Committee on Petitions Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
PETI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
do not believe that it has taken into account all of the public consultation procedure.
In the case of the Maestrago cluster, 22 additions were attached to the projects, which take into account wind resources and other kinds of factors. And then a study was carried out on the construction phase of the project, a prospection on the habitats, a geotechnical study, an emergency plan in case of detecting the death of different insect species, a compensation procedure, and other reports on three or four other projects. And so we believe that the commission should judge whether these projects should be completed before they are publicly consulted on. The second directive is based on the evaluation of the consequences of different projects on the environment. Neither the Spanish state nor the autonomous communities have approved the suitable conditions for the development of renewable projects, which is why we're looking at several large-scale projects in very sensitive areas like Red Natura 2000.
These are environmental corridors or critical areas for species that are in danger of extinction without any kind of specific evaluation. And.
Speaker 3
Best way to assess this in the framework of renewable projects is to see if it is avoiding a planning policy, which does not comply with the directive and Article 3.3 of the Treaty of the EU. And so the question that is asked by the commission is the lack of planning, lack of sufficient planning and will of setting up large scale renewable energy is in line with the directive 2011 42EC. Then we have another directive regarding the conservation of habitats for wild flora and fauna. This is not being applied in the sped up development of the project. And so the cluster affects three different strains.
We're seeing mod they've the builders construction company believes that the impact is moderate when it isn't. And we also believe that this is a project that will affect birds, and therefore does not comply with the directive. And to conclude, for all of the reasons which I haven't been able to present due to the lack of time, we urge the parliament to monitor the complaint that has been put to the Commission by Terrero Landscapes Platform in order to reassess the points that have been presented previously, and for you to open up a procedure in order to ensure compliance with the EU directives. Thank you very much for your attention.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much. Now is the director general for NV environment. Are they here? Thank.
Borja Giménez Larraz
You, Chair, and thank you to the petitioner. I'd like to start by saying.
Please.
Be brief.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much, Chair. And first of all, I'd like to thank the petitioner for taking part in this committee and for the information that they sent through regarding this problem that affects them. With regard to the application of the environmental assessment directive and the question that's asked by the petitioner about whether it would be possible to assess the significant effects on the environment of several projects in one single environmental assessment procedure, the commission can say that yes, it is possible in accordance with the articles in the directive. The effects of the project that are going to be assessed must be described and assessed in a sufficient manner, and the synergies between the different projects in the present moment and in the future must also be assessed. The joint assessment of several projects in an environmental assessment can actually be beneficial, given that it allows us to assess thoroughly those synergies that can exist between different projects.
The requirements of the directive must be complied with in the sense that the significant impacts on the environment have to be assessed adequately. And the commission, unfortunately, cannot go into detail about whether those assessments have been done correctly or not, given that the directive on environmental assessment allows citizens to have access to appeals, an appeals process so that they can contest the legitimacy of the environmental assessments that have been undertaken and that the directive has therefore been complied with. With regard to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, this is not applicable to individual projects. It's applicable to plans or programs that, among others, establish a legal framework for the development and authorization of projects that have to be evaluated in accordance with the directive. So it's an earlier step in the process, and that is why it's called a strategic environmental assessment.
As the petitioner mentioned, this directive does not impose any planning obligations, but rather it establishes that when planning takes place, member states should undertake a strategic assessment if the plan that they have adopted includes significant impacts on the environment. And finally, it comes to the Habitats Directive. In this case, the European legislation foresees that any project that is susceptible to having a significant impact on an area that is included in Red Natura 2000, because of its environmental character or because it includes protected species, should undergo a specific assessment before it's authorized. And so if we reach a conclusion that the project can have negative impact on the Red Natura area, then the project can only be approved when a series of conditions are met, specifically if there are no alternatives or if there is a significant public interest in this project being completed. And then the member states would have to adopt specific compensatory measures in order to protect the Natura 2000 area. If assessments need to be undertaken in line with the different directives, the member states can adopt provisions so that these assessments are done jointly.
All of these provisions that I've mentioned have been correctly transposed into Spanish law. And therefore, the member states have to apply them correctly, and the European Commission systemically monitors this and examines possible systemic non-compliances with these issues if the transposition has been done incorrectly or if practices are insufficient. But given the case presented by the petitioner here, the commission would always refer these to the national courts, as they are the ones who are best placed to decide on any kind of non-compliance with national law. It's also worth bearing in mind that depending on when the project has been assessed, there was a process that was applied through Directive 2022-2557 that was related to the energy crisis that was triggered by the aggression in Ukraine. And so that made that led to certain processes not being applied, like those for renewable energy, for example, as is the case here.
Given the don't know the date of authorization or the characteristics of this project, so we don't know whether these particular clauses would be applicable here, but this is something that I'm sure the petitioners will have taken into account. And that is our position on the case, and we are here at your disposal if you require any further information.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much, but please be disciplined when it comes to speaking time. Now I give the floor to members, and then the EPP is speaking first.
Borja Giménez Larraz
chair. I assume it is my turn now. I'd like to thank the petitioner as well. I'd like to start by saying that renewable energy is a strategic part of the development in Aragon. It's really important for bringing in investment, jobs, and for ensuring a fair transition for the population in Teruel, in particular.
