Committee on Transport and Tourism Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
TRAN European Parliament
Follow its sittingsElissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
It's adopted. Compromise two, where is it? Sorry. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions. It is adopted. Compromise three. Who is in favor? Who's against?
Abstentions ? Adopted. Compromise for. Who is in favor? Who is against abstentions?
It is adopted. Compromise five. Sorry? No. It was adopted.
It was adopted. The four a's don't count. Compromise five. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise six in favor? Against. Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise seven in favor? Against. Abstentions? It's adopted.
Please raise your hands. Compromise eight in favor? Against? Abstentions? It's adopted.
Compromise, eight. 81. Who is in favor?
81. 81.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Sorry. 81. Who is in favor? Who is against abstentions? It is adopted.
Compromise nine. The other doesn't come. Compromise 9. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise 10. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions? Now what? There is a request for a roll call. So we no. No.
No. First of all, no.
First of all, we vote on this.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
I didn't pass, I think. Yes. We have to check. We have to check for compromise 10. I opened the vote.
We have to check by roll call. I
Have not by roll call. No. To check.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
To check. Yeah. Check. I opened the vote. We close the vote.
It is adopted. So now we go to 11. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions?
It is adopted. Compromise 12. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions.
It's adopted. Compromise 13. Who is in favor? Who is against abstentions? It's adopted.
Compromise 14. Sorry. 15. 14. 14.
Who is in favor? Sorry. Who is against? Abstentions. It's adopted.
Compromise 15. Who is in favor? Who is against abstentions? It's adopted. We go to amendment 40, 488, and 489.
Who is in favor? Who is in favor? You found it? Have you found it? I repeat.
482, 489. Who is in favor? Sorry?
488. 488.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
48489. Yeah. It's together. Okay. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? It's adopted. 490. Oh, no.
What?
What? 490.
Do you want?
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
It falls. It falls as if it was adopted. Yes. Sorry. Yes.
You are right. Sorry. It falls when it come on. Okay. Compromise 16.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. It's adopted. Then we go to amendment five thirty seven and five five thirty seven, five thirty eight.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. It is unclear. Please, again, who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions. It's adopted. 05/1939. Who is in favor?
Who is against abstentions? I think it's rejected. We check. We check. It's 05/1939.
Open the vote. Close the vote. It is rejected. Where now? We go to the final vote, please, by roll call.
I open the vote. We close the vote. It is adopted 30 against, 11 and 2 abstentions. And now we go to the vote for the mandate roll call vote. I open the vote.
We close the vote. It is adopted, 32 in favor, 10 against, and one abstention. Congratulations, Mr. Gizicky.
Yes.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
It was good. Now we will be voting on the draft report of mister Ricci from the SND on the amended euro vignette proposal. As for the previous file, I remind you that after we vote on the report in the case it is adopted, we will also vote on the committee decision to enter into inter-institutional negotiations, for which we require majority of town members, that is 24 members. So let's go to the vote. Sorry?
Compromise one. Local vote. Okay. We have, I have to announce it.
Yes. Compromise one by local.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Okay. We have the compromise one. It's a request, requested by SND and EPP, and it's a roll call. So we open the vote. We close the vote.
Rejected. It is. It's by 19 in favor. Sorry? What do they say?
Well, the problem is that we cannot repeat the vote. It is rejected. We cannot repeat. Pardon? It is announced as rejected.
I cannot repeat the ball. Sorry. It wouldn't change the result because if there were two added votes for positive, it would still be rejected. It doesn't change the result. Okay?
Now we proceed. Sorry? It is rejected. Yeah. We cannot repeat it.
That's a problem. I cannot change the numbers. They were still main.
You proceed.
We go on.
Compromise on one two.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Compromise two. Colleagues, comp we go to compromise two, please. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions?
It's not clear. Yes. Okay. We open the vote. For compromise, too.
We close the vote. It's adopted. 23 against 18 and one abstention. Amendment 16. Who is in favor?
Who is against abstentions? It's rejected. And now, sorry.
We go to.
Amendment 57.
Yes. Sorry?
