Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety 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
ENVI European Parliament
Follow its sittings
Nikolaus Kriz
We're also deepening our cooperation with other EU agencies in a one health approach that recognizes the links between human, animal, and environmental health.
And we are engaging globally. For example, we are currently supporting the African Union in developing their own food safety system, sharing expertise, and contributing to higher standards worldwide. Honorable members, let me now turn to the broader policy context in which we operate. This exchange of views takes place at an important moment. The European Parliament is currently working on two legislative files that are highly relevant for EFSA, the Food and Feed Omnibus and the Biotech Act.
This is a valuable opportunity to exchange views on these files while fully respecting.
The clear separation of roles. EFSA provides an independent scientific risk assessment. You as co-legislators are responsible for the political decisions. The legislative proposals under discussion aim to strengthen EFSA by improving both the effectiveness and the speed of our work. We very much welcome these objectives.
I'm aware that some elements of these proposals are subject to a political debate. Let me underline that EFSA was created to remain outside of political decision-making. Your role is to shape the legislative framework. Our role is to work within that framework. And within that framework, we will remain an independent, science-driven, transparent, and cooperative partner providing the evidence you need to take informed decisions.
In this context, adequate resources are essential. To deliver on these ambitions, EFSA must have the capacity to act. The proposed increase in EFSA staff is both very welcome and necessary. In particular, areas such as pesticide risk assessment are under significant pressure due to the volume and complexity of the applications. Strengthening our capacity will allow us to deliver more efficiently, while maintaining the high quality and independence of our scientific work.
It will also support earlier engagement with applicants, helping to prevent delays later in the process. Before concluding my opening remarks, I'd like to mention our ongoing cooperation with the European Parliament. This is another area where our partnership is essential. We highly value the request for scientific advice that we receive from this committee, as they help ensure that policy discussions are informed by independent science. We're currently working on two scientific opinions.
One concerns pesticides coformulant and will be delivered by the end of this year. The other addresses microplastics with a deadline in December 2027. We have also started discussions with this committee on a new mandate on energy drinks, for which we are awaiting formal transmissions. Honorable members, EFSA does operate on the interface between science and policy. If we succeed in becoming faster, smarter, and stronger together, we will keep Europeans safe and allow the EU to continue shaping the future of food.
Our responsibility is to provide you with independent, high-quality evidence. This system works when there's trust in science, in institutions, and in the clarity of our respective roles. You can count on us, on EFSA, to continue delivering on its mission independently, transparently, and in the interest of and service of Europeans. Thank you very much for your attention.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Thank you, Doctor Critz. We start, the political part with the envy contact person, Brianna Bozen. She has been very involved in the last weeks with EFSA. So.
Biljana Borzan
Thank you very much. So EFSA is a very important institution, so we have to discuss a lot about that. So, mister Kritz, welcome to the parliament again. I hope you like to be with us since you are here. Well, not too often, but you are coming back, so it's a good sign. First of all, let me thank you for your cooperation until now because I think that cooperation with you and the parliament is really great, and we can always count on your expertise.
Many MEPs start their discussions here with this historical opinion on the report on this or that. I'm not so sure that, every time it's so historical, but when we talk about food safety omnibus, I think it is really a historical document, one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the last few decades. So as you already mentioned, you are not here to have any political decision on this, but I always look at EFSA as a backbone of our science-based system. We know that EFSA has been operating under increasing pressure with limited resources and growing responsibilities. In that context, I would like to ask if this omnibus is adopted, what would be a realistic time frame for EFSA to adapt to the new system?
And what would be the practical expectations, in terms of workload, scientific output, and responsiveness? More, fundamentally, does this moment not call for strengthening our institutional capacities and funding the scientific and regulatory system that safeguards food safety instead of undermining and demolishing all of those things that make EU a place with the best, most reliable, and safest food. Before shifting the system and potentially reducing regular pesticide reviews, and relying more on existing outdated assessments, should we not first ensure that EFSA and equally national food safety authorities are equipped with sufficient human resources and budgets to fully integrate the latest scientific evidence in a timely manner. Finally, we should also recognize that the real effects of this omnibus, especially pesticides, will not be immediate. They will become visible over ten, fifty, fifteen, or twenty years.
