent to as much as 30 percent
On September 16 and 17, the council of EU agriculture ministers will discuss the planned regulation. The controversial issue of the reduction targets for the individual member states will also be discussed. Countries that use a particularly large amount of pesticides per hectare are to reduce their use by a particularly large amount. This may sound plausible at first, but the cultivation of fruit or vegetables, for example, as is predominant in Italy or Spain, also requires the use of more pesticides than in arable farming.
Not only in Germany, but also in most other EU countries, nature conservation targets have been missed in recent years. This is one of the reasons why the Commission wants to turn the existing pesticide directive into a regulation. Regulations have to be implemented immediately by the EU member states and allow less leeway.
Commission proposal: June 22, 2022
Stakeholders: The lead committee on pesticides is actually ENVI, but AGRI has applied for a so-called joint committee procedure, which would grant both committees equal rights – the outcome is still open. Rapporteur is Sarah Wiener (Greens/EFA), responsible for the Commission is Stella Kyriakides, Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, and the Czech Council Presidency.
Timetable: Main topic at the informal agriculture council in Prague on September 16 and 17, presentation of the report in the Committee still open.
The EU Commission’s nature conservation package includes a pesticide regulation and a law on nature restoration. The plans come at an inopportune time, the German Farmers’ Union and the CDU/CSU have been criticizing. After all, the plans would lead to a decline in agricultural and forestry production, while inflation, the global food and energy crises require the exact opposite.
The Nature Restoration Law is the first of its kind and provides for nature restoration measures for 20 percent of the EU’s total land and marine areas by 2030. Subsequently, according to the Commission, these are to be extended to “all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.” Agricultural and forestry activities are not explicitly excluded on these areas. Nevertheless, some of the targets, including the rewetting of peatlands or a higher proportion of natural forests, are likely to lead to a de facto ban in these areas.
This is too vague for environmentalists. They insist on concrete numbers and point to the importance of fallow land for biodiversity and for the natural storage of carbon dioxide. Agriculture and forestry, on the other hand, are up in arms. Forest owners, for example, emphasize the importance of an active timber industry as a sustainable source of raw materials for energy production and as a building material.
Commission proposal: June 22, 2022
Actors: The lead committee is ENVI, the rapporteur is César Luena (S&D). Commissioner for the Environment Virginijus Sinkevičius is in charge of the Commission.
Schedule: Not yet known. With the Nature Restoration Law, the EU also wants to send a signal before the UN Biodiversity Conference, which will take place from December 5 to 17 in Montréal, Canada, and – similar to the Paris Climate Agreement – aims for a global agreement to protect the environment.
Without the systematic capture and storage of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, climate targets cannot be met, and even beyond 2050 there will be unavoidable residual emissions that need to be offset. However, the storage capacity of natural sinks such as peatlands and forests has been declining for years. A trend that can only be halted to a limited extent by measures like the planned EU nature conservation package.
This is one of the reasons why the EU Commission intends to present a legal framework for the certification of carbon reduction measures on November 30, to create financial incentives. There is already a whole range of private-sector offers, because the market for voluntary carbon offsets is booming.
However, technical solutions such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) are far from a widespread application, which is why the initiative is aimed in particular at so-called carbon farming. Using corresponding farming methods, Europe’s farmers are to significantly increase the storage capacity of the soil they cultivate and are to be compensated for this via allowance trading.
However, even though Brussels considers carbon farming to be a promising climate solution, the concept is highly controversial. For example, the question of measurability and, in particular, the long-term effectiveness of the carbon reduction effect has not been resolved beyond doubt. Subsequent changes to farming methods could quickly release the stored greenhouse gas and negate the climate effect.
Organic farmers who already cultivate carbon-rich soils would not be retroactively compensated for their services and would find themselves at a disadvantage. Accordingly, the Commission’s plans are the subject of heated debate even before their official presentation.
Timetable: Presentation of Commission proposal scheduled for November 30, 2022.
Actors: Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the Commission responsible for the Green Deal, Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski, Czech Presidency.
Both the proposals for a renaturation law and the planned legal framework for the certification of carbon storage are intended to help strengthen natural greenhouse gas sinks and thus ultimately ensure that the LULUCF target is met. The regulation on land and forest use was hotly debated in the European Parliament.