57 people.
57, because compromise.
My amendment was not adopted.
Yep.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
What do you want? It was not adopted, therefore, that's why we vote for yes. Okay. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions. It is adopted. 18. Now we go to 18. Folds the 58.
18. Amendment 18. Who is in favor? Who is against abstentions adopted? 65.
We go to 65. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. It's rejected.
32. 32. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions?
I think it's rejected. I have to check. I open the vote. The 32. We close the vote.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. We go now to the final vote by roll call.
We open the vote. We close the vote. Sorry? What? We close the vote.
31 in favor, 10 against. One abstention, it is adopted. And now we vote on the mandate. We open the vote. We close the vote.
It is fully adopted. Congratulations, mister Rizzi. Dear colleagues, now we move on to the vote on trans opinion to ITRE on establishing the European Competitiveness Fund. Our report there is for this opinion, Mister Sergio Gonzalez from the NZD. Three Mr. Danielson.
Ah, yes, Mr. Danielson. Thank.
Johan Danielsson
You, chair. On behalf of the S and D group, I would like to ask for two additional roll-call votes. The first one being on amendment 193 on article nine, paragraph six a new. The second one being on amendment 134 on Recital 83.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
According to the rule, 224 paragraph three, a request for a roll call vote on the individual amendment needs to be supported by political groups or members reaching at least the high threshold, which in turn, will be 10 members. So who is in favor for this, roll call? Who is against?
We have to count. We have to count in favor.
Yes. Only we count in favor. Who is in favor?
Yeah. That's.
That's enough.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
It is. Yeah. Okay. Then it is adopted. We will call, we will have roll call on 01/1993 and 01/1934.
So we start amendment number one. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. It is adopted.
Compromise two. Who is in favor? Who is in favor? Again. Who is against?
Abstentions. Adopted. Check. We open the vote. Compromise. We close the vote.
It is adopted. Twenty-five fourteen against and four abstentions. Compromise three, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions.
It is adopted. Compromise four, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise five, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions ? It's adopted. Compromise six in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Now we go to the 193rd roll call. We open the vote.
Amendment 193. We close the vote. It is adopted. Twenty-two and nineteen, against, and two abstentions. Compromise 7.
Who is in favor? Who is against abstentions? It's adopted.
Compromise 8. Compromise 8.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
When did that happen? Compromise 8. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions.
It's unclear. Can we repeat? Who is in favor, against, abstentions? I think it's adopted. We have to check.
Open the vote. I open the vote. We close the vote. 23, it is fully adopted.
Compromise 9. Sorry? Compromise 9.
Compromise 9. Who is in favor? Who is against abstentions? It is adopted. Compromise, where is 10?
10. Who is in favor? Who is against abstentions? It's adopted. Yes.
Compromise 11. Who is in favor? Who is against abstentions? It's not clear. We check, please.
11. Open the vote. We close the vote. It is adopted. 24, 15 against, and three abstentions.
Compromise 12, who is in favor? Who is against abstentions? It is adopted. Compromise 13 in favor? Against?
Abstentions, it is adopted. Compromise 14. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions, it is adopted.
It's another roll call on 134. It's another roll call on 134.
Yes. Now we have the one roll call, mister Daniels asked for. One 34. We open the vote. Where is it?
The very last one.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
It's here. Yes. We open the vote. We close the vote. It is adopted 24 against and 19 against.
And now we go to the final vote, which is a roll call. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Up. It is rejected.
It was rejected. So the final result is that Tran will not ask for an opinion. Sorry, Mr. Gonzales. It happens now and then sometimes. Now we go, we are heading to the last vote for today.
It is a single vote to confirm Trump's support for the adoption of the council's first reading position, reflecting the agreement reached with parliament without any amendments at plenary. So let's begin. We open the vote. Oh, no. We, it's a roll call.
We open the vote. We close the vote. It is adopted. 34 in favor. Eight against.
Okay. Congratulations, Missus Steele Metz. Please, colleagues, take your seats please. So dear colleagues, dear guests, please take your seats. Let's move on to our next agenda point, which is the public hearing on the book and claim of sustainable aviation fuels.
