Protection for energy-intensive industry yes, excessive bureaucracy no

“I wholeheartedly support EU Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra's plans. We need protection for our energy-intensive industry, which is on its way to climate neutrality. However, the current legislation is far too bureaucratic and therefore needs to be tidied up,“ said Dr. Peter Liese, climate policy spokesperson for the largest political group in the European Parliament (EPP, Christian Democrats), on the occasion of the EU Climate Commissioner's announcement to tidy up the requirements for the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as part of a so-called ”omnibus procedure.”

MEP Adam Jarubas, EPP Shadow Rapporteur for the CBAM said: “While working on the CBAM regulation, the EPP Group position from the beginning was to give ourselves the longest possible testing and phase in periods, so that the Commission and we as the co-legislators have time to make necessary corrections. It is essential that CBAM is effective on one hand, but not too bureaucratic and burdensome on the other. We also need to be careful with adjustments, as there is a variety of sectors covered by the regulation and different imported products are not affected in the same way. There also is a difference when products are imported from the distant third countries via maritime shipping, and when they are situated just behind the land border of the EU.”

The carbon border adjustment mechanism CBAM was adopted by the European Parliament in 2023 together with a tightening of the Union’s emissions trading system. Energy-intensive industries such as steel, cement and lime producers will receive far fewer free certificates from emissions trading in the future. To ensure that their products are not simply replaced by cheap products from Morocco, Turkey or China, some sort of climate duty will be levied at the EU's external border in future. All producers who are not subject to a similarly strict climate regime as in the EU will have to pay a corresponding compensation.

"In principle, the border adjustment mechanism has already proven its worth before it has even entered into force. Many third countries have already introduced emissions trading or are planning to do so in order to avoid being affected by the CBAM and to drive forward decarbonisation in their own countries. The CBAM is therefore also an effective instrument for global climate protection. Many companies, even in sectors where decarbonising is difficult, such as lime and cement, have set out on the path to climate-neutral production. They therefore urgently need this protection against cheap, dirty competition from abroad. On the other hand, the current regulation is too bureaucratic. Every company and every private individual who imports a covered product, for example a steel mudguard from outside Europe, must report extensively on the carbon footprint of this product. For example, a teenager in the Netherlands was asked by the competent authority to complete an extensive questionnaire because he had ordered a spare part for his motorcycle outside of Europe. The mother then made a desperate call to the competent authority. The regulation is also a huge burden for SMEs that only order small quantities of processed steel products, such as a package of screws, from outside Europe. More than 95% of the CO2 emissions that are “imported” into Europe are due to the imports of less than 20% of the companies. This means that if we simply exempt the other 80% of companies from CBAM, the climate effect remains almost the same and the bureaucratic effort is reduced immensely. An important point in this context is that the obligations under CBAM should not be based solely on the value of the goods. While a load of raw steel for 150 euros may be relevant, a package of screws for 150 euros is negligible in terms of carbon footprint. We should therefore also have threshold values for weight and not just for the value of goods," explained MEP Peter Liese and MEP Adam Jarubas.