Welcome to Better Europe’s weekly update on EU Affairs.
EU ISSUES FIRST DEREGULATION EXECUTIVE ORDER
While everyone in the Brussels Bubble is busy comparing leaked and final versions of the “Omnibus”, the Commission proposal to unravel the fragile political compromise on sustainable finance and responsible business agreed over the last legislature, a more significant democratic change is hidden behind in procedural subtleties. Just as Trump decided to rename an ocean because he felt like it, von der Leyen decided to scrap sustainability reporting and due diligence obligations for 99.9% of EU companies, with an impact assessment that only looks as costs and a stakeholder consultation that admittedly saw complaints from “a few” businesses that had to be resolved. Some financial supervisors say that speed is more important than accuracy when you are at war. But last time we checked, we were not at war with the cute bureaucracy monster of sustainability reporting. So why did von der Leyen consult with top MEPs to ensure the rules can be fast-tracked to “stop the clock”? And why did she test the final calibrations with Member State ambassadors only a few hours before launching the final 24-hour inter-service consultation last Friday? It’s something that no Brussels dinosaur we spoke to recalls has happened before. Can someone in the Parliament please remind Queen Ursula that, unlike Uncle Donald, she heads the only EU institution that has no popular mandate? And that the Commission should go back to evidenced-based policy-making if it wants a seat at the table?
COMMISSION DREAM OF BIODIVERSITY CREDITS FACES POLITICAL BACKLASH
As UN biodiversity talks resume in Rome, Ursula von der Leyen’s push to create a global market for biodiversity credits is facing headwinds from all sides of the political spectrum. The Commission President’s vision of monetizing nature restoration, pitched as a way to close the $700 billion annual biodiversity funding gap, is struggling to gain political traction. Progressive Parliament groups such as The Left reject the proposal as greenwashing and accuse the Commission of shifting responsibility away from public funding. S&D MEP César Luena echoed these concerns, stressing that environmental protection should not be driven by profit. Meanwhile, conservative voices from the ECR cast doubt on the feasibility of the market, fearing excessive financial burden on businesses. The Greens also remain sceptical, arguing that biodiversity credits could undermine stricter regulatory approaches by allowing polluters to offset rather than reduce their environmental impact. Even Renew Europe, which cautiously supports the initiative, warns that without robust safeguards, the market risks becoming a vehicle for corporate greenwashing rather than genuine nature restoration. Business groups, while open to market-based solutions, have raised concerns about regulatory uncertainty and potential red tape that could stifle investment. With criticism mounting from across the political spectrum, von der Leyen’s proposal risks becoming an isolated vision rather than a cornerstone of biodiversity finance.
EUROPE SIDELINED IN US MINERAL DEAL WITH UKRAINE
The potential deal between the U.S. and Ukraine on access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth is still in the early stages of discussion, but it has been making headlines due to its controversial nature. The deal, first proposed by Donald Trump, would allow the U.S. preferential access to vital minerals such as lithium, graphite, and uranium—critical for American defence and tech industries. Ukraine’s mineral wealth remains largely unverified, with outdated Soviet-era surveys and incomplete data hindering a clear assessment of the country’s resources. On the European side, the Commission has firmly rejected any suggestion of a new, tailor-made deal with Ukraine on raw materials. European Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné made it clear that the EU was not offering Ukraine a “new proposal”, but was continuing to implement the 2021 Memorandum of Understanding. “There is no new deal, there is already a deal,” Séjourné insisted, positioning Brussels’ approach as a long-term partnership rather than a short-term windfall. This cautious European stance contrasts with Trump’s more aggressive push for preferential access to Ukraine’s resources. While both the EU and the US are eyeing Ukraine’s mineral wealth, the debate centres on the scale and timing of potential gains – with the US betting on rapid exploitation and the EU content with a slower, more measured approach based on existing agreements.