The agriculture ministers from several member states were unhappy, on Monday 12 December, at the lack of flexibility in the proposals tabled in July of this year on effort sharing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the sectors not covered by the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) – transport, buildings, agriculture and forestry (or LULUCF, see EUROPE 11598).
The Slovak Presidency of the Council said after the debate on the two proposals (a regulation on effort sharing and a regulation specifically on the LULUCF sector) that the ministers had placed the emphasis on the need to ensure consistency between food security and climate change. “Climate targets need to be reached in such a way as not to endanger food production”, said the Slovak minister. There was, she said, “still room for improvement” on the flexibility in the proposals. Better account must be taken of forests in the areas of flexibility in order better to reflect carbon sinks and provide specific incentives, the minister said.
Environment is the lead Council on this issue (see EUROPE 11647) but agriculture ministers have been invited to contribute to the debate. They gave their responses to two question. Firstly, the conclusions of the European Council of October 2014 state that the multiple objectives of the agriculture and land use sector, with their lower mitigation potential, should be acknowledged: do agriculture ministers believe that this guidance has been sufficiently reflected by the Commission in the proposal for a regulation on LULUCF? And secondly, in meeting of commitments in terms of non-ETS sectors, are the flexibilities in the proposals on the effort sharing regulation and LULUCF adequate from the point of view of agriculture and land use?
Taking account of the tasks of agriculture. Germany stated that agriculture had to adapt to the demands of climate change as it is not “neutral” from the climate point of view. “Agriculture is part of the solution” said the German minister, who made reference to the French “4 for 1000” initiative (storing carbon in the ground by means of agro-ecology, agro-forestry, etc). In response to the first question, Germany argued for a holistic approach that takes account of LULUCF, the technical uncertainties and the tasks of agriculture. “Incentives have to be put in place for soil use, agriculture and forestry, without compromising the objectives.” On the second, Germany said more discussion was necessary, for example, on the reference levels for forestry, “a task that is incumbent upon the member states”, it indicated to the Commission.
Working further on flexibilities. France argued for a strong common agricultural policy (CAP) to ensure the transition of agriculture to climate-friendly practices. France made reference to food security and to the fact that agriculture and forestry can help achieve the targets for developing renewable energy. “These efforts have to be recognised, for example in the way emissions from agricultural and forestry sectors are accounted for”, said the French delegation. France called for work to be continued on the flexibilities offered by the proposals. It argued that the efforts of the agricultural and forestry sectors need to be valued and the sustainable management of forests and development of the use of wood and biomass must not be compromised. “There is uncertainty as to how real these flexibilities are”, France said.
Countries with large forested areas. Sweden urged all countries to be more ambitious in implementing the Paris climate agreement “by including fair and transparent rules for LULUCF in our commitments to 2030”. The regulatory framework, however, must not impede a sustainable increase in production (bio-energy, food, other climate-friendly materials deriving from agriculture or forestry), the Swedish minister made clear. Sweden highlighted the need to respect national responsibility in the management of forests and suggested that “the Commission should not have a decisive role in setting national reference levels for forestry”. Sweden agrees with the proposal that LULUCF surpluses should be used and transferred. The development of carbon sinks in the LULUCF sector is not certain, Sweden stated.
In response to the second question, Finland and other countries which have large tracts of their land covered in forest felt that there was no reason not to include forestry in the flexibility on effort sharing. The Finnish minister said that, with regard to the LULUCF sector flexibility, he could not see the need for a 3.5% cap for forests.
Denmark expressed concern at the impact of the proposals on its agriculture: The Commission has suggested that a target of 39% (emissions reduction) would be set for Denmark, the delegation noted.
Objectives felt sometimes to be too ambitious. Poland argued that food security should take precedence and “reduction targets are too ambitious. The agriculture sector mustn’t be targeted.” Poland felt that the efforts made by the agriculture sector (arable crops and pastures) should not be forgotten.
Italy, too, was very critical of the proposals on effort sharing, taking the view that they would discriminate against it. “Such rigidity does not take account of the efforts already made by the member states which pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. Italy said, advocating “bonus” mechanisms to encourage what has already been done. In responding to the second question, Italy complained that there was insufficient flexibility “to ensure full use of the credits from forests”. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)