In June, MEPs agreed to set a binding reduction target for the sector of at least 310 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents by 2030. In the period from 2013 to 2019, this figure fell from 322 to 249 million metric tons and continues to decline, partly due to droughts, pests and forest fires.
The Parliament’s position thus follows the EU Commission’s proposal, but falls short of the demands made by the lead environmental committee. Trilogue negotiations began in Brussels on Monday. The Council’s goals are likely to be too ambitious. A tough struggle is expected.
Commission proposal: July 14, 2021
Actors: The lead committee is ENVI, the rapporteur is Ville Niinistö (Greens/EFA), and Vice President Frans Timmermans is responsible for the Commission.
Schedule: Trilogues began Monday, first technical meeting is Wednesday.
“I probably founded my first environmental NGO at the age of seven,” says Camilla Bausch with a laugh. Her interest in the environment runs through her biography: She has worked on energy and climate policy for 19 years at Ecologic Institute, which she now also heads. Back in the 1990s, when energy law was still a “real niche topic,” she found it for herself and earned her Ph.D. in law on the EU’s electricity market.
She then made a detour into the private sector at the Boston Consulting Group, with the goal of learning more about dynamics and thinking in the business sector: “In order to achieve fundamental improvements in the environmental field, the whole of society must participate, including business and industry.” Bausch therefore advocates a transdisciplinary approach to climate policy, which she also promotes as spokesperson for the Ecological Research Network (Ecornet), among other things.
The decision to join Ecologic Institute was an “act of conviction”: “From the very beginning, we at Ecologic Institute were aware that the major environmental challenges had to be solved through cross-border cooperation.” International cooperation appealed to Camilla Bausch from an early age, and she spent time abroad in the USA, Belgium and Russia.
She also follows the current developments surrounding the US legislative package, the Inflation Reduction Act, with great interest. Not least because through her work for Democratic Congressman Edward J. Markey in the wake of the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill in 2008/09, she personally experienced how difficult it is to pass climate legislation in the US – and how painful when it fails.
She now sees a breakthrough in the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes a $370 billion package on climate protection: “According to calculations, the US could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 42 percent by 2030. That is already a huge step forward.” And an important signal to the international community, despite financial incentives for fossil infrastructures: With the return to the Paris Agreement and the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, the US is once again proving to be a partner with whom the EU can discuss climate policy.
At the European level, Bausch sees the Green Deal as an ambitious program that needs to be stabilized and monitored over time. To ensure that this succeeds, Bausch is working with the Think Sustainable Europe network to improve knowledge transfer, exchange and analysis of European climate policy.
True to its guiding principle “Europe grows together through cooperation,” the network includes leading environmental policy think tanks from twelve European countries: “It is important to also understand the dynamics in the individual countries and what opportunities, risks, concerns, and hopes exist there.” There it is again, the plea for cross-border approaches to solutions that runs through Bausch’s work. Marlene Resch
So far, the EU has not had the best of experiences with Thatcher fan Liz Truss – after all, it was Truss who, in her role as Foreign Secretary, proposed a Northern Ireland Protocol bill that would undermine parts of the Brexit treaty. The fear: The conservative British politician could potentially provoke a trade war in the future. Reactions from the EU to the announcement that Truss will succeed Boris Johnson as Prime Minister have been correspondingly mixed. While the EU Commission and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen appeared decidedly optimistic, David McAllister, head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, voiced criticism. Eric Bonse reports.
The planned EU regulation on the use of pesticides is causing heated debate, and farmers in Germany have already taken to the streets. The proposal calls for an overall reduction of 50 percent – as well as a general ban on pesticides in “particularly sensitive areas”. These apparently include all national nature and avian conservation areas, as Europe.Table has learned. This means Germany would be particularly hard hit by the plans. But this is not the only controversial project that is likely to dominate the EU’s agricultural policy agenda in the coming months. Timo Landenberger gives an outlook for this fall.
As Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced yesterday on Twitter, the Commission is working on a proposal for a price cap on Russian gas. Tomorrow, officials from the Directorate-General for Energy want to discuss with experts from the member states how such a price cap could be implemented. Read more about the Commission’s plans in the News section.
