The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (NFEPWM) will be the first institution to implement the ELENA (European Local Energy Assistance) instrument at the national level in Poland. As the leader of green investment financing in Poland, it is launching a new advisory services segment for companies and local governments preparing sustainable investments. On March 3, 2026, in Luxembourg, Ioannis Tsakiris, a vice president at the European Investment Bank, and Dorota Zawadzka-Stepniak, the board president of the NFEPWM, officially acknowledged an agreement for the ELENA National Pilot Program. The project preparation budget is €4.5 million, with €4.05 million provided as grant support from the ELENA facility — a joint EIB and European Commission facility under InvestEU. Pre-investment support will target local government authorities and heating companies. Increased investments in heating and energy efficiency will lead to energy savings and reduced carbon dioxide emissions. These efforts are part of Poland’s energy transition, with the NFEPWM playing a significant role. In 2026, the fund will allocate 85 percent of its planned green investment budget of €8.8 billion to the energy transition. After a consultation, the European Commission formally approved the ELENA grant, and it was decided to leverage the NFEPWM’s experience to implement an ELENA pilot mechanism nationally. The fund will combine its experience with the EIB’s established practices under the ELENA instrument. After the pilot phase, the NFEPWM plans to continue and expand the program to include beneficiaries from other sectors. > In 2026, the fund will allocate 85 percent of its planned green investment > budget of €8.8 billion to the energy transition. “The competence center, established as part of the ELENA project, addresses market needs in investment consulting to support Poland’s energy transition. The ELENA program will provide the NFEPWM with a unique range of services in Europe, combining advisory and financial support for future beneficiaries. This initiative aligns with the fund’s strategy for 2025–2028, which focuses on developing advisory services and creating a competence center within the fund, as well as utilizing modern financial instruments,” explains Zawadzka-Stepniak. ELENA in Poland: pilot project assumptions Between 2026 and 2029, Polish investors planning thermal modernization of public buildings and upgrades in the heating sector will have access to advisory services. Local government authorities and heating companies will receive comprehensive expert support in preparing their investments. The involvement of relevant experts will facilitate the development of high-quality project documentation, leading to effective funding applications in calls for proposals conducted by the NFEPWM. The pilot program will support entities that choose not to modernize public buildings or heating plants due to a lack of know-how. It will target new investors who can evaluate the profitability of potential investments, helping to expand the NFEPWM program’s beneficiaries. Some Polish local authorities and heating companies, constrained by limited finances, avoid the risk of inefficient spending on investment analysis, missing the chance to secure support from European funds or the Modernisation Fund. Under the ELENA project, the NFEPWM will reach out to these investors, providing technical assistance and identifying financing opportunities for future projects. This approach addresses the need for local governments to enhance energy efficiency and the requirements for heating companies to adopt more environmentally friendly heat generation methods. The future beneficiary will gain a partner in the NFEPWM, an expert in preparing technical documentation for co-financing applications and green project funding. Assistance will focus on supporting preparatory processes, including energy audits, feasibility studies, technical documentation, public procurement services and ex-ante analyses. The transformation of district heating is a priority for change in the Polish economy, making it crucial to enhance the efficiency of district heating systems and increase the use of renewable energy from various sources. More than 15 million Poles are daily users of district heating produced by small municipal heating plants typical of the Central European region. Although the networks are extensive, improving their efficiency is often necessary. The challenges include reducing heat production from coal combustion and minimizing unnecessary heat consumption. Companies are increasingly investing in modern technologies that decrease the release of dust and harmful compounds into the atmosphere. The last 20 years have brought significant changes to the Polish heating sector — carbon dioxide emissions have fallen by nearly 20 percent, the production of harmful dust has been reduced by over 90 percent, sulfur dioxide emissions have decreased by almost 90 percent and nitrogen oxides by over 60 percent. > For nearly 37 years, the NFEPWM has led green transformation financing in > Poland, improving the natural environment and quality of life. It has > co-financed environmental protection and water management investments totaling > nearly 160 billion złoty. Modernizing the heating sector and improving the energy efficiency of public buildings will reduce greenhouse gas emissions locally and nationally. The ELENA project in Poland will co-finance at least 65 entities in the heating sector. Energy efficiency projects will lower energy consumption, increase renewable energy use and enhance facility comfort. Long-term investments will reduce local government operating costs, improving air quality and residents’ quality of life. The national pilot aims to support analyses and documentation for at least 80 thermal modernization investments in public buildings. The ELENA instrument is implemented by the European Investment Bank under an agreement with the European Commission. Established in 2009 as part of the Intelligent Energy Europe II program, ELENA provides pre-investment support for sustainable energy, transport and housing. It is an EIB Advisory grant facility, under InvestEU, which supports the preparation of sustainable investments. As of the end of 2025, the ELENA facility has provided €374 million in grants for 206 projects across the European Union, supporting investments of over €12.7 billion. For nearly 37 years, the NFEPWM has led green transformation financing in Poland, improving the natural environment and quality of life. It has co-financed environmental protection and water management investments totaling nearly 160 billion złoty. Thanks to the NFEPWM, green investments worth approximately 340 billion złoty have been implemented in Poland. Under the Ministry of Climate and Environment, NFEPWM supports EU environmental and energy policy objectives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polish National ELENA Pilot Programme Co-funded by the InvestEU Advisory Hub of the European Union

Every day across Europe, millions of citizens wear, sleep on, eat off or rely on rental textiles provided by industrial laundries. From hospital linens and reusable surgical gowns to industrial workwear, hotel bedding, restaurant textiles and hygiene products, textile services operate quietly but indispensably at the heart of Europe’s economy. In many countries, more than 90 percent of hospitals and hotels would be forced to close within days without a continuous supply of hygienically cleaned textiles, while pharmaceutical and food production facilities would halt operations within 24 hours. Behind this essential service stands a highly organi z ed European industry that combines operational excellence with a circular, service-based business model — washing and keeping textiles in use for longer, reducing waste and lowering environmental impact while safeguarding public health. By relying on reuse, repair and professional maintenance, the system significantly reduces the need for virgin raw materials sourced from outside Europe. At the same time, these locally anchored service models create skilled jobs, generate tax revenues in the communities where companies operate and drive continuous innovation in circular solutions — supporting new business opportunities and industrial development across the European Union . > In this time of on going and challenging geo-political change, it will become > crucial to fully recogni z e the strategic value of circular, service-based > business models, which strengthen competitiveness and resilience while > delivering on Europe’s sustainability