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.” 

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump blew up global efforts to cut emissions from shipping, and now the EU is terrified the U.S. president will do the same to any plans to tax carbon emissions from long-haul flights. The European Commission is studying whether to expand its existing carbon pricing scheme that forces airlines to pay for emissions from short- and medium-haul flights within Europe into a more ambitious effort covering all flights departing the bloc. If that happens, all international airlines flying out of Europe — including U.S. ones — would face higher costs, something that’s likely to stick in the craw of the Trump administration. “God only knows what the Trump administration will do” if Brussels expands its own Emissions Trading System to include transatlantic flights, a senior EU official told POLITICO. A big issue is how to ensure that the new system doesn’t end up charging only European airlines, which often complain about the higher regulatory burden they face compared with their non-EU rivals. The EU official said Commission experts are now “scratching their heads how you can, on the one hand, talk about extending the ETS worldwide … [but] also make sure that you have a bit of a level playing field,” meaning a system that doesn’t only penalize European carriers. Any new costs will hit airlines by 2027, following a Commission assessment that will be completed by July 1. Brussels has reason to be worried.  “Trump has made it very clear that he does not want any policies that harm business … So he does not want any environmental regulation,” said Marina Efthymiou, aviation management professor at Dublin City University. “We do have an administration with a bullying behavior threatening countries and even entities like the European Commission.” The new U.S. National Security Strategy, released last week, closely hews to Trump’s thinking and is scathing on climate efforts. “We reject the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threaten the United States, and subsidize our adversaries,” it says. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax to encourage commercial fleets to go green. The no-holds-barred push was personally led by Trump and even threatened negotiators with personal consequences if they went along with the measure. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax aimed at encouraging commercial fleets to go green. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images This “will be a parameter to consider seriously from the European Commission” when it thinks about aviation, Efthymiou said. The airline industry hopes the prospect of a furious Trump will scare off the Commission. “The EU is not going to extend ETS to transatlantic flights because that will lead to a war,” said Willie Walsh, director general of the International Air Transport Association, the global airline lobby, at a November conference in Brussels. “And that is not a war that the EU will win.” EUROPEAN ETS VS. GLOBAL CORSIA In 2012, the EU began taxing aviation emissions through its cap-and-trade ETS, which covers all outgoing flights from the European Economic Area — meaning EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Switzerland and the U.K. later introduced similar schemes. In parallel, the U.N.’s International Civil Aviation Organization was working on its own carbon reduction plan, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. Given that fact, Brussels delayed imposing the ETS on flights to non-European destinations. The EU will now be examining the ICAO’s CORSIA to see if it meets the mark. “CORSIA lets airlines pay pennies for pollution — about €2.50 per passenger on a Paris-New York flight,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. Applying the ETS on the same route would cost “€92.40 per passenger based on 2024 traffic.” There are two reasons for such a big difference: the fourfold higher price for ETS credits compared with CORSIA credits, and the fact that “under CORSIA, airlines don’t pay for total emissions, but only for the increase above a fixed 2019 baseline,” Van der Graaf explained. “Thus, for a Paris-New York flight that emits an average of 131 tons of CO2, only 14 percent of emissions are offset under CORSIA. This means that, instead of covering the full 131 tons, the airline only has to purchase credits for approximately 18 tons.” Efthymiou, the professor, warned the price difference is projected to increase due to the progressive withdrawal of free ETS allowances granted to aviation. The U.N. scheme will become mandatory for all U.N. member countries in 2027 but will not cover domestic flights, including those in large countries such as the U.S., Russia and China. KEY DECISIONS By July 1, the Commission must release a report assessing the geographical coverage and environmental integrity of CORSIA. Based on this evaluation, the EU executive will propose either extending the ETS to all departing flights from the EU starting in 2027 or maintaining it for intra-EU flights only. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration. | Pete Souza/White House via Getty Images According to T&E, CORSIA doesn’t meet the EU’s climate goals. “Extending the scope of the EU ETS to all departing flights from 2027 could raise an extra €147 billion by 2040,” said Van der Graaf, noting that this money could support the production of greener aviation fuels to replace fossil kerosene. But according to Efthymiou, the Commission might decide to continue the current exemption “considering the very fragile political environment we currently have with a lunatic being in power,” she said, referring to Trump. “CORSIA has received a lot of criticism for sure … but the importance of CORSIA is that for the first time ever we have an agreement,” she added. “Even though that agreement might not be very ambitious, ICAO is the only entity with power to put an international regulation [into effect].” Regardless of what is decided in Brussels, Washington is prepared to fight. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a letter to the Commission opposing its application to American airlines. During the same term, the U.S. passed the EU ETS Prohibition Act, which gives Washington the power to prohibit American carriers from paying for European carbon pricing. John Thune, the Republican politician who proposed the bill, is now the majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is cracking down on two Chinese companies, airport scanner maker Nuctech and e-commerce giant Temu, that are suspected of unfairly penetrating the EU market with the help of state subsidies. The EU executive opened an in-depth probe into Nuctech under its Foreign Subsidies Regulation on Thursday, a year and a half after initial inspections at the company’s premises in Poland and the Netherlands. “The Commission has preliminary concerns that Nuctech may have been granted foreign subsidies that could distort the EU internal market,” the EU executive said in a press release.  