The income that would come from these wind farms would also bring significant benefits for the area. Having said that, it's obvious that the development of renewable energy should be compatible with the development of the territory and the platforms. It should be done in a social way and in accordance with the law, and all procedures should be fully transparent. And that is not happening, unfortunately, in Maestrovskoye. We are aware of corruption in the area which surrounds these projects, and that unfortunately, we're talking here about different statements on the favorable impact on the environment being bought.
The projects are being broken down in order to avoid certain procedures. This affects the Ministry for the Ecological Transition, which at the time was led by Vice President Ribera. This is something that we really need to focus on, and should lead us to more political accountability. We're not here to question the renewable energy projects themselves, but rather the way in which they've been processed. There is a way of confirming these suspicions.
We need to open up a case to see whether fundamental European rights have been violated here. This is the only way to ensure whether financing associated with these projects is fulfilling strictly the European environmental law. This needs to be resolved as quickly as possible, so that we can make progress in crucial projects for Aragon and for the province of Teruel. Thank you.
Thank.
Sandra Gómez López
To the association and for their involvement and all the work they've done. In my group, we believe that renewable energy, which is obviously crucial for sustainable energy and autonomy in Spain, has to be implemented respecting European law, and has to protect our natural heritage and landscape. And we have legitimate concerns about the impact of wind farms on the environment in Aragon. And we believe that several projects are being clustered together under one environmental impact assessment. If we take into account all the information available and having listened to the response of the European Commission, which was quite detailed, there's little room for manoeuvre.
And we have to remember that it is the national authorities to ensure that EU law is correctly applied and enforced. It is true that the environmental assessment already takes into account that different projects can be grouped together in one assessment, and that there are methods and mechanisms for appeals for citizens to contest decisions that they believe illustrate that the law has not been applied correctly. Given the response from the European Commission that leaves us little room for maneuver, we consider that this petition cannot be kept open. We believe that renewable energies need to be developed in an orderly and sustainable way. We believe it's crucial for the energy mix that you need to continue to fight against climate change, protecting biodiversity, and respecting local communities at the same time.
Thank you.
Thank.
You, Mister Bukser.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much to the petitioner. This is another petition regarding the noncompliance of Pedro Sanchez's government. Perhaps we should change the name of the committee altogether and not call it the petty committee, but the committee for those who are cursed by the current government in Spain. But I think we would probably collapse the secretariat with different requests if we called it that. So we've been told that the national government and the authorities have not taken responsibility, but that's actually why we're here.
The petition is just asking for those who are governing to actually be in charge of governing and doing it well. All of these projects should be approved as is established with their independent environmental assessments, even though they can be a generic one undertaken in accordance with the directive. It should still be detailed and should still take into account the different risks and different elements that should be protected when these projects are underway. An impact assessment procedure for 20 different projects at once does not seem adequate. Families are seeing how different windmills and solar panels are being installed in areas where they were previously working in order to grow crops.
And we're seeing how this not only is ruining the landscape in the countryside, but it has another dark side. We're seeing how in Spain, there was a blackout for an entire day. Under the flag of environmental green practices, we're seeing deterioration and a lack of control of public policy. The ex minister of the ecological transition and vice minister, vice president of the commission will probably be able to answer many of the questions we have given that she was the one who kept the person in their role during the Forrestaria case. We've seen cases of money laundering related to these wind conglomerates.
So now it's time to fight against Sanchez's wind farms and turbines, the turbines of the green pact. These are bringing down an entire area of Spain. And so my group wants this petition to remain open and for us to continue to demand accountability from the Spanish government.
Speaker 13
Thank you very much, Chen. First of all, I would like to fully support the petitioner and the different entities that are working on the ground, that have been working on the ground for years now to preserve their way of life. And renewables should be established in a sustainable way that is fair and in line with the community. This is not an isolated case. I'd like to make this clear to the representative from the Commission.
It should be done properly, in line with the area and in a sustainable way. This is not an isolated case. We've seen how systematically there has been a proliferation of two major issues. The first is the non participation of the entities on the ground. We're not listening to the communities on the ground and those who should be involved in the urban planning and the citizens themselves.
Here, we're dealing with families who have been living in the area since the fourteenth century, guarding, looking after that area. And now we're seeing speculation, energy speculation undertaken by mafia-style companies, and they're having to sacrifice not only their way of life, but also their land. We're seeing how systematically environmental guarantees are being ignored. European directives are not being complied with. And the petition explained it very well, but it's not just something we're seeing in this petition.
We're seeing it systematically, how the cumulative load, cumulative effect on the landscape, protected landscapes are quite evident. And on top of this, we're seeing how this case has already been to court and the petitioners are already being the court's already ruling in their favor, especially when it comes to corruption cases. And now I cannot look away, and it's telling that depending on who is undertaking the corruption, they're the writer in favor of or against. For Estalia, are building this project, there are actually ex-ministers from the People's Party who are directly implicated, and it's quite a coincidence that that's not being mentioned. So having said that, because we want to be consistent, depending on which way the wind is blowing, we will be consistent.
We don't want any corruption in renewable energy cases. We are against energy speculation in the area, which is why we support this petition. We ask the commission to keep this petition open to study it in depth and to ensure that any noncompliance with EU legislation is investigated. And I would like to end by saying that you should visit this petitioner, the area, the different entities, and actually be there on the ground, because I truly believe that if you did that, you would be in favor of this petition.