This is precisely why there is no justification for rushing such a fundamental reform, and without a comprehensive impact assessment. This is not about asking EFSA again to take a political position on whether deregulation is the right path. It is about understanding from the scientific and operational standpoint what is needed to maintain a high level of food safety in Europe. Because I certainly don't think that deregulation is a way to do that. Last month, I conducted a big survey, and I assure you that consumers feel the same.
At the end, how could unlimited approval periods for active substances affect EBSSA's ability to keep risk assessment up to date with the latest scientific evidence? And how will EFSA's scientific work program address the lack of long-term impact assessment? Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. Now we move to the coordinators. We start with EPP, Estella Vazquez here. Two minutes for every coordinator.
Esther Herranz García
Thank you.
Very much, Chairman, and thank you very much, Doctor. Gritz, for being with us this afternoon, and for the information you provided. I'd like to talk about the safety of food products in Europe. As you'll know, many of us in this house feel that progress needs to be made towards absolute harmonization of border controls to avoid, as currently happens, having national interpretations or having to depend on the goodwill of the authorities of member states. And many of us feel the EFSA should be prepared because scientifically, that would be right.
And the decisions that you take are based on science. And when it comes to border controls, it's absolutely vital that an agency like EFSA be fully committed to this task. And then on the omnibus regulation, again, this is of great concern to us. We don't have an agile, simplified procedure that's economically viable for the renewal of active substances in the EU. Let me tell you what's happening.
These active substances for farmers, when the patents run out because they may run out, and companies decide not to renew them because economically, it's not viable. And we're faced with a very serious problem as a result, and that is that many of the treatments for agricultural products currently only use one product and which are causing resistance in plants. So what happens? Companies, when they have to renew their patents, that's not economically viable for them. And so that means that substances that are theoretically already approved aren't produced anymore, aren't on the market anymore, not available, not because they are medically bad, but because they're not economically viable.
And so, as Executive Director of EFSA, a question: can we develop a system similar to that for pharmaceutical products for human beings and generics? Could we manage to do that with the few products that we currently have for agricultural products? Because we mustn't lose any opportunity, particularly for products used to treat rice, where the EU runs a deficit and where we're working with very specialized brands that are finding it almost economically impossible to continue producing.
Christophe Clejo.
Christophe Clergeau
Thanks, chair and Mr. Critz. Thanks to be there today. And I have three questions. The first one is about the exposome. You know that here in the parliament, we are working out of this concept that helps to understand how all the exposition for people from living condition, from behavior, from environment, from inequalities affect the health and brings new NCDs and new disease?
Do you take into account that concept on which perspective to complement a traditional one health approach? And does it impact your approach to risk assessment because exposome is underlining also the importance of low dose cocktail effect and cumulative effect for life on human health? My second question is a compliment to what billionaire Bourdan said. You insisted on the idea that EFSA has to be outside political making process, but as to provide evidence we need to help us to take informed decision. So I have a concrete question.
You have to deal with 200 active products. Do you think that if we would adopt the omnibus asset, it would change the concrete situation in which you are to tackle this 200 dossier in the three, five next years? And my third question is about PFAS. We, Billionaire, help the parliament to make good decisions to give you a mandate about microplastics. But now we have this work in ECA and PFAS, but the work in ECA is on a different scope than yours.
And we can also have something to look at in terms of contamination of food by PFAS. Do you consider what you know about the work that has been done in ECA that there is still a complementary scope that could be usefully addressed to study this question of contamination of food by PFAS? Thank you.
Thank.
Anne-Sophie Frigout
You, Miss Doctor. Grids. France, Europe, they have the best agriculture system in the world, but we have European overregulation, and we have free trade agreements being signed without enough democratic oversight. In Europe, ideology has become more important than science. 89 substances have been replaced, but with that, some have disappeared from the market without being replaced.
