OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Institute for European Environmental Policy

IEEP

The Institute for European Environmental Policy is a sustainability think tank analyzing and developing environmental policy in Europe.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Ana Vasconcelos (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion) and European University Association and

27 Jan 2026 · Performance Regulation

Meeting with Ion Codescu (Acting Director Environment)

20 Jan 2026 · Discussions on the future CAP reform (2028-2034)

Meeting with Thomas Pellerin-Carlin (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Sept 2025 · Transition & Sustainable Development

Meeting with Luca De Carli (Head of Unit Climate Action)

2 Sept 2025 · Exchange with IEEP directors on 2040 Climate targets

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – implementing EU funding with Member States and regions

26 Aug 2025

The European Commissions proposals for the 2028-34 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) would shake up current EU funding structures. They would mark an end to the twofund model of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), although funding for the majority of the current measures available to support the agricultural sector would be ring-fenced within a new fund. The details of the proposals raise many questions about the likely level of environmental and climate ambition that could be expected under the CAP. This briefing explores the potential risks and opportunities of the proposals for addressing the EU's environmental and climate objectives and targets related to agriculture, with a particular focus on the funding available alongside the details of the measures and governance arrangements proposed.
Read full response

IEEP: CAP simplification must not compromise environmental resilience

8 Jul 2025
Topic — This consultation seeks to simplify Common Agricultural Policy implementation for farmers and Member States.
Message — The Commission must clearly define non-strategic amendments to maintain proper oversight. Simplification should not hinder the CAP's capacity to drive systemic environmental transformation. Funding for structural resilience should not be reduced for short-term crisis reserves.123
Why — A stable framework provides certainty for the long-term sustainable shifts they advocate.4
Impact — Environmental groups lose if flexibility leads to a reduction in climate funding.5
Read full response

Meeting with Kurt Vandenberghe (Director-General Climate Action)

15 May 2025 · IEEP's organisation and activitiees

Meeting with Pär Holmgren (Member of the European Parliament)

25 Mar 2025 · Protein diversification

Meeting with Anna Strolenberg (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Mar 2025 · Protein diversification

Meeting with Wopke Hoekstra (Commissioner) and

12 Feb 2025 · Dialogue on the future of the automotive sector - Thematic Working Group on 'Clean Transition and Decarbonisation'

Meeting with Anna Strolenberg (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Dec 2024 · Event: The EU’s 2040 climate targets: Getting the right policy mix for the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector

Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Oct 2024 · Järjestön esittäytyminen

Meeting with Maria Ohisalo (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Sept 2024 · Environment

Meeting with Kathleen Van Brempt (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Aug 2024 · International, sustainable trade

Meeting with Florika Fink-Hooijer (Director-General Environment)

14 Mar 2024 · meeting with IDDRI, Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales, Paris, on the Next Commission priorities and European Green Deal

Meeting with Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Feb 2024 · Forest Monitoring Law

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič)

7 Dec 2023 · Sustainable food systems

IEEP warns EU sustainability reporting rules risk greenwashing

7 Jul 2023
Topic — New standards specifying how companies must report their environmental and social impacts.
Message — The IEEP requests more ambitious standards that make environmental and social disclosures mandatory rather than voluntary. They argue that allowing companies to perform their own materiality assessments reduces transparency and increases greenwashing risks.12
Why — A robust reporting framework would support the organization's goal of a sustainable transition.3
Impact — Financial regulators and investors lose access to critical data needed to manage economic risks.4
Read full response

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

11 May 2023 · Assessment of CAP Strategic Plans

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

10 May 2023 · Electricity Market Design

IEEP urges EU to ban biodiversity offsetting in Taxonomy

2 May 2023
Topic — This consultation establishes investment classifications for water, circular economy, pollution, and biodiversity objectives.
Message — The institute demands removing wording that allows the Taxonomy to justify biodiversity offsetting. They also call for the immediate inclusion of agriculture and forestry in biodiversity criteria. Furthermore, they insist that all standards remain science-based and maintain high ambition.123
Why — Strict criteria would help the institute drive agriculture and forestry toward higher sustainability levels.4
Impact — Corporations seeking to label biodiversity offsetting as sustainable would be excluded from the Taxonomy.5
Read full response

