morning - Environment Council
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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
Council of the European Union European Council
Follow its sittingsWopke Hoekstra
On the second question, on funding framework. With our proposal, we aim to protect where it is still needed, we contribute to value creation in Europe and we invest where transformation and modernization are required.
Targeted support allows us to achieve a twofold objective. First, we do extend free allowances beyond the current 2030 phase-out date, which means we do not expose industries to competitive disadvantage before effective safeguards against carbon leakage are fully in place. Secondly, and that is of course the flip side, this support is not open-ended. We have important lessons that we learned from the past 20 years. The flexibility simply has to go hand in hand with credible decarbonization efforts, so that free allocation remains a tool to accelerate the transition rather than a reason to postpone it.
And this approach encourages and rewards those that invest in the clean transition, because investments do need to be rewarded, and protects our investments against delocalization outside the European Union. Additionally, for sectors that are covered by the CBAM system, the reduction of free allocation is slowed and the phase-out extended until 2038.
Then third on scope. Extending the scope gradually to do more in aviation, in maritime, and in waste. And I was already mentioning credits and negative emissions. All of that in our view is a well-calibrated and wise approach. While all major emitting sectors have to contribute to the effort, we do recognize that some sectors face specific issues around the availability of technical solutions, of industrial capacity, and in some cases also of infrastructure.
And that is why we are strengthening industry's capacity to decarbonize with dedicated financial support for the transition. In fact, we're proposing transforming the ETS truly into an investment engine for European competitiveness. And this ensures that carbon revenues are channeled back into the technologies, back into industrial transformation needed to produce clean in Europe and stay competitive. So dear Terra, dear friends, to conclude, the Commission stands ready to continue to support the presidency and the member states throughout this process. Let's work together towards a result that is robust, that is market-based, that is sufficiently simple to respond effectively to the climate competitiveness and independence challenges Europe is facing.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much indeed, Wopke. Now I'm going to start our speakers, those who have indicated first, and Cyprus, Christos, it's first Environment Council meeting, so you're very welcome. So it's Cyprus followed by Poland followed by Denmark. So Christos, you have the floor.
Christos Senekis
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω την Ιρλανδική Προεδρία για την εργασία που έχει επιτελέσει μέχρι σήμερα στην αναθεώρηση του συστήματος εμπορίας δικαιωμάτων εκπομπών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Υποστηρίζουμε ένα σύστημα εμπορίας δικαιωμάτων εκπομπών που να υπηρετεί ταυτόχρονα την κλιματική δράση, την ανταγωνιστικότητα και την κοινωνική συνοχή. Αναφορικά με το πρώτο ερώτημα, η Κύπρος θεωρεί ότι θεωρεί την πρόταση της Επιτροπής ως μια καλή βάση για περαιτέρω όμως διαπραγμάτευση. Χαιρετίζουμε την επιβράδυνση του ρυθμού μείωσης του ανώτατου ορίου δικαιωμάτων και είμαστε ανοιχτοί σε προτάσεις για ακόμα πιο σταδιακή μείωση.
Ως προς το δεύτερο ερώτημα, θεωρούμε ότι η προτεινόμενη ισορροπία χρειάζεται βελτίωση, ιδίως όσον αφορά τη δωρεάν κατανομή και τους όρους χορήγησής της. Θεωρούμε ότι η σύνδεση της δωρεάν κατανομής με υποχρεωτικές επενδύσεις είναι περιοριστική, ιδίως αφού μέρος των δικαιωμάτων θα δίνεται στις επιχειρήσεις μόνο στο τέλος της κάθε περιόδου. Θα πρέπει να συνεκτιμηθούν καλύτερα οι ιδιαίτερες συνθήκες που επικρατούν σε μικρές και απομονωμένες αγορές, όπου οι διαθέσιμες επενδυτικές ευκαιρίες ενδέχεται να είναι πιο περιορισμένες. Στο χρηματοδοτικό σκέλος, στηρίζουμε την αλληλεγγύη και τη δίκαιη πρόσβαση όλων των κρατών μελών στα ευρωπαϊκά χρηματοδοτικά εργαλεία. Σχετικά με το τρίτο ερώτημα, θα ήθελα να εστιάσω στη ναυτιλία, η οποία αποτελεί έναν από τους βασικότερους πυλώνες της κυπριακής οικονομίας, με ουσιαστική συμβολή στην οικονομική ανάπτυξη, την απασχόληση και τη διεθνή ανταγωνιστικότητα της χώρας.
Γι' αυτό χαιρετίζουμε τον μηχανισμό στήριξης για τα βιώσιμα ναυτιλιακά καύσιμα, ο οποίος θα συμβάλει ουσιαστικά στην απανθρακοποίηση της ναυτιλίας. Όσον αφορά τον μηχανισμό Maritime Top-up, χαιρετίζουμε την παράτασή του έως το 2038, καθώς στηρίζει τις επενδύσεις σε καθαρότερη ναυτιλία και υπηρετεί τόσο την πράσινη μετάβαση όσο και την ανταγωνιστικότητα.
Ζητούμε ωστόσο να ενδυναμωθεί και να επεκταθεί πέραν του 2038. Η μετάβαση προς την απανθρακοποίηση είναι μια διαδικασία χρονοβόρα, ιδιαίτερα σε ό,τι αφορά τον τομέα της ναυτιλίας, έναν τομέα με υψηλές τεχνικές και οικονομικές προκλήσεις ως προς τη μείωση των εκπομπών. Γι' αυτό η συνέχιση του μηχανισμού πρέπει να διασφαλιστεί. Ζητούμε επίσης παράταση των εξαιρέσεων για τα νησιά και τα δρομολόγια δημόσιας υπηρεσίας έως το 2040. Στηρίζουμε μια αποτελεσματική λύση για τη μεταμόρφωση, ώστε να αντιμετωπιστεί ο κίνδυνος μετατόπισης ναυτιλιακής δραστηριότητας σε γειτονικούς λιμένες εκτός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
Επιπρόσθετα, θεωρούμε ότι το πεδίο εφαρμογής δεν πρέπει να επεκταθεί στα μικρότερα πλοία. Πρόκειται κυρίως για μικρές και μεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, για τις οποίες το διοικητικό βάρος θα ήταν δυσανάλογο σε σχέση με το περιβαλλοντικό όφελος. Κλείνοντας, θα ήθελα να αναφερθώ στην κοινή δήλωση που υπέγραψε η Κύπρος μαζί με τα άλλα εννέα κράτη μέλη. Πέρα από τα υπόλοιπα θέματα, η δήλωση θέτει και το ζήτημα του συστήματος εμπορίας δικαιωμάτων εκπομπών CO2. Δεν αποτελεί μέρος της αναθεώρησης, ανήκει όμως στην ίδια οδηγία και θεωρούμε ότι πρέπει να παραμείνει στο τραπέζι των διαπραγματεύσεων.
Σας ευχαριστώ πολύ.
Speaker 1
Thank you Christos and I'll now call on Paulina from Poland followed by Samira from Denmark and I just remind members to try to stick to the three minutes please.
Paulina Hennig-Kloska
Thank you Dara. Rewizja ETS musi odpowiedzieć na jedno z najważniejszych wyzwań stojących dziś przed Unią Europejską: jak pogodzić dekarbonizację z utrzymaniem konkurencyjności europejskiego przemysłu. Podejmując decyzję o przyszłym kształcie ETS musimy uwzględnić także obecne realia gospodarcze i społeczne. Wysokie koszty energii i życia wywierają coraz większą presję na przedsiębiorstwa i obywateli. Nie możemy dopuścić do sytuacji, w której europejski przemysł przegrywa konkurencję z tańszym importem, a koszty transformacji podważają społeczne poparcie dla polityki klimatycznej Unii Europejskiej.
W tym kontekście chciałabym przypomnieć wspólny list dziesięciu państw członkowskich z lipca, wzywający do sprawiedliwej i pragmatycznej rewizji ETS.
Oczekujemy, że przedstawione w nim postulaty znajdą odzwierciedlenie w kompromisach prezydencji. Jesteśmy gotowi konstruktywnie pracować nad takimi rozwiązaniami. Dobre argumenty za mocniejszą rewizją zostały ujęte także w dokumencie Włoch i Czech. Kluczowe jest zapewnienie skutecznej ochrony europejskiego przemysłu przed ucieczką emisji. Bezpłatne przydziały uprawnień muszą pozostać podstawowym instrumentem tej ochrony, dlatego zdecydowanie sprzeciwiamy się uzależnieniu ich przyznawania od dodatkowych warunków.
Tempo redukcji emisji musi również odpowiadać rzeczywistym możliwościom transformacji przemysłu. Dlatego postulujemy obniżenie liniowego współczynnika redukcji poniżej trzech procent do dwa tysiące trzydziestego piątego roku, z uwzględnieniem czasu niezbędnego na komercyjne wdrożenie technologii niskoemisyjnych. Ta sama zasada powinna przyświecać zmianom dotyczącym CBAM.
Wycofanie bezpłatnych przydziałów powinno zostać zawieszone do czasu potwierdzenia, że mechanizm ten skutecznie chroni europejskich producentów przed ucieczką emisji. Jeżeli chodzi o finansowanie, równie ważne jest zapewnienie odpowiedniego finansowania transformacji, szczególnie w państwach o największych potrzebach inwestycyjnych. Zdecydowanie sprzeciwiamy się zmniejszeniu funduszu modernizacyjnego z 4,5% do 2% uprawnień ETS. Takie ograniczenie podważa możliwość przeprowadzenia sprawiedliwej i równomiernej transformacji w całej Unii Europejskiej. Potrzebujemy prostszych i skuteczniejszych instrumentów finansowania.
Dlatego proponujemy włączenie komponentu solidarnościowego Investor Booster do funduszu modernizacyjnego oraz zniesienie 18-miesięcznego ograniczenia dostępu do tej puli. Konieczna jest również gruntowna reforma funduszu innowacyjnego. Obecnie około połowa środków trafia do zaledwie kilku państw, a wsparcie otrzymuje mniej niż 3% zgłoszonych projektów. Państwa członkowskie muszą również zachować większą elastyczność w wykorzystywaniu dochodów z ETS, aby dostosować wydatki do własnych potrzeb związanych z dekarbonizacją i konkurencyjnością.
Jeżeli chodzi o rewizję, osobną kwestią wymagającą pilnej uwagi jest ETS 2. Nie powinniśmy uruchamiać ETS 2 w warunkach niestabilnej sytuacji geopolitycznej, napięć na rynku surowców energetycznych oraz wysokich cen energii i paliw. Dalszy wzrost kosztów transportu i ogrzewania może wywołać silny sprzeciw społeczny i podważyć poparcie dla transformacji. Dlatego ETS 2 musi zostać objęty obecną rewizją. Konieczna jest również ponowna ocena jego konstrukcji, mechanizmów ochronnych oraz harmonogramu wdrażania.