Madam.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much, chairman. I'd also like to thank the petitioner for bringing this issue to the European Parliament. It's a vital issue. Of course, Kim, we believe that the green transition and renewable energies for that transition cannot be done to the detriment of people in the regions and to the detriment of those people who are suffering because the planning is not being done properly. These projects and mega projects are being done to serve economic interests and against those of the citizens.
Speaker 17
For that reason, this green transition and transition towards renewables cannot be done like a business or in a way which is antidemocratic or which harms the citizens. The Maastrichtko Clusco, for example, is not an isolated case. This is a structural problem, a structural problem which goes far beyond that. It's about needs to implement the green transition. In this case, they're doing it as if it were a business, and it's been done incorrectly in this case, there being deficiencies in planning.
Speaker 18
And I would like to stress that it's important to look at the cumulative effect of this. Before the war in Ukraine, this was analyzed. There haven't been any compensatory measures put in place. Since 2021, our group has been focusing on this matter. And we actually reported this to the prosecutor in Spain because of the abuses that are being carried out in the region.
Speaker 16
And there was an investigation by the civil guard in Spain into this corruption. And we insist that the European Commission assess the incompatibility here with European law and strategic assessment. And it needs to be done properly because within the Spanish state, all of the process has come to an end, and that is why we are turning to the European Commission. For these reasons, we would like the petition to be kept open because it's extremely important, not just for the Maestroethko cluster, but for the whole of the region, for all people and for all citizens who are being affected by this transition to wind farms and renewable energies in a very, very unfair way. You.
Elena Nevado del Campo
Thank you very much, Chairman. I would like to put this in context. Here, what we're talking about is the Forestalia case. People know about this in Spain, an energy macro project under Pedro Sanchez's government with the support of the person who's now Vice President of the European Commission, Teresa Ribera, who was the minister in the ministry where these projects were approved. Now to hear the left saying that they reported this. This is pure double standards because they are supporting the most corrupt government in the history of Spain.
Pedro Sanchez, who has his wife who has been charged, they have a transport minister and the secretary general of his party who have been charged and who are in prison, and another secretary general charged. Yet here, we're talking about the ministry for the ecological transition. That is under suspicion because the minister was the now Vice President of the Commission, Ms. Ribeira. What we're talking about here is extremely serious.
It is being investigated in Spain, and the European Union needs to be very cautious and needs to be vigilant as to what is happening, because the minister in question is now vice president of the European Commission. This happened in Spain, so we need to be very careful here in Europe because we cannot see people shirking their responsibilities. We can't have such double standards. I would like to thank the petitioners for bringing this issue to the committee because the Matrasco Cluster is perhaps the most visible example. More than 170 high voltage lines in a Natura 2000 area and more than €800,000,000 in a project.
This is all approved through an environmental assessment that was not rigorous at all. It was approved without any checks or monitoring being carried out. So the commission needs to demand explanations from the Spanish government, and this needs to be looked at very closely. At the end of the day, these are European funds that are at risk.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much indeed. Okay. Now the petitioner can have the floor if they are still here, remotely. Two minutes.
Speaker 3
Well, just very briefly. We turned to the parliament and the commission with this petition, and that's because we had already exhausted all of the parts in Spain. We even tried to litigate this. But for whatever reason, this was rejected. And I would like to stress one very important thing.
When we talk about the processing of projects, what's happening is the symptom of people trying to avoid implementing the European directives. If there's only one environmental impact assessment and if there are twenty construction authorizations, this will end up accumulating in one. This is a clear breach of the directives that I mentioned at the beginning. And it's a way of avoiding compliance with these directives. This is affecting many different regions.
It's affecting the Nature 2000 network as well. And we have turned to the parliament because what is being called into question here is the whole Nature 2,000 network. It's not a specific area or region. No, it's Nature 2000 in Spain. This is important for the rest of the European Union, because it's about preserving biodiversity.
Now, and this goes beyond the court cases. What we need to see is directives being respected. That's what we are calling for, and that's what we've stressed, and that's what our petition is based on. So we would like to ask you to keep the petition open so that these directives are respected in all the states. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. The petition remains open. And we will be waiting for the updated reply from the European Commission. Although the commission has once replied, given the questions that we've heard here, we need the commission to update their reply. That was the opinion of the members of the European Parliament present here.
So moving on to item five, petition number 2184/2025 by Katarina Kruhonia from Croatia on behalf of the initiative for a Green pampas on a landscaping development project along the banks of the Drava River in Osijek in Croatia. The petitioner is connected remotely. Do we have the connection? You have five minutes.
Mirko Andric
Good morning. My name is Mirko Andric, and I represent the initiative for the Green Pampas. We are trying to stop this project because we are trying to keep this part of the urban area of the Drava River in Osiec still in a natural state. Can I have the next slide? Here, you can see what we are about to discuss today.
First, generally about the project, then about how this area looks today, and how it is supposed to look tomorrow. Can I have the next slide? So this is an area that is marked here on the map. This is the area between the urban area of the city of Osijek and the River Drava. Its name is Pampas.
