Today, EU environment ministers agreed on a watered-down deal on the EU 2040 climate target and the 2035 NDC ahead of COP30. Bellona welcomes the fact that Member States have finally agreed on a 90% target by 2040, ahead of COP30, showing that climate action is still possible in the current context. However, Member States further weakened its content compared to the initial proposal with many loopholes, including the use of more international carbon credits, a delay of the implementation of ETS2, and a biennial assessment and review clause could downgrade the target further. Ultimately, while the headline target is 90%, it appears the EU’s domestic target will be 85%, with international credits topping this up to reach 90% on paper. EU Member States also agreed on their position on a weak 2035 NDC and confirmed the range of 66.25-72.5% communicated in the statement of intent in September. During the exchange of views, Member States appeared divided on whether climate ambition would undermine or strengthen the competitiveness of EU industries.  

Quotes  

«EU Member States have agreed on a 90% 2040 target – a big step forward -, but it rings somewhat hollow. Relying on even more international credits and abandoning our land sinks is like using less coffee and topping it up with water: the cup looks full, but the strength is weaker. We call on the European Parliament to give the green light to the 90% figure while strengthening the inner workings and credibility of the target.»

«The state of our nature and our climate are intertwined. By making the climate target so flexible, we risk undermining the true value and treasures that nature provides us. This requires a system that accounts for both climate- and human-induced impacts, setting clear targets and making them binding. Signalling that land sinks might be a bonus is contradictory.»

A 90% target that rings hollow  

At first glance, the headline 90% 2040 target appears consistent with science; however, its many loopholes hollow out its ambition, making it a domestic 85% target at best, falling short of even the lower end of the EU’s independent scientific advisory board. 

In the general approach of the Council, the European Climate Law’s review and revision clauses have been bolstered. The amended clause now considers technology, competitiveness, energy prices, estimated net removals from the land sink, progress towards 2030 and 2040 targets and the flexibility for Member States to use international credits in the achievement of their national targets. While these factors are important, they must not become an excuse to further weaken climate ambition down the line. Allowing the Commission to amend the 2040 target would dilute the regulatory signal the target is meant to provide to markets and will penalise front runners.  

A recent study shows that climate inaction could cost Europe €5.6 trillion by 2050, and that doing nothing would cost around six times more than the necessary costs to decarbonise. Meanwhile, the 2025 State of the Climate report highlights alarming trends: 22 out of 34 planetary vital signs are at record levels, including fossil fuel consumption, tree cover loss, GHG concentrations and ice mass decline. 

International credits water down the headline target  

The decision to give a green light to use international credits to achieve the 2040 target confirms that the climate law is no longer purely domestic. The use of 5% of international credits would mean at least 233 million tonnes¹ of international credits, sending a bad signal to EU companies and investors. On top of this, an additional 5% may be used in the achievement of national targets for Member States, which may further dilute the domestic ambition of the 2040 target. Their inclusion in a bigger quantity risks EU countries spending vast sums of money on less reliable mitigation abroad instead of investing in decarbonisation at home. The use of international credits is no longer a limited possibility, as the Council removed the words “limited” and “possible.” This is further exacerbated by the removal of any safeguards in the Council agreement guarding against the use of these credits within the EU ETS. 

Review clause and natural removals  

The general approach links the development of the land sink to the review: the 2040 target risks being further weakened if natural removals underperform. The capacity of land sinks has been decreasing over the past years, due to several factors including increased harvests and climate induced changes. If Member States know the target will be lowered to account for underperformance, there is less incentive to protect and enhance land sinks, at a time when they are at their most vulnerable.  

Proper incentives for protecting and enhancing EU land sinks, such as those included in the LULUCF Regulation, and sustainable land management practices are essential. One way to address variability in land sinks is to limit their contribution to the 2040 target, similar to the 2030 approach whereby land sinks contribute 225 MtCO₂e while having a sectoral target of 310 MtCO₂e. This provides clarity while preserving the ambition of the LULUCF target itself. Importantly, failure to meet land sink goals should never justify weakening overall climate ambition, and human-caused reduction of sinks must be considered so it can be minimised. 

Permanent carbon removals 

The general approach acknowledges the “realistic contribution of carbon removals” which is a positive step as it explicitly acknowledges its necessary contribution while recognising its limitations. However, it does not clearly distinguish between permanent carbon removals (so-called ‘industrial removals’) and natural removals, nor set a separate, limited contribution for permanent removals which is key for clarity, avoiding overreliance and preserving environmental integrity. Furthermore, the implicit role of permanent CDR appears to justify a less ambitious emission reduction pathway, undermining the purpose of permanent removals. Recommendations from the IPCC and ESABCC highlight that carbon removals should be additional to emission reduction efforts such that their deployment can accelerate the net reduction of emissions, as opposed to simply offsetting emissions which could have been avoided. 

Introducing removals under the EU ETS should be considered with caution and restricted quantitatively and qualitatively to a possible and limited role to avoid undermining its core purpose and to avoid delaying decarbonisation efforts. Bellona recommends an indirect interaction of CDR with the EU ETS rather than a direct integration within the system.    

In this context, Bellona calls on the European Parliament to:  

• Give the green light to the headline 90% net emission reductions target 

• Strictly limit the use of international credits – in quantity (no more than 3%), timing (not before 2036), ensuring only high quality credits can be used. 

• Set a separate, ambitious contribution for land sinks and a limited contribution for domestic permanent carbon removals 

Phase-out of free allowances

The comments made by the Council on the EU ETS are also very concerning. The proposed slow down or delay of the phase-out of free allowances would send the wrong price signal, discouraging investments in clean technologies and undermining the regulatory stability needed for industries to decarbonise. This would also impact the CBAM’s implementation, sending the wrong signal to trade partners, most of which rose climate ambition as a consequence of the phase-in of the Mechanism. 

Context 

The EU has the ambition to become the first climate neutral continent by 2050. To get there, a target was set to reduce net emissions by 55% compared to 1990 levels by 2030. The European Climate Law is currently being revised to set an intermediate target for 2040, requiring a joint agreement by EU Member States and the European Parliament. Meanwhile, on the international stage, ahead of the COP in Belém, the EU should have already submitted its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) but has missed both the February 2025 and September 2025 deadlines. The NDC requires a unanimous decision by Member States.  

Today and yesterday, EU environment ministers held an extraordinary meeting to agree on a general approach for the 2040 climate target and the 2035 NDC. The European Parliament still needs to adopt its position through committee votes and a plenary vote. Once the Parliament has its position, trilogue negotiations between Member States, the European Commission and the Parliament can begin to find a common agreement on the 2040 target. 

• Press Release 05.11.25 (pdf)