Nie możemy dopuścić, aby wprowadzenie ETS 2 zagroziło społecznej akceptacji dla całej polityki dekarbonizacyjnej. W sektorze lotniczym priorytetem musi być ochrona konkurencyjności europejskich przewoźników i zapewnienie równych warunków konkurencji na rynku międzynarodowym.
Rozumiemy również obawy wielu państw członkowskich, szczególnie z regionu Morza Śródziemnego, dotyczące konkurencyjności europejskich portów i ryzyka przenoszenia przeładunków do państw trzecich. Dziękuję.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Paulina. And I call Samira from Denmark, followed by Carsten from Germany.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, dear President, dear colleagues. It's a very important discussion that we are going to have today. It's becoming increasingly clear that we have been too dependent on imported fossil fuels for too long. It's damaging for our competitiveness and our security. The emissions trading system is essential in driving investment towards clean and affordable energy and away from fossil fuels.
Samira
To ensure a stable and predictable direction for the European industry and to achieve the 2040 climate target in a cost-effective manner. So let me be very clear. If we get this revision wrong, Europe will remain vulnerable to energy blackmail and to high energy prices. And this runs contrary to everything we want to achieve on strategic autonomy and competitiveness. Today I have three points to make.
First, we do not find that the right balance has been found yet in the proposal. The proposal lowers the overall ambition of the ETS too much.
And we're definitely not in a place where the ETS should be weakened even further as Member States call for. ETS provides an effective, predictable price signal that drives investments in the modernization of our industry. To ensure this, we should design the ETS to achieve a 90% domestic target without using international credits. This would maintain an effective and credible price signal while preserving investment in the EU to modernize our own industries. In addition, the 90% target was agreed on last year.
It's not up for discussion. If we reduce the ambition in the ETS, it will mean that other sectors have to do more, for instance agriculture and sectors that are closer to the households. Second, we recognize that carbon leakage protection is necessary, but free allowances should not be a free lunch. They should help drive investments in decarbonization effort. We are positive towards making free allowances conditional on decarbonization investments in the EU, but it has to be effective.
Third, we support extending the scope of the ETS to aviation, shipping and waste as proposed by the Commission.
This will ensure a broader application of the polluter pays principle in a cost-effective manner. However, it is important that we do not unintentionally create obstacles for the air connectivity of remote communities located far away from mainland Europe. In Danish context, this would include Greenland and the Faroe Islands. To conclude, this year's energy crisis is a stark reminder of the risks and costs of our fossil fuel dependence. It has been very clear that ETS is not the risk to our security and competitiveness.
On the contrary, we cannot afford to weaken the most effective tool we have to modernizing our industry and increasing security. Finally, I want to make it very clear that the ETS 2 is not part of this revision. So let us focus on what we are doing today and pave the way for the investments that will put Europe in a stronger place now and forward. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Thank you very much, Samira. We'll now have Karsten from Germany followed by Romina from Sweden.
Karsten, you have the floor.
Karsten Sach
Ja, vielen Dank da für das Wort und vielen Dank für die Aussprache. Und ich glaube, wir müssen ziemlich zügig zu Entscheidungen kommen. Das ist jetzt auch eine Frage der Bewährungsprobe für den Beschluss, den wir vor einiger Zeit gefasst haben, nämlich 2040 90 % Treibhausgasemissionen. Und wie meine Kollegin aus Dänemark gerade gesagt hat, alles, was wir an Ausnahmen im Bereich ETS 1 machen, muss woanders eingespart werden. Und wir haben insbesondere mit dem ETS 1 ein Instrument, das Wirtschaftswachstum mit Industriedekarbonisierung verbindet.
Das zeigen die deutschen Zahlen. Unsere wirtschaftliche Schwäche hat andere Gründe als die Energiebepreisung, sonst wäre in Polen das Wirtschaftswachstum und in Spanien nicht höher als in Deutschland, wo wir die gleichen ETS-Bepreisungen haben. Also das Argument zieht nicht für die jeweiligen Schwächen des Landes. Von daher begrüßen wir die Vorschläge der Kommission eindeutig, sowohl weil sie eben in Verbindung auch mit dem 2040er Klimaziel sind und weil sie Innovation und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit miteinander verbinden.
Unser Ziel ist, dass wir insbesondere die Elektrifizierung stärken, dass wir wegkommen vom Verbrennen von Öl und Gas, das uns abhängig macht von Regionen der Welt, von denen ich nicht abhängig sein möchte, sondern möchte die Unabhängigkeit der Europäischen Union sichern durch erneuerbare Energien oder Energiemix, den jedes Land für sich selbst definiert, so es CO2-neutral ist und insbesondere durch die Elektrifizierung höhere Effizienzwerte zu erreichen. Da sind die Länder sehr unterschiedlich in der Europäischen Union, wenn ich mir das angucke. Und ich kann nur sagen, dass ich sehr empfehle, diesen Weg weiterzugehen, insbesondere auch im Zuge für die COP, da entstehen sehr, sehr viele Arbeitsplätze und sie sind klimafreundlich und sie sind auch exportstark. Von daher müssen wir auch die Unternehmen, wir sind hier in Luxemburg, großes Stahlunternehmen, Saarland ist nebenan, großes Stahlunternehmen, die investiert haben im Zutrauen auf die Beschlüsse der Europäischen Union, dass diese Unternehmen sich auf diese Zusagen und ihre Investitionen in Milliardenhöhe auch verlassen können. Das heißt, die First Mover, die den Weg gegangen sind, müssen auch geschützt werden.
Und ich bin auch sehr dafür, dass wir stärkere Anreize für Investitionen in der EU, und das sage ich ganz bewusst, weil ich deutsche Unternehmen habe, die ETS-Zertifikate, Freizertifikate verkauft haben und woanders investiert haben.
Ich möchte, dass wenn es Freizertifikate gibt, dass es auch eine Bindung der Investition in der Europäischen Union gibt, das stärkt uns, wie ich generell der Auffassung bin, dass wir alles tun müssen, um den Markt der Europäischen Union noch zu stärken. Bin auch sehr dafür, dass wir die Ausweitung, die die Kommission vorgeschlagen hat, was den Luft-Seeverkehr und auch den Müllbereich betrifft, die Abfallanlagen, insofern die Besonderheiten der Sektoren das angemessen berücksichtigen, auch mit dabei haben. Bin dafür, dass wir einen beständigen Minderungspfad in den nächsten zehn Jahren haben, dass wir die Gutschriften internationalen als Sicherheitsnetz benutzen. Und wenn ich das zum Abschluss sagen darf, Deutschland ist ein exportstarkes Land. Wir wollen das bleiben.
Deswegen ist für die exportorientierte Industrie die eine einheitliche Lösung bei CBAM, die einfach ist, wir haben auch eine Vorstellung, ganz entscheidend, um die Akzeptanz zu stärken. Also von daher vielen Dank für die Vorschläge und wir müssen zügig im Dezember zu einer Entscheidung kommen, was Planungssicherheit braucht.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Karsten. And I now call on Romina from Sweden, followed by Miriam from Malta. Romina, you have the floor.
Romina Pourmokhtari
Thank you so much, Dara, and all the best wishes for the coming months.
I know how it is, but when you get out on the other side, it's lovely to have a successful presidency behind you, and I'm sure you will accomplish just that. As colleagues might know, I nowadays represent a caretaker government since the recent election, and after consulting our newly elected Riksdag in the last week, I can conclude that Sweden has a broad political stability regarding climate and our strong voice in climate matters remains. An ETS that maintains its current level of ambition is the cornerstone of just that, being a strong voice of climate in Europe. And sectors outside of the ETS should not have to carry the transition in an unproportional way. We must carefully assess what trade-offs our 2040 target will require, and I am certain that an even bigger emphasis on national commitments will turn out to be costly and politically challenging.
Just recall the debate that we had on CO2 standards for cars when we met here in June. We know that the post-2030 target will significantly narrow the spread between Member States' national targets. Now, would all of those who were arguing for softer CO2 standards also be ready to impose even tougher requirements for their transport sectors, or place an additional burden on the farmers?
I'm aware that many industries are struggling with high energy and electricity prices, but the way out is not to slow down our energy transition, it is to complete it. The ETS helps to drive that transition, making decarbonisation profitable, which makes us more resilient. A robust ETS is also essential for our competitiveness, and this is not about protecting the next quarter's profits. Industries that have invested billions should not have the goalposts moved in the middle of the game, and companies investing today must know that the effective carbon pricing will remain in place. And that is how lasting competitiveness is built for Europe.
The most critical element for preserving investment incentives is a sufficiently ambitious linear reduction factor. We strongly regret that it has been lowered and it should remain unchanged. On the usage of international credits, our position has shifted to be opposed their use due to the risk that they could delay the domestic transition. And I support integrating permanent carbon removals into the ETS to stimulate innovation and help to scale up these technologies. It is important that the early movers are not disadvantaged.
On your second question, the proposal focuses too much on concerns raised by a limited number of vocal companies in the recent months. Free allocation should be phased out, not extended. And naturally, this should be accompanied by an effective CBAM.
Rather than slowing down its phase-in, CBAM should be strengthened. On conditionality, it is a welcome objective that the free allocation should incentivize decarbonization. In regarding the funds, they should allocate support based on excellence and cost-effectiveness in line with Professor Draghi's recommendations. Further, member states should remain the flexibility to determine how to best use their revenues to achieve cost-effective emission reductions. Solidarity elements should be seen in the context of the wider post-2030 architecture, particularly national targets, and a balance between solidarity and convergence will be needed.
On scope, waste incineration belongs in the ETS to ensure a harmonized pricing of waste emissions, and expanding the ETS to smaller ships is also a welcome step. The 95% rule must be abolished to remove current perverse incentives for increased fossil fuel use, and the market stability reserve is essential for the stability of the carbon price. The Swedish proposal on the invalidation mechanism has served us well, and going forward, we need to keep preventing oversupply and its negative effects on the carbon price. Finally, ETS 2 is not and should not be part of the review of the ETS 1.
ETS 2 is central in reducing emissions from buildings and road transportation, and we stand behind the ambitious timeline, although it comes with significant challenges given the strong links to the wider post-30 framework. The ETS together with the remaining pieces need to secure a credible path towards meeting or exceeding the 2040 target. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Romina. And now call Miriam from Malta, followed by Serge from Luxembourg. Miriam, you have the floor.
Miriam Dalli
Thank you, Dara. Malta is committed to our common climate goal, but we are also aligned with those member states who as a principle want a system that protects our competitiveness. The two aspects are not in competition with one another, because we want an ETS that delivers real emission reductions, an ETS that gives every member states the means to contribute, taking account of their different circumstances. For small island member states like mine, this means recognizing our dependence on maritime and also air connectivity for essential supplies and also the functioning of our economies.
And what I'm speaking about here are permanent geographical constraints, and since they're permanent constraints, they require lasting connectivity safeguards. So we welcome stronger safeguards against maritime traffic diversion to non-EU hubs, and here I thank the Commission, calling also for earlier risk identification. Now, on essential island freight routes, cargo imbalances force underutilized return voyages, and associated ETS costs risk raising import prices for our families and business. And in this regard, we need a targeted, data-verified adjustment preserving environmental integrity. I would like to make a reference to the 5,000 gross tonnage threshold extending coverage to smaller vessels.
