Fit for 55 package; President of the Ukrainian Parliament visits the European Parliament; European Parliament aims to snatch right to initiative; Security challenges in the Indo-Pacific; The Call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties; Security in the Eastern Partnership Area.

Fit for 55 package

Tuesday’s plenary session in Strasbourg is primarily devoted to the pieces of legislation in the so-called Fit for 55 package, which aim to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve climate neutrality by 2050. In its tabling of amendments, the ECR Group will pay special attention to making improvements to those files that could have a strong impact on the everyday life of citizens:

Revision of the EU Emission Trading System (ETS)

The European Climate Law makes the EU’s climate neutrality target legally binding and raises the Union 2030 climate ambition by setting a target of at least 55 per cent net emission reductions by 2030 compared to 1990. The Emissions Trading System (ETS) revision proposal, that strengthens and boosts the contribution of the ETS, is the cornerstone of the ‘Fit for 2030’ legislative package, which amends the existing climate and energy legislation. After intense negotiations, almost 2,000 amendments have been compiled in 30 compromise amendments. For the ECR Group, there are numerous points of criticism in the detail. First of all, the report of the Committee on Environment increases the emissions reduction for ETS sectors from 61 per cent in the Commission proposal to as much as 67 per cent - the ECR cannot agree to anything above the Commission proposal which is going to be difficult enough to achieve. The distribution of free allowances to sectors at risk of carbon leakage is too rigid. The raising of the benchmark update rate will decrease the free allocation and the fact that the free allocation is to end as early as 2030 for CBAM covered installations will hit some industrial sectors hard. We consider the free allocation of allowances to biomass plants to be erroneous, as we do not consider this to be environmentally friendly. We also consider it a failure that the envisaged modernisation fund has been cut, as well as the inclusion of waste incineration in the scope of the directive, which will probably create incentives for landfilling. Another criticism is also that nuclear power is excluded from any ETS funding, be it in the modernisation fund, innovation fund (here called climate investment fund) and in national revenues. Nuclear power is a crucial energy source when it comes to being climate-friendly and maintaining a stable energy supply. Further problems arise in detailed regulations on market access or for adding to the scope small ships under 5000 GRT (gross register tonnage) shipping. Last but not least, the extension to road transport and buildings will lead to unfair costs for citizens, especially in poorer Member States, and to an enormous administrative burden for market participants and may also create incentives for unfair practices.

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) aims to address the risk of carbon leakage caused by asymmetrical climate policies of non-EU countries (where policies applied to fight climate change are less ambitious than those of the EU). Application of the CBAM aims to prevent the emissions reduction efforts of the Union being offset by increasing emissions outside the Union due to the relocation of production to non-EU countries or increased imports of carbon-intensive products. The CBAM is designed to function in parallel with the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), to mirror and complement its functioning on imported goods. Well conceived in its approach, the report unfortunately contains somewhat overambitious and unrealistic proposals that are very difficult to implement at this stage. For example, it advocates rapid deployment of the CBAM without giving industry time to adapt and without considering the risks to jobs and industrial competitiveness. The ECR supports CBAM in the fight against climate change, provided there is evidence that the measures will work and that the timelines are realistic. The current proposal is to phase out free allowances in the sectors covered by the CBAM starting at 100 per cent free allocation in 2023 and ending at 0 per cent free allocation in 2030. The ECR Group aims to start the phase-out of free allowances only in 2028 and reach 0 in 2034 at the earliest. In addition, EU exports are not sufficiently addressed. Currently, only imports are protected under the CBAM. We also believe a CBAM authority is unnecessary. In addition, it should be ensured that the revenues generated via the CBAM are not misappropriated but used for investments in the competitiveness of European industry.

Binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States (Effort Sharing Regulation)

The current Effort Sharing Regulation covers all greenhouse gas emissions included in the EU’s target, which are neither covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) nor by the Regulation on Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). This means it covers direct greenhouse gas emissions from transport (except aviation and non-domestic shipping), buildings, agriculture, industrial installations and gases not covered by the EU ETS, and waste as well as non-combustion related emissions from energy and product use. The ECR Group is concerned that the proposal will compromise the agricultural sector’s ability to ensure food security in Europe and the world. Moreover, given the war in Ukraine, a considerable number of refugees have and are still arriving in the EU, in particular in Central and Eastern European countries. This influx will lead to increased activity and emissions in the sectors covered by this Regulation. The ECR Group insists that we cannot pretend that the war in Ukraine is not happening, or that the pandemic’s effects are non-existent. The proposal does not cater for the current situation and omits in its design any provision related to a potential force majeure that a given Member State, or the EU as whole, can experience. As such, additional flexibilities in these areas should be proportionally accessible, especially to affected Member States. Moreover, in our opinion, the emission reduction scenarios proposed by the European Commission significantly overestimate the economically effective potential in the affected sectors, especially given the economic recession caused by the pandemic and more recently by the Ukraine conflict. In
amendments, the ECR Group has sought to open up opportunities for technological carbon capture to Member States to meet their commitments. Input from the ECR Carbon Sinks Working Group has been used for this purpose, as both natural and technological carbon capture can be a means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF)

The Land use, land use change and forestry proposal (LULUCF) sets targets for Member States by 2030 and a commitment to jointly achieve climate neutrality by 2035 through generating net carbon sinks in the given sectors. Given the current situation in Ukraine and the consequent problems, linked inter alia to food security and the related sharp increase of the price of food and feed, the ECR Group is very critical of this untimely idea, that would tie the hands of Member States in achieving the desired goals. The ECR Group criticises the proposal for imposing de facto unrealistic penalties on Member States that fail to meet the targets set for them. The nature of this penalty is that the emissions reduction target (net carbon dioxide equivalent) of the Member State concerned is increased to 108% the following year, and so on and so forth. The European Union’s line should be carrot, not stick. There is no point in raising the bar even higher when a lower target is not being achieved. We are convinced that sustainable climate policy only has a chance of success if it is supported by a broad majority of Member States and their peoples. The transition can and must always go together with and never against citizens.

