A fair, fast and competitive transition begins with what already works and then rapidly scales it up.  Across the EU commercial road transport sector, the diversity of operations is met with a diversity of solutions. Urban taxis are switching to electric en masse. Many regional coaches run on advanced biofuels, with electrification emerging in smaller applications such as school services, as European e-coach technologies are still maturing and only now beginning to enter the market. Trucks electrify rapidly where operationally and financially possible, while others, including long-haul and other hard-to-electrify segments, operate at scale on HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) or biomethane, cutting emissions immediately and reliably. These are real choices made every day by operators facing different missions, distances, terrains and energy realities, showing that decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones.  Building on this diversity, many operators are already modernizing their fleets and cutting emissions through electrification. When they can control charging, routing and energy supply, electric vehicles often deliver a positive total cost of ownership (TCO), strong reliability and operational benefits. These early adopters prove that electrification works where the enabling conditions are in place, and that its potential can expand dramatically with the right support. > Decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones chosen > daily by operators facing real-world conditions. But scaling electrification faces structural bottlenecks. Grid capacity is constrained across the EU, and upgrades routinely take years. As most heavy-duty vehicle charging will occur at depots, operators cannot simply move around to look for grid opportunities. They are bound to the location of their facilities.  The recently published grid package tries, albeit timidly, to address some of these challenges, but it neither resolves the core capacity deficiencies nor fixes the fundamental conditions that determine a positive TCO: the predictability of electricity prices, the stability of delivered power, and the resulting charging time. A truck expected to recharge in one hour at a high-power station may wait far longer if available grid power drops. Without reliable timelines, predictable costs and sufficient depot capacity, most transport operators cannot make long-term investment decisions. And the grid is only part of the enabling conditions needed: depot charging infrastructure itself requires significant additional investment, on top of vehicles that already cost several hundreds of thousands of euros more than their diesel equivalents.  This is why the EU needs two things at once: strong enablers for electrification and hydrogen; and predictability on what the EU actually recognizes as clean. Operators using renewable fuels, from biomethane to advanced biofuels and HVO, delivering up to 90 percent CO2 reduction, are cutting emissions today. Yet current CO2 frameworks, for both light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, fail to recognize fleets running on these fuels as part of the EU’s decarbonization solution for road transport, even when they deliver immediate, measurable climate benefits. This lack of clarity limits investment and slows additional emission reductions that could happen today. > Policies that punish before enabling will not accelerate the transition; a > successful shift must empower operators, not constrain them. The revision of both CO2 standards, for cars and vans, and for heavy-duty vehicles, will therefore be pivotal. They must support electrification and hydrogen where they fit the mission, while also recognizing the contribution of renewable and low-carbon fuels across the fleet. Regulations that exclude proven clean options will not accelerate the transition. They will restrict it.  With this in mind, the question is: why would the EU consider imposing purchasing mandates on operators or excessively high emission-reduction targets on member states that would, in practice, force quotas on buyers? Such measures would punish before enabling, removing choice from those who know their operations best. A successful transition must empower operators, not constrain them.  The EU’s transport sector is committed and already delivering. With the right enablers, a technology-neutral framework, and clarity on what counts as clean, the EU can turn today’s early successes into a scalable, fair and competitive decarbonization pathway.  We now look with great interest to the upcoming Automotive Package, hoping to see pragmatic solutions to these pressing questions, solutions that EU transport operators, as the buyers and daily users of all these technologies, are keenly expecting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is IRU – International Road Transport Union  * The ultimate controlling entity is IRU – International Road Transport Union  More information here.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

