On Thursday 28 March, MEPs adopted by 316 votes to 93 against, with 192 abstentions, the draft report by Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP, Finland) and Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, the Netherlands) laying the foundations for the future taxonomy on sustainable finance, which will assess, sector by sector, the ecological sustainability of economic activities (see EUROPE 12026/4).
Disappointed by the report adopted in the parliamentary committee (see EUROPE 12212/9), the S&D group – which abstained en masse in the final vote – as well as the Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups did their utmost to try to “give the text back its full quality” in the vote in plenary session.
The three groups have indeed tabled again a series of amendments (see EUROPE 12222/13) which were rejected in the parliamentary committee and, during the debate preceding the vote, they defended them tooth and nail.
Bas Eickhout furthermore denounced the intensive lobbying surrounding this issue, particularly with regard to his group's proposal to introduce a category of “investments having a significantly harmful environmental impact.”
“It is not forbidding, it is not blacklisting, it is just providing transparency to the markets”, he tried one last time to convince.
“What I see is that all too often here and elsewhere, some Conservatives and lobbies make big statements in favour of this ecological transition and that, when it really is necessary to implement concrete tools, they back away from the obstacle”, said Pervenche Berès (S&D, France).
But nothing was done, the EPP, ECR and ALDE groups preferred to play the “prudence” card.
“We must remain pragmatic if we do not want to create a gas plant. I do not want a negative list of activities that would in principle be excluded from the scope of sustainable investments. The latter must also be used to improve existing technologies in fields of activity that are a priori polluting [...] To go back on the technological neutrality of our text would be to jeopardise the future”, Françoise Grossetête (EPP, France) pointed out.
Thus, as expected, the final text does not include this “brown list” of economic activities, as the amendment was rejected by 334 votes to 244 with 5 abstentions.
Nor does the text include the extension of the scope to credit institutions, as requested by the Greens/EFA, nor the criteria for determining the degree of substantial contribution of an economic activity to social objectives.
On the other hand, the amendments supported by the Greens/EFA and the S&D to ensure that investments in solid fossil fuel activities can never be considered “sustainable” and that sustainable investments also comply with basic human rights standards.
It should be noted that the Greens/EFA amendment specifying that electricity generation activities producing non-renewable waste cannot be considered as environmentally sustainable economic activities was also adopted by two votes.
The final vote should relieve organisations representing the interests of companies such as SMEunited, AECM, Eurochambres or EuropeanIssuers, which had called on MEPs to reject this “brown list”.
Consumer and transparency organisations expected an ambitious taxonomy. In an open letter published on Wednesday, the NGOs ActionAid International, Global Witness, ShareAction, European Policy, WWF, Finance Watch and E3G supported several amendments on the table.
“Given the recent climate marches that have taken place around the globe, the eyes of the public will be on Parliament for this vote, and European citizens will be looking to MEPs for a clear sign that policy makers are taking their concerns on climate change and social issues seriously”, they warned. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)