We believe lacks evidence of proportionality, and it's very important that assessments address island routes, transport alternatives, freight costs, and small operators.
operators and we strongly believe that vessels below the threshold must remain excluded. On aviation, Malta calls for coherence between the EU ETS and CORSIA and as such on the continuity also of the stop the clock approach, unilateral scope expansion threatens island connectivity and these routes need safeguards and operators need practical access to sustainable aviation fuels. There on your first question, assessing the ETS contribution to the 2040 target requires clarity on the balance between ETS and non-ETS sectors reflecting national circumstances and here we encourage the Commission to present its proposals to enable this assessment, also considering the ETS 2 timeline in light of socio-economic impacts, Member States' readiness and the availability of affordable decarbonization alternatives. On your second question, the funding framework must support all Member States, including small islands facing higher costs, limited economies of scale and low industrial emissions. Fair access and revenue flexibility should also support national decarbonization priorities and we also stress that CBAM's introduction mirrors the phase-in of ETS 1 free allocation, so proposals to maintain, increase or extend free allocation should be assessed against this balance, safeguarding regulatory certainty and carbon leakage protection.
Presidency, allow me quickly a general comment, one that I have been insisting upon on different occasions, impact assessments should be carried out to understand the impact on different parts of the European Union.
As regards maritime, the impact assessment does not sufficiently disaggregate or quantify the effects on island and peripheral member states, and same with aviation. Aggregate results do not capture the position of island member states that lack international land transport alternatives and thus lack the option for passengers or freight users to shift to other modes of transport. Colleagues, REPowerEU must give all member states a practical path to decarbonization, one that works for the different economic and permanent geographic realities across the Union while enhancing competitiveness and maintaining affordable and reliable connectivity. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Miriam. I now call Serge from Luxembourg, followed by Igor from Czechia. Serge, you have the floor.
Serge Wilmes
Merci Monsieur le Président, cher Darragh, chers collègues. Pour le Luxembourg, la réforme du système d'échange de quotas d'émission doit concilier ambition climatique, décarbonation industrielle et compétitivité de manière cohérente et coût-efficace. Tout d'abord, s'agissant de l'ambition, le Luxembourg souhaite un système stable et prévisible avec un prix du carbone fort et crédible.
Il s'agit d'offrir à l'industrie européenne les incitatifs et la visibilité nécessaires pour investir dans la décarbonation. De notre point de vue, la trajectoire des plafonds d'émissions et les facteurs de réduction linéaire doivent rester cohérents avec l'architecture climatique européenne pour l'après 2030, favoriser une transition coût-efficace et garantir une sécurité de planification à long terme aux investisseurs. Pour cette raison, le Luxembourg ne soutient pas un affaiblissement supplémentaire de la trajectoire proposée. Nous restons également prudents quant à l'intégration des crédits internationaux. Ces crédits ne devraient pas se substituer aux efforts nationaux mais servir uniquement de safety net.
Il faut éviter tout affaiblissement du signal prix de carbone ou tout retardement des investissements dans la décarbonation industrielle. Deuxièmement, concernant le financement et la compétitivité. Le Luxembourg soutient fermement le renforcement du financement de la décarbonation industrielle et accueille favorablement la création de la banque pour la décarbonation industrielle. Une part significative des recettes du ETS devrait être réinvestie dans la transformation des industries à forte intensité énergétique, notamment dans l'électrification, l'hydrogène renouvelable et l'énergie renouvelable.
Nous restons également attachés au remplacement progressif de l'allocation gratuite par le mécanisme d'ajustement carbone aux frontières. Toutefois, des défis importants subsistent, notamment l'absence de solutions pour les exportations et les risques de contournement du mécanisme. Nous appelons dès lors à une solution européenne compatible avec les règles de l'OMC afin de répondre aux risques de fuite carbone liés aux exportations. Quant à la conditionnalité liée aux allocations gratuites, nous souhaitons une approche pragmatique qui tienne compte des investissements déjà réalisés, des projets en cours de développement et des cycles d'investissement. Troisièmement, concernant le champ d'application du système.
Il y a beaucoup à dire, mais je vais me limiter à présenter les points cruciaux pour le Luxembourg liés à l'aviation. Tout d'abord, la suspension temporaire stop the clock relative au champ d'application de la réglementation actuelle qui se terminera fin 2026 alors que les négociations sur la révision du ETS ne seront pas finalisées à ce moment-là. Un vide juridique au 1er janvier 2027 qui pourrait être dommageable pour les acteurs du secteur devra en tout cas être évité.
Concernant l'extension proposée du champ d'application à un rayon de 5000 km, nous préconisons une approche qui contribue à renforcer la mise en œuvre effective de CORSIA et qui préserve la compétitivité du secteur aérien européen. Le Luxembourg se montre très réticent face à une extension telle que proposée car nous voyons un risque considérable de fuite de carbone et de relocalisation du trafic aérien pour les opérations du tout-cargo dont les spécificités n'ont pas été considérées. Enfin, le Luxembourg soutient que le mécanisme book-and-claim soit ancré définitivement dans cette réglementation ainsi que dans ReFuelEU. Pour conclure, nous soutenons une réforme ETS qui préserve un signal prix du carbone fort et prévisible et qui trouve un juste équilibre entre ambition climatique, compétitivité industrielle et protection contre les risques de fuite de carbone. Je vous remercie.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Serge. And now call Igor from Czechia followed by Melissa from Belgium. Igor, you have the floor.
Igor Witzovsky
Thank you, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, dear excellencies. The Czech Republic together with Italy and other supporting member states has prepared a supporting document for this debate. I invite you to consider its findings. Let us look beyond our own borders. Europe's economic weight is declining.
Speaker 15
Our choices must strengthen Europe as a whole. Let me be clear. We share the goal of a climate neutrality, but Europe needs a strong economy to deliver it. We call for real substantial review of the ETS.
Igor Witzovsky
Cosmetic changes may not be enough. With this in mind, let me briefly address the three question sets out by the presidency. First, on ambition. We support a more realistic reduction path with allowances available beyond 2030. Credits and removals must be credible and feasible.
But will a slightly lower reduction factor solve the whole problem? Since 2010, the EU has constantly invested less than the United States. We need a sufficient funding for real industrial renewal. Replace old assets and build new industries with high-value products. The review must test if the proposed rules make these investments possible in Europe.
Considering only the European average rate in economic growth is not enough. Countries differ in their industrial base, energy mix, and ability to finance change. The review must reflect these differences. Closing an industrial plant is not the same as making it greener. If its production moves to a more carbon-intensive location, Europe's emissions may fall while global emissions rise.
We must not mistake that for a climate success.
Secondly, on own funding and free allocation. We support reinvesting revenues in the ETS sector, stronger Modernisation Fund beyond 2030, and truly effective industrial investment tools. But access must be fair across all countries. Free allocation must reflect what our companies can realistically achieve. Its gradual phase-out must follow proven CBAM effectiveness, including protection against export carbon leakage.
Collecting more revenue is not, by itself, a success. Does the entire system leave companies able to invest? Cheap electricity generation alone does not mean cheap, reliable power for industry. We must reflect also the cost for grids, storage, backup, and the need to build them. Third, on the scope.
Our government believes that given the high energy prices, the current review should also address the issue of ETS 2 and postpone the launch of this system until 2030.
We oppose adding municipal waste incineration to the ETS. Waste that cannot be prevent or recycled still needs treatment. Any carbon cost to energy recovery must be assessed against its role in meeting the waste hierarchy. Aviation change must prevent traffic shift to the non-European hubs without a global climate gain. Colleagues, the question is how to accelerate our climate goals while strengthening Europe.
Let us assess what the proposed rules will achieve, at what cost and in which country and sectors. Let us compare substantive options rather than just numbers alone. Different starting points must not become deeper divisions. Let us help each other succeed. Our common goal must be cleaner production, a stronger united Europe and lower global, not only European, emissions.
To conclude, let me recall the joint letter we have signed together with 10 member states on this important issue already in July. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Thank you very much, Igor. I now call on Melissa from Belgium followed by Marija from Croatia. Melissa, you have the floor.
Melissa Depraetere
Yes, thank you. Good morning, colleagues. The EU ETS is a key instrument to decarbonize European industry, but it is also essential in our goal to maintain and strengthen our industrial competitiveness.
Belgium believes that decarbonization and industrial competitiveness should go hand in hand and the Commission proposal should be improved in this sense. In general, Belgium calls for a cost-effective contribution of all ETS sectors to the overall target. That is why Belgium welcomes that the Commission has proposed to lower the linear reduction factor, but nevertheless considers that a further reduction for the period 2031-2035 is appropriate, taking into account the uptake of new technologies and the cost-effective contribution of the EU ETS to the relevant Union commitments. The ETS trajectory should balance long-term predictability with adaptability and enabling conditions in the ETS. We believe that developments in energy prices and global competitiveness should be closely monitored and that a predictable, temporary and rule-based adjustment mechanism could be considered for exceptional circumstances based on predefined indicators.
Additionally, we do not support the proposed automatic fallback mechanism linked to the availability of international carbon credits as it creates significant uncertainty for investors. The Commission proposal on conditionalities does not reflect industrial realities and comes with too much administrative burden.
Belgium, however, believes that conditionality is a crucial part of the continuation of free allocation and considers that they could be repurposed as climate and energy investment instruments. As we ask industry to commit to decarbonization in exchange for free allocation, we must also do our part in ensuring a sufficient level of carbon leakage protection. The Commission proposal is not sufficient in this regard. Belgium calls for a reassessment of the benchmark methodology to ensure that it reflects industrial realities while also targeting free allocation to those sectors most at risk of carbon leakage. We are also considering a range of measures to avoid the application of the cross-sectoral correction factor.
Belgium regrets that the Commission has not proposed a permanent solution for exports in CBAM sectors and welcomes the work on specific proposals by France in this regard. In times of budgetary constraints, we should make the most optimal use of the available resources. Belgium therefore stresses the need for a European instrument for indirect carbon leakage to ensure a level playing field across Member States.
We maintain a scrutiny reservation on the inclusion of municipal waste, and Belgium considers that ETS revenues remain a key instrument for financing industrial transformation, infrastructure investment and the broader transition. At the same time, Member States must retain sufficient flexibility and resources to finance their own transition. We are therefore concerned about an increasing share of ETS revenues being channeled towards centralized instruments with solidarity mechanisms. Lastly, we welcome the creation of the Industrial Decarbonization Bank and the continuation of the Innovation Fund, but it is key that funding from those instruments is based on project excellence.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much indeed, Melissa. And now call on Maria from Croatia, followed by Jean from Portugal. Maria, you have the floor.
