OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Food & Water Action Europe

FWAE

Food & Water Action Europe is a nonprofit advocating for healthy food and clean water.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Nicolás González Casares (Member of the European Parliament)

26 Jan 2026 · PCI/PMI Hydrogen

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Oct 2025 · Meeting US stakeholders on petrochemicals and LNG

Meeting with Lena Schilling (Member of the European Parliament) and Center for International Environmental Law

15 Oct 2025 · LNG

Meeting with Martin Hojsík (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Oct 2025 · petrochemicals & LNG

Meeting with Joachim Balke (Head of Unit Energy)

29 Apr 2025 · PCI/ PMI process 2025 – hydrogen candidate projects – perspectives of interest representatives

Meeting with Catarina Martins (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Nov 2024 · tackling fossil gas and gas-based false solutions

Meeting with Anna Stürgkh (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Oct 2024 · Exchange on Energy Policy

Meeting with Kathleen Van Brempt (Member of the European Parliament) and Climate Action Network Europe

13 Mar 2024 · LNG and its consequences on climate

Meeting with Claudia Gamon (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Feb 2024 · fossil fuel companies and cost of living crisis / PCI list

Food & Water Action Europe warns against oversized hydrogen projects

29 Aug 2023
Topic — The roadmap outlines priorities to double European Hydrogen Valleys by 2025.
Message — Limit green hydrogen strictly to hard-to-decarbonize sectors lacking alternatives. Prioritize direct electrification and energy efficiency over costly hydrogen infrastructure. Prevent public funds from supporting projects that extend fossil fuel dependence.12
Why — Redirecting funds would support cheaper, sustainable technologies that lower household energy costs.3
Impact — Fossil fuel companies lose the chance to maintain infrastructure and prolong gas use.45
Read full response

Food & Water Action Europe demands fossil fuel phase-out

23 May 2023
Topic — The European Commission is establishing a new greenhouse gas reduction target for 2040.
Message — FWAE urges the Commission to adopt a binding strategy to phase out all fossil fuels by 2040. They demand specific deadlines for ending coal, gas, and oil while banning fracked gas imports.123
Why — Achieving these targets would fulfill the organization's core mission of protecting food and water.45
Impact — Exporters of fracked gas from the United States would lose their primary European market.67
Read full response

Meeting with Thor-Sten Vertmann (Cabinet of Commissioner Kadri Simson) and Friends of the Earth Europe and

28 Feb 2023 · Cost of living crisis

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

30 Nov 2022 · gas market

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

9 Nov 2022 · gas market

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

6 Oct 2022 · gas market

Meeting with Thierry Breton (Commissioner) and

9 Nov 2021 · Governance, hydrogen

Meeting with Aleksandra Tomczak (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Anthony Agotha (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and

9 Feb 2021 · - EU climate neutrality, role of gas - East Med gas project

Meeting with Laure Chapuis (Cabinet of Commissioner Kadri Simson) and Global Witness and

9 Feb 2021 · - EU climate neutrality, role of gas - East Med gas project

Response to Revision of the Communication on important projects of common European interest

21 Dec 2020

The IPCEI scheme should first and foremost ensure support that is fully in line with the EU Green Deal as well as 2030 and 2050 climate objectives and therefore exclude all direct or indirect support for fossil fuels. Guiding principle of the scheme should be the energy efficiency first principle, as well as a stringent application of the “do no harm” principle to reach true sustainability. These provisions are crucial to avoid the creation of more expensive stranded assets with public money. In order to enable the assessment of all projects by all those affected, highly enhanced transparency is key. This will also make it easier to assess all projects’ environmental and climate impact and whether a certain project is addressing an identified need in an efficient manner. IPCEIs gained increasing importance in the recent past through the growing attention given to hydrogen projects. In this regard it is crucial to consider that almost the entirety of the hydrogen produced globally, and also in the EU, is based on fossil fuels, particularly gas. The IPCEI schemes must become climate-watertight, in order for it not be abused by Member States to ensure continued support for fossil fuels through fossil-based hydrogen. This should be the case no matter if the CO2 released in the process is (planned to be) captured and stored through CCS or not. CCS is an unproven technology which has not been successful on a larger scale, despite decades-long promotion of this techno-fix. It is linked to safety concerns as well as leaks and high energy intensity, and does furthermore nothing to address climate-wrecking methane leaks which occur all along the life cycle of fossil gas. It is crucial that no blue, grey or any other fossil-based form of hydrogen be supported by the IPCEI scheme, but exclusively the generation of renewable hydrogen, which in the EU currently only represents ~0.1% of all hydrogen generated. For this renewable hydrogen only 100% renewable and truly sustainable energy that is additional to current renewable electricity generation should be used to run electrolysers. Moreover, the IPCEI scheme must ensure that no hydrogen projects linked to harmful, large-scale renewable electricity in third countries (e.g. Inga Dam in D.R. Congo or projects linked to Desertec) will get access to state aid as they risk prolonging or enhancing a neocolonial system based on inefficient and often unsustainable energy projects. To this end, it is crucial that from the start stringent and – most importantly – concrete sustainability criteria are established. These include the assessment of all important greenhouse gases, also methane, along the entire life cycle of the project with an ambitious max. threshold of CO2eq. The same should apply for strict and concrete measures to ensure environmental protection. This should help to also exclude projects to become IPCEIs which are indirectly supporting fossil fuels, such as hydrogen blending, as well as “renewable”-energy based hydrogen projects which are based on unsustainable biomass or hydropower. In many cases, direct electrification with renewable energy is a much more efficient solution which should be taken into consideration.
Read full response