As Secretary of State, Liz Truss introduced a bill back in June that would undermine parts of the Brexit treaty. Specifically, it concerns the Northern Ireland Protocol, which regulates border traffic between the British island and EU member Ireland. Relations between Brussels and London have been strained since the introduction of this bill.
Truss’ position on the EU is also causing irritation. She claims to be interested in “a constructive relationship with the EU,” as Boris Johnson’s designated successor had put it. In her party’s internal bid for the office of prime minister, however, she presented herself as a Brexit hardliner who might make her mark at the expense of the Union.
Truss could thus ultimately withdraw from the Northern Ireland Protocol and thus trigger a trade war. There are also disputes over economic, energy, digital and refugee policy. Johnson had propagated a departure from the EU course in these policy areas, which Truss could continue and even step up.
Despite these risks, which are further exacerbated by the Ukraine war and the economic crisis, the EU Commission is optimistic. It hopes for a “new beginning,” chief spokesman Eric Mamer said in Brussels. “Anything that can help move forward in our relationship with the United Kingdom will be very welcome,” he said.
“The EU and the UK are partners,” emphasized Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Twitter not long afterward. Many challenges will be faced together, she said, from climate change to the war in Ukraine. “I look forward to a constructive relationship, in full respect of our agreements,” the German politician added.
European Parliament President Roberta Metsola also congratulated Truss. “Democracies must remain united, in standing against autocracy and aggression,” said the top politician from Malta. The EU Parliament will always remain a partner of the British people, she added.
David McAllister, head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressed a more cautious view. “Ms. Truss is taking over the political leadership of the United Kingdom at a critical time,” the German politician said. “The financial and economic challenges are great. It is crucial that the United Kingdom now gets a stable government.”
As Secretary of State, Truss initiated the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, McAllister said. Such unilateral actions are “simply legally and politically inconceivable“. He added that the EU will continue to work constructively to find pragmatic and flexible solutions within the existing legal framework. “At the same time, we will protect our own interests and preserve the integrity of the single market.”
The Northern Ireland issue is also highlighted by the Green Party’s Terry Reintke. “As the new prime minister, Liz Truss must prove that she will respect the Northern Ireland Protocol and build a constructive atmosphere of mutual trust,” she said. Her predecessor in office, Johnson, had done massive damage to relations with the EU, she said. As Secretary of State, Truss “displayed the same populist attitude as her predecessor,” Reintke said. That has to change, she added.
So far, however, there is no sign of a change of heart. EU Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who is responsible for the post-Brexit talks, returned to Brussels empty-handed after his last visit to London before the summer break. In a recent speech to the British-Irish Association, he reiterated the proposals the Commission had made to defuse the dispute over the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Brussels could imagine creating a special lane in English ports for trucks carrying goods to Northern Ireland. There, the controversial customs checks could be noticeably relaxed. He also said that “sanitary and phytosanitary checks” could be reduced by 80 percent. These and other proposals have never been taken up by London, Šefčovič said. He expressed that he remained available for talks.
The tensions between the UK and France are also causing some unease in Brussels. This is something Truss has also contributed to by saying it’s not clear whether President Emmanuel Macron is a friend or an enemy. “The jury was still out,” Truss said. Against the backdrop of the Ukraine war, this was a diplomatic affront. Macron, however, responded calmly: “The British people, the United Kingdom, is a friendly, strong and allied nation, regardless of its leaders.”
It is an important step toward implementing the agricultural policy goals of the Green Deal: In June, the European Commission presented its environmental protection legislative package. The proposals to restore damaged ecosystems and cut the use of pesticides by half are essential elements of the EU’s biodiversity and Farm-to-Fork strategies.
It will probably be at least another year and a half before the rules come into force. But the controversial plans are already the subject of heated debate and are shaping the EU’s agricultural policy agenda – including at the upcoming informal meeting of the agricultural council in Prague in mid-September.
Above all, the planned regulation on the use of pesticides is stirring up emotions; especially in Germany, farmers have already taken to the streets. This is because, alongside an overall reduction of 50 percent, the proposal also provides for a general ban on pesticides in “particularly sensitive areas”. These include urban parks, playgrounds and sports fields, and nature reserves.
The latter were initially not sufficiently defined in the Commission’s proposal and caused confusion. Now it seems clear: In addition to the EU’s Natura 2000 sites, all national nature reserves and avian sanctuaries are also to be covered by the ban. This stems from a letter from the responsible EU Commissioner Stella Kyriakides to MEPs Norbert Lins and Marlene Mortler (both CDU), which was obtained by Europe.Table.