It is currently endangered because they want to pour concrete into the green area. The investors would like to make this area serve the purposes of recreation and flood defense. Can I have the next slide? This is how it looks today. It's a beautiful green area that serves more than 30,000 people.
This is the only green zone in this urban area of the city. It is extremely important for the city because it is the last non-urbanized riverbank in the city itself. And more than 100,000 people are dependent on it in a wider area. Can I have the next slide? Now this is how it is supposed to look in the future.
So this is full of concrete. They are planning to pour between 7,010 tons of concrete and asphalt into this protected area. They also like to make a huge concrete island that would completely change the landscape. Osiak is the most affected city in Europe by heat islands. And if we have this concrete island, it is going to make Osiak even warmer.
Can I have the next slide? And we can go next. Can we go on to the video or follow the presentation? There are four key concerns, and we can see that the rules have been breached in all 4 areas. Can we have the next slide?
You can see here that they are planning to build something in the area of 3 different protected areas. First, Natura 2000. So 7,000 to 10,000 tons of concrete in a Natura 2000. Furthermore, there is a regional park, Muradava River, which is also a very important natural reserve in Croatia bordering on Hungary. And especially worrying fact is that their study did not take into account at all the fact that they are trying to build in the only world peta natural cross-border natural reserve of biosphere.
And its name is Muradrava Danube River Reserve. So we have three directives that are being breached here: environmental impact assessment on habitats, and on natural restoration. This project is also contrary to the resolution of the European Parliament, water resilience strategy, as well as managing and protecting Natura 2000. We are especially concerned about the fact that they are breaching the Directive 1991, which runs contrary to the project that is currently being planned. They only made a small study on the protection, and it is not equivalent to an impact study.
And the study itself showed that there is no danger of floods, and there is no justification to build such a huge concrete dam. You can see that there was a study published in The Lancet, which said that the excess mortality in Osiak is the highest in Europe. And yet they are planning to pour more concrete here. Okay. That's alright.
The same company that is planning this project also conducted the environmental impact study. And the same company, the same investor is receiving European funds to renaturalize the riverbank just a few kilometers further away. We demand that the project be stopped immediately, that the project be revised according to the principle of do no significant harm. And our end message is we are witnessing breaches of national and European legislation. We have already made several complaints, but were rejected.
And you are the only people who can stop this project in our beautiful green area. You are the only people who can let our river continue with its natural breathing. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
You will have the opportunity to take the floor later for two minutes. Now I'd like to give the floor to DG Environment.
Speaker 21
Thank you, chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The PLANET project is located inside two Natura 2000 sites designated under the birds and habitats directive. Article 6-3 of a directive requires that any plans or projects likely to have significant negative effects on Natura 2000 sites, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, be subject to an appropriate assessment in view of the implications for the site's conservation objectives. The competent national authority can agree to a plan or project only after having a certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of a site's concerned or if a condition specified in article 6.4 are fulfilled.
Member states must also take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of habitats and of habitats of species, as well as significant disturbance of species for which the sites have been designated. While projects for landscaping developments are not expressly listed in the annexes of the directive 2011-92 on environmental impact assessments, they may be considered urban development projects falling under Annex II of the directive. For such projects, there is no requirement for a mandatory EIA. Member states have to determine either by a case by case examination or according to thresholds or criteria, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment because of its likely significant effects on the environment, taking into account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex three of a directive. Amongst the selection criteria to be used by the respective competent authorities to determine if an Onex two project should be subject to an EIA are the size and design of the whole project, cumulation with other existing and/or approved projects, pollution and nuisance, as well as risks to human health.
The EIA directive also includes specific provisions on access to justice, allowing the citizens and nongovernmental organizations to challenge decisions breaching the directive in front of national courts. As regards the alleged inconsistency of a project with the provisions of a nature restoration regulation on river connectivity, it should be stressed that the regulation does not prevent building embankments. It requires member states to make an inventory of artificial barriers and to design and implement plans for removing obsolete ones. In view of contributing to restoration objectives of a regulation as well as to the EU wide target of restoring 25,000 kilometers of rivers to free flowing conditions between 2020 and 2040, 30, sorry. Concerning the water framework directive, if a project is expected to lead to negative impacts on associated water bodies, it can only be authorized by the competent authority if duly justified according to the criteria set out in Article 4-7, including that the project must be of overriding public interest, that there are no better environmental options, and that all practical mitigation measures are taken to mitigate the adverse effects of a project on water status.
The primary responsibility to ensure compliance with the above-mentioned requirements lies with member state authorities and courts. Accordingly, according to publicly available information, Creation authorities have assessed the impacts of proposed projects on the relevant Natura 2000 sites as required by article 6.3 of a directive and on the relevant water bodies under the water framework directive as required to assess wherever an exemption under article 4.7 is necessary. They have concluded that significant impacts of a project on the sites and water bodies concerned are not likely. Furthermore, according to publicly available information, the petitioner has requested the authorities to review the decision. In the petition, the petitioner, however, didn't provide any information about the reply of the authorities to these requests or about the reasons for possible rejection of a request.
In conclusion, on the basis of information provided, the commission cannot conclude on a breach of habitats, water framework, or EIA directives and the nature restoration regulation. The commission invites the petitioner to pursue the issue with competent regional and national authorities and, if necessary, judicial authorities which are competent to review the relevant administrative decisions. Thank you.