Meeting with Annukka Ojala (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides)

21 Feb 2023 · Sustainable Food Systems

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales

21 Feb 2023 · Transition towards sustainable food systems

Meeting with Virginijus Sinkevičius (Commissioner) and

6 Feb 2023 · To discuss the implementation of the Green Deal and the IEEP Grean Deal barometer

Meeting with Joanna Stawowy (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

11 Jan 2023 · Sustainable Food Systems law

Meeting with Anne Sander (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)

3 Jan 2023 · Nature Restoration Law

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales and WiseEuropa - Fundacja Warszawski Instytut Studiów Ekonomicznych i Europejskich

8 Dec 2022 · Implementation of the European Green Deal

Meeting with Maciej Golubiewski (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

23 Nov 2022 · Meeting with the Director of the Institute for European Environmental Policy

Meeting with Peter Liese (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and

14 Oct 2022 · ETS

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

29 Sept 2022 · Discussion of the framework for sustainable food system

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Jori Keijsper (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

4 May 2022 · Sustainable food systems

Meeting with Florentine Hopmeier (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen), Kurt Vandenberghe (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen), Maria Luisa Cabral (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen), Olivier Smith (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

17 Jan 2022 · FU meeting Fit for 55

Meeting with Diederik Samsom (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Stefanie Hiesinger (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

14 Jan 2022 · Fit for 55

Response to Towards the future Generalised Scheme of Preferences legal framework granting trade advantages to developing countries

19 Nov 2021

IEEP welcomes the new GSP proposal, yet, we identify key areas in need of more concrete provisions to ensure environmental protection and the promotion of more sustainable trade. Consult the attached document for detailed feedback. Firstly, IEEP supports the Commission’s plan to introduce systematic reviews of the implementation of the GSP, along with more transparency through better stakeholder engagement, though it is still unclear the extent to which these monitoring mechanisms will be improved. Past work by IEEP identified an underrepresentation of environmental stakeholders in the EU FTA Civil Society Dialogue mechanisms. We recommend incentivising participation by establishing a feedback mechanism in which the Commission is required to respond to concerns raised within a timeframe. Timely engagement with civil society is an indispensable resource to feed into monitoring practices as they provide vital information on a beneficiary countries’ specific environmental or labour issues, which is especially relevant to the GSP+ scorecard grading. Secondly, the proposal is not foreseen to bring with it an overhaul of the types of goods traded under the GSP regime. For example, on the ‘graduation of products’ the Commission proposes no plan to change the current definition of goods to be covered – which could support trade in environmental goods – but instead plans to reduce the product graduation threshold by 10pp. Beyond the adverse effect that this could have on specific value chains for developing countries, we regret the absence of options that would encourage trade in sustainable goods. The Commission argues that the extension of preferential tariffs to goods that promote “environment and climate protection goals” would be too complex due to a lack of clarity on what is considered a ‘green good’, administratively burdensome, and would have limited impact as these goods make up an insignificant market share in beneficiary countries. Furthermore, the Commission argues that the most advanced beneficiaries would benefit disproportionately from this expansion. While we do understand these concerns, we maintain that the revised EU GSP system could be a relevant framework to introduce a nascent EU “green good” policy. Finally, in the past, IEEP recommended greater policy coherence between the GSP Regulation and other EU policy areas such as the CEAP, deforestation-free supply chains and due diligence initiatives as well as development cooperation schemes. The rationale being that, together, these initiatives will significantly impact what types of goods the EU will import in the future and from where, through the introduction of new sustainability criteria, definitions and standards applied to goods sold on the EU market. Inclusion of these principles in the GSP would pave the way for such policy coherence in the long run as standards is a commonality across all the above policy initiatives. While the adoption of such standards is foreseen to trigger further improvements in sustainability practices globally, there is also a potential for the EU standard-setting to act as a technical barrier to trade for developing countries that export to the EU, with a potential disproportionate impact on these countries than other trade partners. The omission of greater policy coherence between the GSP and the EU Green Deal policy initiatives on sustainable goods and new sustainability standards may prove to be detrimental in the long run for GSP beneficiary countries.
Read full response