At New York Climate Week in September, opinion leaders voiced concern that high-profile events often gloss over the deep inequalities exposed by climate change, especially how poorer populations suffer disproportionately and struggle to access mitigation or adaptation resources. The message was clear: climate policies should better reflect social justice concerns, ensuring they are inclusive and do not unintentionally favor those already privileged.  We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, because everything starts with food: it is a fundamental human right and a foundation for health, education and opportunity. It is also a lever for climate, economic and social resilience.  > We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, > because everything starts with food This makes the global conversation around food systems transformation more urgent than ever. Food systems are under unprecedented strain. Without urgent, coordinated action, billions of people face heightened risks of malnutrition, displacement and social unrest.   Delivering systemic transformation requires coordinated cross-sector action, not fragmented solutions. Food systems are deeply interconnected, and isolated interventions cannot solve systemic problems. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s recent Transforming Food and Agriculture Through a Systems Approach report calls for systems thinking and collaboration across the value chain to address overlapping food, health and environmental challenges.   Now, with COP30 on the horizon, unified and equitable solutions are needed to benefit entire value chains and communities. This is where a systems approach becomes essential.  A systems approach to transforming food and agriculture  Food systems transformation must serve both people and planet. We must ensure everyone has access to safe, nutritious food while protecting human rights and supporting a just transition.   At Tetra Pak, we support food and beverage companies throughout the journey of food production, from processing raw ingredients like milk and fruit to packaging and distribution. This end-to-end perspective gives us a unique view into the interconnected challenges within the food system, and how an integrated approach can help manufacturers reduce food loss and waste, improve energy and water efficiency, and deliver food where it is needed most.   Meaningful reductions to emissions require expanding the use of renewable and carbon-free energy sources. As outlined in our Food Systems 2040 whitepaper,1 the integration of low-carbon fuels like biofuels and green hydrogen, alongside electrification supported by advanced energy storage technologies, will be critical to driving the transition in factories, farms and food production and processing facilities.   Digitalization also plays a key role. Through advanced automation and data-driven insights, solutions like Tetra Pak® PlantMaster enable food and beverage companies to run fully automated plants with a single point of control for their production, helping them improve operational efficiency, minimize production downtime and reduce their environmental footprint.  The “hidden middle”: A critical gap in food systems policy  Today, much of the focus on transforming food systems is placed on farming and on promoting healthy diets. Both are important, but they risk overlooking the many and varied processes that get food from the farmer to the end consumer. In 2015 Dr Thomas Reardon coined the term the “hidden middle” to describe this midstream segment of global agricultural value chains.2   This hidden middle includes processing, logistics, storage, packaging and handling, and it is pivotal. It accounts for approximately 22 percent of food-based emissions and between 40-60 percent of the total costs and value added in food systems.3 Yet despite its huge economic value, it receives only 2.5 to 4 percent of climate finance.4  Policymakers need to recognize the full journey from farm to fork as a lynchpin priority. Strategic enablers such as packaging that protects perishable food and extends shelf life, along with climate-resilient processing technologies, can maximize yield and minimize loss and waste across the value chain. In addition, they demonstrate how sustainability and competitiveness can go hand in hand.  Alongside this, climate and development finance must be redirected to increase investment in the hidden middle, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up most of the sector.   Collaboration in action  Investment is just the start. Change depends on collaboration between stakeholders across the value chain: farmers, food manufacturers, brands, retailers, governments, financiers and civil society.  In practice, a systems approach means joining up actors and incentives at every stage.5 The dairy sector provides a perfect example of the possibilities of connecting. We work with our customers and with development partners to establish dairy hubs in countries around the world. These hubs connect smallholder farmers with local processors, providing chilling infrastructure, veterinary support, training and reliable routes to market.6 This helps drive higher milk quality, more stable incomes and safer nutrition for local communities.  