The refuels EU aviation regulation aims to scale up colleagues sustainable aviation fuels, otherwise known as SAF, and ensure a fair competition on EU aviation. However, SAF uptake remains slow due to high costs and limited supply. Our hearing today will present the state of play of EU SAF and explore the flexibility mechanism of book and claim to see if it can support SAF production and distribution, and reduce fuel prices. We very much welcome the views of our experts today who represent various segments of the EU aviation sector, and will share their experience and insights with us. It's my pleasure to warmly welcome our seven speakers, Mister Tom Berg, director of policy and sustainability, SKYNRG.
Mister Danielle Scherho, on my left, head of the fuel team, International Air Transport Association. It's the IATA name. Madame Aurelia Elleux, director of EU policy of Opportunity Green Sasha coalition. Missus Camille Murtel, aviation policy officer transport and environment, missus Veronica Pammio, director general, Fondazione, Pacta pact of the decarbonization of the aviation sector, missus Bettina Paschke, vice president of the ESG accounting reporting and controlling DHL Express, and mister Florian Wassermeier, head of sustainability, Munich Airport. Firstly, let me briefly say a few words about the format of the hearing.
We will have two panels of three and four speakers, respectively. Each speaker will have seven minutes for their presentation, and each panel will be followed by a question-and-answer session between TRON members and the speakers. I would invite our speakers to respect the five minutes' timely limit for their presentation, and also ask our members to be concise in their questions and stay within a maximum of two, please, minutes per member. Let us now move on to the first panel, consisting of, monsieur, Cheru on my left, missus Paschi, Paschi, and mister Mayer. Our first speaker will be Monsieur Cheru for five minutes.
You have the floor, sir.
Seven.
Sorry. Seven minutes.
Danielle Scherho
Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. Maybe we can go to the next slide with the agenda for my presentation. I'll try to do this in 5 minutes. First of all, I would like to thank the parliament because there was support in the previous round of negotiations and when the initial refuel EU regulation was issued. So thank you very much for your support on booking claim, and I'm very sorry to see that it got a bit watered down after further negotiations.
Right? The second thing I wanna say is I think, well, we think as an industry that book and claim is a fundamental piece of infrastructure that markets need to have competition and to enable SaaS deployment and production. And that doesn't mean that that book and claim will solve every problem. Right? But it's a good starting point, and something we desperately need in the industry.
So with that in mind, the agenda that we have today for my presentation is I will show you the price evolution of SAF versus conventional aviation fuel, which I will call CAF in this presentation, how we can overcome that lack of competition, what examples exist today of where book and claim is being applied, and you will be surprised perhaps to see that the EU does use book and claim for other sectors. And then what do we need for airlines? So with that, I'll go to my first slide on prices. I'll walk you very quickly through this. So the blue line on the bottom is the price of CAV, conventional aviation fuel.
And the yellow line you see on top of that is the price, the observed price at trading hubs for SAF. This, the blue and the yellow line are for Northwest Europe. So typically traded prices at the ARA hub. So, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp hub. Right?
So this is for bulk part purchases of jet fuel, conventional and SAF. However, and of course, when you legislate and when people put in place regulations, you typically have in mind that yellow line. And that difference between the blue and the yellow line is what constitutes the basis for the penalties on the refuel EU, which would be double that gap. Interestingly, what airlines are seeing at airports from their fuel suppliers is closer to the penalty price. So the blue, sorry, the black and red line on top.
So when you have a look at this and see, okay. One x is a difference between CAF and SAF price, but airlines are paying two x, and again, converging to the penalty price. Right? So this speaks to a lack of competition. The reason why airlines are paying this is because suppliers at airports can charge this, and they have no incentive whatsoever to charge less than that.
So there is convergence at many airports. You will see places in Europe. Europe is not the same everywhere, where you have more competition. So Spain, for instance, is a more competitive place, and it has to do with different things. And I'll be happy to address them afterwards in questions, but I don't think we have time for that.