Response to Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

17 Nov 2021

IEEP's feedback to the European Commission's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism proposal The European Commission’s proposal for a European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) was released on 14 July 2021 as part of the Fit-For-55 legislative package aiming to achieve a 55% reduction in EU’s GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. As it currently stands, the Commission’s CBAM proposal is legally sound but requires to be improved through a more rapid phase out of free allowances and the mobilisation of revenues for climate justice purposes. The EU CBAM legislation needs to be improved around the diptych: climate ambition and fairness. 1. Climate ambition: With very little time left to “keep the 1.5° target alive”, it is necessary for the European Union to send strong signals, in particular to the most emitting sectors. The EU CBAM will remain an empty shell if the European legislator does not choose to accelerate the transition of its carbon leakage prevention scheme by moving away from free allowances. The EU proposal could be more ambitious, by for instance, shortening the pilot phase and beginning CBAM implementation and the reduction of free allowances by 2025, as opposed to 2026. Most civil society observers agree that free allowances should not be allowed to continue after 2030. The EU should make sure that free allowances are completely phased out for those sectors covered (and subsequently CBAM fully implemented) by 2030 onwards. Other financial schemes could be put in place to reward decarbonisation of production methods, such as contracts for difference, ensuring that European industrial policies lead to a race to the top rather than a race to the bottom in terms of decarbonisation efforts. 2. Fairness: IEEP calls for a mobilisation of CBAM direct revenues (2.1 billion euros/year) to finance an increase in the EU’s contribution to international climate finance. The EU must take advantage of the recent momentum created by the eruption of the carbon price debate at COP26 and the WTO Ministerial Conference in December to proactively engage in international forums in discussions on the revenues of CBAM, its rationale, but also on the articulation of CBAM with other systems. While the Commission’s proposed mechanism is only expected to generate 2.1 billion euros of revenues at the border, it is crucial that the EU establishes a precedent for any subsequent CBAMs that may be introduced in other jurisdictions. The announcement made by the European Union of its determination to implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism at the end of 2019 has already led some of the EU’s main trading partners like Turkey to adopt more ambitious climate objectives. In the 2030-decade, competitiveness of EU industries in most of the EU’s export markets will be driven by the ability of businesses to anticipate and position themselves as world’s front-runners in the development and implementation of more efficient and lower carbon technologies on which global markets will increasingly rely. Now, the main challenge for the EU is not to meet the demands of industry to reduce the impact of CBAM on the composition of European trade, but to use international fora to clarify key issues such as the articulation of CBAM with other pricing systems around the world, as well as the methodology for measuring the carbon content of imports and the involvement of the international community in defining common principles and measurement tools. The EU must ensure that its CBAM is not an unnecessary complication by strengthening its prospects for reducing free allowances. It must also use diplomatic means to prevent the worst-case scenario of a proliferation of comparable but uncoordinated adjustments throughout the world.
Read full response

Meeting with Kurt Vandenberghe (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen), Maria Luisa Cabral (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

12 Nov 2021 · Social and distributional implications of the Fit for 55 package - ThinkSustainableEurope network

Meeting with Diederik Samsom (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