Response to A EU hydrogen strategy

5 Jun 2020

The Hydrogen Strategy aims to create an “enabling environment to scale up clean H2 for a climate neutral economy”. Under certain conditions, renewable H2 can be considered as compatible with climate neutrality and the Paris Agreement. However, if managed poorly, the development of H2 in Europe could lead to an exacerbation of fossil fuel reliance and GHG emissions. To reduce this risk, the following points should be observed in the Strategy: The Roadmap defines “clean hydrogen” as both renewables-based and low-carbon H2, and notes that blue H2 may have a medium-term role in supporting the development of a H2 market. We strongly recommend a support solely for green H2, excluding blue H2 from the definition of “clean hydrogen”. First, blue H2 is based on fossil gas, with a significant problem of methane leakage along the supply chain. Second, it depends on CCS/U, a risky, unproven technology that does not serve to eradicate all GHG emissions. CCU is primarily used in enhanced oil refining (enabling even further fossil fuel exploitation) and merely delays the release of carbon into the atmosphere. CCS cannot technically achieve a 100% capture rate and so is incompatible with carbon neutrality. Furthermore, blue H2 production increases reliance on fossil fuels at a time when society should be breaking all ties with this polluting industry. Blue and green H2 have different production methods and thus investments in blue H2 would only to a small extent support green H2 development. Investment in blue H2 will take capital away from green H2 or other renewables (and risks becoming stranded assets due to its incompatibility with climate neutrality). Only green H2 should play a role in the energy transition. Due to the environmental hazards and costs associated with nuclear energy, the EU should not seek to develop ‘pink’ H2. Given that only a limited amount of green H2 from renewable electricity will be available, the Strategy must make sure that direct electrification with renewable energy, energy savings and energy efficiency must be prioritised before opting for the scarce amount of H2. Renewable H2 must only be used in sectors that cannot be decarbonised in other ways. Green H2 can be important for the decarbonisation of certain industrial processes and for long-distance, heavy duty freight, shipping and aviation. It should not be envisaged for use in passenger cars or in heating for buildings. Using H2 for these purposes is vastly inefficient compared to direct electrification, and there won't be enough green H2 available in the mid-term to cater to all these applications. There is a big risk that the failure of green H2 to meet this overextended demand would result in continued use of fossil-based H2 or even fossil gas directly. H2 should not be blended with methane as the resultant emission reductions are too low to contribute to climate action, and will only serve to delay the full transition away from fossil fuels. To assess infrastructure needs for costly H2 production, the European network planning process needs to first look into questions such as availability, point of production and point of consumption to guide decisions. Extreme caution is needed with the claim that the current oversized gas grid can be useful to carry H2 aligned with net-zero by 2050. It is very unlikely that the EU will benefit from any current or planned LNG terminal to import H2. H2 must not be a pretext to build any new fossil gas infrastructure. Renewable H2 must be produced from additional renewable energy. Importing H2 is not only technologically challenging and risks cementing in neocolonial structures, but also risks having a large climate impact. H2 should only be imported from countries which have a 100% renewable energy supply and social and environmental standards in place. Synthetic methane should be used sparingly as it is very energy inefficient and just as with fossil gas, methane leakage is a problem.
Read full response