So I'll just move on to the next slide. So, on the right, you see problems. We have no competition in the physical fuel supply at airports. So airlines have to buy SAF from the suppliers that are at the airports. And these suppliers, of course, can charge whatever they want for that fuel within boundaries.
Right? What we are saying is you could address this in two ways. You could have more competition in physical supply at airports, but that's a lengthy process. This requires lots of changes in regulation, both at European level and locally. As I said before, you have different countries in Europe which have more competition, and others which have less competition.
That takes time. That is the bread and butter of what my team does globally, and this is not an issue that's unique to Europe. We have this everywhere in the world. But for SAF in particular, you could decouple the environmental attributes. You have certificates that prove that the SAF reduced emissions somewhere, you could trade those.
And that's what book and claim is. And we could use this, and we should use it to enable competition at least to some degree. Now there have been questions as to, okay, how do we do this without having double counting, for instance? We need a piece of infrastructure supporting this. And you have legislation saying you should use the union database for biofuels to do that, the UDB.
This should have been delivered two years ago, and it's still in the works. So I think not a change in regulation, but we need people to start working on that. The next slide. So I mentioned book and claim. Where is this being used today?
In Corsia, the UN scheme for emissions from aviation. In The UK, so I'm not sure I should say this here, but if there's one good thing about Brexit, it is that they did correct this problem, and they have book and claim in effect in The UK today. In voluntary markets, you have guidance from ISCC, RSB. Bear in mind that ISCC and RSB are the ones who certify SAF for use on the refuel and EU ETS. And in the EU, for the market of electricity, you have book and claim because you have guarantees of origin.
So when you plug things in and you check in your bill that you want to pay more for green electricity, you're not getting green electrons at your outlet. Right? You are paying for someone to produce that, and then there's a certificate supporting it. That's what you're paying for. It's the same as we want to have for SAF.
The next slide is my last. So, what do we need from you? And I think the order of importance is really from three to one, but this is really from the order of what can happen first. UDB, it exists in the legislation. It just needs to be implemented.
And airlines should have full access to it, and so everyone has transparency of what's being claimed and what's happening with the fuel molecules. The EU ETS. Airlines do not have the flexibility to make their claims, and suppliers have more flexibility. So one, when you review the EU ETS regulation, it would be great if you can also extend that flexibility to airlines to claim based on purchase records. And the last one is refuel the EU.
We need a market for those certificates that people can trade, and that includes suppliers and airlines, because that would at least create a minimum degree of competition. I think that was my last slide. Can we go? Yeah. So thank you very much, and I hand over to, well.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
The chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Sharrow, for your intervention. Now, madam Pashke, for 7 minutes, please. Thank you very much.
Bettina Paschke
Yeah. Dear honorable chair, dear honorable members of the parliament, thank you for the invitation to speak about a very technical topic, book and claim. My name is Bettina Pashkar. I'm working for DHL and involved in accounting, staff accounting, and also involved in booking train transactions. And today, I would like to share some practical experience from an airline operator.
And I hope the industry is already aligned on booking claim that is needed. And I hope after my presentation, you will also be agreeing that Europe needs a credible book and claim system, which helps lower cost. If we move exactly to the slide, so just a little bit of background of the DHL Group. So sustainability is part of our core business. We have 83,000,000 revenue per year last year.
We have 580,000 people working for mainly shipping parcel and mail either in local countries or across the globe, and we are headquartered in Germany. We already reducing today a significant amount of emissions from our footprint, roughly 5%, so two or 2,100,000 tons. And after our reduction, we have a footprint of 32,33,000,000 tons, CO2 well to be in. So we're electrifying where we can, we are using a lot of sustainable fuels. We are also offering for our customers low emission transport services.
Demand is already there. And what we can say, see already, we use already 10% in our aviation operation, sustainable aviation fuel. If we move to the next slide, please, I would like to share the airports where we operate, where we uplift staff. You see, we started very slow in 2020 with one airport in the US, but we extended now to 16 airports globally and in three regions. So we are also heavily investing in the US.