Thank.
Elena Nevado del Campo
Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you to the petitioner, Mr. Mirko, for defending his petition. This highlights a very sensitive issue. This requires a balanced approach because this is an urban project alongside a river in an area of high ecological value near to nature 2000 areas. Now if there's an absence of a full environmental assessment or Natura 2000 wasn't taken into account, then that is not good.
What the EPP would like to say is that we should not block any projects here. No, we should ensure that EU legislation is complied with, and that EU funds are used properly. In this case, according to what the European Commission has said, the Croatian authorities acted in a scrupulous manner, in line with the law. We defend a responsible and balanced approach to protecting the environment, but we, above all, respect EU legislation. And we want that projects to be allowed when they comply with the law, and if they are in the general public interest, as it is in this case, apparently.
Murielle Laurent
Thank you very much, Chairman. I'd like to thank the petitioner for the petition. No particular remarks here because the petitioner explained it very well, but the s and d would, in any case, like the petition to remain open. Thank you.
Thank.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you very much. I come from Croatia, and I am fully aware of this project and the possibility of pouring concrete alongside the River Drava. Unfortunately, the city of Osiak lost 100,000 people recently because people are leaving that area. When I heard about the project, I was really shocked that there was a project at the heart of the city because the River Drava is really in the middle of the city. So they're trying to devastate the area by pouring concrete alongside the embankment.
And certainly, many citizens of Osiak are very disappointed. The proof of it is that they are trying to stop the project in various ways. The petitioner has clearly explained where the problem lies and which are the possibilities of violating European law. It was interesting to hear the representative of the European Commission. We're waiting for the written reply, and that's why this petition is going to stay open.
He says that apparently everything is okay legally, but how can it be okay to pour some 10,000 tons of concrete alongside the River Drava? What did we go wrong with the legislation? This should be a protected area. And also, there are so many climate changes. The heat waves are there, and the temperatures are rising.
And we have just heard from the petitioner that the city of Osiris, one of the cities in Europe where heat waves are very present. So I hope that this petition is going to stay open, and we would like to have a written reply, which is going to be more detailed, and we can obviously address the local and regional authorities and ask them to tell us what they can say about the project because people are very worried.
Damien Carême
Just very briefly, chairman, to thank the petitioner for presenting this case. I don't really want to add too much to what my colleague, Mr. Botanac, said, but our group would indeed like the petition to be kept open. Thank you.
Good.
Mirko Andric
Morning. Once again, I would like to stress what we said before, and what is important, that there are three directives that here could be violated. It's a very important area not only for the local citizens, but also for the ecological belt. Why have we always been getting the negative answer? Because the studies were saying that it is going to be really a low impact.
That's why there was just a basic study that was made, because they simply said that there will not be great changes to the areas, which is wrong. There are going to be very important changes in this area. And, also, they did the study to see what the impact would be, but that's only one of a lower level. And that was done by the same company that was going to do the works, which is morally wrong. We are not against doing things in that area.
It can be done, in a much better way. There's no need to have 10 thousand tons of concrete poured around that area. It should be done according to environmental standards, the modern standards of the European Union, and we should prevent heat waves because our city is the one who suffered most from heat waves in Europe. Thank you, and warm greetings from.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much. The petition remains open. And, of course, we look forward to the written reply from the European Commission. Thank you very much. Now.
Gordan Bosanac
Have the written letter sent to the local authorities on the project to give us more information. Yeah. That was the request on behalf of the PETI.
Indeed.
Bogdan Rzońca
If other groups agree, then absolutely. So my question to everyone present here representing other groups other than the Greens, would you agree that we should send a letter to the yes? Okay. Thank you very much. We can do that, then.
There is approval. So we're going to write to the local authorities. Thank you very much. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, before we move on to point six, I would like to share with you something really sad.
The study that we're going to discuss and the petition that was published was supervised by Nina Sokolska, our administrator, who used to work in the department for citizens issues, justice and institutional affairs, and earlier in 2015 until 2018 in our secretariat. Now I would like to express our admiration and appreciation for her work. We remember her well, and I regret to inform you that Ina Sokolska has passed away. She passed away in late December 2025.
Let.
Bogdan Rzońca
us move on to point six, presentation of the study on air pollution in the European Union commissioned by the policy department for citizens, equality, and culture at the request of the petty committee. I have the pleasure to welcome Doctor. Yigi Budichka, professor at Masaryk University. Now, Mr. Vodicka will present the study on air pollution in the European Union.
Is Mr. Vodicka here? Indeed. Thank you very much. You have 10 minutes.
Thank you.
Jiri Vodička
Good morning, everyone, and thank you for having me. And in this few minutes, I would like to discuss with you and maybe introduce to you some of my findings that I have discovered during my preparation of this study. Well, the study is called air pollution in the European Union, and I have looked at it more from a legal perspective. However, next slide, please. We have some background information, so we all know how this is going to be about.
Speaker 33
The air pollution within the EU is still an ongoing problem. We are seeing that limit values are exceeded throughout the member states. However, on the other hand, the quality of the air, or the ambient air quality, has been gradually improving since the seventies and nineties. On the other hand, we are still facing about 360,000 premature deaths every year, due to the air pollution. And we are also, we also know that the air pollution has significant impacts on different societal groups, and the effects or it affects the member state and region, municipalities, or zones, and agglomerations differently based on the GDP and socioeconomic status of its citizens or inhabitants.
