Green groups see EU budget bill as death knell for environment funding
As expected, the European Commission has proposed axing the LIFE Programme, the EU's only stand-alone funding mechanism for environmental action. The 2028-34 budget bill also squeezes broader funding for climate and biodiversity policy goals.
But the EU executive put a positive spin on its move to streamline green funding with the massively increased €2 trillion budget.
'We will have a climate and biodiversity spending target, so mainstreaming, of 35% for the new MFF," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters on Wednesday, referring to the EU's next multiannual financial framework. "This amounts to around €700 billion.'
This substantial sum of money would have to be spent in ways that are compatible with the EU goal of reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century, and reversing biodiversity loss. Nevertheless, it is lower than the combined €658 billion ring-fenced for climate and €113 billion for biodiversity in the current budget.
From 2028, central budget funding for climate and environment purposes will be split in two separate pillars: the 'clean transition and industrial decarbonisation' envelope of the €410 billion European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), and some €1 trillion spread across different priorities such as economy, agriculture, rural prosperity and security.
'Our proposal for the next MFF shows that we remain strongly committed to environmental priorities," Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall said. "Water, circularity, nature and bioeconomy are prominent parts of the new competitiveness fund and the national plans." Less money for nature However some fear this new approach risks decreasing overall funding for nature and biodiversity.
'The loss of LIFE as we know it in the new MFF is not simplification – it's sabotage," said Patrick ten Brink, secretary general of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), an NGO umbrella group. "The LIFE Programme exists for a reason. It delivers targeted, cost-effective results for nature, climate and public health.'
Ester Asin, director of the WWF European Policy Office warned the 35% global target could become little more than a PR exercise.
"By grouping all environmental spending under a single target, there is a real danger that biodiversity will be sidelined in favour of industrial priorities that may be presented as green investments," she said.
Others warned the proposed budget reform could actually widen a gap in funding for nature restoration that is currently estimated to be €19 billion annually.
'We are deeply concerned by the lack of dedicated biodiversity funding, as the LIFE funding is now suggested to be merged with other programmes," said Andras Krolopp, biodiversity policy lead at The Nature Conservancy.
The concerns of civil society groups were also echoed by progressive voices in the European Parliament.
'It is irresponsible and short-sighted for this proposal to end the LIFE programme and leave out funding for biodiversity,' said Green MEP Rasmus Nordqvist, one of the negotiators of the MFF in the Parliament's budget committee.
The cancellation of the LIFE Programme also represents an existential threat to numerous environmental NGOs who currently share €15 million in direct grants to cover part of their operational expenses.
The Commission says such support could in future be disbursed via national programmes, but it is unclear for now how the funds would be allocated, and whether campaign groups will be able to meet unspecified criteria related to competitiveness or national policy objectives.
'[By] repealing LIFE, core funding for environmental NGOs could disappear, leaving civil society under-resourced to support necessary implementation, enforcement, and public engagement," the EEB warned.
'The MFF needs to enable civil society actors to participate effectively in EU-level policymaking," MEP Nordqvist said. "It is essential to safeguard the right of everyone to meaningful participation in decision-making processes and the full cycle of implementation of the EU budget."
(rh, aw)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
36 minutes ago
- Euractiv
Keeping EU Shipping Competitive in the Energy Transition
As the European Commission prepares its Maritime Industrial Strategy, the Union of Greek Shipowners (UGS) is calling for a balanced and forward-looking vision—one that enables a realistic energy transition while preserving the global competitiveness of the European shipping sector. At the heart of this Maritime Industrial Strategy, they argue, must be the shipping industry itself. Shipping is not merely a mode of transport. It is the strategic backbone of Europe's economy, powering industrial development, ensuring supply chain continuity, and enabling energy security. As the driving force behind Europe's broader maritime cluster, shipping sustains high-quality employment and drives innovation across shipyards, equipment manufacturers, technology providers, and service industries. Recognised in the Draghi Report as one of the ten critical sectors essential to restoring European competitiveness, maritime transport demands a policy framework that both defends the EU's strategic autonomy and keeps its trade routes open and resilient. At the European Shipping Summit in March 2025, during the UGS's special event, Charles Michel—President Emeritus of the European Council (2019–2024) and former Belgian Prime Minister—captured the sector's importance: 'Shipping is a key driver of Europe's competitiveness and economic strength, ensuring the seamless movement of goods that sustain industries and trade.' 