Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety were asked to examine on Wednesday 24 May the draft report by Lídia Pereira (EPP, Portuguese) on the proposal for an EU certification framework for carbon removals.
This text, submitted by the Commission on 30 November 2022 (see EUROPE 13074/9), proposes a regulation that would aim to facilitate the deployment of high quality carbon offsets. Certification would be based on four general criteria: quantification, additionality and lines, long-term storage, sustainability. The Commission has chosen the acronym QU.ALITY to designate this certification.
During the discussions, while several MEPs pointed to an improvement in the presentation of the Commission’s proposal, some called for vigilance on the risk of abandoning the carbon emission reductions presented by absorption. Thus, the shadow rapporteur Tiemo Wölken (S&D, German) said: “I support the idea that we should focus on reduction rather than absorption. To do this, we need to further differentiate the three absorption clauses proposed in the legislation”.
Ville Niinistö (Greens/EFA, Finnish), for whom “there is still much room for improvement in the draft report”, also argued in this sense: “The IPCC has recognised that these absorptions are not sufficient”. According to the shadow rapporteur, it is essential to take into account the risks associated with different absorption technologies as well as ”the whole life cycle of CO2 emissions in the sustainability objectives”. He also points out that “the project does not offer any guarantee against greenwashing”.
Faced with farmers’ responsibility at the forefront of carbon absorption mechanisms, Tiemo Wölken (S&D, German) proposed “activity-based financing rather than output-based financing, as is currently proposed”.
Finally, according to some MEPs, like Mr Niinistö, the draft report does not differentiate between permanent and short-term, land-based absorptions. “Activities should only be defined as permanent and not temporary storage. So we need to look into this further”, he demanded.
Emma Wiesner proposed to “create a bulwark between carbon farms and industrial absorptions”. “It’s quite different to have industrial wells that are stored in the ground for thousands of years and farmers who are changing their practice. So we have to make a distinction”, she explained.
To read the draft report: https://aeur.eu/f/71s (Original version in French by Nithya Paquiry)