Our strategic partnership with UNIDO* is a powerful example of this collaboration in action. Together, we are scaling Dairy Hub projects in Kenya, building on the success of earlier initiatives with our customer Githunguri Dairy. UNIDO plays a key role in securing donor funding and aligning public-private efforts to expand local dairy production and improve livelihoods. This model demonstrates how collaborations can unlock changes in food systems.  COP30 and beyond  Strategic investment can strengthen local supply chains, extend social protections and open economic opportunity, particularly in vulnerable regions. Lasting progress will require a systems approach, with policymakers helping to mitigate transition costs and backing sustainable business models that build resilience across global food systems for generations to come.   As COP30 approaches, we urge policymakers to consider food systems as part of all decision-making, to prevent unintended trade-offs between climate and nutrition goals. We also recommend that COP30 negotiators ensure the Global Goal on Adaptation include priorities indicators that enable countries to collect, monitor and report data on the adoption of climate-resilient technologies and practices by food processors. This would reinforce the importance of the hidden middle and help unlock targeted adaptation finance across the food value chain.  When every actor plays their part, from policymakers to producers, and from farmers to financiers, the whole system moves forward. Only then can food systems be truly equitable, resilient and sustainable, protecting what matters most: food, people and the planet.  * UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)  Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Tetra Pak * The ultimate controlling entity is Brands2Life Ltd * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy regarding food systems and climate policy More information here. https://www.politico.eu/7449678-2

BRUSSELS — For six years, the European Union’s efforts to fight climate change have been on an upward swing. That came to an end on Wednesday morning in messy, exhausted scenes.  After a marathon meeting that ran through Tuesday night and eventually ended a little after 9 a.m. the next morning, a majority of the bloc’s 27 governments agreed on new targets to cut pollution — but only by weakening existing laws and slowing domestic efforts designed to cut down on that very same pollution.  The compromise was met with relief by many countries and European Commission officials, who had feared an embarrassing collapse that would have hamstrung the EU on the eve of the COP30 U.N. climate talks in Brazil starting Thursday. But it also underscored a swing in political momentum. After half a decade of green victories on climate policy, a much more skeptical group of countries and parties now has the upper hand. In an interview just after the talks ended, the Commission’s climate chief Wopke Hoekstra hailed the EU’s continuing “leadership role” on climate issues. But the commissioner was candid about the political and economic realities — high energy costs, the rise of right-wing populists and declining industrial confidence — that had strengthened critics of the green agenda. The EU was “staying the course” on fighting climate change, he told POLITICO, but added “it would be foolish to use the recipe of the past. We’re facing massive change, so we need to adapt to that change.” Ministers also agreed on a target for 2035 — a requirement under the terms of the 2015 Paris Agreement that was due to be delivered earlier this year in advance of the COP30 talks. The ministers were unable to agree to a single number, instead promising a nonbinding cut between 66.25 and 72.5 percent. The final deal on the binding 2040 goal came up short of the 90 percent cut in domestic pollution below 1990 levels, which Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had made the key green pledge in her reelection campaign.  Instead, ministers on Wednesday agreed an 85 percent cut in domestic emissions by 2040. Governments intend to achieve the remaining 5 percentage points by paying other countries to reduce pollution on the bloc’s behalf, a system of purchases known as carbon credits.  The deal also opened the door to outsourcing additional efforts as part of a wide-ranging revision clause that will see the Commission tasked with considering amending the target every five years depending on factors such as energy prices or economic troubles. “Embarrassing and short sighted,” was the assessment of Diederik Samsom, the former top-ranking Commission official who was a primary architect of the European Green Deal policy package during von der Leyen’s first mandate — though he said it was unlikely the carbon credits would be used as they would cost just as much as cutting emissions at home, but without the added benefits of investment and innovation. “The Green Deal still holds, since its rationale is largely economic … but the lack of political courage amongst European ministers is worrying,” said Samsom, who also served as Hoekstra’s chief of staff for a few months. These major gifts to countries like France, which had pushed for the credit system, were still not enough to strike a deal on Wednesday. Italy, supported by Poland and Romania, led a blocking minority that refused to budge until they were granted key concessions on existing climate laws.  