'Decarbonisation must go hand in hand with competitiveness' In the face of mounting competition from Asia, the UGS emphasises the need to maintain the EU's existing maritime support framework which levels the playing field with third countries. During her keynote address at the opening of the 'European Shipping Summit 2025,' Melina Travlos, UGS President, said: 'It is necessary to establish and implement policies that ensure the safeguarding of European shipping's leading global position, acknowledging that competitiveness and sustainability are not opposing forces but parallel paths to be pursued together.' This imperative extends to EU climate regulation, which must be fully aligned with global measures under the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Upon IMO's adoption of a global fuel standard and carbon pricing mechanism (IMO Net-Zero Framework) the EU must harmonise its instruments, particularly the FuelEU Maritime Regulation and EU ETS, to avoid regulatory duplication, double payment, and distortions in the global market. Speaking at the Shaping the Future of Shipping Summit in Athens in June 2025—co-hosted by the Hellenic Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Insular Policy, the International Chamber of Shipping, and the UGS—Melina Travlos issued a clear message: 'Policymakers cannot regulate shipping without shipping,' she said, urging that regulation should foster innovation, support decarbonisation, and ensure fair competition, not stifle progress. Ms. Travlos called for maritime policy at every level—national, regional, and global—to be shaped with full respect for the industry's deep operational knowledge. 'Decarbonisation will not move beyond ambition without safe, scalable, and globally accessible alternative fuels' At the core of shipping's green transition lies one indispensable ingredient: alternative marine fuels. Yet the industry warns that progress will stall unless fuel suppliers are held accountable for providing safe, affordable, and compliant fuels at sufficient quantities. Instead of relying almost exclusively on shipowners, a self-defeating approach that only serves revenue-generating purposes, binding targets must also be set on fuel producers, together with meaningful incentives, to ensure adequate supply of alternative fuels at competitive prices. Funding remains a critical piece of the puzzle. Revenues from national, EU or international climate-related measures should be reinvested directly into maritime decarbonisation. Funding instruments must reflect real-world industry requirements and cater for the needs of all shipping sectors, including bulk/tramp shipping, which accounts for almost 85% of the global transport work. Priority should be given to bridge the significant price gap between traditional and alternative fuels. While the EU Innovation Fund has taken initial steps, its complexity and misaligned eligibility criteria with EU shipping realities, make it unsuitable for SMEs and the bulk/tramp sector. A redesign of the EU funding mechanisms is needed to serve this sector and its SMEs, too. 'Without access to competitive ship finance, there can be no fleet expansion and renewal, no innovation, and no decarbonisation' Access to finance is becoming increasingly out of reach for many shipowners, particularly SMEs that are practically excluded from capital markets. Reversing the decline in traditional bank lending is critical for the competitiveness of EU shipping. The UGS advocates for a revitalised ship finance ecosystem, with enhanced traditional ship financing tools, primarily bank lending, including potentially new financial instruments tailored to the specific needs of EU shipping SMEs. Equally, the EU Taxonomy must be adapted to support realistic decarbonisation pathways. Cargo-based restrictions—such as penalising ships capable of transporting fossil fuels, even when those vessels meet strict emissions criteria—are counterproductive and should be abolished to unlock critical green investments. The forthcoming EU Port Strategy and Sustainable Transport Investment Plan are seen as key opportunities to correct past oversights. Prioritising fuel availability, infrastructure, and enhanced access to ship financing will be vital. Integrating initiatives like Clean Energy Marine Hubs — a global public-private platform coordinating clean fuel production and distribution — will also be crucial, especially for the bulk/tramp sector, which, being itinerant in nature, needs access to alternative fuels worldwide. ''Training the workforce of the future'' No industrial strategy is complete without people. With hundreds of thousands of EU seafarers requiring upskilling in alternative fuels, digital tools, and modern safety systems, investing in training and employment is no longer optional—it is vital to the sector's long-term competitiveness, operational safety and a prerequisite for maintaining maritime know -how in the EU. 'Avoiding the pitfalls of protectionism' While strengthening European shipbuilding is a legitimate policy goal, stakeholders caution against protectionist measures disguised as industrial policy. Only voluntary, market-based incentives should be sought to attract investment and enhance Europe's competitive edge in this area. As the EU charts a course toward a green and competitive industrial future, the principles outlined in the Draghi Report offer a clear compass: embrace openness, uphold realism, and align ambition with global market realities. For Europe's maritime sector, these are not abstract ideals—they are the foundation of its survival and success.