objectives. > > Hartmut Engler, CEO of CWS Workwear As several important legislative files move forward in Brussels, it is time to reflect on what textile services need to continue to implement sustainable solutions. Public procurement rules are a great vector to promote and encourage circular business models while delivering on the strategic autonomy ambition of the EU. Public authorities across the EU spend over € 2.6 trillion annually on purchasing services, works and supplies, accounting for around 15 percent of the EU ’s GDP. However, too much of this investment is directed toward linear services and disposable goods, slowing down progress toward Europe’s environmental and industrial objectives. With the revision of the EU public procurement rules, it should be recogni z ed that the EU’s circular economy and environmental aims are greatly advanced by the textile rental industry. Specifically, g reen p ublic p rocurement should become mandatory across all EU m ember s tates and should also encourage alternatives to direct purchase such as leasing models or product-as-a-service business models. Public procurement should not be driven solely by value-for-money considerations, but by a holistic lifecycle approach that reflects long-term environmental and social performance. Introducing mandatory lifecycle costing as an award criterion would ensure that sustainability is measured over the full duration of a contract, not just at the point of purchase. > Longevity of product should be the first priority of the upcoming Circular > Economy Act. The most sustainable product is ultimately the one that is kept > in use the longest, putting durability and repairability at the centre of > environmental benefits. > > Elena Lai, s ecretary g eneral of the European Textile Services Association European Textile Services Association (ETSA) members already deliver sustainable business models with product-as-a-service models implementing repair, reuse and extended use. Such business models should be empowered and further supported in legislation, hand in hand with recycling. Extending a product’s useful life delivers far greater climate and resource benefits than breaking products down for recycling after short use cycles. It preserves the embedded energy, water and raw materials already invested. However, prioriti z ing longevity does not mean neglecting end-of-life solutions. At the same time, ETSA members are joining forces to invest in a joint recycling pilot project, translating circular ambition into practical industrial solutions. They are developing innovative processes to transform end-of-life textiles into recycled fib er s suitable for insulation materials, industrial wipers and other high-value applications — with the long-term vision of advancing closed-loop systems in which recycled fib er s can increasingly serve as raw materials for new textile production. Recycling requires stable markets and long-term policy certainty, and the sector is actively investing in building both. By developing concrete use cases for recycled content, these initiatives help strengthen European recycling value chains while further reducing dependency on third-country suppliers. > Europe does not need to invent circular solutions from scratch. They already > exist. The priority now is to put in place policies that support circular, > service-based business models. These models are built on durability and > extending product lifespans to get more value from the resources we already > use. > > Elena Lai, s ecretary g eneral of the European Textile Services Association Textile services are not an emerging concept but a proven, scalable European solution — reducing consumption, anchoring jobs locally, safeguarding public health and lowering emissions. By recogni z ing and supporting service-based reuse models in forthcoming legislation, the EU can accelerate its sustainability ambitions while strengthening competitiveness and strategic autonomy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is ETSA – European Textiles Service Association * The ultimate controlling entity is ETSA – European Textiles Service Association * This political advertisement advocates for the recognition and support of circular, service-based business models within forthcoming EU legislation; by addressing the Circular Economy Act, the revision of EU Public Procurement rules, Green Public Procurement requirements and lifecycle costing criteria, it seeks to influence policymakers and the public debate on EU sustainability, industrial policy and procurement frameworks, bringing it within the scope of the TTPA. More information here.

BRUSSELS — Europeans should eat less meat and farms must be taxed for their planet-warming pollution if the bloc is to reach its climate goals, the EU’s scientific advisers argue in a set of far-reaching recommendations that are unlikely to get a warm welcome from farmers.  In a 350-page report published Wednesday, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change also calls on the EU to scrap farm subsidies for climate-damaging practices, arguing sweeping measures are necessary to reduce agriculture’s contribution to global warming. To aid farmers, they propose scaling up financial support to help them transition toward greener alternatives as well as aid to cope with increasing droughts and climate disasters.  Yet environmental policies that so much as touch on agriculture have become politically toxic in recent years, with Brussels and EU capitals reluctant to address farm emissions in the face of large-scale tractor protests and intense lobbying campaigns.  Still, sticking with business as usual isn’t an option, said the board’s chair Ottmar Edenhofer.  “In order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 within the EU, the sector has to contribute to emissions reduction,” he said.  “And if we do this in a smart way during the transition process, in a gradual way, pricing the emissions but also using the revenues to support the transition … I think this is a beneficial pathway for the whole sector and for the whole of society.”  While politically sensitive, the board’s recommendations are not revolutionary.  Plenty of scientists and even the World Bank have in recent years urged governments to ensure their citizens eat less meat and to cut environmentally harmful subsidies in order to rein in greenhouse gas emissions from food, which account for about a third of all planet-warming pollution.  And Denmark is on track to become the first country to tax agricultural pollution after Copenhagen and farmers’ associations agreed in 2024 to impose a carbon price on livestock emissions from 2030.  Yet the board’s reports carry weight. The independent consortium of scientists is tasked by EU law with providing guidance on climate policy; past recommendations have proven influential, with the board’s 2023 advice on setting a 2040 emissions-slashing target of at least 90 percent playing a major role in leading the EU to enshrine this goal in law last week.  The entire food system, from farming to consumption to waste management, produces 31 percent of the bloc’s emissions. | Quentin Top / Hans Lucas / AFP via Getty Images The recommendations on agriculture also come just as the EU drafts new policies that could incorporate some of the board’s advice — from the bloc’s next long-term budget and an upcoming revision of the EU farm subsidy program, to a slate of new green legislation designed to meet the new 2040 target, and a plan to increase resilience to climate disasters. CAPPING CAP PAYMENTS The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), a behemoth that absorbs around a third of the EU’s budget, is a key target of the report. The current framework contains provisions around climate and biodiversity, but has failed to sufficiently slash greenhouse gas emissions. The entire food system, from farming to consumption to waste management, produces 31 percent of the bloc’s emissions. More than half of that occurs during food production — think super-polluting methane released by cows as well as fertilizer use, tractor fuel and more.  The CAP, the scientists warn, still incentivizes climate-harming practices through its vast subsidy system. The EU should therefore gradually phase out payments that are tied to livestock production, a type of income support for farmers that consumes 5 percent of the current CAP budget, they say.  