The European Parliament's ENVI committee on 4 May 2026 held exchanges with Commissioners Várhelyi and Hoekstra on the MFF's climate and environmental impact, revealing splits on ambition, conditionality, and implementation. Várhelyi defended simplification in food safety, biotech, and animal welfare, but faced pushback from Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (Renew), Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA), and Christophe Clergeau (S&D), who argued that the omnibus weakened precaution and traceability. On imports, Esther Herranz García (EPP), Barbara Bonte (PfE), and Sander Smit (ECR) demanded stronger border controls, while Várhelyi cited new audits and AI tools.
Hoekstra defended the ETS as central to decarbonisation, but Peter Liese (EPP) sought more flexibility for industry, Mohammed Chahim (S&D) insisted on conditional free allowances, and Michael Bloss (Greens/EFA) questioned alignment with the 2040 target. On electrification, Lena Schilling (Greens/EFA) pressed for separate fossil and biogenic targets, while Alexandr Vondra (ECR) criticised nuclear taxonomy and coal restrictions.
On the MFF, Daniel Rosskamp (DG BUDG) defended the 35% climate target and coefficient tracking, but Rasmus Nordqvist (Greens/EFA) and Jonas Sjöstedt (The Left) demanded 50% with 10% for biodiversity. Study presenters Jeanette Benschop and Robert Williams (Dynamix) warned that the MFF lowers relative ambition and weakens biodiversity safeguards, especially by absorbing LIFE.
Consensus emerged on stronger border controls, ETS centrality, and clearer green spending tracking, but divergences persisted on ambition, conditionality, and implementation. Next steps: ETS review on 15 July, ENVI opinion vote on 14 July, BUDG/CONT votes in October.