The European Union is weighing a “brake clause” that could weaken its proposed 2040 climate target if Europe’s forests and other land-based carbon sinks fail to absorb as much CO₂ as expected, according to a draft compromise circulating among member states.
The clause, seen ahead of a meeting of EU environment ministers on Tuesday, would allow the European Commission to propose an adjustment to the intermediate 2040 goal to reflect shortfalls in the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector. The ministers’ session on 4 November is intended to deliver agreement before Commission President Ursula von der Leyen attends the UN COP30 summit later in the week.
The Commission has recommended a 90% net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 compared with 1990 levels, as a waypoint between the existing 55% cut for 2030 and the legally binding objective of climate neutrality by 2050. The draft compromise reflects concerns among several capitals that the land sector may not deliver the removals counted upon when the 90% figure was modelled.
France has advocated an explicit “emergency brake” trimming up to three percentage points from the 90% target if LULUCF underperforms, mirroring ideas that surfaced in leaders’ discussions last month and now appear in the ministers’ text as an option to recalibrate. Other leaders have also supported including a revision clause in the 2040 target architecture.
The debate is sharpened by scientific assessments indicating Europe’s forest carbon sink has deteriorated in recent years. Research led by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre found that the average annual CO₂ removal by forests in 2020–2022 was nearly one-third lower than in 2010–2014, due to factors including wildfires, drought, pests and management practices. The European Environment Agency has separately warned that the decline could jeopardise sectoral milestones for 2030 without corrective measures.
Alongside the LULUCF clause, ministers are considering other flexibilities. Earlier drafts floated a two-yearly review cycle for the 2040 target, a step that some governments argue would maintain responsiveness to data while critics say it could erode investment certainty. Denmark, which holds the rotating presidency of environment ministers, has indicated that conditions now exist for a deal, though officials caution that negotiations remain finely balanced.
A further fault line concerns the possible use of international carbon credits to meet a portion of the target. Positions diverge: France has suggested allowing credits to cover around 5% of the required reductions; Germany has publicly backed 3%; Poland has pressed for a larger share; while others, including Denmark earlier in the process, were wary of offsets. The EU’s scientific climate advisory board has warned the bloc against leaning on credits, arguing that this could deflect investment from domestic decarbonisation and repeat problems of environmental integrity seen in past offset schemes.
The outcome on Tuesday will hinge on whether at least 15 of the 27 member states back a common line on the 2040 goal and the EU’s post-2030 nationally determined contribution to be submitted to the UN. Officials say securing agreement before COP30 would signal continuity of ambition after a year in which several governments have highlighted industrial competitiveness and energy costs.
Behind the technical language lies a strategic calculation about how much the EU can count on natural sinks by 2040. The Commission’s impact work assumed a recovery in removals as forest management adapts, but recent datasets and satellite-based assessments show sustained pressure on Europe’s forests. While forests still cover roughly 40% of EU land and historically have offset about a tenth of human-caused emissions, their shrinking sink implies a larger burden on energy, industry, transport and buildings unless removals are restored.
If ministers adopt a brake clause tied to LULUCF performance, Brussels could also propose measures to put the sector back on track rather than solely adjusting the target. Options discussed by agencies and researchers include modifying harvesting regimes, boosting climate-resilient species mixes, expanding afforestation and restoration, and improving fire prevention—steps that would take time to influence the emissions inventory.
The immediate test is political. Several capitals want flexibilities to shield hard-pressed industries while preserving the EU’s credibility in international climate diplomacy. Others argue that frequent revision mechanisms or offset usage would weaken the signal for electrification, clean industry deployment and infrastructure planning. The balance struck this week will indicate how the EU intends to reconcile these pressures as it moves from 2030 implementation to setting its 2040 pathway.
EU set to postpone anti-deforestation law for a second year amid IT concerns