Euractiv
an hour ago
- Euractiv
The future in their hands – the lawmakers in charge of Europe's climate bill
In the EU legislative machinery, the fractious European Parliament has the same say as governments over the fate of the 2040 climate bill, which calls for greenhouse gas emissions to be cut to a mere tenth of 1990 levels. The political identity of the lawmakers tasked with steering it through Parliament — and into subsequent compromise talks with national delegates — could profoundly shape Europe's future climate policy, and the message the EU will take to UN talks in Brazil this autumn. Here we introduce the MEPs in charge of the file. Lead negotiator Ondrej Knotek (Patriots for Europe) – The Czech lawmaker, whose ANO party was recently pushed out of liberal Renew group, secured the role of parliamentary rapporteur for the 2040 climate bill with backing from his new political family, the far-right Patriots for Europe group –which took control of the file this month, to the alarm of environmentalists. The experienced MEP oscillates between two extremes. 'We shall not underestimate the effects of climate change, and we are expected by citizens of European nations to address it in the most effective way,' he said last week in the environment committee. However, a 'better understanding' of the 'extent to which mankind is contributing' would be required, along with an assessment of emissions from other countries. 'Your green bad deal does not decrease global emissions, but certainly economically destroys Europe,' he said. 'How dare you … bring a new climate law in this situation,' he added. The shadows While not tasked with drafting the European Parliament's position on the legislative bill, shadow rapporteurs largely coordinate their party's work on the file, including proposing amendments and participating in negotiations with national governments. They are listed here by descending size of political group. Lídia Pereira (European People's Party) – The up-and-coming Portuguese MEP could be seen as the real force behind the 2040 climate bill, with the largest group in Parliament behind her and personal backing from the EPP's environment policy chief, Peter Liese. She led the Parliament's delegation to COP28 in Baku and is set to do so again at COP30 in Brazil. She has taken on most climate-related files in the environment committee this term. 'Europe has a historic responsibility, but this is also a strategic opportunity,' Pereira said recently. 'We need to have clear targets for 2040,' she said, but 'what is even more important … is having flexibility'. 'Europe has to continue to take a leading role, and this has to become clear at COP30,' she said. Javier López (Socialists & Democrats) - The Spanish socialist is an experienced environmental policymaker, having led negotiations on the Ambient Air Quality Directive and served as shadow rapporteur on the 2021 revision of the Effort Sharing Regulatio, the law that sets binding emissions targets to 2030 in sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System, such as buildings, agriculture, waste, and transport. López is currently lead negotiator on a revision of the EU's water pollutants monitoring framework. 'We need an ambitious target of a 90% domestic reduction compared to 1990 levels, a target that is not only science-based, but also guided by social justice,' López told Euractiv. 'Such a target will give certainty to citizens, workers, and industries that the EU is serious about delivering on the Paris Agreement and fighting climate change.' 'This is not just an environmental obligation, it is a matter of social fairness, economic resilience, energy sovereignty, and inter-generational justice,' he said. Alexandr Vondra...? (European Conservatives and Reformists) – The Czech conservative has been tipped as the likely choice for the eurosceptic ECR group. However, according to his office, Vondra has not yet decided whether he will take on the role of shadow rapporteur. If confirmed, he is expected to oppose the proposal outright. The Czech politician recently called the 2040 bill 'an example of disgusting climate colonialism,' telling reporters he would not support it unless it is radically revised. Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (Renew Europe) – The veteran Dutch MEP, who sits with the liberal Renew group, is no stranger to climate negotiations, having served as lead negotiator on the original Effort Sharing Regulation in 2016. Gerbrandy is among a group of MEPs calling for the 2040 bill to be adopted before the COP30 summit in Brazil this November. 'We will work to have an adequate 2040 target on time for the COP30. I expect the parties in the centre to work together on this, because it is the only coalition of parties in the Parliament that can actually deliver results,' he told Euractiv. Lena Schilling (Greens/EFA) – The Austrian Green is the youngest MEP in the house, as her team often reminds the press. Her influence on the 2040 climate file so far has been mostly procedural but significant. She failed in a bid to fast-track the bill through parliament in the hopes of limiting the Patriots' capacity to influence or delay the legislation, then she co-led a successful effort to set a tights a tighter timeline, thereby clipping Knotek's wings. Brought up in the Fridays for Future movement that fuelled the 2019 green wave, Schilling is sharply focused on climate justice. 'I'm not negotiating this target just as a politician, but as part of the climate movement,' Schilling said in a recent statement. 'Our generation deserves a seat at the table. We won't stay silent while others decide our future.' Catarina Martins (The Left) –The Portuguese MEP, elected last year for the Left Bloc (Bloco de Esquerda), is, alongside Lídia Pereira, a co-author of Parliament's COP30 resolution, which calls for strong parliamentary participation at the summit. In line with her group's stance, Martins argues the target should go further than 90%. 