In fact, they add, the EU should reconsider the entire idea of subsidies based on farmland size, worth 39 percent of the CAP budget or more than €100 billion, as they “incentivize agricultural production over other land use” such as forestry, and thus drive up emissions. On top of reforming the CAP, the EU should introduce a carbon pricing mechanism covering agriculture, building on the Emissions Trading System architecture that has successfully halved industry and power plant pollution, the scientists say.  But they argue that agricultural carbon pricing should consist of three separate systems — one each for energy-related farm emissions, non-CO2 pollution such as methane, and agricultural emissions and carbon dioxide removals from land.  The EU also needs to address consumer demand to tackle food emissions, the board says. In particular, Europeans eat too much red meat, driving up methane pollution.  The scientists recommend the EU set up national guidelines for climate-friendly diets and set mandatory standards for marketing and sustainability labeling of food to push consumers toward greener choices.  CLIMATE-PROOFING FARMS To sweeten the deal for farmers, the board suggests that with the money saved from a reformed CAP and generated through carbon pricing, the EU should support them in the transition toward climate-friendly practices and in adapting to a warmer world.  Whether the promise of funding would be enough to placate farming lobbies that have launched massive tractor protests across Europe at any hint of additional burdens for farmers is uncertain. Political appetite for green legislation has also declined in both Brussels and capitals amid a shift toward industry- and security-focused policies.  As part of its Green Deal, the European Commission in 2020 launched a Farm to Fork Strategy designed to make the bloc’s food system more environmentally friendly. The plan, however, was effectively abandoned following a backlash from lobby groups and conservative politicians.  Political appetite for green legislation has also declined amid a shift toward industry- and security-focused policies. | Marijan Murat/picture alliance via Getty Images Only last week, EU institutions struck a deal to ban vegetarian products from using certain meat-related terms.  But Edenhofer believes that there is political space to enact the board’s recommendations, pointing to Denmark’s tripartite deal establishing a carbon tax — an agreement between the government, farmers and environmental groups — as a hopeful example.  “We acknowledge that this is very complicated, but … we need a regulatory system which incentivizes emission reductions in the agri-food system,” Edenhofer insisted.

Europe’s ambition to become climate neutral by 2050 cannot succeed in healthcare unless we fix a basic problem: we do not measure sustainability in the same way across the single market. Currently, measuring Product Carbon Footprints (PCF) and Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) throughout the European Union consists of a patchwork of national methodologies and/or competing frameworks. This fragmentation is not just a technical inconvenience, it actively undermines fair procurement, increases costs, and risks unequal patient access across Europe.[1] Without a single, harmonized methodology or framework, this EU sustainability and competitiveness goal will remain challenging to achieve. Though the lack of harmonizsation may seem technical, its consequences are tangible. PCF and LCA outputs can differ widely depending on the standards and methodologies defined and endorsed by policymakers, the way they are applied by industry, or how existing international standards are interpreted and implemented across member states.[2] The result is that national authorities are effectively speaking different languages. A treatment considered more environmentally responsible in one country may be evaluated entirely differently just across the border. And without harmonized sustainability assessments for medicines, there is a risk that sustainability is given disproportionate weight compared with safety and quality, undermining high-quality medicine development. In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – prevents comparability. [1]  > In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – > prevents comparability. In practice, the absence of a harmonized standard allows 27 different interpretations of ‘sustainability’ to coexist, which is incompatible with a functioning single market. Fortunately, PAS 2090:2025 offers what the EU has been missing: a single, science-based methodology that allows regulators, procurers, and industry to finally speak the same language. Developed with stakeholders across the healthcare and life sciences sector, PAS 2090:2025 specifies the appropriate methodology for medicines under ISO standards, aligning the playing field for everyone involved. Published by the British Standards Institution in November 2025, it reflects broad technical consensus and strong credibility. PAS 2090:2025 provides the first practical methodology for measuring the environmental performance of pharmaceuticals, establishing a common framework to support comparable environmental reporting, reduce regulatory duplication and provide policymakers with a credible basis to demonstrate progress toward climate neutrality. It also gives industry the predictability needed to invest in sustainable innovation, while ensuring that patients receive consistent assessments of a treatment’s environmental profile, regardless of where it is evaluated. Importantly, this approach reflects principles already embedded in EU policymaking. The European Health Data Space, for example, demonstrates how interoperability and standardized frameworks are essential in making cross-border data meaningful and actionable.[3] Meanwhile, the European Commission has been equally clear: harmonized technical standards and coherent sustainability rules are critical to the effective functioning of the Single Market and ensuring the free movement of goods.[4] This is a shared concern across stakeholder groups. Both the Federation of European Academies of Medicine and European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, representing Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, have similarly highlighted the fact that common standards are essential for transparent procurement and fair competition across therapeutic categories.[5]And the innovative pharmaceutical industry, via the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, has outlined both the challenges caused by the absence of harmonized standards and called for policymakers, regulators and healthcare stakeholders to endorse PAS 2090:2025 as the one, internationally accepted standard for measuring PCA and LCA in the pharmaceutical industry.[6]Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, the European Commission, and the innovative pharmaceutical sector all point to the same conclusion: without harmonized standards, sustainability policy cannot work. > At Chiesi, we support PAS 2090:2025 not because it is convenient, but because > it makes our environmental performance directly comparable and therefore > accountable.[2]  That is why our teams have laid out ambitious, yet reachable, targets regarding the reduction of Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. We also know that in order to reach these targets, we need to measure our actions and emissions. Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful difference.[3]  > Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful > difference.