EU Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson tried to convince MEPs of her determination to bring the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) into line with the EU’s climate goals on Thursday 22 October during a debate in the European Parliament.
“The objective of ‘greening’ the Energy Charter Treaty is at the heart of the EU’s modernisation process”, the Commissioner said.
She added: “It is our political aim to ensure that the Energy Charter Treaty only protects those investments that support transition to a climate neutral energy system”.
In force since 1998 to promote international cooperation in the field of energy and thus ensure the security of energy supplies, the ECT now has 56 Contracting Parties, including 26 EU Member States and the European Commission.
While its modernisation process has started this year (the third round of negotiations will take place from 3-6 November), it has been strongly criticised by many NGOs, but also by MEPs, who believe it is contrary to the EU’s climate ambitions (see EUROPE 12558/9).
These are criticisms that have been reiterated by many MEPs during the debate.
María Spyráki (EPP, Greece) said the Treaty is “outdated”, in particular because of its ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) clause, which allows a private company to sue a State signatory to the Treaty before a private arbitration tribunal if it feels it has been harmed by a measure taken by the government of that country.
This clause obliges governments to pay billions in compensation just because they are trying to take measures to combat climate change, said Anna Cavazzini (Greens/EFA, Germany).
Claiming that the Treaty is not compatible with the European Green Deal or the Paris Agreement, Martin Hojsík (Renew Europe, Slovakia) questioned the Commission’s intentions in the absence of agreement on a genuine reform of the Treaty.
While a reform of the Treaty requires unanimity, Japan has already expressed its opposition to any far-reaching revision of the ECT.
Responding to calls from MEPs such as Ms Cavazzini, Silvia Modig (GUE/NGL, Finland) and Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D, Belgium) to prepare to leave the Treaty in the absence of ambitious reform, Ms Simson expressed reservations about such an option.
For her, the Commission (mandated by the Member States) should give priority to negotiation.
However, she expressed her readiness to evaluate all options if the discussions did not lead to a satisfactory outcome, while recognising that a proposal to remove the protection of investments in fossil fuels from the ECT would certainly be met with resistance from many signatory countries, some of which are major producers of fossil fuels.
Furthermore, she said that the ECT could still play a positive role in the future as it protects all energy investments, including those in renewable energy. (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)