EU Member States have begun sending their comments and questions to the European Commission and the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU on the Commission’s draft Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA), designed to speed up permits for decarbonisation projects and protect critical industrial sectors such as electric vehicles, clean technologies and heavy industry from foreign competition (see EUROPE 13821/1).
According to a document dated 20 March seen by Agence Europe, countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as France and Germany, are questioning the application of the concept of “European preference” and the industrial sectors that the Commission is considering in order to increase the share of European industry in the EU’s GDP to 20% by 2035 (from the current 14%).
Berlin wonders whether there are specific guidelines for each sector or Member States regarding the allocation of the 20% target. On Chapter 3 and the concept of ‘made in Europe’ and ‘EU origin’, the German Government wants to know “how do the requirements regarding EU origin or the origin of products relate to the preferential rules of origin with our free trade partners and the non-preferential rules of origin”.
Berlin also asks how the EFTA partners and the free trade agreements currently being negotiated are taken into account in the definition of the concept of “EU origin”. “To avoid confusion, has the Commission considered using a different wording for ‘EU origin’, such as ‘EU or partner origin’, for cases where non-EU sources, such as free trade and Customs Union partners, are included?”
“Will there be a time limit to the exclusion of free trade partners or is the exclusion permanent? How is this regulated? How will trade partners be reintegrated?”, Berlin still wants to know, and wonders whether the Commission has carried out an impact assessment on the number of partner countries likely to be excluded from the definition of “EU origin”.
Belgium also wonders whether the Commission has consulted industry on the practical feasibility of the rules of origin approach. “Will it be sufficiently clear to contracting authorities and businesses which countries are considered ‘equivalent to EU origin’?”
Belgium also criticises aspects that are too complex, such as the definition of “decarbonisation projects for energy-intensive industries” to determine whether an investment in a specific commercial facility of an energy-intensive company constitutes a decarbonisation project. “Why is not every investment aimed at reducing CO₂ considered a decarbonisation project?”, asks Brussels.
The Netherlands also wonders “how does a generic industry target of 20% contribute to targeted and strategic industry policy?” “Part of the decline of industrial contribution is due to an economic shift to a more service oriented economy; how is this general economic tendency accounted for in setting a generic target?”
And “are there any consequences to not reaching the target? How do the targets relate to the climate goals for 2030 and 2040? Will Member States be required to translate this target into a national target?”
New sectors? Paris also wonders whether, in terms of scope, “could new sectors not currently mentioned in the text be added by delegated act?”
In the unofficial drafts of the IAA proposal, particular attention was paid to potential measures concerning critical raw materials, including the possibility of introducing stockholding obligations for economic operators established in third countries who place raw materials or related products on the European market, particularly in the event of export restrictions or identified risks of supply disruption, writes Paris. Options such as safeguard measures limiting exports of metal-rich waste, subject to market conditions, have also been considered. “Does the Commission envisage integrating these provisions within other upcoming legislative initiatives?”
France has also already called for the simplification of authorisation and permit procedures under environmental legislation, stressing that “European initiatives on permitting must not result in establishing an overly rigid framework at the European level. The specifics of timelines and procedures should be left to the Member States to account for the distribution of competences between the State and local authorities, in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity”. The proposed Act clearly contradicts this position. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)