[3]  Our support for PAS 2090:2025 reflects a commitment to transparency, science-based decision-making and long-term sustainability; we use it ourselves because we believe it is the way forward — making it simple to compare products fairly, design transparent tenders, and procure with clarity. Further, industry members will be able to innovate with confidence, knowing that the life-changing efforts will be assessed with science and clear understandings. That said, no single actor can deliver alignment alone. Real progress depends on collaboration between regulators, policymakers, scientific bodies, and industry around a shared approach to measuring and comparing environmental impact. Chiesi stands ready to work with policymakers and partners across the healthcare ecosystem in favor of the adoption of PAS 2090:2025, understanding that achieving true regulatory harmonization is essential for ensuring patient access, maintaining high safety and quality standards, and fostering a globally competitive pharmaceutical industry in Europe. At the end of the day, the EU does not need another pilot program, framework, or national workaround. It needs a decision. It needs action. Europe must agree on how sustainability in healthcare is measured consistently and credibly across the single market. Measuring what matters, in the same way across Europe, is the only path to a climate-neutral, competitive, and fair European health system. Endorsing PAS 2090:2025 as the reference methodology would turn that principle into practice. Andrea Bonetti Andrea Bonetti is head of the EU office at Chiesi Farmaceutici, where he oversees the company’s public affairs strategy at European level across healthcare, sustainability and planetary health. Since opening Chiesi’s Brussels office in 2020, he has strengthened the company’s engagement with EU institutions, contributed to key policy discussions and supported initiatives to advance awareness on climate and environmental priorities in line with Chiesi’s values. He collaborates closely with cross-functional teams on the development and implementation of Chiesi’s sustainability strategy and represents the company within European and international trade associations. With more than 15 years of experience in health and environmental policy, he supports Chiesi’s external positioning and contributes to sector-wide work on environmental and sustainability frameworks. Disclaimer: POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Chiesi Farmaceutici * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU sustainability and Single Market policy. More information here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] European Commission. (2023). Annual Single Market Report 2023. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/ASMR%202023.pdf   [2] Healthcare Without Harm. (2022). Report: Procuring for greener pharma. https://europe.noharm.org/media/4639/download?inline=1   [3] European Union. (2025). Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327 [4] European Commission. (2026). Public procurement. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/public-procurement_en [5] European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) & Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM). (2021). Decarbonisation of the health sector: A commentary by EASAC and FEAM. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Health_Decarb/EASAC_Decarbonisation_of_Health_Sector_Web_9_July_2021.pdf.pdf [6]European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). (2025). Advancing environmental sustainability assessment of pharmaceuticals through standardisation and harmonisation of product carbon footprint assessment. https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/efpia-news/advancing-environmental-sustainability-assessment-of-pharmaceuticals-through-standardisation-and-harmonisation-of-product-carbon-footprint-assessment/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

BRUSSELS — The EU must start drawing up concrete plans to cope with life on a continent made 4 degrees Celsius hotter by climate change, the bloc’s scientific advisers said Tuesday.  That would mean accepting that the world is on track for a catastrophic temperature increase that will far exceed the targets agreed under the Paris climate accord and will massively disrupt life for Europeans. “Europe’s climate is rapidly changing. It is not a distant or an abstract risk,” said Ottmar Edenhofer, the chair of the European scientific advisory board on climate change. As the planet warms, weather extremes such as floods and droughts are posing a growing threat to Europe’s society, economy and ecosystems. In recent years, tens of thousands of Europeans have died in heat waves and hundreds more when rivers burst their banks; the annual repair bill for climate disasters has reached an average of €45 billion.  But the EU’s efforts to prepare for both current and future impacts of global warming are insufficient and fragmented, lacking a coherent vision, Edenhofer warned. “The EU lacks a shared understanding of what it should collectively prepare for, leading to inconsistent climate risk assessments that often undermine risk management,” he said.  In the board’s view, the bloc should protect itself on the assumption that the continent will be 4 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100 than in the pre-industrial era. The advice echoes a recent French government plan to prepare for a 4C hotter France.  Aside from establishing a common baseline of preparations, the board recommends four other measures to climate-proof Europe — from setting binding preparation targets to suggesting the EU plan its budget around climate risks.  With their requests for more targets and assessments, many of the board’s recommendations run counter to the deregulation fever gripping Brussels. In the report, the researchers even reprimand the EU executive for weakening green reporting requirements. Yet the board’s advice, an independent consortium of senior scientists tasked by EU law with issuing climate policy guidance, often proves influential. Its 2023 report recommending an emissions-slashing target of at least 90 percent by 2040 played a major role in pushing the bloc’s institutions to adopt that figure as their goal.  The report on preparing for climate risks — called adaptation in policy-speak — is also timely: The Commission is working on a new “framework” for climate-proofing Europe, expected toward the end of the year. “Our recommendations are aimed at the upcoming legislation,” Edenhofer said.  ADAPT TO SURVIVE While the EU has extensive legislation in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, no targets or policies exist for adaptation.  That’s in part because it’s tricky to draft continent-level policies for climate impacts, which differ in severity and classification not only across the bloc’s 27 countries but also within their borders. Southern Europe faces greater threats from heat than northern countries, and a nation’s coastal towns will need to cope with different risks than mountainous hinterlands.  But emissions-slashing efforts, known in policy jargon as mitigation, have also generally received more attention and investment, as they seek to tackle the root cause of climate change, while adaptation addresses its symptoms.  Scientists insist both are needed. “The success of global mitigation efforts is … critical to determine future temperature increases and the magnitude of the global risks,” said Edenhofer. “Adaptation can reduce climate risk and associated harms.”  For example, southern Europe’s droughts will become more frequent and intense the higher global temperatures rise — according to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), more than a third of the region’s population will face water scarcity at 2C of global warming, while 3C doubles this share. Curbing warming limits this risk.  To address the remaining risk, countries can introduce adaptation measures — such as having farmers switch to more drought-resistant crops or managing water use. The worse the warming gets, the greater the danger that regions and economic sectors will no longer be able to adapt.  All the EU has for now is a vague adaptation strategy from 2021. Most EU countries have national adaptation plans or laws with relevant elements, but both the European Environment Agency and the European Court of Auditors have warned that legislation varies wildly across the bloc and that some strategies are based on outdated scientific findings.  WORST-CASE SCENARIO That’s not good enough, the advisory board says. Among the five recommendations, the scientists want the EU to develop a coherent vision with “sector-specific adaptation targets, for example for 2030 and 2040,” and to find ways to manage the rising economic costs of climate disasters, for example, through budgetary and insurance mechanisms. This must be based on a common reference scenario, the scientists say, recommending the EU prepare for a global warming of between 2.8 C and 3.3 C above pre-industrial levels — consistent with projections that “imply around 4C warming for Europe,” Edenhofer said. The “precautionary principle” requires the EU to prepare for that scenario and it should also “stress-test” its planning against even higher warming scenarios, Edenhofer said, given the uncertainties around global efforts to cut emissions. The United States is notably currently reversing course on its emissions-slashing plans.  The report also criticized the Commission for its deregulation drive. The Commission’s first omnibus package aimed at simplifying environmental legislation exempted the majority of EU companies from having to report on the threat climate change poses to their business models, for example. This, the researchers say, “may weaken the oversight and management of climate risks in the wider EU economy.”