At the same time, the EU decided to outsource food safety to Brazil, for example, where we can have sugar that's produced using 30 substances that are banned here, and no tariffs paid. So substances that are banned in the EU come in through imported foods. Well, there's good sense for you. Now the new regulation on food security and safety doesn't seem to provide the progress we wanted because certain substances judged on a case by case basis by the commissioners being hazardous are still being used elsewhere. There's nothing on unfair competition.
There's nothing on food safety. There's an inherent contradiction, instead. Either these substances are dangerous, in which case there should be a full ban from production to import, or they're not, in which case our farmers should use them. So what criteria is the commission going to use to classify substances as hazardous? What criteria are used to say that substances are considered hazardous here?
And what are we going to do about MLRs when it comes to food, is food products. Are we going to see case-by-case derogations for strategic products? Thank you.
Sander Smit
Chris, many thanks for being here as the executive director of EFSA. I've got a few questions and more general questions. How does your agency fulfill its role in practice in the light of the recent discoveries and audits on the Brazilian hormone beef scandal with Ostadiole important consignments? The structural rapid alert system in food and feed alert notifications on, for instance, antibiotics in Ukrainian eggs, and the surreal lead scandal in infant formula. Despite devastating audits on self-certification and controls in third countries and the countries we trade with, imports sometimes continued for months.
Do you believe that national agencies should carry out more frequent and stricter food safety controls? And should the risk assessment of imports from these third countries be further tightened? At the same time, new breeding techniques such as NBT offer important positive opportunities for sustainable crops. Allowing active substances without an expiry date is also positive for investment security in the European Union plant protection sector. The food and feed omnibus actually contains important elements for our future.
But is your agency actually equipped with enough staff and experts for these challenges and for the internal market to handle all these pressures from import controls to new breeding techniques and active substances, and to do so in a timely and independent manner, also in light of the provisional application, which the European Commission sadly foresees for the Mercosur agreement. How do you see that? Do you have enough staff? Thank you.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you so much doctor Kritz for being here with us. I'm in the center back. Yes. Great to have you. Honored to have you here in our committee.
I have basically two questions, and they're both linked to the food and feed omnibus. The first is there's no impact assessment of what will happen to public health when we do as proposed by the European Commission. And I've heard some people say, well, we believe it's responsible. Let's try it out. And in a few years' time, we'll see what the results are.
My question to you is, from a scientific point of view, do you consider that a responsible approach? Or do you believe that we need a different approach? The second question is on Parkinson's disease, the fastest-growing brain disease in the world. The last 30 years, the amount of patients has doubled. And it becomes very clear that the main reason is environmental pollution, air pollution, but also the use of pesticides.
Now, EFSA has identified a statistical association and, I read it out, a plausible mechanistic link between certain pesticides and Parkinson's disease. And you're still working on a better framework to deal with this in your risk assessment. But how do you or EFSA ensure that we apply the precautionary principle, something that is very strongly written down in our treaty in this field? Thank you.
Yes. Doctor.
Martin Häusling
Kritz, nice to see you again. I have three questions for you. First of all, we've already talked about this, and that's the topic of PFAS, pesticides. There's a lot of talk about pesticide, sorry, in PFAS, about not using it here, there, and everywhere, but there's no discussion, including from EFSA, that 70% of all pesticides have PFAS in them and that every year, they're being spread all over the soil in Europe. And how's the soil going to cope with that?
So I don't hear anything about what is happening. These substances can be replaced. And I think if everybody were aware of the risk of PFAS, not just for the environment, but for our health as well, then surely, EFSA should come out with an opinion and say that these substances have no place being included in our pesticides. Secondly, on limit values, we hear that EFSA on PFAS is setting limit values far too high, especially for drinking water. We need to be far more stringent on that.
So I'd like to hear what your view is there. On food and feed, we have heard several people mentioning this, and I'm surprised. I'm astounded, in fact. We talked about glyphosate a lot. Imagine if it were approved forever, if there was an approval for that.