To win them over, ministers also agreed to delay by one year the rollout of the EU’s carbon pricing system for heating and fuel emissions, known as ETS2. And they asked to extend the use of biofuels and other low-carbon fuels in transport in the future, which could weaken the agreed 2035 ban on new combustion-engine cars.  Watering down existing tools for cutting emissions in order to land a deal on a future target created a challenge all of its own, said Simone Tagliapietra, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank. “The target is very ambitious, and we need all tools to deliver on it. Dilemma is how to get there.” Those tweaks came on top of concessions already granted in technical talks over the past few weeks, which include permitting heavy industry to pollute more and revising the target downward if the EU’s forests absorb less carbon dioxide than expected.  “Instead of climate protection, the ministers end up with political self-deception,” said Michael Bloss, a Greens MEP from Germany. Poland was one of the key holdouts and ultimately refused to vote in favor of the target even though it was granted a delay in the ETS2, which Secretary of State for Climate Krzysztof Bolesta said “was one of our main demands.” Poland was accused of holding hostage the 2035 climate target, which needed unanimous support, over the delay on ETS2, said three diplomats involved in the negotiations. A Polish official said any discussions on the 2035 goal and the postponement of the ETS2 were part of a “package deal” sought by several countries. These officials were granted anonymity to disclose the details of the talks. But even with that concession, the target was still the lowest level of ambition. “We were forced to accept the lower end of the range to prevent certain countries from blocking this agreement,” said Monique Barbut, the French environment minister.  But that shouldn’t be interpreted as a sign the EU is no longer a global climate leader, according to Barbut. “We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of,” she said. Hoekstra framed the deal as a new phase of pragmatic climate policymaking that incorporated the views of traditionally resistant countries, rather than sidelining them. He argued the past approach had failed to protect the bloc from industrial decline and dependence on countries such as China.  “In the past, we have been gambling with our independence and our competitiveness in a way that, frankly speaking, we should not have,” Hoekstra said.

When you live at the crossroads of East and West, energy is never just about electricity or gas. In the Republic of Moldova, high-voltage lines and pipelines have always carried more than power — they have carried geopolitics. For decades, this small country wedged between Romania and Ukraine found itself trapped in a web of vulnerabilities: dependent on Russian gas, tied to Soviet-era infrastructure and reliant on energy supplies from the breakaway Transnistrian region. Energy was less a utility than a lever of political blackmail.         And yet, in just a few years, Moldova has begun to flip the script. What was once the country’s greatest weakness has been turned into a project of sovereignty — and, crucially, a bridge to Europe.         A turning point in the crisis         The breaking point came in October 2021, when Gazprom slashed deliveries, prices exploded and Chișinău suddenly found itself staring at an energy abyss. Electricity was supplied almost entirely from the MGRES plant in Transnistria, itself hostage to Kremlin influence. By 2022 the situation worsened: gas supplies were halted altogether, MGRES cut the lights on the right bank of the Dniester and Moldova teetered on the edge of a blackout.         With coordinated support from the European Union — which helped Moldova overcome the crises, cushion the impact on consumers hit by soaring prices and committed further backing through instruments such as the Growth Plan for the Republic of Moldova — the country managed to stabilize the situation.              For many countries, such a crisis would have spelled capitulation. For Moldova, it became the start of something different: a choice between survival within the old dependency or a leap toward reinvention. > What was once the country’s greatest weakness has been turned into a project > of sovereignty — and, crucially, a bridge to Europe.         Reinvention with a European compass         Under a unified Pro-European leadership — President Maia Sandu, Prime Minister Dorin Recean and Energy Minister Dorin Junghietu — Moldova has embraced the latter path. In 2023 the Ministry of Energy was created not as another bureaucratic silo, but as an engine of transformation.         The strategy was clear: diversify supply, integrate with the European grid, liberalize markets and accelerate the green transition. Within months, JSC Energocom — the newly empowered state supplier — was sourcing natural gas from more than ten European partners via the Trans-Balkan corridor. Strategic reserves were secured in Romania and Ukraine. For the first time, Moldova was no longer hostage to a single supplier.         