29 Oct 2021 · Fit for 55 Package

Response to Sustainable food system – setting up an EU framework

26 Oct 2021

IEEP welcomes the introduction of a Sustainable Food System Framework (SFS) initiative. The evidence shows that Europe’s current food systems are not sustainable and that urgent action is required on various interconnected fronts: unsustainable production, processing and diets, food poverty and the obesity crisis. The nature and scale of the challenge requires a new approach to bring these different strands together into a coherent matrix of both new and amended policies. Voluntary approaches have been demonstrated to be insufficient, and enforcing current legislation, whilst necessary, will not be enough. Rather, the transition to sustainable food systems in line with the EU Green Deal should be underpinned by a new, binding SFS Legislative Framework (Option 4). An overarching framework is needed to cover the full range of cross-cutting and interlocking issues, to avoid silo responses and to create a level playing field in terms of expectations and minimum requirements for all relevant operators. There is a need for: common goals, objectives and targets; relevant EU policies, including the CAP, to be coherent and to remove policy levers that are impeding progress; and systems and metrics to measure, assess and report on sustainability. This also requires a review of the current governance regime to ensure that it can address this cross-cutting and multi-faceted agenda. Governance arrangements must integrate Member States (MS), ideally with SFS Action Plans at EU and MS level. Alongside the elements identified for assessment under the Inception Impact Assessment (IIA)’s four scenarios, the following aspects should be considered: - Greater focus on the sustainability of the entire food system, including production and consumption to avoid a product-centric approach. This should consider how to empower and influence consumers as well as to how to address fairness and social justice issues - Ensuring fit for purpose methodologies that can look at all aspects of food systems in a joined-up way, avoiding unintended or perverse effects. The weaknesses of certain models in assessing the potential impacts of the Farm to Fork strategy targets are well documented (see Commission’s factsheet 18.10.21), particularly the difficulties they face in being able to accurately model the interactions between ecosystem health and productivity. New tools are needed to sufficiently assess the policy scenarios. - How well each policy scenario can address the most pressing cross-cutting questions and policy dilemmas, such as: the role for livestock production in Europe in the context of Net Zero goals, biodiversity protection and land use; the desirability of promoting meat alternatives from a health, environmental and socio-economic perspective; the most effective and socially just combinations of incentives and targeted taxes and levies for dietary change. - In addition to looking at the sustainability of food imports, the IIA should assess the impact of EU exports on sustainability abroad. The sustainability of foods and supply chains should be assessed based on their full lifecycle and issues arising outside the EU, where significant sections of the supply chain may be located. This also has implications for monitoring, data acquisition, assessment, certification, labelling and allocation of responsibilities between actors. - On governance mechanisms, the IIA should examine the appropriate governance architecture for achieving the level of interaction required between the EU, national and local bodies. Taken together, the actions taken at different levels must cover the full range of legal competences and have the political legitimacy needed for a coherent EU-wide approach alongside the flexibility to meet diverse conditions and food cultures. Setting up the EU level architecture to coherently address such a multi-faceted agenda is essential to the Initiative’s effectiveness and a set of proposals is outlined in a new IEEP paper (attached).
Read full response

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

28 Jul 2021 · Biocontrol, Farm to Fork and CAP plans

Meeting with Camilla Bursi (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and European Youth Forum and

21 May 2021 · Presentation on radical decarbonisation

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European Youth Forum and

21 May 2021 · Presentation on radical decarbonisation

Meeting with Pär Holmgren (Member of the European Parliament)

12 May 2021 · Methane strategy (staff level)

Meeting with Antoine Colombani (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and

4 May 2021 · Energy Taxation Directive and fisheries

Meeting with Diederik Samsom (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