Nuctech is a provider of threat detection systems including security and inspection scanners for airports, ports, or customs points in railways or roads located at borders, as well as the provision of related services.  EU officials worry that Nuctech may have received unfair support from China in tender contracts, prices and conditions that can’t be reasonably matched by other market players in the EU.  “We want a level playing field on the market for such [threat detection] systems, keeping fair opportunities for competitors, customers such as border authorities,” Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera said in a statement, noting that this is the first in-depth investigation launched by the Commission on its own initiative under the FSR regime.  Nuctech may need to offer commitments to address the Commission’s concerns at the end of the in-depth probe, which can also end in “redressive measures” or with a non-objection decision.   The FSR is aimed at making sure that companies operating in the EU market do so without receiving unfair support from foreign governments. In its first two years of enforcement, it has come under criticism for being cumbersome on companies and not delivering fast results.  In a statement, Nuctech acknowledged the Commission’s decision to open an in-depth investigation. “We respect the Commission’s role in ensuring fair and transparent market conditions within the European Union,” the company said. It said it would cooperate with the investigation: “We trust in the integrity and impartiality of the process and hope our actions will be evaluated on their merits.” TEMU RAIDED In a separate FSR probe, the Commission also made an unannounced inspection of Chinese e-commerce platform Temu.  “We can confirm that the Commission has carried out an unannounced inspection at the premises of a company active in the e-commerce sector in the EU, under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation,” an EU executive spokesperson said in an emailed statement on Thursday.   Temu’s Europe headquarters in Ireland were dawn-raided last week, a person familiar with Chinese business told POLITICO. Mlex first reported on the raids on Wednesday.  The platform has faced increased scrutiny in Brussels and across the EU. Most recently, it was accused of breaching the EU’s Digital Services Act by selling unsafe products, such as toys. The platform has also faced scrutiny around how it protects minors and uses age verification.  Temu did not respond to a request for comment.

High energy prices, risks on CBAM enforcement and promotion of lead markets, as well as increasing carbon costs are hampering domestic and export competitiveness with non-EU producers. The cement industry is fundamental to Europe’s construction value chain, which represents about 9 percent of the EU’s GDP. Its hard-to-abate production processes are also currently responsible for 4 percent of EU emissions, and it is investing heavily in measures aimed at achieving full climate neutrality by 2050, in line with the European Green Deal. Marcel Cobuz, CEO, TITAN Group  “We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in EU stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” However, the industry’s efforts to comply with EU environmental regulations, along with other factors, make it less competitive than more carbon-intensive producers from outside Europe. Industry body Cement Europe recently stated that, “without a competitive business model, the very viability of the cement industry and its prospects for industrial decarbonization are at risk.” Marcel Cobuz, member of the Board of the Global Cement and Concrete Association and CEO of TITAN Group, one of Europe’s leading producers, spoke with POLITICO Studio about the vital need for a clear policy partnership with Brussels to establish a predictable regulatory and financing framework to match the industry’s decarbonization ambitions and investment efforts to stay competitive in the long-term. POLITICO Studio: Why is the cement industry important to the EU economy?  Marcel Cobuz: Just look around and you will see how important it is. Cement helped to build the homes that we live in and the hospitals that care for us. It’s critical for our transport and energy infrastructure, for defense and increasingly for the physical assets supporting the digital economy. There are more than 200 cement plants across Europe, supporting nearby communities with high-quality jobs. The cement industry is also key to the wider construction industry, which employs 14.5 million people across the EU. At the same time, cement manufacturers from nine countries compete in the international export markets. PS: What differentiates Titan within the industry?  MC: We have very strong European roots, with a presence in 10 European countries. Sustainability is very much part of our DNA, so decarbonizing profitably is a key objective for us. We’ve reduced our CO2 footprint by nearly 25 percent since 1990, and we recently announced that we are targeting a similar reduction by 2030 compared to 2020. We are picking up pace in reducing emissions both by using conventional methods, like the use of alternative sources of low-carbon energy and raw materials, and advanced technologies. TITAN/photo© Nikos Daniilidis We have a large plant in Europe where we are exploring building one of the largest carbon capture projects on the continent, with support from the Innovation Fund, capturing close to two million tons of CO2 and producing close to three million tons of zero-carbon cement for the benefit of all European markets. On top of that, we have a corporate venture capital fund, which partners with startups from Europe to produce the materials of tomorrow with  very low or zero carbon. That will help not only TITAN but the whole industry to accelerate its way towards the use of new high-performance materials with a smaller carbon footprint. PS: What are the main challenges for the EU cement industry today?  MC: Several factors are making us less competitive than companies from outside the EU. Firstly, Europe is an expensive place when it comes to energy prices. Since 2021, prices have risen by close to 65 percent, and this has a huge impact on cement producers, 60 percent of whose costs are energy-related. And this level of costs is two to three times higher than those of our neighbors. We also face regulatory complexity compared to our outside competitors, and the cost of compliance is high. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) cost for the cement sector is estimated at €97 billion to €162 billion between 2023 and 2034. Then there is the need for low-carbon products to be promoted ― uptake is still at a very low level, which leads to an investment risk around new decarbonization technologies. > We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in the EU > stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” All in all, the playing field is far from level. Imports of cement into the EU have increased by 500 percent since 2016. Exports have halved ― a loss of value of one billion euros. The industry is reducing its cost to manufacture and to replace fossil fuels, using the waste of other industries, digitalizing its operations, and premiumizing its offers. But this is not always enough. Friendly policies and the predictability of a regulatory framework should accompany the effort. PS: In January 2026, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will be fully implemented, aimed at ensuring that importers pay the same carbon price as domestic producers. Will this not help to level the playing field? MC: This move is crucial, and it can help in dealing with the increasing carbon cost. However, I believe we already see a couple of challenges regarding the CBAM. One is around self-declaration: importers declare the carbon footprint of their materials, so how do we avoid errors or misrepresentations? In time there should be audits of the importers’ industrial installations and co-operation with the authorities at source to ensure the data flow is accurate and constant. It really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers. Also, and very importantly, we need to ensure that CBAM does not apply to exports from the EU to third countries, as carbon costs are increasingly a major factor making us uncompetitive outside the EU, in markets where we were present for more than 20 years. > CBAM really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully > mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers.” PS: In what ways can the EU support the European cement industry and help it to be more competitive? MC: By simplifying legislation and making it more predictable so we can plan our investments for the long term. More specifically, I’m talking about the revamping of the ETS, which in its current form implies a phase-down of CO2 rights over the next decade. First, we should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry stays competitive and its export market shares are maintained, so a policy of more for longer should accompany the new ETS. > In export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for > European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a > system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to > continue.” We should look at it as a way of funding decarbonization. We could front-load part of ETS revenues in a fund that would support the development of technologies such as low-carbon materials development and CCS. The roll-out of Infrastructure for carbon capture projects such as transport or storage should also be accelerated, and the uptake of low-carbon products should be incentivized. More specifically on export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to continue. PS: Are you optimistic about the future of your industry in Europe?  MC: I think with the current system of phasing out CO2 rights, and if the CBAM is not watertight, and if energy prices remain several times higher than in neighboring countries, and if investment costs, particularly for innovating new technologies, are not going to be financed through ETS revenues, then there is an existential risk for at least part of the industry. Having said that, I’m optimistic that, working together with the European Commission we can identify the right policy making solutions to ensure our viability as a strategic industry for Europe. And if we are successful, it will benefit everyone in Europe, not least by guaranteeing more high-quality jobs and affordable and more energy-efficient materials for housing ― and a more sustainable and durable infrastructure in the decades ahead. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Titan Group * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around industrial competitiveness, carbon pricing, and decarbonization in the EU cement and construction sectors, including the EU’s CBAM legislation, the Green Deal, and the proposed revision of the ETS. More information here.

EU countries must back plans that would strip them of their powers to police stock exchanges and other key institutions if they are serious about building a U.S.-style financial market, the EU’s finance chief told POLITICO. “If we don’t do anything different from the past, we will hardly get to any different result,” Financial Services Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque told POLITICO in an interview. “So if there is support, well, let’s walk the talk then.” The Portuguese commissioner’s challenge to the rest of the EU could fall flat. EU treasuries are already up in arms over the controversial power grab, which would shift supervision of large, cross-border financial services companies, such as stock exchanges and crypto companies, from the national level to the EU’s securities regulator in Paris. “It’s going to be a difficult discussion, of course, but these are the ones worth having, right?” Albuquerque said. “What I have been hearing since I arrived is tremendous support for the savings and investments union. Well, this is about delivering it.” The European Commission is primed to propose a sweeping package of financial markets reforms on Dec. 3, including the supervision plans, in a bid to revive Brussels’ faltering decade-long campaign to create a U.S.-style capital market. According to plans first reported by POLITICO, as well as draft documents outlining the proposal, the supervision plan would considerably strengthen the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to police the likes of Nasdaq Europe and Euronext. The draft also proposes making the future watchdog independent of meddling EU capitals. Although the main aim of a single watchdog is to boost the EU’s economy by making it easier for finance firms to operate and invest across the EU’s 27 countries, having money flowing so freely around the bloc would also create new risks without strong oversight. In the event of a meltdown of a firm, such as a clearinghouse, that operates across multiple countries, an EU watchdog could be quicker to jump on the problem than a group of national supervisors acting independently. The focus on boosting Europe’s capital markets has gathered pace since the pandemic’s bruising impact on national budgets, compounded by the EU’s desperate bid to keep pace with the economic powerhouses of the U.S. and China. With strained public finances in the EU’s member countries and the loss of London as the bloc’s financial center post-Brexit, policymakers are trying to unlock €11 trillion in cash savings held by EU citizens in their bank accounts to turbocharge the economy. Having a vibrant capital market would also offer EU startups the chance to raise cash from risk-minded investors, rather than approaching the bank with a cap in hand. “We need a single market,” Albuquerque said. “We need the scale, the opportunities that that brings, because that’s the only thing that can deliver on our ambitions.” TROUBLE AHEAD Political negotiations on the proposal are set to be fraught. Smaller countries that depend on their financial services industries, like Ireland and Luxembourg, oppose the plans as they fear ceding oversight or finance firms relocating to be closer to ESMA — an added boon for the French. Others argue that the move for an EU watchdog will distract from the bigger picture of encouraging savers to invest in the markets. “If the European Commission wants to be successful in this aspect of enlarging the pool of investable capital, this is what you need to do,” Swedish Finance Minister Niklas Wykman told POLITICO. “If we’re stuck in a never-ending discussion about how to organize supervision … that will not take us closer to our objective.”  Sensing the challenges ahead, Albuquerque said she was open to compromise to ensure the proposals don’t land dead on arrival. “I’m not saying that we will have to find an agreement which is exactly like the Commission proposal,” she said, adding that “if there is a better alternative, I’m all for it.” CORRECTION: This article was updated on Nov. 17 to clarify that policymakers are specifically targeting the €11 trillion held in bank accounts in cash.

