Environment Council

Climate targets, EU environment ministers seek agreement on flexibility

On the table of the 27 is the Climate Act 2040, in particular the percentage of emission cuts achievable in third countries and the assumption of a review of the legislation every two years

From our correspondent Beda Romano

3 November 2025

Una veduta aerea del parco eolico offshore di Saint-Nazaire, al largo della costa della penisola di Guérande, nella Francia occidentale

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

BRUSSELS - A few days after the summit at the end of October, it is now the turn of the environment ministers to put down on paper the new, more flexible and less burdensome European approach to the environment. On the table at the meeting on Tuesday 4 November will be the so-called Climate Act 2040. The ministers will be called upon to agree on their negotiating position with which to approach the parliament. The outcome of the meeting remains highly uncertain.

The Heads of State and Government agreed to relax the market conditions, without changing the targets proposed by the European Commission: a 90% cut in harmful emissions by 2040 compared to 1990 figures. In the summit conclusions, the Twenty-Seven agreed on 'the importance of contributing to the global effort to reduce emissions in an ambitious and cost-efficient manner, in particular by defining an appropriate level of high-quality international credits'.

A diplomat from the Danish EU Presidency explains: 'We believe that all the necessary ingredients are in place to reach an agreement. We know the positions of the Member States and we have clear guidelines from the highest political levels'. With the COP30 international climate conference, in Brazil from next Monday, approaching, 'the time has come to agree on the 2040 target'.

Negotiations between the member states are heated. Everyone agrees to introduce flexibility, but there is no agreement on how much flexibility to adopt. At the time, the European Commission had envisaged that 3 per cent of the harmful emission reductions could take place in third countries (so-called international credits). It is being discussed whether and by how much this percentage should be increased. "At the moment, there is no qualified majority in favour of an increase," points out a national diplomat.

At the same time, the Danish Presidency has also proposed opening the door to a review of the legislation every two years. Many member states agree, given the rapid international changes. However, there is a debate about the real room for manoeuvre at the time of the review. This aspect is not trivial because it could call into question legal certainty and thus generous investments in the environment. Admits one national diplomat: 'At risk is the predictability of the legislation.

On the table is a legislative text that will in fact influence the environmental transition, energy prices, and the competitiveness of industry over the next 15 years. "There is clearly a strong will among the member countries to have a qualified majority around a shared text. But we have no guarantee that we will be able to get it," explains a national diplomat, recalling that the decision must have the approval of 55% of the countries, or 65% of the population.

The environment ministers will also have to agree on the effort to be made between now and 2035. According to a declaration of intent published in September, harmful emissions should fall by between 66.25 and 72.50 per cent by the middle of the next decade. In this case, unanimity of the Twenty-Seven is required. 'If we arrive in Brazil with nothing in hand,' admits a European diplomat, 'it would damage European credibility in the environmental field.

More generally, the political moment is not a trivial one. The EU wants to strike a new balance combining environmental sensitivity and economic competitiveness, in a political context in which the most extreme parties are seizing on the impatience of many citizens with environmental policies that are considered too costly. One national negotiator sums up: 'The needle of the scales has clearly shifted. The alternative now is between less ambitious legislation and no climate targets at all'.

Beda RomanoCorrispondente
- @BedaRomano
Luogo: Bruxelles
Lingue parlate: francese, tedesco, inglese
Argomenti: Affari europei
Scheda autore
Trust project