As we know, the incentives are still in place despite all the noise. So incentives, the fuel is much cheaper still in the US, and I have to emphasize, this is not fuel which is not aligned to the EU ed. It's the same fuel. Our policy, our fuel policy is aligned to EU ed. So when we buy sustainable aviation fuel outside Europe, it aligns with EU ETS, with the renewable energy directive.
Yeah. We are also including more European airports. The situation, of course, price situation in Europe is a little bit different than in many parts, especially across the Atlantic. I want to mention that, of course, many of those uplifts outside Europe and within Europe are voluntary. So what I mean with voluntary is, they take place outside of the EU mandate.
The majority of our uplift is voluntary because we are offering our customer low emission transport services. And, yeah, if you move now to the next slide, I would like to also emphasize the message Daniel just gave on the soft price here from a practical experience. So what you see here is basically, compare real prices out of 25 from our Saf mandate. We have an own obligation as an airline. And, on the one hand, you see the Saf will be required to buy under the refuel mandates was to fuel suppliers.
And on the other side, you see staff that DHL source directly, in case we are recognized as a fuel supplier in Brussels and Leipzig. And the result is very clear. So reemphasizing that, our price for own sourcing is 31% cheaper than what we are charged by fuel suppliers. And the behavior, and as you see on the right-hand side of the slide, the behavior per supplier is different. So I don't want to, dash now, hear all fuel suppliers because we see here different examples.
We can see, for instance, that supplier three and six cost similar to our own supplies, so this is a fair pricing, while supplier one, two, and five charge much higher prices and a higher premium. And this is, in the end, the same fuel. We don't speak about different fuels. This is the same in your red fuel. And the difference comes basically from the market structure.
There is no competition. And we believe that, by introducing, for instance, a trade war compliance tickets or certificate, system would change that. So, Daniel already mentioned, in exactly this way, the legacy UK staff mandate is implemented. We know the system already also from The Netherlands and Germany for the road fuel market. So it would not be a new policy instrument.
It's an existing policy instrument which works already in other sectors or in other geographies. And that means, my message, I would like to leave with you as policymaker, and a EU-wide booking claim system with tradable certificates would help reduce costs and increase competition amongst suppliers. So if we move to the next slide, so what does belong to a credible booking claim system? Book and claim does not mean we lower the ambition. Yeah?
This means that real uplifts take place. So you not necessarily lower the ambition, when you define the key boundaries of the system. So what I mean by that, it's not only the fuel does not need to be produced. It needs to be put into the system. It means it needs to be delivered to an EU airport, for instance.
It needs to be certified. It needs to be aligned with the renewable energy directive. And yeah. And then I think also mentioned already the time of when the key boundaries in terms of linked to a specific time period, sustainability must be backed up independently by a certification and transparent life cycle emission calculation. These are all counted and very important.
And, of course, all attributes need to be issued and transferred to retired in a controlled digital way. So we should not allow any bilateral tracking amongst partners, and everything should be fully audit trail. Yeah. And then, of course, the system must prevent double issuance, double use, double claiming, which can be ensured by using already the system, the UDB. So, and finally, authorities and third party must be able to audit both the system and the claims.
That means independent verification and registry operations underlying data and claims are used in emission reporting. And, also, this is already in place, for instance, for the EUTS. To sum it up, so the seats for booking claim are already set, and that's why we can move to the next slides, please. We would like to ask for the following points. So please use the UDV, the union database, enable this also for airlines.
Claims should be allowed, also on a con purchase-based basis, and especially also the SAF allowances should be extended so to allow long term offtakes. And then, force, book and claim is not only important for aviation, but also for other sectors. Thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you, Mrs. Paschke. And Mister Wiestermeyer, please, for seven minutes. Thank you.
Florian Wassermeier
Madam chair, honorable members of the parliament, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for the invitation to present the airport perspective on the booking claim of sustainable aviation fuels. I'm here as a representative of Munich Airport. Munich Airport is a big hub in Central Europe with a strong economic position, and we have our own net zero strategy, which has a direct link to the European climate goals. I would like to highlight today why airport support booking claim, which key design principles or characteristics are needed, and which core challenges we have to deal with. So, book and claim for us in the airport perspective, it's not a workaround.