Marija Vučković
Thank you, allow me to begin by expressing my appreciation to the Irish Presidency and the Commission for their hard work on the ETS dossier. Dear colleagues, we can agree that EU ETS is an important tool for reducing our emissions, and however, we must also make sure that the industry remains competitive and that all Member States can take part in the clean transition and reaching the targets. We support the revision as a good basis for negotiations, and we would like to focus on three key issues. First of all, the level of ambition.
We support EU's climate objective for 2040 and we need strong action to reduce emissions. But our path must also be predictable and realistic. Some industries need more time to change and clean technologies are not always available and affordable. Therefore, we support a more gradual reduction in free allowances. We can also support the limited use of high-quality international carbon credits, having in mind that these credits must complement, not replace, emission cuts in Europe.
Second, for Croatia, the fact that proposed funding should provide the right balance is a key issue. We joined the EU rather recently and our companies and public authorities often need more time to prepare projects, secure funding, and deploy clean technologies. We must make sure that all member states have a fair chance to benefit from EU support. And we support stronger funding for industrial decarbonization, continued free allocation for sectors at risk of carbon leakage, and the development of the Industrial Decarbonization Bank and the Investment Booster.
Also, we regret that a part of the funding for the Modernization Fund is reduced, as my colleagues already pointed out. A concrete example when we talk about the modernization of the effects is last week's approval by the European Investment Bank of two Croatian investment programs under the Modernization Fund worth a total of 110 million of euros, 70 for energy efficiency and renewable energy in manufacturing and 40 for the green transition of coastal public passenger shipping. That is why we are also considering using that experience for the upcoming Investment Booster, not to add new mechanisms, but to use ones that are already working on the ground. As regards the Innovation Funds, we welcome financing rate to up to 100%, but we must accelerate deployment of innovative technologies and ensure that successful projects are developed across all Member States. Achieving the goals requires adequate financing and fair access to investment opportunities throughout Europe.
The use of ETS revenues is crucial for Member States to address their specific decarbonization and competitiveness challenges. Third, Croatia supports decarbonization aviation, shipping, and waste management.
We can consider the support, but new rules must reflect actual conditions on the ground and we also have serious concerns about including smaller ships in the ETS before suitable technologies and infrastructures are widely available. So thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Maria. And now call on Jean from Portugal followed by Agnes from Hungary. Jean, you have the floor.
Jean Coelho
Muito obrigado, senhor ministro. Portugal considera a proposta da Comissão uma boa base de trabalho. Para Portugal, o objetivo deve ser assegurar simultaneamente um comércio europeu de licenças de emissão robusto e previsível, mas também um sistema que preserve a competitividade e a segurança energética. Quanto à trajetória de ambição do céu, reconhecemos mérito numa redução mais gradual do número de licenças de emissão a partir de 2031, proporcionando maior previsibilidade aos setores abrangidos, sem pôr em causa a credibilidade do sinal preço de carbono.
A utilização limitada dos créditos internacionais pode igualmente constituir uma flexibilidade relevante, complementar ao esforço doméstico e capaz de reforçar a cooperação climática com países terceiros. Por esse motivo, a sua utilização deve assentar nas regras acordadas no âmbito do artigo sexto do Acordo de Paris, evitando requisitos europeus adicionais que possam limitar na prática a utilização desta flexibilidade. No que respeita à competitividade industrial, Portugal acolhe favoravelmente a manutenção da atribuição gratuita aos setores expostos ao risco de fuga de carbono, uma evolução mais gradual dos benchmarks e o abrandamento da eliminação da atribuição gratuita nos setores abrangidos pelo CBAM. As novas condições associadas à atribuição gratuita deverão, contudo, permanecer simples e proporcionais, evitando encargos administrativos desnecessários para as empresas e para as autoridades competentes. Portugal acolhe igualmente o reforço dos instrumentos europeus de financiamento.
O seu desenho deverá assegurar um acesso efetivo e equilibrado em toda a União, incluindo as regiões ultraperiféricas, onde a insularidade, a pequena dimensão dos mercados e os custos acrescidos podem condicionar o acesso aos mecanismos de apoio. Neste contexto, Portugal considera também excessiva a proposta de afetar obrigatoriamente 50% das receitas nacionais dos leilões à descarbonização dos setores CEL.
Defendemos um valor de 30% ou inferior, preservando maior flexibilidade nacional para responder a outras necessidades relevantes da política climática e energética. Quanto às alterações do âmbito, é particularmente importante assegurar que estas não produzem efeitos desproporcionados sobre a conectividade, a competitividade ou os territórios com condicionantes estruturais específicas. No que se refere ao transporte marítimo, Portugal continua particularmente preocupado com os impactos sobre a competitividade dos portos. É assim essencial prevenir a transferência de tráfego, operações de transbordo e fuga de investimento para portos de países terceiros. Tanto na aviação como no transporte marítimo, deverá ainda ser devidamente salvaguardada a situação das regiões ultraperiféricas.
Consideramos assim que as derrogações aplicáveis às regiões ultraperiféricas não deverão ficar sujeitas a um termo predeterminado. Relativamente ao setor dos resíduos, consideramos que a inclusão da incineração de resíduos urbanos no CELE, no calendário atualmente proposto, pode gerar impactos muito significativos nos custos de gestão e tratamento, com repercussões diretas sobre os municípios e sobre os cidadãos.
Esta preocupação é relevante face aos importantes desafios nacionais na gestão de resíduos e à necessidade de continuar a reduzir de forma significativa a deposição em aterro. Muito obrigado.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much indeed, Jean. And I now call on Agnes from Hungary, followed by Hugo from Spain. Agnes, you have the floor.
Agnes Hornung
Thank you. Dear colleagues, dear Commissioner. In general, we believe that the ETS review should build on fairness, solidarity, proportionality, predictability, and should promote competitiveness. We believe that the ETS has been an effective tool for decarbonization and we must now also make it a driver for competitiveness and innovation. We hope to finalize our position shortly and we welcome the opportunity to share our preliminary remarks.
Hungary was one of the ten Member States that signed a joint statement in July and we continue to stand by its main messages. We support the findings of the Czech-Italian document. We also support the joint initiative of the Nuclear Alliance regarding technology neutrality. Now let me turn to the questions of the Commission. On the first question, we support the adjustments proposed for the linear reduction factor.
We believe that there is a need to reflect a realistic pathway and a two-tier structure. However, we would prefer a proportionate approach instead of the binary adjustment.
We believe that the inclusion of international credits and removals can provide more room for maneuver for our industries, which is needed. At the same time, we need to recall that auction revenues depend on the allowance price and the linear reduction factor. In this context, we consider that the Commission's proposal strikes a good basis for further negotiations. On the second question, as mentioned before, ETS revenues are essential for Member States and for their decarbonization efforts. In this context, we still cannot support ETS own resources.
Solidarity is indispensable to ensure that lower-income Member States are not left behind in the transition. Therefore, we do not support the reduction of the Modernization Fund and we ask for maintaining the current share. We believe that the fund is essential for the transition across the Union. We also believe that all funding, including the Industrial Decarbonization Bank and Innovation Fund, should provide for genuine geographical balance. All revenues should go towards funding effective climate action.
However, we are skeptical about the 50% priority spending obligation proposed by the Commission. We believe that Member States need flexibility in the use of their revenues.
We are concerned about the declining volume of allowances in the investment booster. We also believe that free allocations are vital for our industries and therefore the the purpose of free allocations should remain to be carbon leakage prevention and therefore we are are concerned about the conditionality and the way that it could increase administrative burden. Benchmarks should be based on realistic sector specific parameters that reflect technological realities. In the CBAM sectors, we still believe that there is a need for extending further free allocations because we need to ensure that the effectiveness of CBAM is proven before we can end free allocations. We call for an effective export carbon leakage solution as well.
On the third question on the scope of the ETS 1, we do not support the inclusion of municipal waste incineration as it is proposed. We believe that due regard must be paid to EU waste management rules for the energy recovery of municipal waste volumes not subject to material recovery and landfilling. We are also open to considering member state concerns on maritime and aviation issues.
Finally, we call for assessing the impacts of ETS 2 within this review and to consider measures that could mitigate risks to our citizens and businesses. Um, we are particularly open to consider adjustments to the ETS 2, particularly reconsidering the suitability of ETS 2 and its postponement beyond 2030. We believe that more flexibility is needed in the use of ETS 2 revenues. ETS 2 auction revenues should further support measures to counter the adverse socio-economic impacts of the scheme. Finally, we believe that all proposed amendments should assess impacts at the level of member states.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, Agnes. And now call Hugo from Spain, followed by Erki from Estonia. Hugo, you have the floor.
Hugo
Gracias, presidente. La descarbonización no es un obstáculo para la competitividad. Es una condición para reducir nuestra dependencia de combustibles fósiles, reforzar la autonomía estratégica y movilizar inversión limpia en Europa. El ETS debe seguir siendo el principal instrumento de la política climática de la Unión Europea para avanzar hacia la neutralidad climática.
Por ello, España no ha apoyado la integración de créditos internacionales en el cumplimiento del ETS ni que se financien con ingresos del propio sistema. Esos recursos deberían destinarse prioritariamente a la descarbonización en la Unión. En relación con el factor de reducción lineal, el diseño debería partir de la trayectoria más exigente para 2036-2040 y permitir una reducción del esfuerzo doméstico únicamente cuando se haya demostrado que existe un volumen suficiente de créditos de elevada calidad e integridad ambiental. Asimismo, las absorciones permanentes pueden contribuir a abordar emisiones residuales, pero solo con certificación, permanencia, cancelación y plena ausencia de doble contabilización. Apoyamos la creación del Banco de Descarbonización Industrial.
La asignación gratuita a la inversión en descarbonización debe ser proporcionada, evitar cargas administrativas excesivas y no poner en riesgo la protección frente a las fugas de carbono. En los sectores cubiertos por el CBAM, necesitamos una solución europea permanente, armonizada y compatible con la OMC que evite diferencias entre Estados miembros y preserve la igualdad de condiciones. Consideramos positivo que una parte significativa y previsible de los ingresos vuelva a los sectores afectados para financiar electrificación, eficiencia, almacenamiento y combustibles sostenibles.
En transporte marítimo es necesario abordar mejor la ruptura de servicios transoceánicos directos y su redistribución desde puertos extracomunitarios, evitando que se incentive una reorganización del tráfico marítimo y el traslado de actividades fuera de los puertos europeos. Y respecto a la incineración de los residuos urbanos, cualquier incorporación al ETS debe ser coherente con la jerarquía de residuos y la economía circular, evitando incentivos al vertido y costes desproporcionados para servicios públicos esenciales. Paso la palabra al representante de las regiones, el consejero de Asturias.
Speaker 23
Presidente, señorías, las comunidades autónomas reiteramos nuestro firme compromiso con los objetivos climáticos de la Unión Europea y reconocemos el papel central del ETS como instrumento para avanzar en la reducción de emisiones. Consideramos que la descarbonización y la competitividad industrial deben avanzar de manera conjunta. La transición ecológica debe contribuir a modernizar y transformar la industria europea, preservando la actividad económica y el empleo y evitando la fuga de carbono y la deslocalización de inversiones.