Food & Water Action Europe urges fossil-free energy infrastructure revision

5 Jun 2020
Topic — The EU is updating rules for trans-European energy infrastructure to achieve climate neutrality.
Message — Exclude all fossil fuel projects and carbon capture technologies from EU funding lists. Remove the conflict of interest by reducing the power of network operators. Shift support toward small-scale distribution systems and renewable energy solutions.123
Why — Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would prevent the development of competing dirty energy infrastructure.45
Impact — Fossil fuel companies and transmission operators would lose access to significant public funding.67
Read full response

Response to Strategy for smart sector integration

12 May 2020

The Sector Integration strategy will play an important role in enabling Europe's energy transition. In order to ensure that this transition is compatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal, the sector integration strategy should include the following elements: The Energy Efficiency First principle must be at the core of all future energy policy. The understanding of energy infrastructure should be broadened to include energy efficiency measures such as the retrofitting of buildings. Electrification with renewable electricity must be the primary driver of decarbonisation. All sectors that can feasibly be electrified should be – including heating, most transport and some industrial purposes. Electrification is more efficient than renewables-based hydrogen in these sectors and renewables-based hydrogen will not be available in sufficient volumes to meet the demand of these sectors. There is no room in an integrated energy system for the construction or financing of further fossil gas infrastructure. The gas grid is already over-extended compared to current and future levels of demand, and further build-out of fossil gas infrastructure will cause a lock-in effect that slows the transition to electrification with renewable electricity. Hydrogen produced through electrolysis with excess renewable electricity will be available in limited amounts and should be prioritised for use in sectors that need it most, which are heavy industry, freight transport, shipping and aviation. Hydrogen made from gas or coal, with or without CCS/U, is not an option due to methane leakage, sub-optimal capture rates and the risk of lock-in to further fossil fuel dependence. The use of renewables-based hydrogen will need to be carefully planned, mapping out production sites, end users and the necessary infrastructure connections. Only gas infrastructure along these identified transport routes is relevant for the future energy system and may need to be upgraded. Blending hydrogen with fossil gas is not a realistic decarbonisation option as it does not deliver the needed emissions savings in the short time available. Biogas and biomethane must be produced in a sustainable way so as not to incentivise land grabbing, factory farms and biodiversity loss. Sustainable feedstocks such as wastes and crop residues will provide a limited amount of biomethane which should be prioritised in sectors that cannot be electrified. Biogas and biomethane will mostly be produced and used in a local, rural context. As such, the distribution grid will be more important than the transmission grid. Sector integration must be paired with demand-side management programmes to ensure flexibility in the European energy system. Through demand-side measures, the energy system will be expanded beyond large-scale traditional infrastructure to include end-use appliances, electric vehicles, smart metres etc. CCS/U should not play a role in an integrated energy system. CSS is a risky investment that has yet to be proven at scale. Even at its greatest possible efficiency it cannot achieve 100% capture rates and so is not compatible with a zero-carbon future. This is also the case for CCU, as the utilised CO2 will ultimately be released into the atmosphere.
Read full response

Food & Water Action Europe urges 2040 climate neutrality

30 Apr 2020
Topic — The EU proposal aims to enshrine climate neutrality into law by 2050.
Message — The organization demands the EU reaches net zero emissions by 2040. They propose a 65% reduction in emissions by 2030 excluding carbon removal. All fossil fuel subsidies should be phased out with immediate effect.123
Why — This would increase their influence over policy through the expert panel.45
Impact — Fossil fuel companies lose public subsidies and restricted access to EU policymakers.67
Read full response

Food & Water Action Europe urges dual methane reporting metrics

30 Mar 2020
Topic — This consultation addresses reporting guidelines and global warming metrics for greenhouse gas inventories.
Message — The organization calls for reporting methane emissions using a 20-year timeframe alongside the standard 100-year metric. They believe this dual accounting better illustrates the immediate warming impact of short-lived pollutants.12
Why — Implementing these metrics would help the NGO challenge policies that favor fossil gas infrastructure investments.34
Impact — Fossil gas companies would lose their reputation as a cleaner alternative to other fuels.5
Read full response