Speaker 23
It's a key instrument to scale up production. It pushes investments by creating liquidity and certainty demand. Therefore, investment risks decrease and new capacities can be implemented. And this results in a direct reduction of CO2. This means the reason is CO2 reduction occurs in the production of SAF and not in the use of the airplane.
Christian Westermayer
That means if you scale up SAF production and SAF usage in the industry, it directly, immediately reduces CO2. And last, not least, preserving connectivity. Europe is, especially on regional and remote areas, very depending on the connectivity. Therefore, it allows to decouple the climate obligations from the regional infrastructure. So airports, which are more remote, can also exist in the future in a network in the European aviation industry while we support the climate obligations.
Next slide, please. From our point of view, three characteristics or the main characteristics are necessary for the functionality of booking claim. First, the proof of sustainability. The definition of the green property is a must. So there are, this is not technical details, but there must be no ambiguous what feedstocks, what sources of product, and what greenhouse gas life cycles are in the staff.
So this is, like I said, not technical details. It is crucial for the acceptance of the market acceptance and the trust in a booking claim system. The fungibility and the robust register are the second topic. The certificates have to be tradable with minimum friction, and they have to be interoperable through borders. So not country-wise, so within the existing area.
And they have to be managed in a secure and transparent register. Transparency here for us, it's the key. The third point is more or less a sum up of what my both colleagues next to me already mentioned. The SAF reporting has not to be a standalone product. It has to be directly linked with existing EU legislative like EU ETS, the EU, and for sure, the voluntary reporting frameworks like the greenhouse gas protocol.
Next slide, please. Why do airports support the book and claim approach? We also see some challenges we have to deal with. The first is the double counting. If the certificates are not retired correctly, they can be claimed multiple times or if they are used in a fragment framework.
This undermines the trust in the whole system. So double counting has to be avoided. Also, if booking claim is not designed correctly, it can lead to disincentives. What do I mean? The booking claim approach should support the physical self deployment, and this can stagnate and add challenges, challenging airports like locations which are not directly linked to existing fuel systems.
So, virtual allocation and physical uptake must be encouraged and at the same time, not separate. And last not least, a clear statement, yes, not to raise to the bottom. If all topics are located at the costs, we will see a run to the cheapest SAF products in the market, and not to the more sustainable ones, which is originally the initiative why we support book and claim. So from the airport perspective, the conclusion is clear. Book and claim must complement the physical SAF uptake, and not replace it.
So, next slide, please. Honorable members of the Parliament. For us, booking claim is a powerful instrument to accelerate the SAF upscaling. Here, are aligned from Munich Airport with the ACI, the Airports Council International, and all the other airports here in Central Europe and in Europe especially. So for us, it has to be clearly framed, technically robust, and covenant with full transparency.
Otherwise, it won't work. European airports stand ready to shape such a system responsibly, and we work together with all the partners in the supply chain, like suppliers, like the airlines, like the users of staff and all the distribution channels. And, yeah, at the end, I would like to thank all the people working at the airports doing the sustainable topics and pushing staff to the next level. Thank you very much for your attention. I'm looking forward to the dialogue.
Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Westermayer. Now, colleagues, we will open our first question-and-answer session. I will give the floor one by one to our coordinators and who else wants to take the floor. And, please, I ask you to respect the two times of speaking. We begin with Mr. Gizige.
Jens Gieseke
Yes. Thank you, chair. And, mister Cheru, miss Paschke, mister Wastermeyer, thank you for your good presentations and your strong message. I think the advantages are obvious of a functioning bulk and book and claim system. We would have more competition, and we would reduce prices.
That is, of course, something we should work on. Mister Chero, you pointed to the necessity to reform EU ETS and refuel EU aviation to have a proper functioning of the book-and-claim system. My simple question is because on this part of the table and on the other, on the industries, there is a lot of support for the system, but still, the commission is quite hesitant. What is your perception? What are the main arguments of the commission not coming up with a proper proposal?