Para ello la revisión del ETS debe contar con una financiación suficiente y accesible para el conjunto del tejido productivo incorporando la dimensión territorial y atendiendo especialmente a las necesidades de las regiones con una fuerte concentración industrial. Asimismo resulta esencial avanzar hacia un marco regulatorio más sencillo, estable y previsible que permita agilizar las inversiones sin menoscabar la integridad ambiental del sistema y en definitiva apoyamos una revisión del ETS que mantenga la ambición climática europea y contribuya a consolidar una industria moderna, competitiva y descarbonizada capaz de generar empleo, innovación y prosperidad en todos los territorios de la Unión. Muchas gracias.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much Spain and I now call on Erki from Estonia followed by Ieva from Lithuania. Erki you have the floor.
Erkki Keldo
Yes, thank you dear colleagues, honorable presidency and commissioner. ETS as already said is an important climate and competitiveness instrument. It must maintain a credible price signal while reflecting technological readiness, competitiveness and of course security of supply. It should reduce emissions, not move production outside from Europe. So of course we welcome a slower reduction of allowances after 2030.
However, the trajectory should be even smoother in 2031 to 2035. Why? Because key clean technologies will not yet be available at scale. Cutting allowances faster than emission can fall would only increase costs but unfortunately will not accelerate decarbonization. This is especially important for the Estonian oil shale sector.
The sector itself, a small one for the European level, but in a regional level supports thousands of jobs and economic stability in an industrial region on the European Union's eastern border. The transition there must be gradual and socially sustainable. Otherwise, we will face a serious security issue. Thanks to the Just Transition Fund, the transition is already underway, but transforming a regional economy, as you know, takes time. Oil shale also has a wider energy security role.
Shale oil is a storable domestic crisis fuel and contributes also to European strategic stocks. Free allocation must remain sufficient while carbon leakage risks persist and realistic, affordable decarbonization alternatives still remain unavailable. Conditionality is not suitable for all sectors, as some technologies are not yet available or economically viable. In addition, the cross-sectoral correction factor should be avoided, particularly where best available technology is already used and production supports security of supply. We also need greater carbon price stability.
Changes to market stability reserve aimed to prevent unjustified price spikes are welcome, but we need more than what's in the proposal to achieve that goal. For example, a price threshold releasing additional allowances or more flexible MSR triggers. Now a few words on revenues and funding. Member states must retain sufficient auction revenues and flexibility. They have proven to be very successful and essential tool for climate, energy security and competitiveness investments in member states.
EU-level instruments must not disproportionately reduce them. Central funding must be geographically balanced and accessible to smaller economies and companies. It should not be allocated simply on a first-come, first-served basis. We strongly support continuing the modernisation fund, with allocation reflecting different starting points and reduction already achieved. On extensions of ETS in maritime, ice-class and island transport exemptions should continue in the long term, reflecting our geographical and winter conditions.
The waste sector equivalent national fee systems should also be recognised to avoid double regulation.
And finally, we are strongly concerned about the ongoing energy crisis in Europe and in the world and increasing energy and heating prices. In this context, it would be really important to have a discussion on ETS 2 as well in the future. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Erki. I now call on Ieva from Estonia, followed by Einārs from Latvia. Ieva, you have the floor.
Ieva
Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues. I would like to note that Lithuania supports the EU ETS as a key climate policy instrument. It has delivered substantial emissions reductions and generates significant revenues for climate and energy measures, including through the Modernisation Fund. We therefore see clear value in preserving its effectiveness, credibility and environmental integrity. At the same time, energy-intensive industries face significant challenges.
The transition must be achievable across all Member States, taking into account differences in economic structures, technological capacity and access to finance.
This makes accessible climate finance for lower-income Member States particularly important. We welcome the solidarity elements in the Commission proposal, including dedicated access under the Industrial Decarbonisation Bank, the continuation of the Modernisation Fund, and the redistribution of allowances for solidarity purposes. However, funding must be accessible in practice. We are concerned that competitive and time-limited approaches could disadvantage Member States with smaller administrative capacity or less mature project pipelines. We welcome the extension of Modernisation Fund, but are concerned about its reduced size.
We therefore seek stronger funding by channeling the solidarity allowances under the Industrial Decarbonisation Bank, using the Modernisation Fund allocation key to ensure predictable access to lower-income Member States. On free allocation, we recognize concerns from energy-intensive industries regarding conditionality, including administrative burden, upfront investment needs, and competitiveness impacts.
Additional requirements should be proportionate to the expected environmental benefits, take national circumstances into account, and focus primarily on the most carbon-intensive installations and sectors where concrete solutions are available while preserving effective carbon leakage protection. As regards permanent carbon removals, technological and financial accessibility remains a concern. In Lithuania, geological CO2 storage is prohibited under national law. Greater technological flexibility could therefore help strengthen geographical balance, including by considering additional removal technologies beyond those currently envisaged. Furthermore, we are concerned that the framework does not provide sufficient safeguards for force majeure situations, such as energy crisis or military conflicts.
We are open to discuss solutions which could address such risk without undermining the long-term carbon price signal. Overall, Lithuania remains committed to constructive engagement and stands ready to support the presidency in finding a balanced outcome. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Ieva, and now call on Inārs from Latvia, followed by Miika from Finland. Inārs, you have the floor.
Speaker 27
Dear presidency, colleagues, Latvia welcomes the efforts to establish a predictable ETS trajectory towards 2040 and beyond. The proposal provides a more balanced approach and more supportive of the competitiveness of European industry.
For Latvia, district heating remains a particular concern. The current leakage factor applicable to free allocation for district heating should be maintained at least until 2035, with the possibility of extending it where technically and economically viable alternatives are not yet available. District heating is an essential service and allowance costs directly affect heat tariffs. We have concerns regarding the proposed conditionality mechanism. Existing investments, their payback periods, and the actual availability of future technological solutions should be properly taken into account.
Latvia doesn't support automatically transferring unused allowances intended for international credits to Industrial Decarbonisation Bank. These allowances should return to the pool auctioned by member states for the revenues remaining available for national climate and energy measures. Access to finance is essential. Solidarity must mean genuine access of funding for smaller member states and smaller projects.
Member States should also retain sufficient flexibility to use auction revenues according to their national climate and energy priorities. Latvia therefore cannot support the mandatory allocation of 50% of revenues exclusively to ETS sector. The allocation should reflect respective shares of ETS and non-ETS emissions at national level. On aviation, maintaining connectivity and competitiveness is particularly important for Member States at EU's external borders. Current geopolitical and security challenges have further increased the pressure on these connections, while carbon costs can have disproportionate impact on peripheral aviation markets.
We therefore see a need for a short-term support mechanism consistent with the overall decarbonisation objectives. In this context, Latvia does not support extending the ETS to additional flights to third countries.
We have concerns about the automatic increase of linear reduction factor from 1.7 to 2.7% if international credits are unavailable. We would favor a more flexible approach. On international credits and permanent removals, we need to ensure equal opportunities for all member states to use these instruments. We are opposing inclusion of landfills in the EU ETS as the policy is in place. We are skeptical also about the inclusion of waste incineration plants.
Before free allocation is fully phased out, the effectiveness of CBAM should be demonstrated, including its impact on the competitiveness of EU exports. In maritime transport, we remain cautious about including smaller vessels. The ETS cannot be assessed in isolation, so we need to see full post-2030 climate policy package before final decisions. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you indeed, Einārs. I now call Mika from Finland, followed by Vania from Italy. Mika, you have the floor.
Mika
Thank you, Chair.
We have calling for ambitious, predictable, and technology-neutral ETS with a clear emission reduction trajectory. The ETS should remain the cornerstone of EU climate policy and the main instrument for delivering the 2040 target. A strong ETS is essential for investment certainty, industrial competitiveness, and Europe's clean transition. Weakening the system would undermine investor confidence, penalize early movers, and shift the burden to member states and non-ETS sectors, increasing political and economic cost. For us, it's central that ETS 1 delivers its due share of the effort towards EU's 2040 target.
Mitigation efforts on non-ETS sector will be even harder to achieve. We need sufficiently high linear reduction factor, in particular during the first years of the period 31-40. The use of international credits should be strictly limited.
The integration of permanent removals into ETS is a positive element for us and should be done in a manner that does not increase the total emissions of ETS 1 and delivers sufficient incentives for scalable uptake permanent removals. Regarding your second question, we support the goal of advancing the decarbonization of EU industry, including through the EU funding instruments. With regard to funding, it's important to adhere to excellence principle and to achieve genuine EU-level added value compared to national or other EU-level solutions. Forerunner companies should not be punished if they have done their cost-effective decarbonization investments already before 2030. With regard to free allocation phase-out, our preference is to keep the existing timetables.
We also want to continue exploring European export solutions that is WTO-compatible and does not distort the EU internal market and have joined non-paper to that end.
In particular, we would like to welcome Commission's view on the current discussions and whether the WTO compatible solution can be found. Regarding your third question, we support the full inclusion of municipal waste incineration in the ETS as soon as possible and without an opt-out possibility. We think that the 95% biomass rule to exclude installation from ETS should be deleted. The rule creates an incentive for installations not to reach or exceed the level of 95% in usage of sustainable biomass and also creates an incentive for the excluded installations to increase their use of fossil fuels. In maritime, we would like to highlight the importance of taking in account the special circumstances of winter navigation permanently in regard to specific design features of ice-class ships as well as navigating in ice conditions.
Finally, I would like to point out that we support ETS 2 starting as planned and in full scope. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, Mika. I now call on Vania from Italy followed by Monique from France.
Vania Gava
Grazie alla presidenza per il lavoro svolto fino a qui. Mi rivolgo ai colleghi. Il documento che abbiamo condiviso insieme alla Repubblica Ceca e altri paesi e distribuito oggi ci pone davanti a una domanda importante. Stiamo rendendo più pulita la nostra industria o stiamo rischiando di perderla? Perché l'Europa non può decarbonizzarsi attraverso la deindustrializzazione.
Chiudere una fabbrica e importare gli stessi prodotti da chi inquina di più è una sconfitta industriale, climatica e sociale. Per l'Italia, che è una Repubblica fondata sul lavoro, difendere l'occupazione è una responsabilità costituzionale. Negli ultimi anni osserviamo con grande preoccupazione che l'industria europea ha perso peso sul PIL con i settori energivori che sono i più colpiti. Le imprese hanno subito una doppia pressione: il caro gas e l'elettricità che sono aggravati dalle crisi geopolitiche e anche l'aumento del prezzo delle quote ETS.