29 Apr 2021 · Speech at the Think2030 launch event of the European Green Deal Barometer

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

13 Apr 2021 · Implementation of the European Green Deal

Response to Europe’s digital decade: 2030 digital targets

9 Mar 2021

Sustainable digitalisation is a key lever for the implementation of the Green Deal and the achievement of Europe’s carbon neutrality strategy. The transition towards the 2050 climate targets could induce a ‘6th technological revolution’ (Perez, 2010), an “age of a low carbon – resource-efficient economy”’ (Mazzanti and Rizzo, 2017). This would be a step beyond the 5th technological revolution that introduced information and communication technologies, which among other effects has led to the dematerialisation of economic activities while leaving the energy-intensive development paradigm in place. Until very recently, EU policy on digitalisation has focused primarily on economic growth, innovation and competitiveness, with little priority given to its interrelation with environmental concerns (Liu et al., 2019, p. 20). A shifting approach became prominent with the announcement of the European Green Deal which states “The Commission will explore measures to ensure that digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, 5G, cloud and edge computing and the internet of things can accelerate and maximise the impact of policies to deal with climate change and protect the environment. (….) The Commission will also consider measures to improve the energy efficiency and circular economy performance of the sector itself, from broadband networks to data centres and ICT devices.” This shift was confirmed in Conclusions from the EU council in December 2020, which supported the Commission’s identification of the “twin challenge” of the green transition and the digital transformation and stressed that finding solutions for this twin challenge requires policy coherence and close cooperation of different policy areas. While the roadmap presented by the Commission refers to the Green Deal, it lacks specific proposals to operationalise the synergies between the twin transitions and to harness the digitalisation as a key tool for Europeans to “live well, within planetary boundaries”. IEEP proposes the following: - The vision exercise: given the people-centred approach proposed by the EC, which IEEP welcomes, it would be critical to clarify how digitalisation could be harnessed to help reduce the carbon and material footprint of the systems that are key for citizen’s sustainable well-being, including nutrition, housing, mobility, leisure and health. - Common digital targets: A 5th target needs to be explored which would clarify Europe’s objective in terms of digitalisation for sustainability. This target should be based on pathways to carbon neutrality and material efficiency for the digital sector using the current carbon and material footprint as a baseline. - “2030 digital compass”: the proposed monitoring system should include robust indicators to allow for monitoring the carbon and material footprint of the digital sector. This is in line with the 2020 recommendations from European Council calling on the European Commission to start working with relevant stakeholders to develop consistent and transparent assessment and monitoring methodologies to estimate and maximise the contribution of ICT to the green transition. - The evidence base and data collection used to draw the communication should include additional commissioned research, as the evidence gathered in the preparation of the Green Deal is not sufficient to establish a robust target and indicator framework. - Environmental policy 4.0: the roadmap needs to include a specific component to facilitate the effective employment of digital technologies to enhance environmental administration, including improved access to environmental data. This is in line with the European Council conclusions which call for a European data space for the European Green Deal. References: - Aaron Best, Fernando Diaz Lopez and Massimiliano Mazzanti. How digitalisation can help or hamper in the climate crisis. Think2030 paper, 2021, forthcoming. - BMU Digital Policy Agenda for the Environment (2020a)
Read full response

Response to Modernising the EU’s batteries legislation

1 Mar 2021

Please find attached our response.
Read full response

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

15 Dec 2020 · Ecoschemes

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

7 Dec 2020 · Circular Economy and Forest Policies

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and European Network of Heads of Nature Conservation Agencies

7 Oct 2020 · Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas.

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

4 Jun 2020 · Sustainable food systems

Response to Farm to Fork Strategy

16 Mar 2020

Europe’s environment is at a tipping point. We have a narrow window of opportunity in the next decade to scale up measures to protect nature, lessen the impacts of climate change and radically reduce our consumption of natural resources.” Hans Bruyninckx, Executive Director, European Environment Agency (EEA) - Abstract of the EEA’s State of the Environment Report 2020 (SOER) All relevant sustainable food system scenarios that have been published so far insist on three major changes if we are to achieve such an endeavour in the EU context. They should, therefore, be put at the heart of the Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy: - Shift average diets towards less animal protein consumption, less sugar, fewer calories - Reduce the impact of farming practices on the environment by (i) reducing the absolute level of synthetic inputs used; (ii) improving the overall input-output efficiency; (iii) re-diversifying vegetal & animal production; (iv) increasing the share of agro-ecological infrastructure in agricultural landscapes. - Reduce the level of food waste and losses by at least 50% Simultaneously, several studies focusing on existing lock-ins/barriers to change, have identified that to make progress on any of the three above mentioned objectives, a complete restructure of food value chains is needed, from upstream to downstream. Food value chain organisation largely determines what farmers can produce (depending on what they have access to in terms of inputs –upstream – and in terms of markets –downstream), what consumers will buy (in terms of availability on shelves and accessibility), and how much will be wasted and lost along the chain (depending on logistics, portion size, packaging…). At the same time, the current structure of food chains is itself driven by the very structure of food and agricultural markets at the regional and global level – hence competition and trade policies play a major role. To reverse current trends and put European food systems on track towards greater sustainability, the Farm to fork strategy, therefore, needs to simultaneously to: - Transform the governance of the EU food system / food-related policies. - Take ambitious measures to ensure the needed changes on all five dimensions (diet shift, food waste and losses reduction, food value chain transformation, agricultural landscape transformation, trade & competition policies) are triggered and will happen at sufficient scale and pace. For more detail behind these recommendations on strengthening and operationalising the strategy please refer to the attached Position paper on the EU “Farm to Fork” Strategy submitted by Think Sustainable Europe. Think Sustainable Europe is a network of sustainability think tanks that serves as the engine-room of Think2030, an evidence-based, non-partisan platform of 100 leading policy experts from European think tanks, civil society, the private sector and local authorities. Think Sustainable Europe is composed of the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Ecologic Institute, the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI).
Read full response