In practice, many of these substances, during the course of time, we see risks coming to light, which we didn't know about before, and you have to draw conclusions. How can you really take this seriously by saying once something's approved, it's approved forever? I don't understand this. I find it a scandal, and that's scandalous. We're not discussing it.
My third question. In the European Parliament, we've had already over 100 objectives to the import of GMO foods. Despite this, it's being ignored thoroughly and comprehensively. We don't want these substances on the market. There is scientific advice that says this shouldn't happen, and yet the officer is saying, actually, there's no problem.
Are you ignoring the parliament, or is there another issue I should be aware of? Any import saying that everything is okay is surely not on.
Yeah. Donkeyville.
Anja Hazekamp
Thank you very much, chair. I'd like to welcome you, Mr. Critz. As the executive director of the European Food Safety Authority, you have a very important task in making sure that we have transparent research independent of any political persuasion. And I hope that you can achieve that. You can maintain your independence and, in fact, improve it.
I'm not gonna talk about foods, pesticides, and chemicals on this occasion, but you have a great deal of experience, years, in fact, of experience as a vet and an expert on animal health. And you headed the f's of animal health and welfare directive directorate. So I have some questions here. Some of the legislation is supernumerated. It's gone beyond what science says.
Science is clear. There are measures that have to be taken to improve animal welfare, and EFSA has carried out all sorts of scientific research on pigs' health, and we know that docking of tails is one of the results that is unacceptable and should not happen. And for 30 years now, we have seen docking happening despite legislation saying this shouldn't be done. You must find this frustrating as well, that the legislation is simply being ignored to help the animal and farming industries. Recently, we heard from the commission about whether the fur farms were going to be closed.
Now we heard some very clear visions on this. Maybe you can repeat to the commission why in the current system animals are suffering and why animal welfare demands are not working because there's no system where the welfare of these animals could be guaranteed in any way, shape, or form. So the only solution is to have an outright ban on fur farms. Finally, what happened to the fish research that has been removed or stopped? The research on the fact that fish are sentient beings is absolutely essential.
Thank you for being here, and I'm looking forward to your answers.
Anja Arndt
Thank you, chair. Thank you, Doctor Kritz, as well. If we see that there are manipulated studies and large level compensation being paid out when there is a problem with a substance causing cancer, then this is not acceptable. I'm asking about glyphosate here. What sort of standards do you have in research for glyphosate nefsa?
In the US, the Supreme Court has allowed an appeal that would affect 10,000 opening claims against Bayer and Monsanto and is incredibly important. In Missouri, a court has already approved a 1,000,000 worth of compensation because there's no warning label on Roundup saying that there's a risk of cancer. At the same time, because of Bayer being taken over by Monsanto, there are more than $10,000,000 worth of compensation that are outstanding and $6,000,000 that it is being asked to pay. This is not trivial. It is a resounding alarm.
More worrying, there's a study that said that glyphosate is not a problem, and this had been influenced by Monsanto and has been withdrawn now. There was a reproach that certain companies were involved in drafting the studies, while other scientists had their names put on the research when they hadn't been involved. So this undermines confidence in this science. And also, it is behind what the Europeans should be doing in terms of legislation. And as has already been mentioned, these agrochemicals, which are given permanent approval, even though in June 24, a long-term study of the Ramatini Institute in Italy had a study on rats, which showed that there was a carcinogenic effect.
And we've seen too many problems of mistakes being made and studies not having been looked at in great enough detail. The protection of health and other aspects is being ignored for the sake of profit and red tape that prevents us from getting to the heart of the matter. So my question to Efsa is, how does Efsa intend to develop its current view on glyphosate? How can it defend a credible view to the citizens when it ignores the studies that criticize glyphosate and the court cases that have ordered compensation because of it being a carcinogen, and what's gonna happen to the strong demands we're putting to stop this?