As trilogue negotiations on the End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (ELVR) reach their decisive phase, Europe stands at a crossroads, not just for the future of sustainable mobility, but also for the future of its industrial base and competitiveness. The debate over whether recycled plastic content in new vehicles should be 15, 20 or 25 percent is crucial as a key driver for circularity investment in Europe’s plastics and automotive value chains for the next decade and beyond. The ELVR is more than a recycled content target. It is also an important test of whether and how Europe can align its circularity and competitiveness ambitions. Circularity and competitiveness should be complementary  Europe’s plastics industry is at a cliff edge. High energy and feedstock costs, complex regulation and investment flight are eroding production capacity in Europe at an alarming rate. Industrial assets are closing and relocating. Policymakers must recognize the strategic importance of European plastics manufacturing. Plastics are and will remain an essential material that underpins key European industries, including automotive, construction, healthcare, renewables and defense. Without a competitive domestic sector, Europe’s net-zero pathway becomes slower, costlier and more import-dependent. Without urgent action to safeguard plastics manufacturing in Europe, we will continue to undermine our industrial resilience, strategic autonomy and green transition through deindustrialization. The ELVR can help turn the tide and become a cornerstone of the EU’s circular economy and a driver of industrial competitiveness. It can become a flagship regulation containing ambitious recycled content targets that can accelerate reindustrialization in line with the objectives of the Green Industrial Deal. > Policymakers must recognize the strategic importance of > European plastics manufacturing. Without a competitive domestic sector, > Europe’s net-zero pathway becomes slower, costlier and more import-dependent. Enabling circular technologies  The automotive sector recognizes that its ability to decarbonize depends on access to innovative, circular materials made in Europe. The European Commission’s original proposal to drive this increased circularity to 25 percent recycled plastic content in new vehicles within six years, with a quarter of that coming from end-of-life vehicles, is ambitious but achievable with the available technologies and right incentives. To meet these targets, Europe must recognize the essential role of chemical recycling. Mechanical recycling alone cannot deliver the quality, scale and performance required for automotive applications. Without chemical recycling, the EU risks setting targets that look good on paper but fail in practice. However, to scale up chemical recycling we must unlock billions in investment and integrate circular feedstocks into complex value chains. This requires legal clarity, and the explicit recognition that chemical recycling, alongside mechanical and bio-based routes, are eligible pathways to meet recycled content targets. These are not technical details; they will determine whether Europe builds a competitive and scalable circular plastics industry or increasingly depends on imported materials. A broader competitiveness and circularity framework is essential  While a well-designed ELVR is crucial, it cannot succeed in isolation. Europe also needs a wider industrial policy framework that restores the competitiveness of our plastics value chain and creates the conditions for increased investment in circular technologies, and recycling and sorting infrastructure. We need to tackle Europe’s high energy and feedstock costs, which are eroding our competitiveness. The EU must add polymers to the EU Emissions Trading System compensation list and reinvest revenues in circular infrastructure to reduce energy intensity and boost recycling. Europe’s recyclers and manufacturers are competing with materials produced under weaker environmental and social standards abroad. Harmonized customs controls and mandatory third-party certification for imports are essential to prevent carbon leakage and ensure a level playing field with imports, preventing unfair competition. > To accelerate circular plastics production Europe needs a true single market > for circular materials. That means removing internal market barriers, streamlining approvals for new technologies such as chemical recycling, and providing predictable incentives that reward investment in recycled and circular feedstocks. Today, fragmented national rules add unnecessary cost, complexity and delay, especially for the small and medium-sized enterprises that form the backbone of Europe’s recycling network. These issues must be addressed. Establishing a Chemicals and Plastics Trade Observatory to monitor trade flows in real time is essential. This will help ensure a level playing field, enabling EU industry and officials to respond promptly with trade defense measures when necessary. We need policies that enable transformation rather than outsource it, and these must be implemented as a matter of urgency if we are to scale up recycling and circular innovations and investments.  A defining moment for Europe’s competitiveness and circular economy > Circularity and competitiveness should not be in conflict; together, they will > allow us to keep plastics manufacturing in Europe, and safeguard the jobs, > know-how, innovation hubs and materials essential for the EU’s climate > neutrality transition and strategic autonomy. The ELVR is not just another piece of environmental legislation. It is a test of Europe’s ability to turn its green vision into industrial reality. It means that the trilogue negotiators now face a defining choice: design a regulation that simply manages waste or one that unleashes Europe’s industrial renewal. These decisions will shape Europe’s place in the global economy and can provide a positive template for reconciling our climate and competitiveness ambitions. These decisions will echo far beyond the automotive sector. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Plastics Europe AISBL * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy on the EU End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (ELVR), circular plastics, chemical recycling, and industrial competitiveness in Europe. More information here.