CO2 emission standards for cars and vans

As part of the Fit for 55 package, the European Commission has proposed to strengthen the CO2 performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles. The gravity in the proposal centres around the reduction targets for 2025 and 2035. The Commission set out a 15 per cent reduction target for 2025, a 55 per cent reduction target on cars and a 50 per cent target for vans for 2030 and a 100 per cent reduction target for 2035 for both, cars and vans. In plenary, the ECR Group will support amendments to correct the 2025 target and reduce the 2035 target to 90 percent, as it is technologically completely unrealistic. The conversion of all vehicles to electric will be a huge undertaking, and it is still unclear where the raw materials for all the batteries that will be needed will come from, especially considering that current batteries need to be replaced every few years - not to mention the resulting environmental impact.

Debates: Tuesday @ 9:00 and 14:30

Votes: Wednesday @ 12:30 & 17:00

President of the Ukrainian Parliament visits the European Parliament

On Wednesday, Ruslan Stefanchuk, Speaker of the Verkhova Rada, will address the plenary of the European Parliament. In view of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, the ECR Group expresses its highest solidarity and calls for Ukraine to be granted EU candidate status as soon as possible as a sign of solidarity and recognition, rather than bartering with the Ukrainian people’s European aspirations with membership in a ‘European Federation’, as proposed by French President Macron. Ukraine is fighting a battle for values that are pan-European values, so a “second-class” status is unacceptable.

Formal Address: Wednesday @ 11:30

European Parliament aims to snatch right to initiative

On Wednesday, the European Parliament will propose treaty changes in an own-initiative report to give itself a “general and direct” right of initiative. Currently, the right of initiative is almost exclusively reserved for the European Commission. In general, the Council and the Parliament have an indirect right of initiative: they can ask the Commission for a legislative proposal, but the Commission is not obliged to act on the proposal. The proposed legislative initiative right would apply to issues that affect the democratic legitimacy and sovereignty of the EU. According to the report, the Commission could retain a concurrent legislative right of initiative in some areas, such as budgetary matters. The Council could have a direct right of initiative in well-defined areas. The report also calls for a new agreement between the three institutions to strengthen the Parliament’s position when it uses its current indirect right of initiative and to avoid deadlocks on institutional issues, such as European electoral law. The ECR Group believes that these proposals endanger the institutional balance of the EU. This is largely based on the notion of Member States and thus national democracies as “masters of the Treaties”.

Debate: Wednesday @ 15:00

Vote: Thursday @ 12:00

Security challenges in the Indo-Pacific

On Monday, MEPs are going to debate an initiative report on the security challenges in the Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific Region is rapidly evolving and becoming the centre of gravity in terms of trade, economic interaction, demographics and security challenges. It is of great political, economic and geostrategic importance to the EU. ECR Shadow Rapporteur Anna Fotyga welcomes increased cooperation with regional partners on a wide range of issues, including on the protection of the EU’s economic and security interests against the increasing assertiveness of some countries in the region. Unfortunately, the text tries to introduce majority vote in the Council and thus violates the Treaties, the ECR group will try to prevent this with amendments.

Debate: Monday @ 17:00

Vote: Tuesday @ 14:00

The Call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties

In order to maintain the momentum generated by the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE), the majority Groups, who are in favour of more centralisation in the European Union, want to put pressure on the process by holding a debate and a vote on a future Convention aimed at revising the Treaties. The resolution has no other relevant purpose other than urging Groups to call for a Convention, and to include the list of federalist proposals derived from the CoFoE in an upcoming AFCO report. It pressures parliament to urgently adopt a final text before the end of June when the French Presidency of the EU Council
will end. This route would unacceptably bypass the necessary assessment, political debate and inclusive input of all relevant actors. For the ECR Group, any follow-up of the CoFoE requires genuine and objective public and representative consultation, thorough assessment by all actors and complete, formal and inclusive procedures through the relevant parliamentary committees. In contrast to how the so-called pro Europeans imagine it, the EU is a representative democracy. A list with proposals from randomly selected citizens and civil society representatives should not form the basis of institutional change and treaty reform. That’s why the ECR Group rejects this unjustified and premature attempt to launch a process towards a Convention.

Debate: Thursday @ 9:00

Vote: Thursday @ 12:00

Security in the Eastern Partnership Area

On Tuesday, MEPs will debate ECR Rapporteur Witold Waszcykowski’s Initiative Report that urges the EU and Member States to deepen their engagement with Eastern Partnership countries (EaP) in combatting Russian aggression. In the report, European lawmakers encourage Member States to deploy personnel to Common Security and Defense Policy missions (CSDP) in the region and demand greater effort to train and equip host countries in combatting hybrid warfare. The future Strategic Compass should also pay close attention to Eastern Partnership countries and be closely aligned with NATO’s upcoming Strategic Concept 2022, particularly in the areas of cyber defense and in countering hybrid warfare, MEPs demand. “Putin is not only fighting in Ukraine. The Russian dictator is also waging a constant hybrid war against the Eastern Partnership countries. Time and time again, he uses the threat of force to destabilise the entire region and bring former Soviet territories back into Moscow’s sphere of influence. Enormous pressure is exerted on Eastern Partnership countries afraid to choose their own alliances”, Mr Waszczykowski said.

Debate: Tuesday @ 19:00

Vote: Wednesday @ 17:00