In 2024 Moldova joined the Vertical Gas Corridor linking Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine — a symbolic and practical step toward embedding itself into Europe’s energy arteries. On the electricity side, synchronization with ENTSO-E, the European grid, in March 2022 allowed direct imports from Romania. The Vulcănești–Chișinău transmission line, to be completed this year, alongside the Bălți–Suceava interconnection in tender procedures, ensures Moldova’s future is wired into Europe, not into its separatist past. Since 2025 the right bank of the Dniester has no longer bought electricity from Transnistria.         Accelerated legislative reform         None of Moldova’s progress would have been possible without shock therapy in legislation. The country rewrote its gas law to enforce mandatory storage of 15 percent of annual consumption, guarantee public service obligations, open its markets to competition, and shield vulnerable consumers. In parallel, it adopted EU rules on wholesale market transparency and trading integrity, aligning itself not only in practice but also in law with European standards, a pace of change that has been repeatedly underscored by the Energy Community Secretariat in its annual Implementation Reports, which recognized Moldova as the front-runner in the Community in 2024.         But perhaps the most striking step was political: Moldova became the first country in Europe to renounce Russian energy resources entirely. A government decision spelled it out clearly: “the funds are intended to ensure the resilience and energy independence of the Republic of Moldova, including the complete elimination of any form of dependence on the supply of energy resources from the Russian Federation.”         Junghietu, Moldova’s energy minister, has been blunt about what this meant. “Moldova no longer wants to pay a political price for energy resources — a price that has been immense over the past 30 years. It held back our economic development and kept us prisoners of empty promises.” The new strategy is built on diversification, transparency and competition. As Junghietu put it: “The economy must become robust, so that it is competitive, with prices determined by supply and demand.”         This combination of structural reform and political clarity marked a definitive break with the past — and a foundation for Moldova’s European energy future.         The green transition: from ambition to action         The reforms went beyond emergency fixes. They set the stage for a green transformation. By amending renewables legislation, the government committed to 27 percent renewable energy in total consumption by 2030, with 30 percent in the electricity mix.         The results are visible: tenders for 165 MW of renewable capacity have been launched and contracted and a net billing mechanism was introduced, boosting the number of prosumers. In April 2025 more than a third of Moldova’s electricity already came from local renewables. The ministry has also supported the development of energy communities, biofuels and pilot projects for energy efficiency. The green transition is no longer a slogan — but a growing reality.         More than energy policy — a political project         Digitalization, too, is reshaping the sector. With support from UN Development Programme and the Italian government, 35,000 smart meters are already in place, with a goal to reach 100,000 by 2027. These are not just gadgets — they cut losses, enable real-time monitoring and give consumers more control. Meanwhile, ‘sandbox’ regimes for energy innovators, digital platforms for price comparison and streamlined supplier switching are dragging Moldova’s energy sector into the 21st century.       These are not technical reforms in isolation; they are political acts. Energy independence has become the backbone of Moldova’s EU trajectory. By transposing the EU’s Third and Fourth Energy Packages, adopting the Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan, and actively engaging in European platforms, with technical support from the Energy Community Secretariat that helped authorities navigate these challenges, Chișinău is demonstrating that integration is not just a diplomatic aspiration — it is a lived reality.         Partnerships with Romania have been central. The 2023 energy memorandum, joint infrastructure projects, and cross-border storage and balancing initiatives have anchored Moldova firmly in the European family. Step by step, the country has become not only a consumer but also a credible partner in the European energy market. > These are not technical reforms in isolation; they are political acts. Energy > independence has become the backbone of Moldova’s EU trajectory.         Lessons from crisis         The energy crises of 2021-22 were existential. Moldova was threatened with supply cuts, social unrest and economic collapse. But the government’s response was coordinated, strategic and unusually bold for a country long accustomed to living under the shadow of dependency.         