Sánchez and Feijóo's climate plans: more similarities than differences

BarcelonaFrom Navaluenga, in Àvila, one of the provinces where fire has been burning uncontrollably in recent days, the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, insisted this Thursday on political unity "in response, prevention, and reconstruction" of the areas affected by the fires, and once again offered "the extended hand of the Spanish government" to reach "a country agreement" on climate emergency matters, an issue he considers paramount right now. That is to say, as he has done in his recent public interventions, Sánchez once again brought to the table the "State Pact against the Climate Emergency": a plan presented in September 2025 and expanded in December with 15 axes and 80 measures that has not yet seen the light of day due to a lack of political consensus.

The socialists opened talks with parliamentary groups in Congress –and some, like ERC, made their own contributions–, but the main opposition party, the PP, has always been reluctant. This was evidenced this very Thursday by the party's spokesperson in Congress, Miguel Tellado, when he defended his own plan. The popular deputy recalled that Sánchez proposed "an open proposal from Moncloa" just after Feijóo presented his Comprehensive Plan for Aid, Recovery, and Prevention for Rural and Forest Environments –the popular party presented the proposal in August 2025–. Furthermore, he maintained that it was precisely this document that "opened the door to talking about a state pact".

A year later and with another record fire season so far –170,000 hectares burned in 2026–, the fundamental question remains unanswered: why is there no political consensus? Are the two proposals very different?

Two very similar proposals

L'ARA has analyzed the two plans point by point, and the conclusion is that the bulk of the two proposals is quite similar. In forest management – the core of any response to fires – there are no differences in orientation: both opt for active forest management as a prevention tool. The state pact enters into technical detail – prescribed burns, extensive grazing, preventive silvicultural treatments – while the PP remains in a more general statement: "The forest that is used burns less".

Something similar happens with emergency personnel: the state pact proposal dedicates an entire axis to defending the professionalization of firefighters and forest brigades with stable contracts and "decent salaries", while the PP specifies it with measures such as strengthening the Seprona – a specialized unit of the Civil Guard to protect the environment, nature and natural resources – or the dignification of rural professionals. They also agree on wanting to incentivize extensive livestock farming as a prevention tool and on increasing aid to the sector.

The differences: taxation and the registry of "arsonists"

Of the 50 measures proposed by the Popular Party, only a handful do not have an equivalent in the Spanish government's proposal, and all of them focus on two very specific points. The first is taxation: the PP dedicates up to five measures to tax reductions –exemption of fees and taxes for those affected; deductions from personal income tax or corporate tax for companies participating in recovery projects; exemptions and moratoriums on Social Security contributions for those affected by fires or for no one to pay taxes on aid received, in addition to promoting a specific "tax package" for the forestry sector which they do not specify–, while the state pact only states that it "will permanently adapt the tax system to the new climate context", without any specific figures or mechanisms.

The second difference is the national registry of "arsonists" with geolocation bracelets proposed by Feijóo –a measure that experts have questioned, as clinical pyromaniacs only cause 7% of intentional fires– and which does not appear in any of the 15 axes of the Spanish government's document. Therefore, neither of the two points questions the general orientation of the other plan. There is still a third difference: coordination between administrations. The PSOE proposes creating a new state agency for civil protection and emergencies, a new administrative body. The PP, on the other hand, proposes a law for the coordination of fire management and rescue services that takes advantage of the existing structure of the more than 120 fire brigades already deployed in the territory. It also proposes reinforcing the UME –military emergency unit– with new battalions, a commitment that has no equivalent in the state pact.

Beyond the coincidences between the two pacts, the PP's proposal focuses almost exclusively on forest fires; it only mentions climate change once, to request tax benefits for farmers: a point that is almost identical to axis 7.1 of the state pact –both speak of "income for farmers for their contribution to the fight against climate change" in almost the same words–. In fact, of the PP's 50 measures, the vast majority have an almost literal equivalent in one of the PSOE's 15 axes.

On the other hand, the pact proposed by Sánchez dedicates entire sections to issues that the PP does not address: of the 15 sections of the state pact, at least four – the protection of coastal systems, public health in the face of heatwaves, the fight against climate disinformation, or European leadership in decarbonization – have no correspondence in the Popular Party's plan.