One year after the European Commission launched the Clean Industrial Deal to tackle mounting competitiveness challenges for EU industry, Neste ― the world’s leading producer of sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel ― is calling for urgent action to deliver on the Commission’s promise of turning “decarbonization into a driver of growth for European industries.” POLITICO Studio spoke to Jenni Männistö, vice president, strategy, M&A and business development at Finland-based Neste, about the company’s investments in the EU, how renewable fuels can be scaled and what they offer the continent’s economic future.  POLITICO Studio: How does the scale-up of renewable fuels strengthen the EU’s competitiveness, and why should the EU prioritize this? Jenni Männistö: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen provided a clear diagnosis when she began her second term in 2024: the world is in a race to develop the technologies that will shape the global economy for decades to come as we move toward climate neutrality. This global race is still on today, and Europe must seize the economic opportunities that clean tech provides amid increasing pressure on traditional fossil markets. One in five European oil refineries has closed since 2009. Going backward and falling economically behind in the global race is not an option. The EU is seeing its competitiveness challenged in some clean tech sectors, but there are also areas where it is a leader, such as biofuels. Our story shows what is possible: Neste has grown from a regional Finnish oil refinery into the global leader in renewable fuels. Forward-looking EU and global policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have helped accelerate innovation and growth. PS: Neste is investing €2.5 billion in expanding its Rotterdam refinery to make it the world’s largest biofuels production facility. What’s needed for more investments of this scale when many businesses are delaying projects or even shutting down sites in the EU? JM: The expansion of our Rotterdam refinery is a major investment. EU refinery and chemical sectors have lacked projects of this scale in recent years. Instead, we have seen new projects cancelled or delayed, all while traditional crude oil refineries close. This is a very concerning trend. To turn the situation around and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness and energy security, we need long-term certainty and a strong business case for early movers. And EU businesses should, of course, compete on a level playing field with imports. via Neste PS: Long-term certainty is a common request from businesses, but what’s specifically needed? JM: The first ingredient is long-term certainty about Europe’s commitment to climate neutrality and emissions reduction. The EU’s 2040 climate targets set a clear direction, and their adoption means we can now focus on the policies that get us there. The second ingredient is long-term regulatory certainty. We have a clear framework in place for SAF, for which the ReFuelEU Regulation sets targets until 2050. These targets must remain in place. > We are calling for new, strong enabling conditions for airlines to uplift SAF > beyond the EU minimum SAF targets, for instance by increasing support under > the Emission Trading System.” However, other areas are lacking: the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive currently has no transport sector target after 2030. Moreover, the EU Effort Sharing Regulation, which notably includes the national decarbonization objectives for the road sector, provides no visibility beyond 2030. That is a major issue, because biofuels producers cannot make major business and investment decisions based only on one customer segment — aviation — or a short-term regulatory outlook. PS: Why is it important that the EU supports early movers who invest in solutions to reduce transport greenhouse gas emissions?   JM: We were pleased with the direction of the Clean Industrial Deal and the EU’s Competitiveness Compass at the start of 2025; it clarified that there needs to be a business case for “clean production” with “lead markets and policies to reward early movers.” These commitments would address some of the big challenges for early movers that we see at Neste. We have invested heavily in expanding SAF production capabilities, but demand is failing to pick up as expected. Once the €2.5 billion expansion of our Rotterdam refinery is completed in 2027, Neste’s SAF production capacity alone could be sufficient to meet the EU’s current 2 percent SAF mandate. Today, we are a year on from the launch of the EU’s flagship competitiveness plans at the start of 2025, but we still need new policies that translate commitments to early movers into action. That is disappointing, and 2026 must be the year when the Commission acts to turn Europe’s early SAF lead into a long-term competitive advantage. That is why we are calling for new, strong enabling conditions for airlines to uplift SAF beyond the EU minimum SAF targets, for instance by increasing support under the Emission Trading System. PS: A level playing field is a vital factor; what makes it so crucial? JM: Although Europe currently leads in the scale-up of renewable fuels, other countries and regions are supporting their domestic companies to expand production capacity. This raises major level-playing-field concerns, similar to those we have seen in many other sectors. The EU must align its trade and industrial policies, especially for newly scaling markets. For instance, the EU’s SAF target is just 2 percent until 2030, and other countries and regions are only starting to roll out their own requirements for SAF use. This creates a risk that global SAF volumes end up flowing into the EU. > Renewable fuels can strengthen Europe’s energy security in today’s uncertain > geopolitical environment.” In 2025, the European Commission introduced new protective measures on biodiesel imports. In Neste’s view, there should be immediate measures to protect Europe’s biofuels industry as a whole, including SAF production, from unfair competition. The current approach falls short and endangers EU players’ competitiveness, as well as their ability to continue to invest in production capacity and future-proof innovation. PS: There’s a push to revisit and simplify some of the rules agreed during the last Commission, such as the carbon dioxide standards. How do you view this? What’s the balance between renewable fuels and electrification? JM: The approach of the Clean Industrial Deal is the right one — climate action and competitiveness must go hand in hand to deliver a growth strategy for Europe. That is why it is good that we revisit some of the EU rules with these twin objectives in mind. Neste is leading the way with its investment in the Netherlands; we believe that the EU industry can still lead in renewable fuels if we are bold. We need to ask how we can implement policies that cut greenhouse gas emissions and build on Europe’s competitive strengths. With this in mind, it is a step in the right direction to recognize the role of renewable fuels in the legislation on CO2 standards, but their actual and immediate greenhouse gas contribution needs to be better reflected. Electrification plays a role, especially in light-duty vehicles and urban transport, but it is not a silver bullet for the transport sector as a whole. Once EU rules enable a range of low greenhouse gas emission options, users can choose the solutions that best fit their operational needs. PS: There’s also the issue of EU autonomy and energy in an increasingly volatile world. What’s the role of renewable fuels in that context? JM: Renewable fuels can strengthen Europe’s energy security in today’s uncertain geopolitical environment. A key priority is diversifying supply; expanding European-produced renewable fuels can reduce our reliance on volatile global markets. In 2023, which is the most recent data available, the EU’s import dependency for oil was nearly 95 percent, underscoring the need to de-risk and diversify. The aim is not to be an island ― EU companies will need global supply chains and partners. Scaling up renewable fuels brings opportunities for new partnerships, such as the pledge by several major countries at COP30 to boost biofuels significantly by 2035. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Neste * The advertisement is linked to is linked to the ReFuelEU and the Clean Industrial Deal. More information here.