New laws harmonized tariffs, enforced supplier storage obligations and put in place shields for vulnerable households. The Ministry of Energy proved capable of anticipating risks and managing them. Moldova ceased being reactive — and started planning.         Of course, challenges remain. Interconnections with Romania must be further expanded, balancing capacity for the electricity grid is still limited and investment in efficiency has only begun. But today, Moldova has a coherent plan, a competent team and an irreversible direction.         A change of mindset         Perhaps the most profound transformation has been cultural. Chișinău’s energy ministry has evolved from crisis responder to a forward-looking body linking European market realities with citizens’ daily needs. Its teams are now engaging with both the complexities of European energy markets and the practical concerns of Moldovan households. Decisions are increasingly data-driven, communication is transparent, and cooperation with private actors and international partners has become routine.         This institutional maturity is crucial for Moldova’s EU path. Integration is not only about harmonizing legislation but also about building trust, credibility and resilience. Energy has become the showcase — the sector that proves Moldova can implement European rules, innovate and deliver. > Energy has become a catalyst for broader reforms in governance, transparency, > social protection and regional development.         A model in the making         In a region where instability remains the norm, Moldova is beginning to stand out as a model of resilience. Its reforms — synchronization with ENTSO-E, participation in the Vertical Gas Corridor, expansion of renewables and rapid digitalization — are being watched across the Eastern Partnership. Energy has become a catalyst for broader reforms in governance, transparency, social protection and regional development.         What was once a weapon turned against Moldova has been reimagined as a shield. Energy, long the Achilles’ heel of this fragile state, has become its spearhead into Europe.          Moldova’s journey is far from complete. But one thing is already clear: its European future is no longer a promise. It is under construction, one kilowatt at a time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Daniel Apostol is an economic analyst, first vice president of the Association for Economic and Social Studies and Forecasts (ASPES), and CEO of the Federation of Energy Employers of Romania. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its content represents the sole responsibility of the MEIR project, financed by the European Union. The content of the publication belongs to the authors and does not necessarily reflect the vision of the European Union.

BRUSSELS — When Donald Trump threatened the European Union with 30 percent tariffs, Ursula von der Leyen didn’t take the bait. She looked east instead of west and quickly announced a “political agreement” on a trade deal with Indonesia, the fourth-most-populous country in the world, after nine years and 19 negotiating rounds. That’s no coincidence.  Responding to the U.S. president’s trade threat, which landed on July 12, a Saturday, the head of the European Commission said: “We continue to deepen our global partnerships, firmly anchored in the principles of rules-based international trade.”  The next day, von der Leyen hosted Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto for a photo-op in Brussels, declaring that “Europe and Indonesia are choosing a path of openness, partnership, and shared prosperity.”  Prabowo, who apologized for disturbing von der Leyen on a Sunday, said “the agreement must support our efforts to grow our industries, create jobs, and strengthen our sustainable development goals.”  However, Indonesia’s long list of import restrictions, unpredictable regulations, raw material bans and refusal to implement World Trade Organization judgments have made it a difficult partner to deal with. Does the political declaration mean that Jakarta is really ready to turn the page? And what exactly does a “political agreement to advance the trade agreement” even signify? It’s not a conclusion of talks, let alone a signature. Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, a Swedish former trade diplomat who now heads the European Centre for International Political Economy, says it just means the leaders have “the intention to conclude the negotiations.” “It doesn’t mean that they are done,” he told POLITICO. “We instruct our negotiators: ‘Get it done. Give me a compromise that I can sell.’ ” A FIRM PATH Fabian Gehl, who is leading the EU’s trade negotiations with Indonesia, told European lawmakers that the political agreement “sets a firm path for closing all the remaining gaps in the coming weeks and land[ing] a full agreement by September.”  