Speaker 32
So this was a little bit of background information. When we are talking about air pollution, we have to acknowledge that we are also talking about the human health and protection of human health. And so this is the information that should be embedded, and it is embedded within the air pollution or legislation. Next slide, please. If you are looking at the legislation that is in place right now, we have basically two directives.
The current one, 2008/50 on the ambient air quality. It presents a robust legal framework. However, there are some gaps that still remain, and they may remain within the new air quality directive. For example, we are still waiting for the close alignment with the WHO standards or recommendations. And there's a huge gap in the implementation of the member states.
And we are seeing it also throughout the infringement procedures because some of those procedures can last up to 17 years, which is just too long. And on the one hand, it can be justified because the measures that are adapted to improve the air quality take time. On the other hand, seventeen years is a very long time, and citizens living in those affected areas are still living in very polluted areas. So, again, this is the issue, with public health and health concerns as a general. Next slide, please.
But I also identified why member states fail to comply with the legislation or with the ambient air quality and directive. There are still some insufficient or political unwillingness to implement it more thoroughly. Also, as I already told you, socioeconomic constraints, especially the GDPs in some regions, just won't allow it to protect the air more. And, of course, some member states really do not post any strict or stringent regulation towards the heating and boilers within households. And, of course, we are a car dependent society.
And when we are talking about air quality, we just inevitably end up at vehicle restrictions. So this is a huge issue we have right now. And, of course, some vertical coordination between national, regional, or state authorities in some member states are still lacking. And next slide, please. And this is the role for the PETTY, because on the one hand, some European institution and executive agencies don't necessarily have the information needed.
And therefore, that is very vital and important to have the petitioners from each individual member state to provide us with the information needed, and maybe to initiate later some legislative proposals based on that. And we are also seeing that the air quality issue is still dominant within the petitions. And next slide, please. In my study, I've identified some instruments that are in place or best practices within the member states. And I have divided it into several categories.
The first one is clean energy and domestic heating. And we are seeing that if we transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, then not only do we combat climate change, but also the secondary effect is combating air pollution and air polluting substances. So this is the, I would say, a secondary effect or additional effect of transition to renewable energy sources. We are also seeing that the awareness campaigns within some member states helped a lot, and citizens are fully aware of what to burn and not to burn in their ovens and boilers. We also have some lighthouse examples.
For example, in Czechia, we had this economic instrument that subsidized the replacement of old boilers to new ones, and it has helped a lot, and it's still ongoing. But we are not the only member state. Other member states also have something or similar, an instrument like that. And next slide, please. And I already told you that, the traffic management or vehicle sector or transport sector is also very much here, issue.
This is very much an issue. And we are talking about air quality. Some member states are actively combating that by addressing it through low emission zones or zero emission zones. And we are seeing that it works, and we have some studies on that also done by other researchers. We're also seeing that ban or restricting or limiting or limitation of vehicles also may prove to be beneficial to the air quality. Also, public transportation and active mobility is one of the core principles that we should strive for.
And, but we are also seeing that one of the best examples we have right now is the integrated approach towards all of those issues, because once the member states try to fully integrate the spatial planning, the transport sector, noise pollution, air pollution within one plan, one strategy, one program, it, we are seeing that it works. Next slide, please. So what are my recommendations, on the EU level? And, I have talked about it or discussed it within my study. There are some still weak links or huge gaps between the air quality framework on one hand, and on the other hand, the individual polluting sources.
This is the huge issue, that many researchers and academics already published on, because we need to have a synergy within the legislation, and it still lacks. We also should be thinking about harmonization of low emission zones throughout Europe and maybe, try to focus on the enforcement of low emission zones because even though some member states have something like these instruments within their national legal systems, there may be political will to adopt them. So this is also an issue. We should also, and this is, well, maybe just an idea, strive for, or maybe introduce right to clean air. I know this might be a divisive topic, but it is something that has been gradually forming within the case law of the CGU.
And, of course, we should align the EU limit values with WHO recommendations. Next slide, please. And on the national level, those recommendations are nothing new, because in the previous studies, the researchers have also identified the same issues, same instruments. So just to summarize them, it's about restricting fossil fuel sources. It's about limiting or restricting vehicles.
But on the other hand, it's also to incentivize the shift or transformation of those polluting sources. And, of course, this is the main issue here. The member states should strive for an integrated approach because we are seeing that this just works. Next slide, please. And that's all for me.
And if you have any other questions, we have the study, and thank you for your attention.
Thank.
Speaker 37
Good morning, and thank you for the presentation. The commission very much welcomed the study, and it's good to have studies that still highlight the importance of air quality and underlines the threats that air pollution cause to human health and to the environment. And we also recognize that despite the improvement we see in air quality over Europe, it still remains a pressing problem. And in particular, in Europe urban areas, we see still high concentrations of air pollution, and that's what triggered a bit the revision of the ambient air quality directives. And, therefore, I think this study comes at a useful moment to guide member states in the implementation and early in the transposition and early implementation of this new piece of legislation that, also, adds new requirements and aims to target those problems that remain in Europe, concerning air quality.
