As the former European Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans, and Fisheries, Virginijus Sinkevičius was heavily involved in the development of the Nature Restoration Law, the EU Deforestation Regulation and of course the EU Green Deal, which seeks to establish Europe as the first climate-neutral continent by 2050.
In last year’s European elections, Sinkevičius was elected as an MEP in his native Lithuania, in the process switching from the European Commission to the European Parliament for the coming five-year period. As vice president of the Greens/EFA group, he is a staunch defender of progressive values, however he’s also a realist, acknowledging that Europe is losing ground on the global stage, and that more effort needs to be made to counter the arguments put forward by emboldened right-leaning parties.
SustainabilityOnline caught up with him, and we started by discussing the Mercosur trade deal, hailed by Commission president Ursula von der Leyen as a ‘win-win agreement’ last December, but facing opposition from many Member States as it passes through the approval process.
The Mercosur trade deal still has to be approved by EU Member States. In terms of what’s at stake, what’s your own take on the deal?
Well, I’m not so radically opposed. I think there are two fundamental principles. First, if we are opening our market to foreign markets, that’s fine, as long as those markets or importers — farmers in this case — have to adhere to the same standards as our farmers do.
It’s been a long journey, a very difficult one, for our farmers and producers to maintain the standards that are among the highest in the world. But we have those standards because we want to ensure that people’s diets include food that is not grown with antibiotics or on deforested land, and then imported to the EU.
The second thing is that, of course, I also realise that with such trade agreements, we can have an impact around the world. Geopolitically, Europe is losing positions, to Asia, Africa, Latin America. China is already there, squeezing us out, becoming the biggest trade partner, etc. It’s difficult for us because we need to defend our values, but also maintain impact.
Therefore, I think agreements like this are important in that they allow us to bridge with those regions and have a value proposition. Nevertheless, the value proposition cannot deviate from the standards that we have here in the EU.
It seems to me that Ursula von der Leyen was very eager to strike a deal on Mercosur, citing Trump and the potential trade chaos that could ensue. And yet there are people vehemently opposed to this – farmer groups especially. Was it a failure of the Commission to press ahead with this without considering the fallout?
I don’t think it was a failure of the Commission – these decisions are very often pushed by certain Member States.
That’s where the Commission finds itself in a difficult spot. Because, of course, let’s be honest, it’s not the Commission that is going to trade with Latin America. It’s our Member States who are going to trade. So, that’s I think where these decisions are usually coming from.
In terms of your own time as a Commissioner, what steps forward were you most proud of, and where were your frustrations? Obviously the world of 2019, when you joined the Commission, was very different to the world of 2024, when you left it…
The political window of opportunity was wide open at that time, you’re right. I think the Nature Restoration Law was a very hard-fought battle, but we still managed to do it. I’m also proud of the Deforestation Regulation, as well as our whole package adopted on zero pollution, and the first steps that we took on soil. I mean, yes, we would have loved to go further, but we’ve managed to put a foot in the door; that’s been a huge victory.
The biggest frustration, probably, to me was that we didn’t go ahead with the REACH regulation on chemicals, even though I think it was ready to go. Politically, it was very difficult.
After Russia started the war in Ukraine, energy prices increased for businesses, which created a difficult situation. Some businesses really wanted REACH, but they were already under huge pressure from energy prices, so opening a whole new front on regulation would be very difficult.
It’s a question of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ really, but do you think the Ukraine war, and the more recent situation in the Middle East, scuppered the completion of your agenda? Certainly with the Ukraine war there was a reappraisal of energy as an essential resource.
You know, it should have been the opposite. It should have been a reinforcement of the agenda.
But aside from that, the biggest issue with the Green Deal, I think, was that very few people understood the scope of the change we were talking about. Then, when they finally started to realise that scope, the shift that we are aiming to achieve, some politicians got scared. But this is the only way big things get done.
It’s not like banning a plastic straw. We are talking about the transition of the whole economy as we know it today. But people love the status quo.
You know, if you ask a person, ‘Do you want to live better tomorrow?’ they will say yes, but if you ask, ‘Do you want to do something about it?’ then they will start thinking if they really want to put in the effort.
The more right-leaning groups in Europe, such as the EPP, are changing the narrative on the Green Deal, making it seem like a burden. I would suggest that there’s a failure of PR there, on the part of the Greens and other progressives, that the narrative has been allowed to shift. As an MEP now, how much more proactive are you going to be around the narrative side of things?
That’s where we lost ground – we allowed the far right to attack and say that the struggles people are facing today are because of us or because of the Green Deal, which is completely not true. The fact that there’s a nurse or farmer who cannot make a living is nothing to do with the Green Deal; it’s because of the times we live in, where costs have increased significantly, inflation has affected every country, and salaries haven’t grown as much. Also, we have a housing crisis on top of that.
It’s a complex issue. But that’s where the populists have a big advantage because they explain complex things with very simple solutions. They fearmonger and try to find an enemy, on which they then channel all their energy.
Is there a case to be made for adopting a more populist stance yourself? In the times we live in, that emotional messaging, direct messaging, resonates more strongly than talking about the ‘bigger picture’?
It’s true. I think we definitely need that. We need to talk about the everyday problems people face.
When you speak about demographics, you should also speak about whether there are enough places in kindergartens, career opportunities for women, and so on. When you speak about the energy transition, the natural question is whether my energy bill is going to be cheaper or not. I think we need to answer all those questions.
On the topic of competitiveness, how do you see the conversation taking place with the business world over the coming years, that sustainability is good for business?
Well, I think now there’s a good opportunity because many businesses, in those five years, have also moved on. They have incorporated sustainability into their operations. Banks will give you a loan based on your company’s sustainability standards. I think that gives us the opportunity to engage with businesses.
If you look at competitiveness, the issues related to competitiveness have always been there, for different reasons, like access to capital, bureaucratic burden, and so on. Some of these standards we cannot change. We have different standards here.
But at the same time, the EU has been significantly investing into old industries rather than new ones. Look at how many software companies we have. If you look at the top six U.S. companies, they’re all software companies. In the EU, if you look at the biggest companies, they are all manufacturing —automotive or chemicals. That means that Europe is losing its position in the world.
I think we need to talk about the economy of the future and be pragmatic about the change that is going to happen. Then the question is, are we going to be leading that change, or are we just going to import those technologies from elsewhere?
Where’s the low-hanging fruit, then? Where is the opportunity to move the needle?
I think we’ve started off quite well with clean technologies, and we need to continue that. Digital, of course, is a part of that – energy is becoming digital, automotive is becoming digital – so we need to make sure that we move along with the transition.
So the digital transition is essential to you for accelerating the environmental transition?
Absolutely.
To finish, what are your personal expectations for the coming years in the European Parliament?
I work on the TRAN (Transport and Tourism) committee, so I truly hope that we will be able to, first of all, help our automotive industry by creating demand. We see an opportunity to make corporate fleets more sustainable, which will give a boost to the green transition. Also, we need to expand the rail network.
As well as that, we need to use the intermodality of Europe much better. We cannot have our Single Market so fragmented, because no member state can be competitive on its own. So, we need our competitiveness to be enhanced through the Single Market as much as possible.
And keep fighting the uphill battle, as you mentioned?
Absolutely, that’s always the case.
Find out more about Virginijus Sinkevičius here.