Thus, Germany is by far the country most affected by the plans. “Because here, this affects 26 percent of agricultural land,” says Lins, Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in the EU Parliament. This is the “completely wrong approach” and not acceptable under any circumstances. The implementation of the plans would lead to a de facto occupational ban for numerous farmers, he said. “This is a general attack on Europe’s rural areas.”
Rapporteur Sarah Wiener (Greens/EFA) also acknowledges that the outrage is “somewhat justified”. Since the ban even includes the use of eco-pesticides, it first needs to be carefully examined whether the proposals can be implemented at all. In general, however, it was right “to ban toxic chemicals from sensitive areas. Why else are they called nature reserves?”, she said.
In fact, Germany has numerous such areas on paper, yet the Federal Republic still lags behind when it comes to species protection. Not least because the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in the majority of nature reserves is still permitted. This is one of the reasons why several infringement proceedings are pending before the European Court of Justice for inadequate implementation of the existing EU nature conservation directives.
“Yet there is one form of agriculture that successfully does without chemical pesticides, and that is organic,” Wiener says. “And after all, we have a target in the EU of 25 percent organic farming by 2030.” Germany wants to increase the organic share of agriculture from the current level of around 10 percent to as much as 30 percent
On September 16 and 17, the council of EU agriculture ministers will discuss the planned regulation. The controversial issue of the reduction targets for the individual member states will also be discussed. Countries that use a particularly large amount of pesticides per hectare are to reduce their use by a particularly large amount. This may sound plausible at first, but the cultivation of fruit or vegetables, for example, as is predominant in Italy or Spain, also requires the use of more pesticides than in arable farming.
Not only in Germany, but also in most other EU countries, nature conservation targets have been missed in recent years. This is one of the reasons why the Commission wants to turn the existing pesticide directive into a regulation. Regulations have to be implemented immediately by the EU member states and allow less leeway.
Commission proposal: June 22, 2022
Stakeholders: The lead committee on pesticides is actually ENVI, but AGRI has applied for a so-called joint committee procedure, which would grant both committees equal rights – the outcome is still open. Rapporteur is Sarah Wiener (Greens/EFA), responsible for the Commission is Stella Kyriakides, Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, and the Czech Council Presidency.
Timetable: Main topic at the informal agriculture council in Prague on September 16 and 17, presentation of the report in the Committee still open.
The EU Commission’s nature conservation package includes a pesticide regulation and a law on nature restoration. The plans come at an inopportune time, the German Farmers’ Union and the CDU/CSU have been criticizing. After all, the plans would lead to a decline in agricultural and forestry production, while inflation, the global food and energy crises require the exact opposite.
The Nature Restoration Law is the first of its kind and provides for nature restoration measures for 20 percent of the EU’s total land and marine areas by 2030. Subsequently, according to the Commission, these are to be extended to “all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.” Agricultural and forestry activities are not explicitly excluded on these areas. Nevertheless, some of the targets, including the rewetting of peatlands or a higher proportion of natural forests, are likely to lead to a de facto ban in these areas.
This is too vague for environmentalists. They insist on concrete numbers and point to the importance of fallow land for biodiversity and for the natural storage of carbon dioxide. Agriculture and forestry, on the other hand, are up in arms. Forest owners, for example, emphasize the importance of an active timber industry as a sustainable source of raw materials for energy production and as a building material.
Commission proposal: June 22, 2022
Actors: The lead committee is ENVI, the rapporteur is César Luena (S&D). Commissioner for the Environment Virginijus Sinkevičius is in charge of the Commission.
Schedule: Not yet known. With the Nature Restoration Law, the EU also wants to send a signal before the UN Biodiversity Conference, which will take place from December 5 to 17 in Montréal, Canada, and – similar to the Paris Climate Agreement – aims for a global agreement to protect the environment.
Without the systematic capture and storage of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, climate targets cannot be met, and even beyond 2050 there will be unavoidable residual emissions that need to be offset. However, the storage capacity of natural sinks such as peatlands and forests has been declining for years. A trend that can only be halted to a limited extent by measures like the planned EU nature conservation package.