Su queste preoccupazioni a luglio, con altri nove Stati membri, abbiamo chiesto una decarbonizzazione che tuteli comunque la competitività europea. Noi riteniamo che l'ETS sia uno strumento importante per la decarbonizzazione, ma le risorse ETS devono tornare ai territori e ai settori più esposti attraverso strumenti di finanziamento che tengano conto del peso industriale, del costo dell'energia elettrica e dei fabbisogni di decarbonizzazione. Quanto ai benchmark, non possiamo spiegare ai cittadini che una fabbrica di ceramica chiude perché imponiamo prestazioni che le tecnologie attualmente disponibili non consentono. Chiediamo una sospensione della riduzione delle quote gratuite nei settori CBAM e una tutela efficace dell'export. La nostra industria ha portato nel mondo qualità, innovazione ed eccellenza europea e abbiamo la responsabilità di tutelare questo patrimonio.
Altro tema importante è l'incenerimento dei rifiuti urbani che deve restare fuori dall'ETS. Non possiamo far pagare di più ai cittadini e ai comuni e favorire le discariche. Non possiamo inoltre lasciare che l'ETS svuoti i porti europei, in particolare quelli del transhipment.
Trasferire i traffici fuori dall'Europa è un tema sociale, significa perdere occupazione senza alcun beneficio climatico. Inoltre rincarare il trasporto marittimo da e per l'Europa penalizza ulteriormente la competitività di chi produce qui. Quando aumentano i costi dei prodotti aumentano per tutti i paesi, non solo quelli affacciati sul mare. Infine chiediamo di riconsiderare l'avvio dell'ETS 2, valutandone la sospensione. Con i prezzi dei carburanti già sotto pressione, aggiungere nuovi costi a trasporti e riscaldamento non è per noi una possibilità fattibile.
Chiudo dicendo che il senso della transizione si misurerà nelle emissioni che sapremo e che dovremo ridurre, ma anche nelle fabbriche, negli investimenti e nel lavoro che sapremo mantenere in Europa. Grazie.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much indeed, Vania. I now call on Monique from France, followed by Estentia from the Netherlands. Monique, the floor is yours.
Monique Barbut
Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, l'ETS a toujours été le pilier de la politique climatique européenne.
La France souhaite donc que sa révision soit conclue rapidement afin de donner aux acteurs économiques la visibilité dont ils ont besoin. Le premier levier est de fournir un signal prix carbone robuste, qui est la façon la plus efficace d'orienter les investissements vers la décarbonation. Sur ce point, ce qui est déterminant, c'est de s'accorder sur un plafond d'émissions cohérent avec notre trajectoire de décarbonation. En ce sens, la France soutient la proposition de la Commission d'une approche en deux temps, avec une ambition plus forte sur la première période 2031-2035 par rapport à la période 2036-2040, durant laquelle il sera possible de mobiliser les crédits internationaux, et souhaite conserver le point de passage de 2040. Le second levier est d'apporter les financements nécessaires.
Sur ce point, je salue la création de différents instruments, dont la Banque de décarbonation. Il nous faut aussi mieux articuler ces instruments de financement, sélectionner les projets sur la base de critères d'excellence et respecter le principe de neutralité technologique. Le troisième levier est d'assurer un cadre robuste de lutte contre les risques de fuite de carbone.
Nous avons développé et renforcé le MACF, mais le travail n'est pas fini. Nous devons notamment proposer une solution pérenne pour lutter efficacement contre le risque de fuite de carbone à l'export, couvrant à la fois l'amont et l'aval. C'est une priorité importante pour la France. Pour les secteurs concernés, la proposition d'ajustement de la trajectoire de disparition des quotas gratuits jusqu'en 2038 donne plus de temps pour accompagner cette transition. Mais le rythme de disparition des quotas gratuits doit être adapté pour certains secteurs en fonction de leur capacité à répercuter le coût carbone à l'aval.
Ainsi, par exemple, il doit être ralenti pour l'ammoniac sans dépasser pour autant l'enveloppe de quotas gratuits additionnels proposée par la Commission. Pour les secteurs non couverts par le MACF, nous devons nous assurer que les quotas gratuits seront disponibles sur la période à venir tout en donnant de la perspective au secteur en révisant la méthodologie de calcul des référentiels.
En revanche, la France n'est pas favorable à la proposition de la Commission en matière de mise sous condition des quotas gratuits. Outre qu'un tel dispositif générerait une charge administrative importante, il emporterait une concurrence déloyale entre les industriels européens soumis à de telles conditions et les industriels extra-européens. Concernant l'extension aux installations d'incinération des déchets municipaux, nous pensons que cette expansion devrait être volontaire. Concernant le secteur maritime, la France demande en particulier deux améliorations : étendre aux liaisons nationales la dérogation actuellement réservée aux délégations de service public maritime transnationales et exclure les navires câbliers du champ d'application jusqu'en 2030 en raison du risque de contournement via les activités en mer. Concernant l'aviation, la France maintient son opposition à toute extension de l'ETS hors de l'Espace économique européen pour soutenir la mise en œuvre du CORSIA.
Enfin, au regard des spécificités des régions ultrapériphériques, la France accueille favorablement l'extension des dérogations jusqu'en 2035.
Celle-ci apparaît toutefois encore insuffisante au regard des enjeux de connectivité sans commune mesure auxquels font face ces territoires. La France souhaite donc qu'elle soit prolongée jusqu'en 2040 et s'agissant de l'ETS aviation, qu'elle soit étendue à l'ensemble des liaisons entre les RUP et tous les États membres de l'UE. Compte tenu en même temps de tout ce que j'ai entendu ce matin, je pense qu'on peut avoir un accord du Conseil sous votre présidence, Monsieur le Président irlandais. Merci beaucoup.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Monique. And now Colin Stentjes from the Netherlands, followed by Polona from Slovenia. Stentjes, you have the floor.
Saskia Stentjes
Thanks a lot, Derek. Dear colleagues, the EU ETS is not just the cornerstone of our EU climate policy. A strong ETS is vital to drive investments in decarbonization and critical, just like Arsenal has said, to become less dependent on fossil fuel imports and to drive innovation and thereby to bring down energy prices. And all those factors are essential for the competitiveness of our economy and the strategic independence of our continent that many of you referred to. The ETS costs are only a small part of the energy costs in Europe.
The real costs, as these soaring prices are showing, is our dependency.
So let's join hands, let's join our focus to reduce this dependency because it will help us all. And of course, we need to ensure a strong protection through CBAM and other mechanisms for our industry. And I actually heard many colleagues referring to this. For this, the EU ETS needs to be aligned with the 2040 target of net 90% reduction. And I'm concerned that the proposed adjustments to the linear reduction factor and market stability reserve combined will not provide the right incentives for these investments in our independence.
And in answer to Igor, he said the US invests more. Yes, but through the private sector. So how do we incentivize more investments? I think part of the answer is that companies ask us for just one thing: stability. Give us stability and a predictable pathway, clarity.
In this context, I'd also like to echo Denmark. And next to that, we are firmly opposed to any rediscussion of ETS 2. International credits should be used as a safety net and permanent carbon removals should be, should be part of our overall package through a centralized purchasing program to give us some flexibility. More allowances should be auctioned to cover the price gap and unused allowance for this purpose should be cancelled. Carbon leakage, I already referred to it.
We can build a very strong industrial base if we make sure it is protected against unfair competition. This echoes what Italy said. Just importing more is a solution for no one. So how do we build that strong economy that drives decarbonization and gets us independent? That is a challenge I think that we jointly face.
We think we should expand CBAM and find additional solutions when CBAM is not sufficient. The industry also should not be a cash cow. If we want them to decarbonize, they will need to have the funding to invest in decarbonization. Therefore, the ETS revenues are important. They should be dedicated to supporting our industry to go through this transition.
We would therefore be open to increasing the minimum percentage also for priority investments. Excellence and impact should guide our allocation. We see more merit in challenging funding through the Innovation Fund rather than the Modernization Fund, but I also understand some of the comments made by the colleagues. The Industrial Decarbonization Bank can be of added value, designed in a competitive way to direct funding to strategic industrial sectors. And we have reservations about the proposed volume and setup of the Industrial Investment Booster.
Conditionality for free allocations has been mentioned by others, has the potential to drive those necessary investments, but we should really further explore how to shape them to make sure they don't adversely affect business generally committed to investing, for example, for example when grid connection lags behind or there's problems with liquidity. Waste incinerators should be included as soon as possible. On aviation, the Netherlands supports ambitious climate policy with a sharp eye for an equal level playing field there as well and effectiveness. We consider the proposed inclusions of flights up to 5,000 kilometers for Frankfurt to be interesting, and we'd like to get a better understanding of the impact, so asking the Commission to share the details soon. With that, the Netherlands stands ready to engage with all of you in the coming months.
We need to find solutions for Europe which is resilient, competitiveness and sustainable at the same time, and we're looking forward to an agreement under your presidency. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much indeed, Saskia. And now call on Polona from Slovenia, followed by Petros from Greece. Polona, you have the floor.
Polona
Thank you, President. Spoštovani predsedujoči, komisar Hoekstra, ministri, lepo pozdravljeni. Predlog revizije ETS direktive ocenjujemo kot pomemben korak v smeri boljše uskladitve podnebnih ciljev s cilji konkurenčnosti evropskega gospodarstva, vendar menimo, da bodo potrebne še dodatne prilagoditve sistema.
Podnebno-energetski prehod mora postati motor, ki poganja konkurenčnost, saj bomo le tako lahko učinkovito tekmovali s tekmeci na globalnem trgu. Menimo, da je upočasnitev zmanjšanja zgornje meje emisijskih kuponov po letu 2030 nujna in potrebna, da zagotovimo, da bodo začrtani cilji bolje odražali realne tehnološke zmožnosti. Vendar pa nas skrbi negotovost glede linearnega faktorja zmanjšanja po letu 2035, ki ne omogoča zadostne predvidljivosti za ETS sektorje. Medtem ko podpiramo prilagodljivost v okviru revizije ETS sistema, opozarjamo, da morajo te vselej upoštevati načeli stroškovne učinkovitosti in okoljske integritete. Nikakor pa ne smejo povzročiti preusmerjanja potrebnih investicij izven Evropske unije.
V zvezi z vprašanjem ETS prihodkov pozdravljamo predlog, da se največji delež prihodkov od prodaje emisijskih kuponov porabi v ETS sektorjih. Poudarjamo pa, da mora solidarnost ostati eno temeljnih načel. Predlagan kriterij za dostop do sklada za modernizacijo je arbitraren in nepravičen. Slovenija bi zaradi minimalnega preseganja določenega praga izgubila dostop do sklada in tudi ovojnice v okviru spodbujanja razogljičenja, čeprav je še vedno pod povprečjem razvitosti Evropske unije in se sooča z velikimi potrebami po naložbah v čisti prehod.
Zato pričakujemo pravičnejša merila, ki bodo zagotovila, da pri energetsko-podnebnem prehodu nobena država članica ne bo spregledana. V tej luči izražamo tudi zaskrbljenost zaradi predlaganega zmanjšanja obsega sklada za modernizacijo, ki je neutemeljeno, saj največje potrebe po naložbah v čisti prehod ostajajo prav v državah članicah z najnižjimi finančnimi zmogljivostmi za njihovo izvedbo. In nenazadnje, načela geografske uravnoteženosti, administrativne poenostavitve in tehnološke nevtralnosti morajo biti jasno vključena in operacionalizirana v okviru vseh ETS skladov. Zaščita pred selitvijo industrije izven Evropske unije je za nas ključna. Pogojenost brezplačne dodelitve emisijskih kuponov ne sme kaznovati tistih, ki so v smeri razogljičenja storili in vložili največ.