Speaker 34
We also see that the study highlights the role of civil society in improving implementation and enforcement of air quality legislation, and that is a good reminder. We also looked at the policy recommendation and we take good note of it. We will have a closer look, and we would simply like to make three comments on the study. The first one concerned the revised air quality directive, and we would like to recall that it had brought already a closer alignment with the WHO air quality guidelines and that the levels that have been chosen are based on best available scientific evidence, and this has been now translated in political reality, in a lit legal reality also. Also, this new air quality directive includes new provisions on access to justice, compensation, and penalties that really aim to support this role of civil society in the implementation of the air quality legislation.
Maybe some would have wanted to see more ambitious outcome, but it is also the result of the process and the decision taken by
Speaker 34
Legislature. So that is also good to have in mind. The second point we wanted to raise is the effectiveness of enforcement. On this point, the commission does not really share the view that the enforcement is not an effective tool, that the infringement procedure has not been effective to compel the member state to comply. The number of infringements is still very high.
This is correct, but they have nevertheless been effective in reducing noncompliance. The exceedance are not so high as they were in the past, and the number of zones that are concerned by those exceedances are not so many as before. So we see a good improvement in the situation over time. And finally, the last point is on the cooperation between member states, a point that you highlighted in the study, and we see cooperation between member states as a positive, and we really think that they can learn from each other. We, therefore, welcome compiling and exchanging possible air quality measures between member states.
It is in the air quality directive, based on a subsidiary principle. Therefore, we refrain from imposing specific measures on member states, and we trust that the local authorities are the best place to determine which measures are the best suited for the local situation. Over in this context, we would like to highlight an instrument that we use. It is the TAIEX EIR peer to peer tool, which has proven very effective in the past to foster exchange among authorities and cooperation between member states, and this can be a good basis for this cooperation you're mentioning. And that would be it from the commission side.
Thank you very much, again.
The group.
Speaker 36
Thank you. I would now like to give the floor to representatives of the political groups, Mr. Agios.
Speaker 38
Like to thank the secretariat for their work, including the lady you mentioned and the policy department of the European Parliament.
Speaker 39
The researchers who worked on the study. I think it's essential that we base our decisions on evidence, and these studies improve our process as legislators. I have some suggestions. These activities, these hearings have to be publicized more. This study has a lot of value, and the parliament must make a better effort to make sure more colleagues are present.
Speaker 38
Another point I'd like to mention is that, and this is a suggestion for the future, we should include more evidence presented in a simple way for us politicians. Of course, time is an issue for us, and infographics could help, for example. And in this study, I'd like a comparative study as regards the member states' performance in this area. This would help. This would have helped.
However, nevertheless, this is a very good study, and there are some very important points for us to consider as legislators. When we consider the details and what the study is mentioning, member states are exceeding all the limits in many infringement cases. So in the last five years, we passed a number of laws on emissions. And it seems that our conscience is evolving, however, in this case. But the air quality, the quality of the air our children are breathing, is not something we can guarantee.
Speaker 39
So we're focusing on the emissions on a worldwide scale, but we're ignoring our towns and villages. And the study makes it deficient in implementation and enforcement. And when we consider what the council of ministers is doing and how they vote on these laws, it's really something that makes you laugh. Perhaps there could be some abstentions. However, almost all of them vote in favor.
But then, when it comes to implementation, everybody tries to madly search for an excuse to stop them from implementing laws. Can we continue in this way? The European Commission is obviously doing its work. The situation isn't easy. Now, access to justice and NGOs.
Do you know that in Malta, and this is an article that has been published recently, NGOs cannot present a case against the government in the environmental field. They don't have locus standi, so they are invisible to our courts as NGOs. So I cannot ask the government to explain why it's not implementing noise pollution, air, and water laws. And we have a problem with wastewater and motors as well. Now back to Mortem.
We also have the highest rate of mortality due to respiratory issues. There's a lot of traffic on our roads, and this is not just a political issue, but 6 percent of our population suffers from asthma, and 470 were admitted to hospital because of asthma cases. And this is double the WHO standards. Sometimes you have to laugh, because you have to mention these things. What are we doing?
And especially Malta, we have a scheme now to renounce your driving license. You take an amount of money and you stop driving, and 100 people applied for this. However, how many other people applied for a driving license? 6,800 people applied for that, and this is really something that makes you laugh. So Europe has to put its money where its mouth is, and invest in green mobility.
And this is a political point. Many of these schemes, these ETS schemes, like the Innovation Fund, put too much emphasis on innovation. However, we need results. We need quality. We need air quality, and this is a very important message for our MFF negotiations.
Thank you.
The socialist.
Thank.
Murielle Laurent
You, chair, and also thank you for the study. The study clearly sets out the situation with air quality, and also shows that together, we have to be able to do something about this because it's an issue of public health. This is something that's very clear. And now both the EU and member states have to be able to work to do something about this through legislation that needs to be properly implemented quickly. Otherwise, you know, we can take time to do studies, then you have to pass laws, then member states have to start to implement the legislation.