This is one of the reasons why the EU Commission intends to present a legal framework for the certification of carbon reduction measures on November 30, to create financial incentives. There is already a whole range of private-sector offers, because the market for voluntary carbon offsets is booming.
However, technical solutions such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) are far from a widespread application, which is why the initiative is aimed in particular at so-called carbon farming. Using corresponding farming methods, Europe’s farmers are to significantly increase the storage capacity of the soil they cultivate and are to be compensated for this via allowance trading.
However, even though Brussels considers carbon farming to be a promising climate solution, the concept is highly controversial. For example, the question of measurability and, in particular, the long-term effectiveness of the carbon reduction effect has not been resolved beyond doubt. Subsequent changes to farming methods could quickly release the stored greenhouse gas and negate the climate effect.
Organic farmers who already cultivate carbon-rich soils would not be retroactively compensated for their services and would find themselves at a disadvantage. Accordingly, the Commission’s plans are the subject of heated debate even before their official presentation.
Timetable: Presentation of Commission proposal scheduled for November 30, 2022.
Actors: Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the Commission responsible for the Green Deal, Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski, Czech Presidency.
Both the proposals for a renaturation law and the planned legal framework for the certification of carbon storage are intended to help strengthen natural greenhouse gas sinks and thus ultimately ensure that the LULUCF target is met. The regulation on land and forest use was hotly debated in the European Parliament.
In June, MEPs agreed to set a binding reduction target for the sector of at least 310 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents by 2030. In the period from 2013 to 2019, this figure fell from 322 to 249 million metric tons and continues to decline, partly due to droughts, pests and forest fires.
The Parliament’s position thus follows the EU Commission’s proposal, but falls short of the demands made by the lead environmental committee. Trilogue negotiations began in Brussels on Monday. The Council’s goals are likely to be too ambitious. A tough struggle is expected.
Commission proposal: July 14, 2021
Actors: The lead committee is ENVI, the rapporteur is Ville Niinistö (Greens/EFA), and Vice President Frans Timmermans is responsible for the Commission.
Schedule: Trilogues began Monday, first technical meeting is Wednesday.
“I probably founded my first environmental NGO at the age of seven,” says Camilla Bausch with a laugh. Her interest in the environment runs through her biography: She has worked on energy and climate policy for 19 years at Ecologic Institute, which she now also heads. Back in the 1990s, when energy law was still a “real niche topic,” she found it for herself and earned her Ph.D. in law on the EU’s electricity market.
She then made a detour into the private sector at the Boston Consulting Group, with the goal of learning more about dynamics and thinking in the business sector: “In order to achieve fundamental improvements in the environmental field, the whole of society must participate, including business and industry.” Bausch therefore advocates a transdisciplinary approach to climate policy, which she also promotes as spokesperson for the Ecological Research Network (Ecornet), among other things.
The decision to join Ecologic Institute was an “act of conviction”: “From the very beginning, we at Ecologic Institute were aware that the major environmental challenges had to be solved through cross-border cooperation.” International cooperation appealed to Camilla Bausch from an early age, and she spent time abroad in the USA, Belgium and Russia.
She also follows the current developments surrounding the US legislative package, the Inflation Reduction Act, with great interest. Not least because through her work for Democratic Congressman Edward J. Markey in the wake of the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill in 2008/09, she personally experienced how difficult it is to pass climate legislation in the US – and how painful when it fails.
She now sees a breakthrough in the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes a $370 billion package on climate protection: “According to calculations, the US could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 42 percent by 2030. That is already a huge step forward.” And an important signal to the international community, despite financial incentives for fossil infrastructures: With the return to the Paris Agreement and the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, the US is once again proving to be a partner with whom the EU can discuss climate policy.
At the European level, Bausch sees the Green Deal as an ambitious program that needs to be stabilized and monitored over time. To ensure that this succeeds, Bausch is working with the Think Sustainable Europe network to improve knowledge transfer, exchange and analysis of European climate policy.
True to its guiding principle “Europe grows together through cooperation,” the network includes leading environmental policy think tanks from twelve European countries: “It is important to also understand the dynamics in the individual countries and what opportunities, risks, concerns, and hopes exist there.” There it is again, the plea for cross-border approaches to solutions that runs through Bausch’s work. Marlene Resch