Za konkurenčnost evropske industrije je nujna okrepitev CBAM-a in zlasti čimprejšnja oblikovanje rešitev za izvoz CBAM blaga. Zaradi razširitve obsega vključitve pomorskega in letalskega sektorja v ETS Slovenija poudarja, da je takšna razrešitev smiselna le, če njene podnebne koristi odtehtajo dodatne administrativne obremenitve, ki so lahko za manjše države članice, kot je Slovenija, precej neproporcionalne.
Slovenija torej predlaga glede na mednarodno naravo pomorskega in letalskega sektorja večjo centralizacijo izvajanja sistema ETS za ta dva sektorja. Hvala lepa.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Polona. I now call on Petros from Greece, followed by Norbert from Austria. Petros, you have the floor.
Petros
Thank you, Dirk. Our position has been summarized in the common paper that ten member states sent in July. For us, the keyword is competitiveness. We need to reconcile our climate policies with making the EU economy more competitive towards the non-EU countries. So it's not about competing with each other, it's about competing with the rest of the world.
We support an appropriate reduction of the linear reduction factor. Regarding international carbon credits, we support their use provided that we implement robust rules to safeguard access for all member states and transparency. We are concerned that free allocation conditionality adds unnecessary burdens and undermines European competitiveness and increase bureaucratic complexity instead of simplification. Funding instruments must provide targeted and sufficient support to lower-income member states.
We are satisfied with maintaining free allocation for CBAM-covered products, but we are concerned about the lack of export protection for European goods to third countries in a horizontal manner. We think this is very important if we want to keep our industry alive. Furthermore, we need to take into consideration member state specificities. For Greece, the maritime sector is crucial. We have very many small islands scattered all over the Mediterranean Sea, the East Mediterranean Sea, and more than 50% of EU fleet is of Greek ownership and about 20% of the global fleet.
So special attention needs to be given to the sector where Europe is practically the global leader. We don't have too many sectors that we are global leaders. To achieve the decarbonization of shipping in a cost-efficient manner, we must have a single regime at the global level to avoid unnecessary complications and increased compliance costs. Increased compliance costs means increased costs for the citizens, and that's our main concern.
The maritime sector, similar to aviation, should constitute a separate pillar within the EU ETS and with a dedicated allocation key that would reflect the contribution of member states with large maritime sectors. We are positive on earmarking a portion of EU ETS revenue specifically for shipping. However, Article 3gaa currently supports some zero-emission technologies, electric and wind, but misses energy-efficient equipment that provides immediate greenhouse gas reductions and can be implemented in bulk tramp shipping, which is the main shipping way. As regards expanding ETS to smaller vessels, we are skeptical. We welcome the derogation for small islands, provided it applies to all vessels, meaning both passenger and cargo ships.
Last, on port competitiveness, we want to work together with the other member states and the Commission to fine-tune the proposal to ensure the protection of the competitiveness of EU ports. Finally, closing remark, we are ready to work together with other member states and the Commission in order to find appropriate solutions that serve the benefit of all member states. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, Petros. I now call on Norbert from Austria, followed by Rositsa from Bulgaria.
Norbert
Danke dir, Dara, für dein großes Engagement zu diesem Rechtstext. Österreich bekennt sich zur Erreichung des EU-Klimaziels für 2040. Entscheidend ist, dass alle Sektoren einen angemessenen, realisierbaren und kosteneffizienten Beitrag leisten. Zur Frage 1: Wir unterstützen eine Absenkung des linearen Reduktionsfaktors, wobei der konkrete Reduktionsfaktor noch weiter diskutiert werden muss. Wir lehnen allerdings den vorgesehenen automatischen und binären Mechanismus bei der Einbindung von Artikel-6-Gutschriften ab, wonach der Reduktionspfad bis 2036 auf 2,7 % ansteigt, wenn der Ankauf der Zertifikate nicht vollständig erfolgreich ist.
Speaker 37
Eine allfällige Anpassung des Zielpfads für nach 2035 muss im Rahmen eines breiteren und klaren Prozesses festgelegt werden. Bei CO2-Entnahmen unterstützen wir zunächst einen Fokus auf dauerhafte Projekte, Bio-CCS und Direct Air CCS. Im Rahmen einer zeitnahen Überprüfung sollte jedoch auch Pflanzenkohle, Biochar CRCF, geprüft werden.
Diese zusätzlichen Flexibilitäten sollten insbesondere schwer dekarbonisierbaren Sektoren zugutekommen. Zur Frage 2. Ein wesentlicher Kritikpunkt Österreichs ist die fehlende dauerhafte Lösung für Exporte aus CBAM-Sektoren. Wir brauchen eine WTO-kompatible, rechtssichere und administrativ einfache Lösung. Dies könnte etwa durch einen Sockelbetrag der Gratiszuteilung in der Höhe des Exportanteils des jeweiligen CBAM-Sektors umgesetzt werden.
Wir begrüßen die Verlangsamung des Ausstiegs aus der Gratiszuteilung und sprechen uns für eine Verlängerung bis jedenfalls 2038 aus. Zudem soll der CBAM-Faktor für 2031 bis 2035 basierend auf einem CBAM-Review evaluiert werden. Wir sehen die Konditionalität prinzipiell positiv. Bei der Ausgestaltung ist der Verwaltungsaufwand zu minimieren und Planungssicherheit zu gewährleisten. Bei den gebundenen 20 % sehen wir noch Diskussionsbedarf.
Zur kostenlosen Zuteilung unterstützen wir die Weiterführung des Benchmark-basierten Systems. Es kommen sukzessive neue Produktionstechnologien auf den Markt, die auf dem freien Markt aber noch nicht eigenständig konkurrenzfähig sind.
Das betrifft etwa neue Anlagen in Schlüsselsektoren wie der Eisen- und Stahlindustrie. Die vollständige Einbeziehung dieser noch nicht marktreifen Technologien in die Berechnung des Hot Metal Benchmarks schafft ein Ungleichgewicht und erschwert zusätzlich Investitionen in marktfähige Dekarbonisierungstechnologien. Es braucht daher eine gezielte Regelung für solche neuen CO2-armen Produktionstechnologien. Den Ausbau der EU-Finanzierungsinstrumente, insbesondere der Industrial Decarbonisation Bank, unterstützen wir grundsätzlich, lehnen jedoch Förderung für Kernenergie und fossile Energieträger ab. Zudem stehen wir einer zusätzlichen Umverteilung der Mittel etwa beim Investment Booster sehr kritisch gegenüber.
Der Zugang muss primär kosteneffizient, aber auch geografisch ausgewogen und auf messbare zusätzliche Emissionsreduktionen ausgerichtet sein. Die Finanzierung von Kommissionsverwaltungskosten durch ETS-Zertifikate lehnen wir ab. Zur Frage 3: Österreich unterstützt grundsätzlich Klimaschutzmaßnahmen für Verbrennungsanlagen.
Eine Einbeziehung der Siedlungsabfallverbrennungsanlagen muss jedoch noch weiter geprüft werden, darf nicht isoliert erfolgen, sondern muss zwingend gemeinsam mit der Regulierung der Treibhausgasemissionen aus Deponien betrachtet werden. Wir unterstützen daher Monitoring- und Berichterstattungspflichten für Deponien bereits ab 2031 und schlagen vor, dass die Kommission bereits 2033 anstelle von 2034 einen Bericht zur Einbeziehung der Deponien vorlegt. Österreich unterstützt die befristete Opt-out-Möglichkeit bis 2035. Vielen Dank.
Speaker 1
Thank indeed, Norbert. And now I call on Rositsa from Bulgaria, followed by Peter from Slovakia. Rositsa, the floor is yours.
Уважаеми господин председател, господин комисар, колеги, България потвърждава позицията си в подкрепа на амбициозен, но прагматичен и реалистичен подход, който ефективно укрепва нашите икономики и ускорява кохезията.
Speaker 39
We'll try get that resolved, there's no translation coming through, just bear with us for a moment. Minister, would you just please just speak just speak again so yeah we're we're good. Okay, sorry apologies for that Rositsa if you want to recommence your remarks, the floor is yours.
Rositsa Karamfilova-Blagova
Okay, thank you Dara, I'm sorry. I will start in the beginning. България продължава потвърждава позицията си в подкрепа на амбициозен, но прагматичен и реалистичен подход, който ефективно укрепва нашите икономики, ускорява кохезията, ускорява справедливото разпределение на усилията и ползите и най-важното гарантира справедлив преход за всички.
По отношение на първия въпрос, считаме, че емисионната траектория следва да осигурява възможно най-висока предвидимост, при същевременно отчитане на важните структурни различия между държавите членки и отчитаме положително тенденцията към настоящия момент за частично отслабване на текущия значителен натиск върху индустрията. България подкрепя интегрирането на международните кредити в европейската рамка, но в същото време липсата на яснота относно критериите и наличността на такива кредити създава значителна неопределеност и непредвидимост. Това води до допълнителни рискове като неблагоприятни изменения в цените на въглерода, увеличаване на риска от изтичане на въглерод и загуба на конкурентоспособност. Затова трябва да се заложи по-предвидима рамка, която не води до директно прехвърляне на всички потенциални негативи и рискове върху операторите. Също така България подкрепя интегрирането и на вътрешноевропейските поглъщания, задължително обаче следва да бъде осигурена възможност за операторите без достъп до технологии за геоложко съхранение на въглерод да покрият своите емисии.
Speaker 41
I'm sorry, Minister, there's interference there on the translation. I think there's a mobile phone on, so just maybe check that, please.
Speaker 43
Не знам какво ще очакват те. Това е скандално. През цялото време аз няколко пъти реагирах на това, че има микрофони. Аз не искам да ги виждам.
Rositsa Karamfilova-Blagova
Последното изречение повторете. Задължително обаче следва да бъде осигурена възможност за оператори без достъп до технологии за геоложко съхранение на въглерод да покрият своите неизбежни остатъчни емисии чрез закупени единици. По отношение на втория въпрос, отчитаме принципно положително установяването на Банката за индустриална декарбонизация и инвестиционния ускорител, като подкрепяме поставянето на ясен фокус върху нуждите на въглеродно интензивните сектори и икономики. Подкрепяме и заделянето на максимално висок гарантиран дял за държавите членки с по-ниски доходи за целия период, както и гъвкави и практически изпълними изисквания. Силно скептични сме обаче към принципа „първи по време, първи по достъп“, който предоставя дискриминационно предимство на икономиките със значителен капацитет и опит в практическото възползване от подобни инструменти.
Гарантирането на географски баланс и улеснен достъп до подпомагащите механизми, включително и Иновационния фонд, остава ключов приоритет за нас. Потвърждаваме позицията си в подкрепа на запазване на безплатното разпределение на квоти максимално дълго, както и запазване на основната му цел, а именно превенцията на изтичането на въглерод.