And to miss Paschke, first of all, congratulations. Amazing numbers. 10% already today. It's really impressive. That could not, that does not count for all airlines.
So that is really the status quo, is already good, but it's not satisfying. So my question would be if you have a guess in 2030, with a functioning book and claim system, where could you land in 2030, with or without a functioning system? What is the effect if we do something right in the direction of having a functioning book and claim system? Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Johan Danielsson
It would perhaps have been more fun if we could do it this way, as you suggested. But sorry. Thank you, Cher. Thank you to all the speakers for being here. A few questions.
I mean, you make a quite clear case, especially from the side of the airlines, why you need a booking claim also to put the cost down to increase competition. But also, we need to increase production. And firstly, perhaps on the scope of a booking claim, how would you view the scope of a booking claim system? Should it be produced, an uptake at the EU airport also support an EU self-production capacity? Also, all of you touched upon what needed to be done to avoid the risk of double counting, and so on.
But what would you say is the one risk that will be the hardest to avoid when introducing a booking claim that we really need to keep an eye on? And connecting also to the production, because as I see this in your presentation, it will solve parts of the problems, but we also need to increase the ease of production, especially in Europe. And the commission and the commissioner in the STIP, they introduced this concept of double sided auctioning. Do you think this is something that is also needed in addition to the booking claim to make sure also that you have some predictability for the producers? It would be interesting to have the airline's perspective on that as well.
Thank you.
So I love you, please.
Kosma Złotowski
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sitting here, and I'm just listening to you, and I don't understand anything. We produce sustainable fuel, SAF, with the same chemical composition of conventional fuels, and then we burn them and we get the same result. Yet SAF is sustainable, and other fuels are not. SAF fuels cost 300 to 400% more than CAF fuels. So we needed to figure out a system which would support the burning of the more expensive fuel and make it less expensive.
Well, this cannot be done. We cannot square the circle, not even with certificates. And this is a road to nowhere. This is a path that leads us to a catastrophe.
Jan-Christoph Oetjen
Thank you, chair. And thank you to the panelists for their presentations. You know, I'm pushing since a long time for a book and claim system already in the first refuel aviation regulation. And I'm obviously in favor of extending the scope of or the amount as well of SAF allowances to push market uptake. But I have three technical questions for you.
So first, DHL, Frapasco, you were talking about the uptake of SAF inside Europe and outside Europe as well. So my question to you, should we design the intra-EU book and claim system? Or should we include extra EU players with the problem that it is obvious that we might have issues in certifying proper CEF? Second question. And this is a bit in the direction of, colleague Danielson as well.
At the moment, we're discussing CEF scarcity, as well in the future. So what would be, from your point of view, the effect of a book and claim system in the moment of scarcity of SEF? We all agree that we want to push for investments so that the scarcity will not happen. But what would be the effect of book and claim at the moment of scarcity? And the third one, there are some people that claim that we should only do a booking claim system for ISAF and not for the whole possibility of RAD-compliant sustainable aviation fuels.
What's your position on this? Thank you.
Kai Tegethoff
Yes. Thank you all for the presentation. Booking claims sometimes, presented as a key tool to help aviation comply with refuel EU aviation SAF requirements. But if the system is too global in scope, it may raise concerns around fuel quality, traceability, and fraud risk. How can we ensure robust guarantees on certificates of origin, on traceability, and fuel quality, especially also given past allegations of palm oil being used or disguised as used cooking oil?
How does geopolitical instability also affect the reliability, availability, and the price of biofuels produced in third countries, including through higher transport costs? And would it make sense to limit booking claim to a European geographical scope to reduce fraud risks, improve traceability, and limit the climate footprint linked to transporting fuels to specific hubs? And on synthetic aviation fuels, refuel, EU aviation only introduce a synthetic aviation fuel sub target from 2030, while the ETS directive already provides free allowances to cover up to 95% of the price gap with conventional kerosene. However, these three allowances currently expire in 2030. So should this 95% support be used more actively now to help build synthetic fuel production capacity in Europe before 2030?
Also, given oil price volatility and recent concerns over kerosene shortages, is this not an additional reason to accelerate synthetic fuel production? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Snorbosch, please.