'We must stick to the scientific advice, insist on at least 95% emissions reductions by 2040 — and without recourse to buying carbon credits from other countries,' she told Euractiv. Martins said the 2040 climate bill had come came too late (the European Commission tabled it a year after the deadline set in EU law). 'Now [it] is in the hands of the extreme right, the same group that said at the ENVI committee meeting that they don't see any interest in this law – so it's not safe.' And that with a 'big help' from the EPP, she said in reference to the centre-right group's decision not to use its heft to put its own candidate in charge of the file. Anja Arndt (Europe of Sovereign Nations) – The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) politician is arguably the diametrical opposite of her Green counterpart – an unreconstructed climate denier. Arndt is known in the Parliament's environment committee for repeatedly denying the existence of man-made climate change. 'This policy is not based on science, but on feigned – yes, feigned – eco-religious fanaticism,' she said last month of the 2040 climate bill. More recently, Arndt argued that the fight against climate disinformation was a 'front-on attack on freedom of expression, freedom of science, and the truth'. (rh, aw)
Euractiv
an hour ago
- Euractiv
Fish joins meat in fray over veggie food
The fish industry is accusing plant-based lookalikes of taking the imitation game too far, with packaging that makes tofu sound like tuna. In 1929, Belgian surrealist artist René Magritte painted 'This is not as pipe' to argue that a label does not constitute the object itself. Almost a hundred years later, Brussels is caught in a dilemma over representations and the defense of what is 'real'. First came the meat. The livestock sector recently stepped up pressure to ban the use of traditional meat names for plant-based products, to which the Commission yielded last week. For the meat producers, selling a chickpea preparation as 'no-beef' is crossing a line. The same goes for the fish industry, which has joined the fray. The EU fishing lobby is accusing vegetarian companies of giving their no-fish products a disguise that's a little too convincing. 'It's important to call a spade a spade,' said Daniel Voces, managing director of Europêche, in a press release. 'Too many products use fish species names, seafood-related terms, and even pictures of genuine fish, all without actually containing any'. 'What's on the label, and is it telling the full story?' asked Voces. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are ready to support the fish industry in its fight. "The sector (...) will have to compete with fish that is not fish," said centre-right MEP Isabelle Le Callennec (EPP, France), adding that fish lovers should be "worried". This week, the Parliament's committee on fisheries discussed a report saying that EU rules fall short of protecting seafood products from name appropriation by their veggie counterparts. It argues that labels such as 'salmon vegetarian alternative' raise concerns and points to a mosaic of invented names and wordplays: 'Solmon', 'Sal-nom', 'Salmonderful', 'Toona', 'Tu-nah', 'Tunalicious'... The list is as long as the market is creative. While the report warned that these labels can easily confuse the shopper, others say this is only – or still – an assumption. 'A factor is missing here, and it is actual consumer behaviour,' said Fien Minnens, researcher in agri-food marketing and consumer behaviour at Ghent University, in an interview with Euractiv, pointing to data gaps in the study. 'The report is very much assuming that this is clearly misleading, even implying that market growth could be due to these practices,' Minnens added. The beauty in a name Unsurprisingly, the EU vegetarian lobby (EVU) weighted in and sent MEPs a letter to win them over. The EVU said the plant-based industry knows very well who its clientele is, and has no need – or interest – to fool them. 'The reason producers implement this practice is to ensure plant-based consumers, their target audience, buy the products. It would be opposed to the interest of the producers to mislead their target audience.' Minnens said there must be a way for the veggie industry to give attractive cues to the consumer looking for fish lookalikes without running the risk of tricking shoppers into thinking they're buying the real catch. The PECH committee's report suggests restricting aquatic species names for plant-based foods altogether, but Minnens wonders if there's room for compromise 'If you say soy-based product inspired by tuna , is that enough to avoid confusion, or do we really need to ban those names?' she asked herself, insisting on the need of evidence-based studies. A matter of principle For Minnens, at the core of the spat is the raison d'être of veggie products. 'There is a group of consumers that is consciously choosing not to eat seafood, but is still looking for that culinary experience, and that feels threatening for the fishing industry'. Europêche argues that it has 'no issue' with new food products and that this is not about 'plant-based vs seafood'. Still, it wants to assert the dominance of the 'real kind' of healthy food. In a press release, the organisation denounced the idea that 'the health halo around plant-based' masks a reality. 'Many of these products are ultra-processed, high in salt or fat, and contain allergens or imported ingredients'. Meanwhile, it said fish contains 'real Omega-3, not just added supplements'. Beyond the debates over the healthiness and sustainability of faux fish, the increasing market for veggie products is there – and a part of the EU fish industry is tapping into its economic potential. The Parliament's report itself found that several giant seafood processors have chosen to diversify their supply and are behind the same plant-based alternatives at stake. Some might say it's a classic case of 'if you can't beat them, join them.' As Brussels debates whether 'Toona' is witty branding or bending the rules, one thing is clear: from Magritte's pipe to the supermarket fridge, the question still lingers — is a name ever just a name?