Food & Water Action Europe urges 65% emissions reduction target

23 Mar 2020
Topic — The consultation concerns enshrining the 2050 climate neutrality objective into binding EU legislation.
Message — The EU should set a 65% emissions reduction target for 2030 to ensure a just contribution. They demand a halt to gas infrastructure and warn against relying on risky carbon capture.123
Why — This helps the group protect public health by ending long-term fossil fuel reliance.45
Impact — Fossil fuel and fertilizer companies would lose critical financial and political EU support.67
Read full response

Response to Farm to Fork Strategy

16 Mar 2020

Food & Water Action Europe strongly believes that a comprehensive transition towards sustainable food systems is needed to address some of the existential threats we face. Therefore, we welcome the upcoming ‘Farm to Fork’ (F2F) Strategy, which represents a crucial opportunity to provide a coherent response to societal concerns about biodiversity, climate change, health, income of all workers in the food chain, water pollution, social equity and animal welfare, amongst others. We are concerned, however, that the European Green Deal does not reflect the urgent, systemic changes needed in our food system, nor contains concrete commitments to drive a fundamental transition. Please find attached our feedback to the roadmap consultation.
Read full response

Response to European Partnership for Clean Hydrogen

19 Aug 2019

Currently, 96% of all produced hydrogen is made with the use of fossil fuels (majority via SMR using climate harmful fossil gas), with all the negative climate, human rights, pollution etc. impacts these entail. This percentage should be a warning sign: The mistake of producing alternative gases using fossil gases must be avoided. In order to tackle (only) the climate impacts of different ways to produce hydrogen, special care should also be taken with the reliance on CCS. Besides a very modest number of CCS projects, none of which is applicable on a large-scale yet, big uncertainties also remain around the capacity to permanently store CO2 (leaks, storage potential on a long term) and the costs of this technology. Hence, a main focus should be on the avoidance of blue hydrogen and building projects around green hydrogen based on truly renewable and sustainable renewable energy which is additional and not in competition to renewable energy for electricity production. Different actors from the natural gas industry repeatedly claim that the current and an expanded natural gas network can be used for hydrogen but 1. an injection rate of around 10% as currently discussed would not bring the EU anywhere close to the greenhouse gas reductions we need, 2. the production centers and transport routes for hydrogen will significantly differ from those of natural gas and do not align with gas pipelines currently proposed by e.g. the gas transmission industry, 3. there is a need for a clear indication of green hydrogen (only) grids to avoid an erroneous justification of new natural gas infrastructure. It is of utmost importance that the initiative and all the projects connected to it honour the energy efficiency first principle and are strictly aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Implications of other EU goals (e.g. linked to the circular economy) should be considered to develop a more holistic view around the needs for hydrogen and the question of prioritisation to best reach the climate goals. Furthermore, in discussions around the import of renewable hydrogen, the respect of fundamental rights also in third countries, the environment and the responsibility the EU has if trading with less stable/repressive countries must be key from the start. Besides a strong focus on energy efficiency and electrification first, the use of the limited available volumes of sustainable hydrogen should from the beginning be aimed at those sectors of our economy which are hardest to decarbonise/electrify. Thus a mapping of these sectors should lay the groundwork for a strategy and the evaluation of needed future volumes of hydrogen.
Read full response

Response to Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive

15 Nov 2017

The debate about water at European level has completely changed in the recent years as a result of the European Citizen’s Initiative on the right to water that collected nearly 2 million signatures; the massive mobilizations around water in Ireland, Greece or Italy; or water management remunicipalisation in dozens of cities around Europe. European citizens have shown that they get organized to have their say in the debate around water. The public participation process for this fitness check cannot ignore them and do “business as usual” through stake holder meetings in Brussels dominated by business lobbyist. The scope of the fitness check cannot just look at the economic and technological aspects of the Water Framework Directive and the Flood Directive. It also needs to look at the social, environmental or sanitary aspects. And it should take into account citizen’s demands of broadening the scope of EU water legislation to finally introduce the Human Right to Water and Sanitation.
Read full response

Meeting with Gonzalo De Mendoza Asensi (Cabinet of Vice-President Miguel Arias Cañete) and Friends of the Earth Europe

23 Oct 2015 · Shale gas & fracking

Meeting with Daniel Calleja Crespo (Director-General Environment)

21 Oct 2015 · EC Recommendation on fracking

Meeting with Aurore Maillet (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella) and Friends of the Earth Europe

1 Oct 2015 · Shale Gas

Meeting with Dominique Ristori (Director-General Energy)

4 Dec 2014 · Energy Efficiency