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

20 Feb 2020 · Green Deal and circular economy

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

5 Feb 2020 · Sustainable food chains

Meeting with Annukka Ojala (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides)

5 Feb 2020 · Discussion on sustainable food chains

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

12 Nov 2019 · discussion on sustainable development policies

Meeting with Florentine Hopmeier (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

17 Jan 2019 · Sustainability in Europe/SDG agenda

Meeting with Peter Wehrheim (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

14 Nov 2018 · Climate policy

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

7 Nov 2018 · discussion on ''Think 2030'' work on sustainability

Meeting with Sebastien Paquot (Cabinet of Vice-President Karmenu Vella)

7 Nov 2018 · SDG’s and sustainable development discussion paper

Response to Multiannual Financial Framework - CAP Strategic Plans

3 Aug 2018

The legislative proposals reaffirm the Commission’s stated intentions for next CAP to place greater emphasis on the environment and support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector through a new delivery model focused on results. While the new approach offers some potential to support a more environmentally ambitious CAP, it does not set a clear direction of travel for the EU to comprehensively address the pressing sustainability challenges facing the sector and society. Moreover, it contains many loopholes which risk maintaining the status quo or could even go back on previous achievements. To ensure the proposals reach their full potential IEEP highlights some of the opportunities and risks for the next reform based on our initial assessment of the text. Objectives and targets: CAP specific objectives should be results-orientated and grounded on meeting EU targets and international commitments. The common framework must be backed by strong accountability, the right level of engagement from stakeholders and robust monitoring of Member States’ performance. Key instruments for the environment and climate: Enhanced conditionality introduces some welcome additional components, but largely maintains the existing requirements and leaves a lot of discretion for Member States to set the level of ambition. The eco-scheme has the potential to reward and incentivise those farmers who wish to make a measurable contribution to meeting EU environmental objectives and national targets. However it requires adequate ring-fencing (at least 30% of Pillar 1) and investment in well-informed advice for beneficiaries. Design of measures: The new delivery model offers some potential to support a more environmentally ambitious CAP. However, it contains many loopholes which risk maintaining the status quo or could even go back on previous achievements. The continued focus on direct payments, even with the redistribution proposed appears not to fit with the logic of a results-orientated delivery model. Scope for Member States to select and vary policy instruments: The new delivery model is potentially a bold move to deliver more coherent, creative and innovative approaches and shift to a performance based CAP. However, for MS to deliver a higher level of environment and climate ambition, CAP funds must be spent in a very different way. The attached note sets out IEEP’s initial assessment of the legislative proposal in further detail with links to supporting research. It is not meant to be exhaustive and further thinking and research will be required to support the European Parliament and Member States in the elaboration of their positions as co-legislators ahead of the interinstitutional negotiations and adoption of the final legislation.
Read full response

Meeting with Miguel Arias Cañete (Commissioner) and WWF European Policy Programme and

13 Jun 2018 · MOCA, Petersberg Dialogue, Trilogues, Long Term decarbonisation Strategy

Meeting with Christiane Canenbley (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

21 Jun 2017 · Presentation of IEEP research project