MEPs were sharply divided on Wednesday 16 March over the role that the future ‘ETS 2’ system - which extends the greenhouse gas emission allowance system to the construction and road transport sectors - could play in financing the Social Climate Fund, during an intense debate at a joint meeting of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) and the Environment and Health (ENVI) committee.
Turning to the content of the first meeting held the day before between the negotiators of the political groups, the co-rapporteurs immediately mentioned the volume and the method of financing the future fund.
On behalf of the EMPL Committee, David Casa (EPP, Malta) made it clear that €72 billion would not be enough. On behalf of the ENVI Committee, his Dutch counterpart Esther de Lange confirmed that the main topic of discussion was the link between the new Social Climate Fund and the ‘ETS 2’ system.
Some of the shadow rapporteurs want to cut this link, such as Klára Dobrev (S&D, Hungary), Katrin Langensiepen (Greens/EFA, Germany) or Leila Chaibi (The Left, France). On the other hand, some, like Ondřej Knotek (Renew Europe, Czech Republic), are keen to maintain such a link. Others want to change the share of revenue generated by the ‘ETS 2’ system to go beyond the 25% planned by the European Commission. Still others want to use only the revenues generated by the current ‘ETS’ system.
The question then arises as to the total volume of revenue generated, Ms De Lange stressed, especially if the share of national co-financing is reduced, as some shadow rapporteurs are demanding.
Peter Liese (EPP, Germany) argued for maintaining the ‘ETS 2’ system in all situations. Without the extension of the emissions trading system, it will be impossible to reach an agreement in the EU Council, he said.
This analysis is shared by the European Commission. One of its representatives stressed that the so-called ‘frugal’ Member States do not want a Social Climate Fund. In their view, social support for transition should be organised at national level.
During the debate, the balance between the share dedicated to direct income support and the share dedicated to investments was also regularly mentioned.
A two-stage approach - first direct income support capped temporarily at a higher level while the positive effects of the investments are felt among the beneficiaries - could be a balanced position.
Furthermore, most shadow rapporteurs agree that communication with beneficiaries should be improved.
Direct support to SMEs was also mentioned. But most shadow rapporteurs are opposed to this, as there are already other funds to support businesses.
Finally, they all supported the application of the Rule of law mechanism in the management of the future fund. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)