Now, of course, the legislation is banned, and we have to be clear on that. But I think what is worrying, and here, I'm referring in particular to the French case, is that there are laws that have been adopted recently, particularly on low-emission zones. In fact, this was decided yesterday in the French parliament, is that some of these are going to be stopped. So we're not moving in the right direction to improve air quality. In France, there are 40,000 deaths per year as a result of poor air quality.
We also have the issue of PFAS. These have been defect detected officially in the air, in case anyone didn't know about that. So these are all topics that we're going to have to work on, and where we, and when I say we, I'm referring here to the EU. We're going to have to work on legislation that can be implemented quickly. There's also political responsibility from the European Parliament, and that seems to be well. If you look at some of the texts that have arrived recently, they seem to be being undone, and this responsibility isn't being accepted properly.
So we're going to.
have to ensure.
That our texts do apply properly in the member states.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you, chair, and thank you for presenting the study. For us, Greens, it's not surprising, and we very much welcome all the findings. Also, we've been highlighting many issues that have been found in this study as the very important one. And it's good to hear at least in this committee that there is a strong agreement between groups how we should really care on air pollution, combating air pollution, but then we all have to remind us when we will also vote on some other legislative acts which are actually working against these goals that we also should keep in mind the findings of this study because we know what was happening, unfortunately, in this parliamentary term that under the cover of simplification, we have they regulate many important legislation which actually is here to protect the citizens also from the air pollution. So let's be aware, what we are doing when also we vote.
But on behalf of the Greens, we found that the EU legislative framework on ambient air quality contains sufficient regulatory provisions and that the primary deficiency lies in implementation, enforcement, and compliance. Specifically, key barriers include lack of political will to adopt strict measures, inadequate financial resources in regions with low GDP, and weak enforcement mechanisms at both EU and national levels, together with absence of comprehensive connections between air quality legislation and sector specific legislation, governing polluting sources and limited cooperation frameworks among competent authorities. The new AAQD addresses some technical issues but lacks penalties or coercive measures aimed at competent authorities and maintains overly lenient limit value deadlines. With stricter limit values, the number of infringement cases will likely increase. Better enforcement instruments are needed to oversee air quality in member states, as prolonged cases directly impact the health of people living in affected zones.
Public participation through petitions demonstrates citizens' engagement, but also highlights the urgent need for faster and more efficient effective enforcement mechanisms. And to conclude, let us all be aware that evaluation of the life projects has shown that many life projects have been very, very good ones in fighting for better air quality. And this is also something to keep in mind when we will discuss the new multinational financial framework that, really the life program has to be protected because it contributes a lot to the goals of this study. Thank you very much.
Jean Coeur?
Thank.
Damien Carême
You, chair. And also thank you for presenting the study. The fact that member states are not taking action and not taking binding measures is the sad conclusion of this study. Also a number of studies in France, there have been 48,000 deaths per year detected due to air pollution, 360,000 premature deaths per year in Europe, as the study said, that's absolutely disgraceful. And I quite find it quite difficult to understand the commission's justification, but they seem to just be okay with the current situation.
Three hundred thousand deaths, 360 thousand deaths per year. And yet we see more and more studies confirming over and over again that air pollution, the lack of political ambition, and the fact that people's citizens' interests are being put second, and they're being affected by this every single day. We are legislators' colleagues, and our first duty is to protect the European citizens. And in particular, to protect their right to life, that's what we're talking about here. When we see that there are, you know, tens of millions being spent to protect us from the war against Russia, rightly so, but how why can we not protect citizens against pollution of air, soil, water, which has a much more significant impact on European citizens every year than enemy bombs and bullets.
Okay. We hear how much it would cost to protect us against pollution, but what is a life worth? What does this inaction cost European society? What does this inaction from member states cost us? Everything is a choice, colleagues.
We hear those people who want to get rid of the green deal, but perhaps we need to take time and read the conclusions of these studies which have not been carried out by left wing greens. All these studies say that air pollution, toxic substances in cosmetics, plastics in the water, cadmium everywhere, PFAS, and so on. When are we going to be brave enough to take not only legislative measures, but binding coercive measures that will finally put an end to environmental and health threats, rather than just giving in to the chemical, plastic, steel, and food lobbies. We need to work together. We need to work for a livable Europe where our citizens can breathe.
Jiri Vodička
Oh, thank you all for your information and statements. Just a few notes, maybe to address the commissions. Thank you for that. But my huge issue is with the infringement procedure because, yes, it works, but we can also think about how effective it is and maybe think about speeding the procedure a little bit up in those cases, which are difficult and especially in the air quality cases. And I already said, it might be very hard because the adoption of specific measures to improve air quality takes time.
Speaker 33
On the other hand, we have to strictly limit what time is necessary, what time is needed, and then just draw a line and maybe refer it to the court of justice. And, in regards to the new air quality directive, it's an evolution, and, it builds up on a solid basis. What we will see, how it is implemented, in practice. And I think, and, concerning the premature deaths within the EU. Sorry.
It's not only about premature deaths. It's about the costs the air pollution has on the EU's economy. And, according to some studies, it's hundreds of millions of euros per year. So there's this also this huge issue that we should be addressing because this is the money we are spending, involuntarily on something that we should not spend it on. Thank you.
Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much. We have reached the last item on our agenda for today. Oh, we still have 25 minutes, 28 minutes. Okay. So at 11:00, the coordinators' meeting will start.
A short break. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.