BRUSSELS — For once, Europe’s heavy industry is lobbying to save a climate law.  Manufacturers are worried the European Commission is undermining the bloc’s new carbon tariff regime, a key pillar of EU climate policy, with a plan to give itself discretionary powers to suspend parts of the new measure. They warn the move is throwing investment plans into disarray and threatening much-needed decarbonization projects. The EU executive wants to grant itself the power to exempt goods from the just-launched carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), which requires importers of certain products to pay for planet-warming pollution emitted during the production process.  This levy is designed to protect European manufacturers — which are obliged by EU law to pay for each ton of CO2 they emit — from being out-competed by cheaper, dirtier imports. Importers of Chinese steel, for example, now pay the difference between Beijing’s carbon price and the bloc’s, ensuring it bears the same pollution costs as made-in-EU steel.  The prospect of having that protection yanked away by the Commission has spooked European manufacturers — particularly after a dozen EU governments immediately started campaigning to apply the exemption to fertilizers in an effort to protect farmers from higher import costs.  CBAM “is linked to investment, but it’s also linked to survival, actually, of some members,” said Antoine Hoxha, director of industry association Fertilizers Europe. “We can compete with anyone on a level playing field. But we need that level playing field.”  Fertilizer producers aren’t the only ones worried. Most major industry bodies representing CBAM-covered sectors in Brussels — which, aside from fertilizers, include steel, iron, aluminum, cement, hydrogen and electricity — told POLITICO they and their members had concerns about the Commission’s plans.  They warn that the new exemption clause, besides opening EU companies to unfair competition, risks undermining CBAM’s other goal of encouraging the bloc’s trading partners to switch to cleaner production methods, as it creates uncertainty over the level of EU demand for low-carbon imports.  “We see this as some kind of sword of Damocles. If it remains like this, it’s going to send a really discouraging signal to European and international investors, and that will seriously slow down industrial decarbonization,” said Laurent Donceel, industrial policy director at Hydrogen Europe. “We would urge lawmakers to reconsider this, because we feel it undermines the entirety of CBAM.”   Lawmakers in the European Parliament, worried about a domino effect if the Commission gives in to demands to exempt fertilizers, appear to be listening. In an environment committee meeting last week, MEPs from the far left to the center right criticized the EU executive’s proposed clause.  The changes still need the approval of MEPs and EU governments before they can come into effect, and “it is unlikely there is a majority to do so in the Parliament,” said Pascal Canfin, a French MEP and environmental coordinator of the centrist Renew group. “Precisely because it would trigger other requests and empty [out] the CBAM.”  VAGUE WORDING The Commission proposed the suspension clause, known as Article 27a, in mid-December as part of a host of other changes to CBAM. The clause initially flew under the radar before governments seized on it to demand the exemption of fertilizers in early January.  The new article gives the EU executive the power to remove goods from the mechanism in the event of “severe harm to the Union internal market due to serious and unforeseen circumstances related to the impact on the prices of goods.” The exemption remains in effect “until those serious and unforeseeable circumstances have passed.”  Industry representatives warn that this wording is so exceedingly vague — setting no time limit or trigger threshold — that it leaves CBAM vulnerable to political pressure campaigns.  Case in point: Fertilizers. A group of 12 governments has argued that CBAM has pushed up costs for farmers, and should trigger a suspension. But analysts and manufacturers dispute the idea that the new levy is to blame for high fertilizer costs, while also noting that increasing import prices due to CBAM are anything but unforeseen.  Farmers “are caught in between high energy prices that lead to high fertilizer prices on one side, and on the other side agriculture commodities prices have gone down, so they are in a squeeze and they need a real solution,” said Hoxha from Fertilizers Europe. “But it’s not this.” After a meeting with agriculture ministers in January, the Commission also clarified that any exemption under Article 27a would apply retroactively — causing “shock” among industry, Hoxha said. Exempting goods from CBAM also weakens the EU’s carbon market, the Emissions Trading System (ETS), which obliges companies to buy permits to cover their pollution.  Before the levy came into effect, the bloc shielded its manufacturers from cheaper foreign competition by granting them a certain amount of ETS permits for free — a practice that has been criticized for undermining the case for decarbonization. With CBAM launched, those pollution subsidies will be phased out.  But the Commission confirmed to POLITICO that if a product is exempted from CBAM, the affected companies would continue receiving free pollution permits: “The … reduction of the free allocations for the relevant period would not apply,” a Commission spokesperson said.  CROSS-INDUSTRY CONCERN The proposed clause has sent shockwaves through industry beyond the fertilizer sector.  “Such emergency procedures create legal uncertainty with regards to a cornerstone of the EU’s climate policy,” steel producer association Eurofer said in a statement, noting that increasing import prices are an intentional feature of the system, not an unforeseen bug. Cement Europe is “concerned that Article 27a would introduce major legal uncertainty into CBAM. An open‑ended exemption for ‘unforeseen circumstances,’ potentially even applied retroactively, risks undermining the predictability industry needs,” the association’s public affairs director Cliona Cunningham said.   At Eurelectric, which represents Europe’s electricity industry, “some of our members have expressed concern about the way Article 27a has been introduced,” the association said in a statement, also stressing the need for predictability.  “If there is a perception that CBAM obligations can be lifted for political or undefined unforeseen reasons, this may weaken incentives to invest in local decarbonisation and low-carbon production both within the EU and beyond,” Eurelectric warned.  Hydrogen Europe’s Donceel said that for producers of fertilizer, including hydrogen-derived ammonia, “this is becoming a huge issue … even before it gets adopted or comes into force — already, the possibility of an exemption is wrecking the business case for a lot of our members and a lot of key companies in these sectors. So this Article 27a definitively came as a shock.”  Only some metals producers supported the Commission’s proposal.  Given that CBAM is a new and complex policy, a suspension clause “is just realistic and good policymaking,” European Metals director James Watson said in a statement. “No regulatory system is flawless from the outset; an emergency brake, activated in certain conditions, is a matter of common sense.” His association represents producers of metals other than iron and steel. European Aluminium, which considers CBAM insufficient to protect their sector from unfair competition, wants to see Article 27a more clearly defined. But in general, “we see it basically as an emergency clause that our sector always wanted,” said Emanuele Manigrassi, the association’s climate director.  MIFFED CLIMATE CHAMPIONS In response to questions, a Commission spokesperson sought to reassure industry that CBAM “is not being cancelled for any of the sectors in scope” and that it was committed to providing “regulatory certainty for companies to move forward with their investments, especially for projects aiming to produce low-carbon products and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”  Yet the proposal has especially rankled companies that see themselves as frontrunners in decarbonizing their industries, taking on the risk of early upfront investments. “You need to have a strong and predictable framework on carbon pricing, especially to back up industry frontrunners,” said Joren Verschaeve, who manages the Alliance for Low-Carbon Cement and Concrete. “The risk with a provision as proposed like Article 27a is that you inject uncertainty in this whole market … I think this is the last thing we need right now.”  The carbon border tax is also meant to encourage other countries’ industries to switch to cleaner production, as low-carbon imports are subject to lower CBAM fees.  But for companies already planning to ramp up climate-friendly manufacturing outside the EU in response to CBAM, the Commission’s move has also raised questions about whether there will be sufficient demand for their low-carbon imports to warrant the investment.  Norwegian fertilizer giant Yara International recently warned it would have to rethink a multi-billion low-carbon project if the mechanism was suspended. “It’s a huge concern to us, and the uncertainty grows every day. We want to reduce our emissions, but we will not do it purely out of goodwill. We need a clear business case, and CBAM is a key enabler here,” said Tiffanie Stephani, vice president for government relations at Yara.  “Any suspension would undermine the very companies that are taking concrete steps to decarbonize,” she added. 

