Activities of Angelika WINZIG related to 2020/2043(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
A WTO-compatible EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (continuation of debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION Towards a WTO-compatible EU carbon border adjustment mechanism
Amendments (29)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that a carbon border tax has long been a candidate for a genuine and green source of own revenue for the EU budget and was among the ‘basket’ of preferred options for new own resources taken up in Parliament’s legislative resolution of 16 September1 ; _________________ 1Texts adopted, P9_TA- PROV(2020)0220.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is convinced that a purpose-built trade policy can be an important driver in steering economies towards decarbonisation in order to achieve the climate objectives set in the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal; emphasises that, as a result of the EU’s increased ambition on climate change, risk of carbon leakage increased consequently; urges the Commission to ensure full carbon-leakage protection in all its policies accordingly; stresses that EU climate policy must be aligned to economic growth and competitiveness for the European industry and SMEs;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Paris Agreement, the Green Deal and the goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050; notes the lack of international climate effortssignificant divergence of climate efforts between different countries; underlines that EU climate policy must go hand in hand with increased economic growth and competitiveness for the European industry based on the principles of free and fair competition; believes that an EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (‘the mechanism’) cshould serve to incentivise international efforts to combat climate change, therefore asks the Commission to consider all available options while drawing up proposal for any such mechanism;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that the primary purpose of the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) must be to enable internationally effective carbon pricing schemes, to mitigate the leakage dilemmaprovide a level playing field for decarbonisation costs by applying the adequate price for Indirect Carbon Influx (carbon footprint of goods consumed in the EU and produced in theird countext of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)ries) along with the 'polluter pays' principle and thereby reducing EU and global GHG emissions and to prevent distortions to competition and trade upholding competitiveness of European industries; stresses that the CBAM will help the EU to meet its climate targets while keeping a level playing field inon EU international tradel market for goods produced in EU and imported ones, with the aim of galvanising the rest of the world into taking climate action in line with Paris Agreement;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
(1) Is convinced that the main objective of a carbon border adjustment mechanism should be to reduce global emissions, while avoiding carbon leakage and upholding competitiveness of European industries.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines that the introduction of CBAM has to be based on a thorough Impact Assessment which takes into consideration the impact of CBAM on competitiveness of European exporters, the reaction of countries and suppliers outside the European Union and possible counter measures taken by affected third countries against European industries to ensure access to export markets
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Recalls that the EU economy is facing the biggest global economic crisis since the Great Depression with companies all over Europe hit especially hard; stresses that especially at this time EU climate policy must be aligned to economic growth and competitiveness for the European industry and SMEs; Emphasizes that, as a result of the EU's increased ambition on climate change, risk of carbon leakage increased consequently; Therefore urges the Commission to ensure full carbon- leakage protection in all its policies accordingly; Stresses, taking into account the reasons mentioned, that the CBAM must not replace existing carbon leakage measures under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which are competitiveness measures in character, but should work as an addition alongside them while not leading to double protection;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that international carbon pricing and fully competitive low-emission solutions would render the mechanism obsolete; stresses, therefore, that the EU needs to step up efforts in this respect; recalls that many technical solutions for mitigating CO2 are still at the pilot stage and far from being economically feasible; underlines that the Union’s increased climate ambition at the core of the Green Deal will increase the risk of carbon leakage in many industrial sectors;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Supports, in the absence of a global carbon price and a multilateral solution, a market-based EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), with regard to imports from all countries not covered by a strict carbon trading system with similar goals and costs for lowering CO2 emissions, on condition that it is compatible with EU free trade agreements (FTAs) and WTO rules (by being non- discriminatory and not constituting a disguised restriction on international trade), and that it is proportionate, based on the polluter pays principle and fit for purpose in delivering the climate objectives;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes note of various prudent revenue estimates ranging from 5 to 14 billion EUR per year, depending on the scope and design of the new instrument; points out that while finally covering a vast majority of imports and thus providing higher revenues, as a starting point it should