Dear Commissioner Kadis, We write on behalf of hundreds of thousands of European Union citizens, as well as scientists, small-scale fishers and civil society organisations, with one demand: End bottom trawling in Europe’s marine protected areas (MPAs). This year has seen unprecedented momentum and mobilisation toward that goal. The EU Ocean Pact consultation was flooded with submissions calling for a ban on bottom trawling. Over 250, 000 citizens signed petitions. Legal complaints have been filed. Courts ruled for conservation. Scientific studies continued to reinforce the ecological and social benefits of removing destructive gear. And member states are moving ahead on marine protection — with Sweden and Greece banning bottom trawling in their MPAs, and Denmark beginning the same across 19 percent of its waters. In your recent remarks at the PECH Committee, you said: “I will repeat my position regarding banning bottom trawling in MPAs. I am not in favor of one size fits all. What I am saying is that in MPAs we can have management plans, as foreseen in the relevant legislation. The management plans can identify which activities are compatible with what we want to protect. If bottom trawling is compatible, it can continue. If not, it should be stopped. I could not imagine a Natura 2000 area, where the seabed is of high value and vulnerable, having a management plan that would allow bottom trawling.” Your own remarks acknowledged that bottom trawling should not occur in Natura 2000 sites that protect valuable and vulnerable seabeds. Yet this is the case today, and has been the case for the last three decades. Your insistence that “one size does not fit all” leaves the door wide open for the status quo to continue. This case by case approach that you describe is not protection; it risks prolonging decades of inaction by sidestepping the precautionary and preventative principle enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, indulging member state inertia instead of ensuring coordinated EU leadership. It is a dangerous step backward from the EU international commitment to halt marine biodiversity loss, and undermines the EU’s own legal framework including the Habitats Directive. As a biologist, you know that destructive fishing methods such as bottom trawling by definition damage habitats, species, and ecosystems — and that these impacts are incompatible with the conservation objectives of MPAs. The scientific consensus is clear: bottom trawling and protection cannot coexist. > Your insistence that “one size does not fit all” leaves the door wide open for > the status quo to continue. Protect Our Catch The Habitats Directive does indeed provide for individual assessments in relation to the impacts of an activity in a protected area — but the crucial point is that such assessments must be carried out before any activity with likely significant effects can be authorised. Consistent with the precautionary principle, the starting position is therefore that bottom trawling in Natura 2000 MPAs is unlawful — unless an individual assessment can prove that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of adverse effects. If case by case remains the Commission’s position, it not only contradicts its own objective set out in the Marine Action Plan, but also risks the credibility of the Ocean Pact and forthcoming act collapsing before they begin. Citizens, fishers, and scientists will see yet another series of paper park policies that undermine trust in EU leadership. So we ask: Commissioner, whose voices will the Commission prioritise? The 73 percent of EU citizens who support a ban? The 76 percent of the EU fleet who are small-scale fishers, providing more jobs with less impact? Or the industrial lobby, whose case by case arguments risk echoing in your speeches? > If case by case remains the Commission’s position, it not only contradicts its > own objective set out in the Marine Action Plan, but also risks the > credibility of the Ocean Pact and forthcoming act collapsing before they > begin. Furthermore, a case by case approach for the 5, 000 EU MPAs creates disproportionate and unnecessary administrative burden, whereas a just and consequent transition to a full end to bottom trawling in all MPAs under the Habitats Directive would be in line with the EU’s simplification agenda. It would not only contribute to the necessary clarity, simplicity and level playing field, but also replenish fishing grounds through spill-over effects that benefit fisheries. This year’s UN Ocean Conference in Nice laid bare the hypocrisy of bottom trawling in so-called protected areas. The Ocean Pact offered a chance to correct course, but ultimately delivered only aspirational goals and an endorsement of the continuation of the status quo. We urge you to: Commit now to including legally binding targets in the Ocean Act that would phase out destructive fishing such as bottom trawling in MPAs, ensuring healthy seas and a secure future for Europe’s low-impact fishers and the communities they sustain. As a scientist, you are aware of the evidence. As a Commissioner, you must act on it. This is not just about biodiversity, nature protection and climate resilience; it is about fairness, food security, and the survival of Europe’s coastal communities. The time for ambiguity has passed. The question is no longer whether to act case by case, but whether the Commission will demonstrate leadership by standing with citizens and fishers — rather than leaving space for industrial interests to dominate. > This is not just about biodiversity, nature protection and climate resilience; > it is about fairness, food security, and the survival of Europe’s coastal > communities. History will judge your leadership not on how carefully you calibrated the rhetoric, but by whether you delivered real protection for Europe’s seas and the people who depend on them. Sincerely, Protect Our Catch Protect Our Catch is a new European campaign supported by leading ocean advocates Seas At Risk, Oceana, BLOOM, Blue Marine Foundation, DMA, Empesca’t, Environmental Justice Foundation, Only One and Tara Ocean Foundation, in collaboration with fishers, that joins hundreds of thousands of citizen activists is calling on European leaders to ban destructive fishing such as bottom trawling in marine protected areas.