BRUSSELS — Pressure is mounting on the European Commission to exempt fertilizers from its new carbon tariff scheme, as national capitals side with farmers over industry to unpick one of the EU’s newest climate policies. During a discussion requested by Austria on Monday, 12 countries called for a temporary exclusion of fertilizers from the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), a levy on the greenhouse gas emissions of certain goods imported into the bloc. They argued that CBAM, which only became fully operational on Jan. 1, is sending already-rising fertilizer even higher, adding to economic difficulties for crop farmers. “European arable farmers are currently facing not just low producer prices, but also rising production costs. The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. Eleven countries backed Vienna in Monday’s meeting. Yet critics — which include fertilizer producers, environment-focused MEPs and several governments — warn that such an exemption would not only penalize the EU’s domestic producers but threaten the integrity of the carbon tariff scheme. “High prices of production inputs, including fertilizers, have a direct impact on the economic situation of farms… However, we want an optimal solution in order to maintain food security on one hand and on the other [avoid] possible negative impacts on the competitiveness of EU fertilizer producers,” said Polish Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski, whose country is a major fertilizer producer.  Germany, Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands expressed similar sentiments.  CBAM was phased in over several years and is supposed to protect European producers of heavily polluting goods — cement, iron, steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity and hydrogen — from cheap and dirty foreign competition. EU manufacturers of these products currently pay a carbon price on their planet-warming emissions, while importers didn’t before the CBAM came into force. By introducing a levy on imports from countries without carbon pricing, the EU wants to even out the playing field and encourage its trading partners to switch to cleaner manufacturing practices. (Those partners aren’t too happy.) The CBAM price is paid by the importers, which are free to pass on the cost to buyers — in the case of fertilizers, farmers.  Fertilizers make up a substantial share of farms’ operating costs, and EU-based companies do not produce enough to match demand. CBAM is therefore expected to push up fertilizer costs, though estimates on by how much vary greatly. A group of nine EU countries led by France mentioned a 25 percent increase in a recent missive, while Austria reckons it’s 10-15 percent.  The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA Carbon pricing analyst firm Sandbag, however, says it’s far lower for the next two years — less than 1 percent, or a couple of euros per ton of ammonia, a fertilizer component that costs several hundred euros per ton without the levy. Responding to governments on Monday, Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen noted that the EU executive already tweaked the policy to provide relief to farmers in December, and followed up in January with a promise to suspend some regular tariffs on fertilizer components to offset the additional CBAM cost. SUSPENSION SUSPENSE The Commission in December set in motion legislative changes that could allow it to enact such a suspension in the event of “serious and unforeseen circumstances” harming the bloc’s internal market — in effect, an emergency brake for CBAM. The suspension can apply retroactively, the EU executive said earlier this month. Yet EU governments and the European Parliament each have to approve this clause before the Commission could make such a move, a process expected to take the better part of this year. Environment ministers can vote on the changes in March or June, and MEPs haven’t even chosen their lead lawmakers to work on the Parliament’s position yet. That’s why Austria on Monday called on the Commission to “immediately” suspend CBAM until “the regular possibility to temporarily suspend CBAM on fertilisers is ensured.” The legal basis for such a move is unclear, as the legislation in force does not feature an exemption clause.  Vienna’s request for a debate came after a group of nine countries — Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal and Romania — wrote to the Commission requesting a suspension earlier this month. During Monday’s discussion, Croatia and Estonia also expressed support for such a move.  Ireland welcomed the Commission’s proposal of a suspension clause but asked for additional details.  Spain was ambivalent: “We need to strengthen our industrial capacity to contribute to the strategic autonomy of the European Union. But clearly, the decarbonisation of this sector mustn’t jeopardize farmers’ livelihoods,” said Spanish Agriculture Minister Luis Planas.  Italy, which previously signaled its support for a suspension, did not explicitly endorse such a move — merely backing the Commission’s already-announced tweaks to normal fertilizer tariffs in its intervention on Monday.  Not all countries took to the floor. Czechia, for example — whose new government is opposed to large parts of EU climate legislation, but whose prime minister owns Europe’s second-largest nitrogen fertilizer producer — remained silent. The Czech agriculture ministry did not respond to a request for comment. INDUSTRY ALARMED While exempting fertilizers may win governments kudos from farmers, European fertilizer manufacturers would be irate. The producers’ association Fertilisers Europe warned that such a move would be “totally unacceptable” and “undermine the competitiveness” of EU companies. Yara, a major Norwegian fertilizer producer, said that “CBAM was designed to ensure a level playing field. Weakening it through tariff reductions or retroactive suspension sends the wrong signal to companies investing in Europe’s green transition.” Mohammed Chahim, the vice president of the center-left Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, said that EU companies “need regulatory stability.” “European fertilizer producers have spent precious time and significant resources, often with support from taxpayer money, to decarbonize,” said the Dutch MEP, who drafted the Parliament’s position on the original CBAM law. “Any exemptions for CBAM send a terrible signal — not just to our own industry, but to the world.”  It’s not only makers of fertilizer that are up in arms. Companies in the heavy industry sector — whose competitiveness CBAM is supposed to protect — are warning that granting an exemption once could produce a domino effect, encouraging buyers of all CBAM goods to lobby for relief.  German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “Once one sector gets an exemption, other sectors will want this too,” warned the Business for CBAM coalition, a lobby group of companies and industry groups. “We therefore call on the European Parliament and [ministers] to remove” the exemption clause, it added.  Similarly, German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. If we suspend it for fertilizers, there are immediately arguments to suspend it in other sectors as well.” 

