This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

Good evening colleagues.

On the agenda we have a joint debate on the question of the emissions and we will be dealing with the carbon border adjustment mechanism.

We will be dealing with the anti-circumvention measures as well as the downstream goods.

We will We will be dealing with the Temporary Decarbonisation Fund and Mr Maran's report on a proposal for a European system for greenhouse gasses and an ETS system for that.

So I will pass the floor over to Mr. Shahida as our first speaker.

Thank you, let me be frank,

a vote tomorrow against CEBAM is a vote against European industry and European workers.

I could almost not believe my eyes when I saw that some so-called nationalist groups at the right table have tabled an amendment to reject CEBAM altogether,

because rejecting CEBAM means rejecting a level playing field.

It means putting the limited interests of large global multinationals above those of the many European industries and workers, and yet, The same people that are skeptical about CBAM come to me and ask whether certain CN codes can be added to the list,

which is a bit strange either you're against or you support it and try to create a situation where our industry is protected.

Colleagues, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

To me that confirms the quiet part out out loud. CBA works.

Look at the world China, Canada, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Morocco,

and the list keeps on growing, are putting carbon prices or emissions trading systems in place.

This shows something very important that when Europe leads, others follow,

and that is exactly what European citizens and businesses are asking from us.

Especially now It's something that is making me proud, something that we all should be proud of.

CEBAM is effective, and with the agreement we vote on tomorrow, it will be even more effective.

We strengthened CEBAM against circumvention,

we've addressed carbon leakage more thoroughly and we further strengthened the level playing field for European industry.

And crucially for our industry, we find a solution on Article 27A.

This article prevents investments in technologies of the future and punishes those that have already moved ahead.

Certainty is essential for investors and businesses, and that's something we should give them.

Allowing the Commission through a delegated act and without the Parliament to pause sea bound for certain goods at any given time would undermine precisely that certainty,

and that is why from the beginning and across the different opinions given committees,

the political groups were clear Article 7 has to go while addressing the concerns of, for example, the farmers.

Instead of creating a disguised subsidy for foreign fertilizers,

we keep the mechanism intact and redirect CBAM revenues to affected sectors in the case of serious and unforeseen circumstances.

We also found another solution through the temporary decarbonisation Fund, on which our colleague Pascal Canfin has done excellent work.

We extended its scope to agricultural products at exactly what the groups behind this compromise wanted from the start.

So tomorrow we do take note of who is there and who is missing.

Let's see who is willing to stand up and deliver for industry, workers and farmers,

and I expect everyone who is concerned about farmers to call their Member States and their permanent representation to urge them to unblock the work on the temporary decarbonisation Fund in the Council.

To continue to work there as quickly as possible.

Finally, I would like to thank all the political groups for their constructive approach during these negotiations.

We have reached a fair and balanced agreement, one that protects the industry and workers,

reinforces our climate ambition and ensures that the polluters pay.

I look forward to the upcoming trilogues so that we can conclude the work on CBAM extension as soon as possible and provide the much needed certainty for Europe,

for the industry, for our investors and especially also for our workers. Thank you very much. We have our second speaker, Mr. Thank you, Commissioner, dear colleagues. Today is an important day.

For years now, the European Parliament has been asking for something to protect our industry,

those who export towards markets and countries where we don't have carbon credits.

For years now, the Parliament has been asking for.

A specific tool in order to help our exporters and to provide compensation for the competitive disadvantage that they are suffering because they are paying for a carbon price here in Europe and we're talking about export markets where you don't have that carbon pricing.

And for years we were told that's not possible.

And finally now the European Commission has come up with a proposal for a temporary decarbonisation fund which fits the bill.

I'm delighted to see that in this chamber there is broad, very broad support for this type of tool.

Unlike what we see in Council there in Council, member states are not making headway in their negotiations.

This week we will vote and hopefully very much vote in favor of the fund. I hope that that will.

Allow us to send out a strong signal.

By the way, Commissioner, I noticed that in your new proposal for the carbon market, you didn't take on this proposal. I'm actually really surprised by that.