gradually cover certain sectors of economy chosen according to thorough Impact Assessment; highlights the fact that the EU budget is in any event uniquely suited to absorbing fluctuations of revenue or even long-term regressive effects;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that decentralisedasymmetrical climate actions can lead to carbon leakage and a competitive disadvantage on international markets for the EU industry; urges the Commission, therefore, to ensure full carbon-leakage protection and to consider the inclusion ofinclude export rebates in the mechanism;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is determined to ensure that the CBAM-based own resource constitute universal income and that it be deemed to cover a share of the repayment costs of the Next Generation EU instrumentwill be part of a basket of own resources raising an amount sufficient to cover at least the level of overall expected expenditure for the repayment of the principal and the interests of the borrowing for expenditure referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 of Article 3b of the [Own Resources Decision], while respecting the principle of universality; underlines that the revenue from this basket in excess of the needs for repayment shall continue to fund the Union budget as general revenue in line with the principle of universality;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls that the EU’s climate policy and industrial policy must go hand in hand, to avoid carbon and investment leakage and protect jobs; stresses that any mechanism must be embedded into our industry strategy, creating an incentive for industries to produce clean and competitive products, and avoid carbon leakage, without endangering trade opportunities.
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the general exception clause of Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) should be the basis for any CBAM design and its only rationale should be an environmental one – reducing global CO2 emissions and preventing carbon leakage;, although the CBAM should not replace existing carbon leakage measures under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which are competitiveness measures in character, but work as an addition to them.
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Suggests a progressive mechanism that first includes sectors with the highest risk of carbon leakage before being enlarged over time; stresses that this should not lead to internal market distortionHighlights the role such a mechanism could play, if balanced and appropriately implemented, in energy intensive industries, such as steel, cement and aluminium, given the experienced trade exposure of those sectors and their participation in the ETS; Suggests a progressive mechanism that first includes sectors with the highest risk of carbon leakage before being enlarged over time if deemed appropriate; considers it necessary that the scope of the mechanism covers as a large part of the carbon footprint of a product as possible, i.e. through the inclusion of emissions from energy in production; stresses that this should be done considering their respective value chains and not lead to internal market distortions notably on downstream markets; recalls that determining the carbon footprint of a product includes several insecurities and that the mechanism should not contribute to an undue regulatory burden for importing companies especially SMEs;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the need to limit international retaliation measures against the EU caused by the mechanism; urges the Commission to make the mechanism World Trade Organization-compatible ongly emphasises that the success of European SMEs and Hidden Champions depends on access to global markets. Therefore, calls on the Commission to base any legislative proposal on a thorough impact assessment, which takes into consideration the impact of possible counter measures taken by affected third countries against European industries Stresses the need to limit and possibly avoid international retaliation measures against the EU caused by the mechanism; urges the Commission to make the mechanism compatible with the WTO acquis and provisions in the Union’s free trade agreements and to take a multilateral approach to its design; underlines the need to deduct costs incurred from carbon taxes, emissions rights under cap-and- to take a multilateral approach to its desrade schemes or equivalent climate mitigation measures, including those of a regulatory rather than a fiscal nature, in the country of production from payments at import under the mechanism and to avoid any discrimination based on origin;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Expresses its deep concern over the erosion of the multilateral trading system and the effects from increased trade barriers and trade conflicts for the competitiveness of the EU industry; stresses that the introduction of a mechanism must not contribute to an increased insecurity in this regard; recognises that in order for the European industry to be competitive, it needs access to global supply chains for sourcing and further processing and to global markets; calls on the Commission to actively engage with trade partners’ governments to ensure a continued dialogue with trade partners’ governments on this initiative; Underlines that trade policy can and should be used to promote a positive environmental agenda and to avoid major differences in environmental ambition between the EU and the rest of the world, but this should be done in proportional and balanced ways, be evidence based and not be used as a cover for protectionism;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that there are design options that allow existing carbon leakage measures to co-exist with the CBAM while not leading to double protection; therefore strongly urges the European Commission to develop a scenario in its upcoming impact assessment where existing carbon leakage measures are maintained alongside the CBAM.