LONDON — The U.K. should follow Donald Trump’s example and quit the United Nations treaty that underpins global action to combat climate change, the deputy leader of Reform UK said. Richard Tice, energy spokesperson for Nigel Farage’s right-wing populist party, said the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the linked U.N. climate science body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were “failing British voters.” Asked if the U.K. should follow the U.S. — which announced its withdrawal from the institutions, plus 64 other multilateral bodies, on Wednesday — Tice told POLITICO: “Yes I do. They are deeply flawed, unaccountable, and expensive institutions.” The 1992 UNFCCC serves as the international structure for efforts by 198 countries to slow the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. It also underpins the system of annual COP climate conferences. The U.S. will be the only country ever to leave the convention. Reform UK has led in U.K. polls for nearly a year, but the country’s next election is not expected until 2029. A theoretical U.K. exit from the UNFCCC would represent an extraordinary volteface for a country which has long boasted about global leadership on climate. Under former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the U.K. hosted COP26 in 2021. It has been one of the most active participants in recent summits under Prime Minister Keir Starmer. It was also the first major economy in the world to legislate for a net zero goal by 2050, in line with the findings of IPCC reports. Tice has repeatedly referred to the target as “net stupid zero.” The U.K. government was approached for comment on the U.S. withdrawal. Pippa Heylings, energy and net zero spokesperson for the U.K.’s centrist Liberal Democrat party, said Trump’s decision would “make the world less secure.”

LONDON — British students will once again be able to take part in the EU’s Erasmus+ exchange scheme from January 2027 — following a six-year hiatus due to Brexit. U.K. ministers say they have secured a 30 percent discount on payments to re-enter the program that strikes “a fair balance between our contribution and the benefits” it offers. The move is one of the first tangible changes out of Keir Starmer’s EU “reset,” which is designed to smooth the harder edges off Boris Johnson’s Brexit settlement while staying outside the bloc’s orbit. In an announcement on Wednesday Brussels and London also confirmed they were formally beginning negotiations on U.K. re-entry into the EU’s internal market for electricity. Both sides hope the move, which was called for by industry in both sides of the Channel, will cut energy bills while also making it easier to invest in North Sea green energy projects — which have been plagued by Brexit complications. They also pledged to finish ongoing talks on linking the U.K. and EU carbon trading systems, as well as a new food and drink (SPS) deal, by the time they meet for an EU-U.K. summit in 2026. The planned meeting, which will take place in Brussels, does not yet have a date but is expected around the same time as this year’s May gathering in London. The announcements give more forward momentum to the “reset,” which faltered earlier this month after failing to reach an agreement on British membership of an EU defense industry financing program, SAFE. The two sides could not agree on the appropriate level of U.K. financial contribution. The pledge to finalize carbon trading (ETS) linkage next year is significant because it will help British businesses avoid a new EU carbon border tax — CBAM — which starts from Jan. 1 2026. While the tax, which charges firms for the greenhouse gas emissions in their products, begins on Jan. 1, payments are not due until 2027, by which time the U.K. is expected to be exempt. But it is not yet clear whether British firms will have to make back payments on previous imports once the deal is secured, and there is no sign of any deal to bridge the gap. WIDENING HORIZONS EU Relations Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds, who negotiated the agreement, said the move was “a huge win for our young people” and would break down barriers and widen horizons so that “everyone, from every background, has the opportunity to study and train abroad.” European Parliament President Roberta Metsola welcomes British Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations Nick Thomas-Symonds. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “This is about more than just travel: it’s about future skills, academic success, and giving the next generation access to the best possible opportunities,” he said. “Today’s agreements prove that our new partnership with the EU is working. We have focused on the public’s priorities and secured a deal that puts opportunity first.” The expected cost of the U.K.’s membership of the Erasmus+ program in 2027 will be £570 million. Skills Minister Jacqui Smith said Erasmus+ membership is “about breaking down barriers to opportunity, giving learners the chance to build skills, confidence and international experience that employers value.” Liberal Democrat Universities Spokesperson Ian Sollom also welcomed U.K. re-entry into the exchange scheme but said it should be a “first step” in a closer relationship with the EU. “This is a moment of real opportunity and a clear step towards repairing the disastrous Conservative Brexit deal,” he said. “However while this is a welcome breakthrough, it must be viewed as a crucial first step on a clear roadmap to a closer relationship with Europe. Starting with negotiating a bespoke UK-EU customs union, and committing to a youth mobility scheme for benefit of the next generation.”