“The Commission’s proposal is an immature, flawed framework”. At a joint meeting of the European Parliament’s Agriculture (AGRI) and Environment (ENVI) Committees on Wednesday 22 March, Célia Nyssens, Senior Policy Officer for Agriculture and Food Systems at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), was highly critical of the Commission’s proposal on carbon removal certification (see EUROPE 13074/9). The hearing, to which various experts and representatives of the European Commission were invited, aimed to gain a better understanding of carbon farming for carbon removals.
Célia Nyssens told MEPs that the text could have a negative impact on “the climate, nature and rural communities”. For his part, Christian Holzleitner, head of unit at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action, said he was “aware of the concerns raised” but recalled that this was “a first step”. Ms Nyssens’ speech nevertheless caused a strong reaction from EPP members. Herbert Dorfmann (Italian) denounced “cookie-cutter statements”.
Ms Nyssens also highlighted the risk of greenwashing and called for more transparency for increased monitoring. This was echoed by Martin Haüsling (Greens/EFA, German), who said that “the potential for greenwashing is huge”.
An “unfair” offsetting system. The offsetting system proposed by the regulation is another element denounced by Célia Nyssens, who believes it to be unfair. “The prices of offsets in these markets are very low, the carbon markets are volatile and do not provide long-term funding”, she explained. She said that “farmers who have looked after their soil will not get any money”, unlike those “who have had less sustainable practices, but who have weakened their carbon stock”.
MEP Eric Andrieu (S&D, French), denouncing “adverse effects”, agreed: “the framework must above all take account of virtuous practices in order to be in line with an approach of paying for environmental services”.
Célia Nyssens proposes to create a market for farmers, as stated by MEP Luke Flanagan (The Left, Irish). “Rather than generating cheap offsets, carbon certification should facilitate practice-based and outcome-based funding. And this funding should come from the public first, for example the CAP”, said Ms Nyssens. On this point, several people expressed an opinion, including Ulrike Müller (Renew Europe, German), who proposed “ad hoc funding models” instead.
Concluding what was a “lively” debate, ENVI Committee Chair Pascal Canfin said: “For once, we have something potentially positive for the climate, not just for farmers’ incomes”. (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)