Lukas Sieper
Yeah. Thank you, madam chair, and thank you to all the panelists for their presentations. My first question goes out to Mr. Chero. And you mentioned Spain does have a different pricing policy than the ports in the Netherlands and Belgium. You wanted to elaborate on this in the question session.
Speaker 38
Maybe you can enlighten us there. Also, I'm very glad that you mentioned the example of the UK where you can buy, trade, and claim fuel tickets for SAF. One of the advantages of the Brexit and then the other one being they can import e fuels from the US as far as I know. So this is also very good for the pricing of SAF. You also mentioned voluntary markets, but I didn't quite get the importance of the voluntary markets where you can deal differently with the tickets?
Speaker 37
And maybe you can elaborate on that. And a question to all of the panelists would be very simple. I mean, the EU is not currently and in the near future not able to produce enough SAF for the demand. So, the easy way would be to import. This raises different questions, geopolitical questions and so on.
Speaker 36
So, what is your perspective on building up or constructing an infrastructure inside the EU to meet the demand? This would be the general question to all of you. Thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Is there any colleague who wants to take the floor? Yes. You have the floor, sir.
Ştefan Muşoiu
Thank you. I will speak in Roman language, so put on your headphones.
Aviation companies in Europe pay around €200 as tax per metric ton of kerosene. I would like to ask about the difference in competitiveness between EU companies and companies in the rest of the world, taking into account this added fee that puts added pressure on EU companies? Thank you.
Thank you. Mister.
Benoit Cassart
Well, my question was very similar. The issue of competition, obviously, we.
Want to move towards more environmentally friendly fuels.
But if there isn't a global system, would there not be a possibility that companies outside of the EU can just avoid the system by making sure that any connections are in countries that are not covered by this? So it's a question of ensuring that European companies can remain competitive in all of this.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Any other colleague? Okay. Now I will give the floor to our special guests one by one for four minutes, please. The 1st floor is for you, mister Charola.
Danielle Scherho
Thank you very much. I wish I were taking notes. I'll start with an example. So before Refuel EU kicked in, we were talking to different airlines, and one of them told us we're doing everything to be ready for Refuel EU. So we have contacted fuel suppliers, and we are taking, signing off take agreements with them so we can have the SAF when refuel kicks in.
To which I responded, that's useless. Because if you do that, then you need to ensure that producer will sell their SAF to your supplier at the airport, and then you will have to buy it from them. Right? So this addresses the first issue of, okay, how does this help having more SAF production in the future? Like that, if you enable that, and this is particularly important for ESAP.
Right? If airlines can sign those offtake contracts now and they can ensure that they can claim the benefits without having an intermediary, then they know what they're paying, and they know that they can use what they're paying for. For this, you would need a registry, the UDB. There are others too, and I think there was a question as to how we can ensure that this is robust. There are other registries.
IATA has a registry. We have one. What we need to have is interoperability between registries. So that's, I think, point one. Booking claim can indeed help with future production by enabling certainty that airlines will be able to claim the staff that they're paying for, and they know how much they will be paying for because there's no one coming in between.
This is a direct relationship between the airline and the producer. There was also a mention of STIP. Would STIP help? Yes. But if you have STIP without booking a claim, you would have these auctions at every single airport.
So there's actually no competition. You would just be a price taker, even if you aggregate all demand. If you have a central pan-EU market, then you have competition, and this helps STIIP. Right? There was a question as well, do we have a global booking claim?
Well, I would certainly want to have a global booking claim system, but I'm aware of the barriers in Europe. Right? And what we are advocating for today is an EU booking claim system. Right? So the fuel will physically have to be used here.
One thing we didn't say is all booking claim systems, all of our guidance requires the SAF to be physically used somewhere. And then, only then you can start the claiming process. And that somewhere will have to be the European Union because I know this is what Europe wants, and that's what we need. There was a question about, okay, what is the commission doing on this? Well, I think it depends.
I think we do see a bit of fragmentation in the commission. We'd work with them, like, very collaboratively, I would say, particularly with.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.