BRUSSELS — European farming leaders and green groups are girding for a long, hard fight following the Commission’s bombshell proposal for a new long-term budget and Common Agricultural Policy directly before the summer recess.  They share two fears upon returning to Brussels: that funding is under threat, and that member countries could take drastically different approaches to divvying up the money. Member countries will need to give out a minimum of €294 billion in income support for farmers between 2028 and 2034, according to the European Commission’s new proposal. That reduced cash pot includes subsidies based on the size of farms, incentives for eco-friendly practices, support for new and young farmers, and a host of other funding streams.  “The competition within each member state that these priorities will have is really very high,” anticipated Marco Contiero, EU agriculture policy director at Greenpeace.  Contiero wasn’t optimistic that environmental measures will triumph: “The budget dedicated to environmental measures and climate action — that’s where a massacre has taken place, unfortunately.” “It’s up to member states,” he continued. “They can, if there is willingness, increase enormously the action to make our farming more sustainable … But looking at the history of member states’ decisions, this is extremely unlikely.” The reform proposal follows a season of rural discontent across Europe earlier last year, with tractors lining the streets to express rage over cuts to fuel subsidies, high costs and cheap imports. As the European election that followed brought a farmer-friendly political tilt, lawmakers and farm lobbies expressed strong opposition to the Commission’s proposals. Copa-Cogeca, the powerful EU farmers’ lobby, in a statement labeled the proposed new agricultural policy and long-term budget the “Black Wednesday of European agriculture,” and has vowed to “remain strongly mobilised.” FEELING THE SQUEEZE The restructuring of the EU’s agriculture budget makes direct comparisons to the 2021-2027 period difficult — but analysis by Alan Matthews, professor emeritus of European agricultural policy at Trinity College Dublin, suggests the new plan represents a 15 percent reduction. And that’s before taking inflation into account. The new purse for the agricultural policy, commonly known as CAP, guarantees that around €300 billion will go into farmers’ pockets through various streams funded by the EU and co-financed by member countries. The burden of spending for things like climate incentives will be shared, while area-based support — paid out to farmers per hectare — will come from the EU’s coffers.   To deliver on promises to better target support for young or small farmers, European Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has large landowners in his sights. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Environmentalists worry that requiring member countries to chip in to unlock funding for climate-protection measures will deter their uptake, particularly given the overall budget reduction.  “If you tell me ‘more incentives and less rules,’ and you don’t provide me with a decent ring-fenced budget for those incentives to exist, you’re cutting rules and not providing incentives,” said Contiero. “And that’s the overall trap of this new proposal.” Similarly, young farmers are worried that their interests will fall by the wayside without a legally binding target for making sure they get their piece of the pie. Under the current CAP, 3 percent of funding goes to this group. In the fall, a 6 percent “aspirational” target will be announced — which leaves the European Council of Young Farmers unimpressed. An aspirational target in the context of a constrained budget means that its members “have to fight for money for young farmers, rather than what is now the case: that they have a certainty of 3 percent,” explained the organization’s president, Peter Meedendorp.  A Commission official familiar with the file, granted anonymity to speak candidly, dismissed those concerns, noting the legislation mandates member countries “shall” prioritize young farmers in their national plans, meaning they cannot be ignored. Nonetheless, the wine industry shares similar worries. Interventions to support the sector in the past had dedicated budgets. Now, such support is a single item on the list of  income-support measures member countries provide to farmers from the overall CAP pot.  “The Commission is sending the hot potato to member states,” said Ignacio Sánchez Recarte, secretary-general of the European Committee of Wine Companies. He argues that the plan risks damaging the level playing field and a bloc-wide approach to wine policy. ON THE DEFENSIVE To deliver on promises to better target support for young or small farmers, European Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has large landowners in his sights. Traditionally, large farms win out on CAP payments: The latest data suggests that 20 percent of CAP beneficiaries receive 80 percent of direct payments. Under the new proposal, member countries can choose to pay farmers an average of €130 to €240 per hectare — up to a limit of €100,000, with progressive reductions in payments to that point.  