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Emphasises that while the purpose of the mechanism must be to contribute to lower carbon emissions globally and limit carbon leakage, the design should contribute to a level playing field for the European industry both on European and in international markets in line with the Industry Strategy; highlights the need for specific attention to maintaining the availability of inputs in the supply chains and competitiveness of downstream manufacturing industries;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Emphasises that the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) is and should remain the key market based instrument to cost-effectively reduce CO2 emissions this includes the system of free allowances; asks the Commission to consider any design options that allow the existing carbon leakage measures to co- exist with the mechanism while not leading to double protection; therefore takes the view that the mechanism should co-exist together with the free allocation of allowances for certain sectors; the phasing out of existing carbon leakage measures could cause a loss of competitiveness of companies in the single market and globally; stresses the need for equally effective measures if existing measures are to be phased out.
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that many carbon- and trade- intensive industrial sectors could potentially be impacted by the CBAM, either directly or indirectly, and that it could influence supply chains; emphasises therefore, that any CBAM design should be an additional and complementary measure to existing carbon leakage measures, at least in an initial phase, in order to better monitor the cost effect and to safeguard the global level of competitiveness of the EU industrial sectors vis a vis competition from third countries with non-equivalent CO2 reduction and cost reduction goals; stresses that any CBAM should be easy to administer and not place an undue burden on enterprises, especially small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs); notes that from a bureaucratic and implementation cost point of view, the CBAM should not be a complicated alternative to the instruments already in use.
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)
(1) Is convinced that if the CBAM is designed and implemented as an import- ETS system, maintaining the existing free allowances would not result to double protection.
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the resources incurred by the mechanism are to be considered EU own resources; is convinced that these resources must be used for climate measuresmust not create distortions based on the Member State of import but help level the global playing field between competing industries and for low carbon investment and industrial manufacturing transformation;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. points out that keeping free certificate allocation in parallel with a new CBAM can also be an incentive for third country suppliers to produce cleaner and more environmentally friendly products, not only if they wish to export to Europe; notes that this effect would also be achieved in third markets, in particular EU export markets; notes that by obtaining the EU ETS, European companies through their competitiveness would lead as an example on international level and pressure for more environmentally friendly production on third country suppliers can be increased also in EU export markets.
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Underlines that the CO2 content of imported products would need to be reliably and precisely determined, inter alia through independent third party verification and if such cannot be provided relevant average data; stresses the need for the mechanism to cover both direct and indirect carbon emissions; reiterates the need for adequate anti- circumvention mechanisms; stresses nevertheless that the mechanism should not lead to excessive administrative burden, especially for small- and medium- sized enterprises.
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth impact assessment of different mechanisms and designsalternatives before presenting a legislative proposal; including regulatory climate standards for imported products and the compatibility with EU ETS’s free allocation of allowances, to incentivise international climate action and prevent carbon leakage before presenting a legislative proposal.
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on the Commission to intensify its efforts for global CO2 pricing and facilitating trade in climate and environmental protection technologies for instance through trade policy initiatives such as the WTO Environmental Goods Agreement; stresses that the Union can play a pioneering role with ambitious energy and sustainability chapters in its trade agreements.
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Calls on the Commission to also consider alternative measures and to thoroughly demonstrate the added value of a carbon border adjustment mechanism; considers that a digital product passport, well designed and synchronised with existing systems, business standardisation bodies and global standards could help in this process; in the post-COVID-19 economy, carbon prices may prove to be too unstable to support effective industrial decarbonisation; therefore, there is a need for product policies to push forward new standards on low-carbon, resource- efficient products to secure the transition to a sustainable economy.