The EU Environment Ministers have reached an agreement in principle to approve the reform that sets, black on white, the reduction of greenhouse emissions by 90% by 2040 in relation to 1990 levels. It was the “red line” defended by the most ambitious countries like Spain. But to achieve this binding objective, they have had to give in more flexibilities to convince the most reluctant States, in a long negotiation that has lasted a day and a night and that has yet to be formally closed, throughout this Wednesday morning.
According to sources familiar with the negotiations, the regulations, which should be ready starting this week, set as “binding” the 90% objective that some member states had come to question and that Spain and a large group of countries – about 14 came to meet on the outskirts of the long meeting – defended as a “red line” to maintain European climate ambition. In exchange, it has agreed to increase from 3 to 5% the amount of “high-quality” international credits that make it possible to compensate for the deficits in emissions reductions established outside European borders. There are also other concessions, which must be formally closed at the meeting, which continues this Wednesday — the ministers must also approve, by unanimity or consensus at least, the NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution) of the EU, that is, its commitment to reduce its greenhouse gases for the entire community economy.
From the first hour of the long day, which lasted into the early hours of the morning, it was clear that the negotiation was not going to be easy despite the multiple postponements, the imminence of the COP in Belém to which the EU wants to arrive with its homework done and the intense previous negotiations, including a consultation with the heads of State and Government, who gave their approval to the negotiations during their last summit in Brussels, less than two weeks ago.
To approve the reform of the European Climate Law and the desired 90% objective, a qualified majority was required (the yes of 55% of the member countries, that is, at least 15 States, and that these represent at least 65% of the EU). The current Danish presidency of the EU sought to ensure that this majority was as large as possible, so that a regulation that will be the legal – and binding – basis of many of the European policies of the next 15 years would have a solid base of support. But although Tuesday’s meeting in Brussels had been reached with an agreement almost within reach, according to diplomatic sources, it quickly slipped through the fingers as soon as they heard the discordant positions of several countries that rejected the Danish compromise proposal.
“We still do not have a qualified majority,” the sources repeated throughout a day that only grew longer, while, behind closed doors, bilateral and group meetings of various countries took place, including the one led by Spain in search of guaranteeing the greatest possible ambition of the law in the face of attacks from multiple capitals to lower it.
“We are late, very late, we need to continue showing international leadership, but we are also at risk for competitiveness at the European level, we are at stake for Europe,” the third vice president and Minister of Ecological Transition, Sara Aagesen, had previously urged her 26 colleagues.
Competitiveness has been one of the main arguments put forward by countries that seek more flexibilities (France) or even lower the law so much that it would almost be meaningless (Poland, Czech Republic), under the idea that the fight against climate change cannot be done at the expense of European industry or agriculture. But the Climate Commissioner himself, Woepke Hoekstra, made it clear during his initial speech to the ministers that some of the proposals of these countries, especially the clause for the total review of the 2040 objectives, would “send the wrong signal” to investors. “We believe that explicitly mentioning the review of the 2040 goal in the review clause would send the wrong signal, because uncertainty about the goal and its architecture could send investors in the wrong direction,” he stressed, in line with Spain or Germany.