We need to protect our exporters vis a vis unfair competition on export markets,

and that challenge will remain for the longer term.

But over and beyond this temporary decarbonization fund, we'd like to put up as soon as possible, as soon as we've adopted it, and until 2030.

This fund has a clear mission and it corresponds to an expectation from our industry, and we should definitely give it the go ahead.

Alongside that, of course, we've also got farmers. My colleague Mr. Shahid has just referred to that.

We're perfectly aware of the fact that when you put into place a carbon price on fertilizers, for instance,

which are used by farmers, we know that that will lead to an increase in prices for fertilizers again.

Even though I should remind you that this is just a small fraction, a small part of the increase that we saw for fertilizer prices, for instance, last year,

most of that had to do with gas prices and most of that had to do with the Hormuz Strait and the crisis there and the conduct of Russia,

which is controlling this global gas market. Most of it. Is due to that. Let's not make any mistake here.

If we want to reduce fertilizer dependency and if we want to help with the situation,

we need to decarbonize our own farming and we also need to produce here in Europe using European resources. And that's why together with Mohammed Chahim.

We have come up with this reform, including the temporary decarbonisation fund, because we want to help our farmers, those who export wheat for instance, or cereals,

for instance, who are therefore competing on export markets with others in the Middle East,

just to name one example, they're in competition with Russian producers. They're not paying a carbon price.

Well, that being the case, we need to provide financial compensation.

We're not talking about removing the carbon adjustment mechanism for fertilizers.

We're not talking about introducing radical uncertainty, and industry has flagged that because that was part of the initial Commission proposal,

giving the Commission the opportunity to suspend a particular sector at any moment in time within the CBAM life course that would therefore remove the predictability that CBA actually. Affords us.

But that said, there is a specific problem for our farmers, and that has to do with the price of fertilizers.

And that's why we came up with a solution.

The right, the left, Olof us together, we've been pragmatic in our approach, and I very much hope that in plenary, there'll be overarching support for this.

I certainly hope so because that would give us a strong hand in the negotiations and the trilogues that are to come with the other institutions.

Thank you very much again for your broad support.

I think that this is an issue where we don't need to do any politicking.

We need to be radical, ambitious, and we need to always keep our eyes on the prize.

This is a question of sovereignty, decarbonization, and I therefore call out to Olof the members, for instance, the members of the far right.

I don't think you should be destroying CEBAM because of an ideology, because anti-climate views. I think that's completely obsolete. Unfortunately, recent events have demonstrated that. Thank you.

Thank you, 20 years ago,

Europe did something no one had done before.

It set up the world's first and largest international carbon market.

Since then, the EU emissions trading system has reduced emissions and driven industrial decarbonisation.

Yet, like any system that existed for a long time,

it needs to be adapted to a changing world while still reaching its objectives, and this is why we are here today.

We are at the beginning of one of the most important debates that will define Europe's climate and industrial policy for the years to come.

We face a challenge aligning our ambition with the EU's climate target while strengthening the competitiveness of our industry.

It is not easy, but we must get it right.

At the heart of this debate is the market stability reserve.

It plays a key function in the ETS.

It is almost like a central bank of emission quotas by preventing price volatility and maintaining market stability.

In short, it gives predictability to the ETS,

and this is fundamental because a carbon market that is unpredictable drives industry away without reducing a single ton of CO2.

In April, the Commission proposed to cancel the invalidation mechanism of the reserve,

allowing it to grow above the EUR 400 million ceiling.

The rationale is clear to give the carbon market and the industries a bit more breathing space.

But abolishing the invalidation mechanism entirely without knowing how the ETS system will look like after the reform raises legitimate questions.

While this proposal does not rewrite the ETS,

it marks the opening chapter of the comprehensive review of the system.

How we handle it will set the tone of the debates that follow.

That is why I am proud and honored to present as rapporteur and then the chair the compromise that we found on the EMIS MSR proposal. It consists of two main elements. First, we keep the invalidation mechanism.

