What’s in the next EU Commission’s (bio) in-tray?

The European elections have now concluded and with the mood of Europe’s voters now gauged attention turns to the new Commission. Last week leaders of the 27 member states nominated President von der Leyen for a second term. She will face a confirmation vote in the Parliament later this month, followed swiftly by the appointment and confirmation of her Commissioners.

It is at this point in the cycle that the centre piece for the EU’s next five years is set. In 2019, it was the Green Deal, in 2014 the Juncker Plan for investment and before that the Euro 2020 plan.  What will it be this time? This is principally shaped by the European Council (member states), inherited priorities from the last Commission and the European Parliament.

As ever the leaders of the EU member states have the first, and arguably most influential, say. They’ve already outlined their priorities in Council Conclusions and outlined what I imagine will be the driving purpose behind von Der Leyen II: a “pragmatic” path to climate neutrality and an energy transition with the aim of “staying competitive globally”.

It also reconfirmed the goal to reap “the full benefits of the bioeconomy”. This is a topic the leaders have already requested Commission action on. In April this year they invited the Commission to update the EU’s Bioeconomy Strategy noting, among other things, the need for a coherent and predictable policy framework for bio-based solutions and the development of sustainable bioenergy. I expect an updated strategy will be published towards the end of 2025.

Then there are the inherited priorities. Likely to be high and early on the agenda is the EU’s Deforestation Free-supply Chains Regulation, a landmark piece of legislation, that aims to crack down on global deforestation and forest degradation.  The objective is hardly contestable, but the implementation process is under intense scrutiny. The pressure for a delay in implementation has been rising. Everyone from large trading partners such as the US and China, domestic industries and MEPs and member states have raised serious concerns. A decision is likely on hold pending the President’s confirmation in Parliament, but a decision will need to be made as to whether to stick or twist in the first few months.

At the same time a number of files, including the Land-Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Regulation and the Renewable Energy Directive, include mandatory review clauses. For the former the review has already begun, and the latter is scheduled for the end of 2027. Appetite to reopen these files may be low, but the Commission is also legally obligated to propose a 2040 emissions reduction target which may require renewables targets and frameworks to be updated too. Another decision point for the new Commission.

This is without mentioning all of the implementing regulations the Commission needs to bring forward to put the Green Deal into practice or actions they committed to at the end of the last mandate. Of particular interest to bio-based watchers will be the Industrial Carbon Management Strategy and implementation of three separate biofuels mandates – for transport broadly and specifically aviation and maritime – which should bolster demand.

The most unpredictable influencer is the European Parliament, who exercise influence through their ability to block the President’s appointment. The usual right-centre-left bloc (EPP, Renew and S&D, respectively) who the President count on is much slimmer than in the previous Parliament. If extra votes are needed, will she break the “cordon sanitaire” and negotiate with a bolstered hard-right? Or will she swing the other way and look to the diminished numbers of the Greens to help her over the line? The Greens have already made clear their price – no backsliding on the Green Deal. I imagine it is not too difficult for the President to agree to this, it is after all her own legacy too. However, bearing in mind the vast political gulf between the two blocs there is plenty of space for surprise. There will certainly be more twists and turns ahead of the July vote and more still as Commission nominees are announced, grilled and voted on. However, even if the Commission’s agenda ends up being ‘business as usual’ there is already lots in the pipeline to keep bio-based policy wonks like me busy.

This blog has also been published on www.biomassafeiten.nl

About the author

Andrew Georgiou

Vice-President, Global Policy, USIPA

Andrew Georgiou is Vice-President for Global Policy at the US Industrial Pellet Association (USIPA), a wood energy sector trade association representing members operating in all areas of the wood pellet export industry. With almost 15 years of experience working in politics and public policy he leads USIPA's engagement with policymakers across Europe, the US and Asia . He sits on the Board of Bioenergy Europe and takes part in a number of working groups on a broad range of biomass policy issues affecting markets across the globe.