Предложената условност променя защитния характер на безплатните квоти в задължение за инвестиции в ограничен набор от скъпи технологии, намалява инвестиционния капацитет и ощетява операторите, които вече са предприели действия за декарбонизация. България не може да подкрепи подход, който поставя европейските производители в още по-неизгодна позиция спрямо конкурентите им и рискува точно обратен ефект: свиване и изнасяне на производството извън съюза, увеличаване на вноса и зависимостта от внос, както и ръст в кумулативните емисии. За обхванатите от СВАМ сектори считаме, че премахването на безплатното разпределение следва ясно да се обвърже с категоричното доказване на ефективността на механизма срещу изтичане на въглерод. Отбелязваме, че предложеният от комисията подход не осигурява необходимото структурно и трайно решение относно конкурентоспособността на европейския износ. Нещо повече, предложената условност допълнително увеличава финансовия и административен натиск върху експортно ориентираните сектори.
Относно третия въпрос, всички сектори следва да осигурят реален принос според нас за постигане на климатичните цели, но само при отчитане на специфичните им особености и национално значение, включително необходимостта от запазване на регионалната свързаност и отчитане на международния характер на авиацията и корабоплаването.
В заключение, поддържаме твърдата си позиция, че законодателството трябва да отчита силно различаващите се национални реалности. Солидарността, енергийната сигурност и индустриалната конкурентоспособност трябва да бъдат в основата на ревизията на СТЕ. В тази връзка бихме искали отново да напомним за съвместното писмо от юли, подписано от 10 държави членки. Очакваме председателството да вземе предвид изложените аргументи в хода на преговорите, в това число и относно преразглеждането на СТЕ 2. Благодаря ви.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Rositsa, and apologies for the interference there during part of that. And now call on Peter from Slovakia, followed by Mihaela from Romania. Peter, the floor is yours.
Peter
Ďakujem, vážený pán predseda, kolegyne, kolegovia. Revízia EU ETS má mimoriadnu dôležitosť, nakoľko určuje budúce nastavenie klimatickej a priemyselnej politiky pre nasledujúcu dekádu. Spolu s inými členskými štátmi sa snažíme zapájať konštruktívne, a to aj vo forme spoločných listov. Zároveň sa spoločne snažíme navrhovať takú mieru ambícií, ktorá by odrážala dekarbonizačný potenciál v jednotlivých členských štátoch Európskej únie.
Ďakujeme aj Taliansku a Českej republike za spoločný dokument, ktorý predstavili a je dobrým základom do ďalšej diskusie. Slovenská republika víta navrhovanú úroveň ambície revízie systému EU ETS. Za pozitívne považujeme, že návrh zabezpečuje klesajúci emisný strop aj po roku 2040, pričom zohľadňuje potrebu zachovania konkurencieschopnosti európskeho priemyslu a vytvára dostatočný priestor pre odvetvia, ktoré je obzvlášť náročné dekarbonizovať. Pokiaľ ide o lineárny redukčný faktor, uprednostňujeme postupnejšiu trajektóriu v prvej časti obdobia, ktorá by priemyslu poskytla viac času na prípravu a realizáciu významných investícií potrebných pre dekarbonizáciu. Vítame pokračovanie kľúčových opatrení na ochranu pred únikom uhlíka, vrátane bezodplatnej alokácie, kompenzácie nepriamych nákladov a modernizačného fondu.
Tieto nástroje sú nevyhnutné na zachovanie konkurencieschopnosti priemyslu počas transformácie. Zároveň sa však pozeráme negatívne na navrhované rozšírenie podmienenosti bezodplatnej alokácie.
Podľa nášho názoru by tento prístup vytvoril dodatočnú administratívnu a regulačnú záťaž, zvýšil právnu neistotu a priniesol finančné riziká bez jednoznačne preukázaného prínosu pre dekarbonizáciu priemyslu. Bezplatná alokácia by mala aj naďalej slúžiť svojmu primárnemu účelu, ktorým je ochrana pred únikom uhlíka. Dodatočne zdôrazňujeme význam zachovania dostatočnej flexibility pri využívaní príjmov z dražieb emisných kvót a potrebu zabezpečiť, aby existujúce solidárne mechanizmy, najmä modernizačný fond, neboli v dôsledku navrhovaných zmien oslabené. Naopak, voláme po navýšení jeho veľkosti, nakoľko sa jedná o zásadný nástroj pre pokračovanie dekarbonizácie v kľúčových odvetviach. Na záver, Slovenská republika nepodporuje zahrnutie spaľovania komunálneho odpadu do systému EU ETS.
V podmienkach Slovenskej republiky nevidíme realistické možnosti nasadenia technológií CCS v tomto sektore. V praxi by to znamenalo predovšetkým dodatočné náklady na plnenie povinností, ktoré by sa v konečnom dôsledku premietli do nákladov domácností. V neposlednom rade Slovenská republika opakovane vyzýva na otvorenie diskusie o vhodnosti ETS 2 v rámci prebiehajúcej revízie a preferuje ďalšie odloženie systému z dôvodu vysokých cien palív a z dôvodu jeho negatívneho dopadu na domácnosti a priemysel. Ďakujem vám za pozornosť.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, Peter. And finally from member states, before I hand over to our commissioner, Mihaela from Romania, the floor is yours.
Speaker 45
Thank you, Minister. The ETS reform should strike the right balance between European industrial competitiveness and climate ambition at a time of particularly high global pressure with spillover effects for our citizens' living costs. Recalling the July joint letter by ten member states, we encourage the presidency to consider the group's proposals for a balanced and fair ETS. Our objective remains a constructive dialogue focused on safeguarding European industrial competitiveness and on avoiding escalating bills for our citizens. The emission reduction pathway may risk accelerating deindustrialization instead of delivering a viable transition.
Speaker 46
Therefore, we prefer a more gradual linear reduction factor and a smoother pathway to reflect the economic and technological realities. Many sectors face constraints because of issues related to technology availability at scale, which is why the methodology of benchmarks would need to be reviewed as well. Free allocation has to continue up to the point where we are sure that the measures in place prevent further carbon leakage.
Free allocation is the main mechanism to incentivize companies to stay in the EU and decarbonize, even in the context in which energy prices continue to rise, which is particularly challenging for energy-intensive industries. If kept, the conditionality should be carefully calibrated to avoid creating disproportionate administrative burden or unintended risks for installations. On financing the transition, the Modernisation Fund represents an essential tool to carry out the necessary investments for the systematic modernization of industry and the energy system. Therefore, we do not support the proposed reduction of the fund and ask for an adequate level of financing. As to the new financial instruments, we have to carefully design and simplify access rules to ensure that these instruments function as true accelerators for all Member States.
We therefore advocate for integrating the solidarity component of the investment booster into the Modernisation Fund, as this fund benefits from a framework that has proved its effectiveness in the face of structural delays by accelerating the deployment of the capital needed. We must ensure a fair geographical distribution across and a broader access to the Innovation Fund. Also, we remain convinced that Member States should retain ownership of their ETS auctioning revenues and should dispose of sufficient flexibility to address specific decarbonization needs.
The price of carbon will need to be predictable, and the Market Stability Reserve should be responsive and have enough liquidity to provide confidence to the EU companies. On the proposed scope extension, the decarbonisation of the maritime and aviation sectors must not lead to the diversion of European traffic to third-country hubs. We must protect the competitiveness of EU ports and air operators by mitigating carbon leakage and by prioritising administrative simplification. Finally, the ETS 2 must be reassessed. Additional costs on heating and transport during deep energy crisis is something that is socially unacceptable.
We must pause or revise this mechanism to protect our citizens from rising living costs and to defend the economic survival of our households. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mihaela, and thank you, colleagues, for your input and the number of points directed to the Commission. So, Wopke, you have the floor maybe to address and summarise before I wrap up on this part of our agenda. Thank you, Wopke.
Wopke Hoekstra
Many thanks, Eamon, and many thanks to everyone in the room.
I think a hugely important and also very rich debate in terms of the content, the points of approval, sometimes the concerns that have been voiced. I'm not going to try to either summarize or address the various issues again, either the appreciation or the criticism, but maybe a couple of more fundamental points. First, the logic of bringing climate competitiveness and independence hand in hand is something I think literally everyone in the room shares. Clearly, there are differences, but that we need to make sure we continue with climate action, but that needs to be moving competitiveness forward rather than backward, I think is crystal clear from everyone. And the same is true for this hugely timely and important issue of independence.
So I think that is one. Secondly, if I listen carefully, and I'm not trying to be overly optimistic, but if I think about what people have said on the architecture, I think on that there is also a lot of alignment. Again, in terms of making sure that this is and needs to be an investment and innovation engine.
In terms of the reciprocity that is much more baked into this design than in the previous one. In terms of making sure that this fits with the 90% target that we have set before, for the simple reason that if we don't do it here, it will be more burdensome in other domains. In terms of the solidarity that is always part of the recipe. In terms of gradually adding elements and the whole conversation on negative emissions. I think that overall architecture gets a lot of support, even though I think we all recognize that people have different perspectives on the exact how of each of the measurements.
I think there are, this is very important inputs to continue the collaboration. And I do think it fully makes sense, exactly as the presidency has suggested, to continue the conversations, to look into how to bridge this, which will ask and demand flexibility from everyone, and that then we do have a good chance to seek to seal this in a general approach by the end of this calendar year. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you indeed, Wopke, and thank you, Commissioner. Look, colleagues, I think this has been a very valuable debate.
We've had very valuable input from Member States, which I think will be instrumental in taking this proposal forward. And it's also very worthwhile that we're hearing in the room here at political level each other's views, and and that is an important step in delivering a workable compromise. I, like the Commissioner, have heard common emphasis on the need to have an ETS that's fit for purpose for the next decade. And of course, and understandably, there are varying views on certain issues which we will need to work through, and I'm sure that we will work through. However, the point of ensuring Europe's competitiveness is a cross-cutting issue, and it's very clear that a well-functioning and predictable ETS is an important factor in delivering that.
I have heard some divergence on whether the level of ambition is is too high or indeed is too low, and whether the flexibilities and solidarity proposed represent an appropriate balance. But I've also taken due note of other issues that have been raised by by delegations, and we appreciate that. Importantly, I've heard from you that you wish to see us reach an agreement at this review.
And to do that, we'll need to continue to hear one another, to listen to one another and to work towards a balanced compromise. And I can assure you as presidency, colleagues, we'll continue to work intensely and intensively on the basis of this debate, aiming to pave the way forward for a balanced compromise as Wopke has said at our December Council meeting. And our ambassadors will take the file forward ahead of the December Council. So with that, colleagues, I conclude that the Council has held a policy debate on the proposal on a review of the EU Emissions Trading System. And that concludes this item on the agenda.
Thank you. Now, colleagues, conscious of time and we're not doing badly in that regard, but we've two very significant items.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.