But given that the tumultuous talks have stretched over almost 20 rounds and nearly a decade, it remains unclear whether both sides can realistically meet that timeline to finalize the Indonesia–European Union Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement — or IEU CEPA. Just two days after von der Leyen met with Prabowo, Trump announced his own deal with Indonesia, agreeing to a 19 percent tariff on its exports to the U.S. For American exports? No tariffs.  Just two days after Ursula von der Leyen met with Prabowo Subianto, Donald Trump announced his own deal with Indonesia, agreeing to a 19 percent tariff on its exports to the U.S. | Bagus Indahono/EPA The European Parliament’s lead lawmaker on the talks, Iuliu Winkler — who is also deputy chair of its trade committee — considers the September deadline “quite feasible.” “To my knowledge, the resolution of all the outstanding technical issues by the negotiators is doable by then,” the Romanian Christian Democrat told POLITICO, stressing the need to meet the target date “in a global context of escalating trade volatility.” The talk in the Brussels trade bubble is that a third of the trade agreement’s chapters are still on the table — energy and raw materials, import licensing, trade and sustainable development — while services are partially up for debate. Commission spokesperson Olof Gill told POLITICO that the EU needs “to fine-tune the details” on market access for the key products remaining.  “We have already secured an extremely ambitious level of liberalization in terms of volumes and tariff lines, and we are now focusing on further improving the treatment for key products for the EU (and for Indonesia). We will continue to ensure a careful handling of sensitive products for the EU,” Gill said.  A spokesperson for the Mission of Indonesia to the EU told POLITICO they were  “optimistic” that a deal can be done by September.  AN END TO ULTRA-PROTECTIONISM? Cecilia Malmström, who served as EU trade commissioner from 2014-2019, is surprised by the reported progress in the talks. “During my time as trade commissioner, they advanced very slowly,” she recalled to POLITICO. Indonesia has now realized “it has to leave its ultra-protectionist line,” she said. The Swedish politician said the trade and sustainable development (TSD) chapter of the accord would be a particularly difficult one to solve. “I don’t know if September is realistic,” she said, “but people close to the negotiations claim that the end of this year is definitely possible.” Gill said that an “agreement has been reached on all the key elements” of the TSD chapter — but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s been finalized or agreed.  Jakarta and Brussels are still nursing wounds from a WTO case in 2021 over nickel ore. Indonesia, a leading producer, had imposed a ban on exports of the raw material, which yields the industrial metal used to make electric-vehicle batteries and stainless steel. The bloc challenged and won, but since there’s no functioning appellate body, Indonesia appealed the case into the void.  What’s more, the ban is still in force today — and that remains a sticking point in the talks.  “It’s also the right of Indonesia to want to develop local industry and to hold a share of the value of nickel in their country and build up their own industrial policy,” said Alessa Hartmann, a researcher at German climate think tank Power Shift.  Now, the EU’s deforestation regulation, due to take effect Dec. 30, will set a high bar for Indonesia to prove that any palm oil exports to Europe aren’t linked to deforestation. | Holti Simanjuntak/EPA Despite that, the EU is still pushing for access to raw materials in the deal. Spokesperson Gill said the EU was “striking the right balance between fostering EU competitiveness, by removing Indonesia’s distortive measures on key supply chains, and catering for Indonesia’s policy space needs.” DEFORESTATION DIFFERENCES It’s not only nickel ore that symbolizes the EU’s quest for critical raw materials in its bid to reduce its dependence on China — Indonesia is also the world’s largest producer of palm oil. “Indonesia’s vast reserves make it a prime target,” said Aryanto Nugroho, national coordinator for Publish What You Pay (PWYP) in Indonesia, a transparency watchdog focused on resource extractivism. The EU wants more palm oil for its biofuels industry, though it’s become caught up in the controversy over deforestation and sustainability standards. Land clearance to plant palm trees has accounted for one-third of Indonesia’s deforestation over the past 20 years, according to a 2022 study. Now, the EU’s deforestation regulation (EUDR), due to take effect Dec. 30, will set a high bar for Indonesia to prove that any palm oil exports to Europe aren’t linked to deforestation. Brussels has labeled Indonesia a “standard risk” on its classification list. But Indonesia can’t negotiate that in a trade deal, as it’s an incoming EU regulation. “There’s a parallel track of discussion with Indonesia on deforestation,” Gehl told MEPs. Yet the word in Brussels is that EUDR remains an issue in the talks.  Despite that, Indonesian Trade Minister Airlangga Hartarto said in June that the EU would give “special treatment” to palm oil in the pending trade deal: “The main issues on sustainability and traceability of our forest products have been relatively resolved,” he said.