It stays to avoid excessive oversupply and ensure the credibility of the ETS system, but,

importantly, we raise the invalidation ceiling from EUR 400 to 650 million allowances.

This gives the reserve more capacity and flexibility to respond to stocks.

Second, we delay entry into force of this new ceiling.

Having a clear starting date, and we proposed 1 March 2027 will give clarity and smoothen the transition.

These are the elements of the deal that we have shaped with political groups and shadow rapporteurs, whom I thank for their work.

It is a deal that presents a pragmatic and balanced solution and has received strong support in the EI Committee.

But importantly, the compromise that I present to you today strikes the right balance that we should aim for the broader ETS review,

keeping the ETS credible as a climate instrument and making it work for European industry.

Decarbonisation and competitiveness should not be seen as opposing goals. They are not.

Colleagues, the ETS revision is one of the defining industrial and climate policies debates of this legislature.

Today's vote on the MSR is the first step.

I therefore ask you to vote in favor of our text in plenary tomorrow and give us a clear mandate to start the negotiations with the Member States.

Let us set the right tone for the discussion ahead. Thank you. On behalf of the Commission, Commissioner Hoekstra. Thank you very much, Thank you.

Do you think we can make this even higher? Is that possible?

Or is this the max we can do? Excellent, thank you. Nice to meet you. Apologies.

It's, as I said to you, I said to you before, drinking too much milk and that's what you get. Mr.

President, honorable Members, very good to see you, and many thanks to the 3 rapporteurs for elaborating on the 3 different instruments that we have in front of us, different but all, I would argue,

with a very common purpose keeping Europe on track in terms of its decarbonisation and at the same time safeguarding our industries' competitiveness and making sure we don't see any carbon leakage.

Please allow me to briefly speak on all three of them.

First on CEEAM, truly a key instrument for advancing Europe's clean industrial transition.

By addressing the risk of carbon leakage, it strengthens clearly the EU's competitiveness,

it supports investments in decarbonisation, and of course, it reinforces our strategic independence.

It brings all those three elements hand in hand.

Last December, with the help of this Parliament, the Commission has already proposed to radically simplify the design,

and we have succeeded together on that one.

We have also proposed to strengthen CEBEAM, and that is the proposal Mr. Shah spoke about.

We proposed extending CEBEAM to certain steel and aluminum intensive downstream products, reinforcing our anti circumvention measures. And, importantly, adjusting electricity rules.

We put forward this proposal after truly extensive discussions, collaborations and interactions with industry, which have made,

I'm sure also the esteemed Members of this House crystal clear that CBAM contained too many loopholes to be fully effective.

Thank you, let me please turn now to the Temporary decarbonisation Fund.

Here in December 2025,

we proposed this fund and we did so to provide temporary support for decarbonisation in 2026 and in 2027.

It is aimed specifically at operators of EU ETS installations producing CBEAM goods that are still considered to face a higher risk of carbon leakage.

So EU producers will need to show they are taking steps to decarbonise to receive support,

but the funding can then help to invest in the long term decarbonisation of their production.

In my view, this proposal strikes a delicate balance between ensuring that the fund is effective,

while at the same time limiting the administrative burden for operators, as it should.

This is achieved by aligning the fund's management with existing EU ETS infrastructure and processes.

Now, on both the files, while we still reserve as a Commission, our position on the different amendments at this stage,

we very much welcome Parliament's overall support and the speed at which it has adopted its report.

Allow me to once again emphasize that for this revision, speed continues to be of the essence.

We do many things well in Europe, we typically do them too slowly.

So it is key to start the trilogue negotiations as early as possible with a view to reaching a political agreement well before the end of this calendar year.

Without such an agreement, let me be clear on that as well,

there is a there is a risk that the downstream extension simply cannot enter into force on January 1,

2028 as planned. Thank you, 3rd, the market stability reserve.

Could I say that has been a real success.

It has helped clear the historical surplus of allowances and it has,

frankly speaking, been essential to keeping the EU carbon market functioning well.