Jurgen Tack, secretary-general at the European Landowners’ Organization, said that this proposal to limit subsidies risks ignoring professional farmers, who contribute significantly to European food security, in favor of less profitable and productive enterprises. The new CAP budget is “exactly the opposite of what we should support. Because what we see is that it’s no longer productivity, it’s becoming more and more a social support to farms,” he argued.  Several environmental organizations support limiting payments to large farms to encourage fairer distribution of funds and to free up money for environmental projects. In response, Tack contended that profitability and sustainability go hand in hand: The more money a farm has, the more it can spend on sustainable practices at scale. That debate may be irrelevant, as several previous attempts by the Commission to introduce such limits to subsidies since the 1990s failed to overcome opposition from key EU countries dominated by large farms. The most recent attempt to introduce such limits only survived the legislative process as a voluntary measure.  Contiero of Greenpeace wasn’t optimistic over how proposals to limit subsidies to large farms will fare over the next two years of negotiations: “This will be subject to the European Parliament and Council chainsaw. Everyone is waiting to see how horrible that massacre will be.”

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is dialing reform, but not everyone is picking up. Following years of talks, Brussels is almost ready to drop a long-awaited telecommunication blueprint designed to upgrade networks and support the industry. The Digital Networks Act, expected to land Dec. 16, will overhaul the current rulebook to make it easier for operators to roll out 5G and fiber, and boost investment in Europe’s digital infrastructure. But it’s likely to upset players from national governments to tech firms in the process. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits — and take European networks to the next level. “Never has connectivity been so important to the life of people” but “at the same time, our industry has trouble in many regions to achieve a decent return on capital,” said Vivek Badrinath, the boss of global mobile association GSMA. But not everyone is buying the crisis pitch — here are the battle lines ahead of the proposal. BIG TELCOS VS. BIG TECH Years of lobbying by Europe’s top telcos to have data-hungry platforms such as TikTok, Netflix and Google’s YouTube help foot the bill for network expansion seem to have paid off. The Commission is now weighing how to tackle “challenges in the cooperation” between tech and telecom players in its reforms. One of the options on the table is turning into a political minefield: Empowering regulators to settle potential disputes between the two groups over how they handle traffic. Opponents of regulatory intervention fear that it will give operators a way to pressure content providers for payments, akin to the unpopular proposal known as “fair share” that was floated under the last Commission. At worst, they say, it could even upend the internet as we know it by undermining net neutrality — the principle that service providers need to treat all traffic equally, without throttling or censoring. “This would have immediate and far-reaching consequences, harming European consumers, businesses, digital rights and the sustainability of the creative and cultural sectors, ultimately risking a fragmented Internet and single market,” a broad coalition, ranging from civil society and media organizations to audiovisual players, wrote earlier this month. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits. | Andy Rain/EPA Regulators themselves say they don’t see any market failure, or need for a legislative fix. “It’s increasingly hard for me to think that the Commission is approaching this in good faith because they cannot ignore the chaotic impact that something like this would have,” said Benoît Felten, an expert at Plum Consulting who authored a study on the topic commissioned by Big Tech lobby CCIA. Tech companies will fight tooth and nail against any move to hold them to the same obligations that telecom operators have to follow. “The same service, same rules principle should be a no-brainer,” said Alessandro Gropelli, the boss of telecom trade association Connect Europe. “You cannot have competitiveness if one party is playing the game with their hand tied behind their back and the other party is playing the same game with both hands.” INCUMBENTS VS. CHALLENGERS Brussels’ deregulatory mood is further deepening rifts between Europe’s top telecom providers and their challengers, who have long praised the existing rulebook that they say enables them to take on legacy players. “The Commission wants to deregulate dogmatically” in order “to boost the largest operators in Europe,” said Luc Hindryckx, the director general of the European Competitive Telecommunications Association, a trade body. “One way to do it is to weaken the competition to allow a few incumbents to make it through and pave the way for consolidation, because if the competitors are on the verge of bankruptcy, they will ask to be merged.” Telecom challengers are up in arms against the direction of travel, which could see the Commission dial down the regulatory pressure on Europe’s legacy telcos to open their ducts and fiber lines to competitors. The EU executive wants to move away from heavy, upfront rules and closer scrutiny of dominant players to prevent abuse, instead relying on standard law enforcement. It argues the current system worked to boost competition but has outlived its purpose. It is “alarming that the European Commission is now proposing to relax regulation on former fixed monopolies,” a coalition of nine network operators wrote in a letter this month. Signatories — including France’s Iliad and the U.K.’s Vodafone — called out the proposed “backwards step” and warned against the risk of “re-monopolisation.” This shift, the opponents say, could unravel years of progress by undermining market predictability, deterring investment and pushing up wholesale prices — costs that would inevitably be passed on to consumers. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said. | Robert Ghement/EPA “In Germany, it seems that people never run a red light. One could say that people no longer run red lights and then change the law that says running a red light is a major offense. What do you think is going to happen?” Hindryckx quipped. The legacy players don’t agree. “The current ex-ante system leads to low investments and harms roll-out of innovative networks,” said Gropelli from Connect Europe. “Reform is a must, or we’ll remain global laggards in roll-out of critical networks.” CAPITALS VS. BRUSSELS National governments also aren’t cheering the reforms, with EU capitals bristling at the idea of Brussels muscling in on territory they consider their own. That’s the case for the allocation of spectrum — the finite and very much in-demand resource powering wireless communications, which is auctioned at a national level for billions of euros. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said in September. “We have been sleeping and lost fifteen years in discussing … who should assign the frequencies,” he said. Still, the topic is largely off the table for national governments. “Spectrum harmonization is not the favorite topic of member countries,” Katalin Molnár, the ambassador for Hungary, said last year as the country chaired talks among EU governments on the issue. The current cooperation between countries “works well,” the 27 EU nations said in a joint position, emphasizing that spectrum management is a “key public policy tool” that falls under a “sustained significance of member states’ national competencies in that regard.” This will be a major red line for the Council of the EU, where capitals will eventually hammer out their position on the reforms. The industry, however, says reforms are essential for the economic benefits that the EU is craving. “The wind has never been as strong in the sails of the ship that goes towards a more efficient telecom market today,” GSMA’s Badrinath said. “Is that enough to get the right outcome? Well, that’s what we want to believe.”

LONDON — The British government has less than a month to save 160 jobs at a major bioethanol producer, its bosses are warning, as the industry reels from the U.K.-U.S. trade deal signed by Donald Trump and Keir Starmer. Vivergo Fuels Managing Director Ben Hackett said his company is at risk of closure and that if the government can’t provide financial support in time, redundancies will begin imminently. “The consultation process legally has to run for a minimum of 45 days and that day is Aug. 17, so the first redundancies could take place the week of Aug. 18,” Hackett said. “The clock is ticking, the government’s very much aware of our timelines and is now working with us on that negotiation.” As part of the U.K.-U.S. Economic Prosperity Deal, struck between the Trump administration and Starmer’s U.K. government, the U.K. granted Washington a new tariff-free quota of up to 1.4 billion liters of ethanol, which is used in farming and as a fuel source. Hackett said this is worth “the entire” U.K. bioethanol market. Previously, U.S. ethanol imported into the U.K. faced tariffs ranging from 10 to 50 percent. “Those tariffs are in place, not because we’re worse at making ethanol than the U.S. — they use genetically modified corn, antibiotics, they have lower energy costs and they have tax subsidies from the government,” explained Hackett. “The tariffs were just to say we wanted a level playing field.” Britain’s chemical industry, including multinational INEOS, the Chemical Business Association and px Group, are already urging the government to intervene, warning that the closure of Vivergo Fuel would not only put jobs at risk, but also billions in investment — as well as the country’s long-term energy security. Last month, Vivergo signed a £1.25 billion memorandum of understanding with Meld Energy to supply feedstock for a new sustainable aviation fuel plant at Saltend, Hull. Separately, it’s planning a £250 million hydrogen production facility on the same site. “If we disappear, that goes because there’s no-one to take the green hydrogen and there’s no raw material to turn into aviation [fuel],” warned Hackett. “You’re putting at risk a billion pound investment into the Saltend site,” he said. “Hull is not the most economically advantaged part of the U.K. That billion pounds of investment would have added thousands more jobs. By taking away that bioethanol industry, you lose all future growth.” Hackett says the British government has been “relatively slow to come to the table.” It has now appointed an adviser to hear the business case and recommend whether Vivergo should receive state financial support. “Unless we get sufficient concrete assurances from the government, then I will go ahead and close the business,” said Hackett. The warning comes as a string of chemicals and bioeconomy producers shutter operations, including INEOS’s refinery at Grangemouth and SABIC’s Olefins 6 cracker on Teesside. The Ensus bioethanol plant at Wilton is also at risk of closure. A British government spokesperson said: “We recognise this is a concerning time for workers and their families which is why we entered into negotiations with the company on potential financial support last month.” They added: “We will continue to take proactive steps to address the long-standing challenges the company faces and remain committed to working closely with them throughout this period to present a plan for a way forward that protects supply chains, jobs and livelihoods.”