National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP): Another path is possible,towards a just and green transition
As the impacts of the climate crisis continue to intensify, the European Union (EU) adopted the European Green Deal, setting the goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with the ultimate aim of achieving climate neutrality by 2050. In this context, Cyprus, as an EU member state, is committed to actively participating in this effort by establishing strategies, shaping policies, and implementing mitigation and adaptation measures in response to the climate crisis.
Despite its legal obligations and political commitments, Cyprus remains far from achieving its green transition targets. This is also confirmed by data from the European Environment Agency, which shows that Cyprus ranks among the EU member states with the highest per capita GHG emissions. Thus, the need for more ambitious and effective measures has become pressing.
In line with the Green Deal’s goal of climate neutrality, each EU member state is required to develop and implement its own National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP). These plans focus on five key pillars: (1) decarbonization, (2) energy efficiency, (3) energy security, (4) the internal energy market, and (5) research, innovation, and competitiveness. Although NECPs cover a ten-year period (2021–2030), they are revised every two years to better align with current developments.
New developments arose following the amendment of Regulation (EU) 2018/842 on the Effort Sharing Regulation, which set higher GHG emissions reduction targets both at EU level and for each member state individually. For Cyprus, the revised target is a 32% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, in sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).
To meet this target, and in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, member states were required to submit their revised draft NECPs to the European Commission by June 2023, and their final plans by June 2024. However, Cyprus experienced a significant delay in submitting its final NECP, which led the European Commission to initiate infringement proceedings and send a warning letter to the Cypriot authorities on 14 November 2024. One month later, on 20 December, Cyprus submitted its final revised NECP.
Beyond the delay in submission, another major issue identified was the plan’s lack of ambition. Even under the “with additional measures” scenario (WAM), the maximum projected emissions reduction is only 26%—well below the 32% target. Additionally, there is insufficient reduction in primary energy consumption, and there is no clear plan outlining how and when fossil fuel subsidies will be phased out.
Regarding fossil fuel subsidies specifically, the EU has called on member states to gradually eliminate them and invest instead in clean energy solutions that can support energy-poor households through the green transition. For instance, subsidies for installing heat pumps or investments in building energy upgrades are examples of policies that promote social cohesion, reduce energy costs, and help phase out fossil fuel dependency.
By contrast, in Cyprus, the state continues to subsidize heating oil for households—a policy that, while providing short-term economic relief, ultimately traps citizens in an unsustainable energy model that may burden both households and the environment in the long run.
In this context, Terra Cypria – the Cyprus Conservation Foundationis closely monitoring the implementation of the NECP, advocating for greater transparency, more ambitious climate policies and measures, and a more inclusive and meaningful public consultation process.
Cyprus must intensify its efforts to tackle climate change and fully align with its European obligations, avoiding short-term and unsustainable approaches. After all, designing a sustainable and just transition toward climate neutrality is not only an environmental imperative but also an opportunity for society as a whole—an opportunity to create the conditions for people to live in a clean, healthy, and safe environment. Let us not forget: the cost of inaction—environmentally, socially, and economically—is far higher than the cost of timely and meaningful action.