At the same time, market conditions are becoming tighter.

The MSR therefore needs to evolve as well.

To that end,

the Commission has come forward with a targeted amendment to the MSR decision that would end the invalidation of allowances.

A sufficiently large MSR is needed in our view as a buffer for both liquidity and also stability.

It allows the EU ETS to manage changing market conditions by withdrawing allowances where there is a significant surplus,

while still keeping enough capacity to respond if scarcity emerges.

Of course, it also helps address excessive price fluctuations in case we see them.

Under the current rules, however, allowances above the ER 400 million threshold continue to be permanently invalidated.

At the same time, future intakes into the reserve are expected to decline substantially.

This further highlights the importance of preserving the allowances already in the reserve,

rather than continuing to invalidate them.

Honourable Members, to wrap up, across these three files,

I would argue that our objective is the same a carbon market that delivers.

Decarbonisation It strengthens European competitiveness and gives investment certainty,

and that is always the request of Olof our companies.

I would very much like to thank all the three rapporteurs for their great work, and their reports, in my view,

demonstrate our shared determination to make CEEAM and the Temporary Decarbonisation Fund effective instruments,

as well as to ensure that the MSR has enough firepower now and in the near future. Thank you very much. Mr. And now, Ms. Boyan for the International Trade Committee. I drank milk, but I didn't grow.

Thank you, colleagues and Commissioner, as left shadow for CEBAM and TDF and rapporteur for the INTA opinion,

I would like to take the opportunity to thank both the rapporteurs for their commitment.

I think we have had a strong agreement on key points where we expand the CBAAM without undermining it,

and we also bring more global justice to the CEAM.

We believe in this policy, but we need others around the world to believe in it too, so we have included clear signals to trade partners that CBAM is not punitive or protectionist,

but a true climate measure, and this means commitment on technical assistance,

removing barriers to SMEs in least developed countries, and leading global cooperation on decarbonisation.

Most importantly,

we maintain Parliament's call that monies under CEBAAM and TDF can be used as a source of additional climate finance.

The climate crisis demands that we start to deliver on climate finance and technology sharing going to developing countries.

This is why CEBAM must be accompanied by new climate finance to make it a real global climate action measure. Thank you. Mr. Gómez López for the Committee on Budgets.

Thank you, let me focus on something that goes beyond climate policy.

It's about how we fund the EU in the future. CBAM is a potential tax post 2020.

Part of the so-called basket, we need it to pay off nextgen EU debt.

But The Council has blocked this since 202,020.

We've got other priorities too the energy transition, industrial competitiveness, and defense.

The EU can't take on more responsibilities unless we give it the funding.

Could help us deal with part of this problem.

It's calculated that it could generate millions of euros by 2030 and even more by 2035.

That's why I ask the Council to unblock this resource,

which is so important for the European Union.

Thank you Madam Ndova for the Committee on Budgets.

Thank you, the EU has set higher climate goals and strict rules for our companies,

while their competitors outside Europe often face much lower standards.

With enough investment, especially in the decarbonisation of heavy industry,

these goals and rules will remain just words on the paper, or worse. Become a burden.

This temporary mechanism can help, but we need two things.

First, it must not become another bureaucratic monster, and second,

all the money has to go back to our companies,

not disappear into national budgets and spent elsewhere. We have seen this with ETS revenues.

Let us not make the same mistake again. Thank you. We have Mr. Salini on behalf of ITRE, Commissioner.

We have been working hard, and I would also like to thank the rapporteurs from the other political groups in order to.

Achieve and implement a decision of the European Commission which is very much justified, strengthen CEBAM and redefine the scope of CEBAM by extending that scope,

and here our colleague, the rapporteur, did an incredible job in summing up the situation. We don't want internal contradictions.

If we, if we deal with the first part of the value chain, steel,

but we don't deal with steel by way of an example, and we don't deal with the other products which contain steel. We would not really get far.

By including finished products, processed products,

this means that it should be possible to really achieve satisfactory results and really help European industry.

I think that this is really an