Nikolaus Kriz
Thank you very much for this rich bouquet of questions. All of them, of course, legitimate and maybe not all of them equally answerable by us. Some of them are outside our remit, but let me try and group and at the same time answer to all. I think if you allow me, let's go first to the omnibus. There were many questions on the omnibus.
And here, of course, this is a proposal. I said it also in my opening remarks. This has been put on the table by the commission to be discussed and finally decided by you, depending on the political consensus. It is a, let me take a step back and not try to explain something that the commission does. It's not for me to do, but to say that what we have seen over the past years in the area of plant protection products is that while it has high political importance, it doesn't translate into the same amount of high resources at the member states to do the assessment.
And the system is very clear. It was decided last in 2009 with 11 07 2009, then there was even a refit and has not changed that the majority of the work, the assessment of the rapid member state is done in member states, then it comes to peer review to us. And this has been done with the resources that are available in Europe, and it has led to a backlog. And there's a question from Mister Clairjour about 200. That's the, I mean, there are 400 active substances that are authorized, but 200 are waiting renewal.
So it has created, if you so wish, a traffic jam. And, of course, you can address that jam in a variety of ways. And the one of the ones that you can also use is increase the resources. Of course, you can. And that also goes into the answer to the questions about resources at EFSA.
I say repeatedly, I said it in the agri committee, the most straightforward way is that member states increase their resources to speed up the assessment as well put to member states. Does it help us if we get more resources? Of course, it does. What you see in the current proposal is also a proposal for biocontrol agents to EFSA to act as a rapporteur member state. And the proposal is to get 15 staff to help with this work.
And we are ready and excited even to stand by, because then it will allow us to address this area. Here comes the part with the resources. Given that at the moment, the resources are limited, what we see is a constructive and what I would call a pragmatic proposal to try and help with that jam by decreasing the backlog of pesticide renewals over time. And in the case of EFSA, the additional resources will, of course, enable us to focus our efforts on the biocontrol agents, which are mostly novel and, of course, intended to have less environmental impact. Regarding unlimited approvals, of course, there are legitimate questions because the way I understand the proposal is that it's one that moves towards a more targeted risk-based approach.
It's up to you to decide whether that is finally acceptable. But if you move to that, what's the reason that I see behind it is you move to a more risk-based targeted approach rather than the time-bound approach for everything that leads to this backlog at the moment that we have. And you can then focus the resources on higher-risk substances because I do understand that here, there is a proposal that does not alter the fundamental protection standards in the European Union. On the contrary, this stays and is firmly embedded in the fundamental protection standard, but there is then a way to realign the resources to focus on properties of concern regarding human health, animal health, and the environment. And these will, of course, mainly, from what I see from the proposal, remain with limited approval durations.
Of course, the ones that are identified as con having a high concern. Of course, this is up to you to decide where this lands exactly. But from our perspective, we are ready to work with it. Then it comes to workload over the next years. What we need to realize is given that we have this backlog of renewals and that the current proposal is that all these backlog still needs to be worked off, please, on that front, on the biocontrol front, we get 15 extra staff.
But over the coming years, there will be a more gradual improvement of timelines because we still have to work off these 200 renewals that are currently in the system. And the proposal, as I understand it, does not do away with them. Let me double check, because I think that was on the omnibus. Then we had also border controls, which I have to repeat is not within the remit of EFSA at all to do border controls or to advise on border controls. This is firmly within member states, and whether EFSA should be involved or not is really for the legislators to decide.
What else do we have?
Nikolaus Kriz
The import controls and MRLs, this is a question that comes back. I can refer, of course, to the current proposal, which, as I understand it, has a limitation there, restrictions on imports. But that's completely outside of EFSA's remit. We neither do controls at borders, nor do we advise on controls at borders, nor do we take any risk management decisions on what should be allowed in or not allowed in. I think on the resource I did on the because it was mentioned also rapid risk assessment and the infant formula where we were asked by the commission very clearly in January to do a risk assessment on the acute reference dose, which we did within two days, to set the acute reference dose for all of Europe that allowed member states to decide and take the right risk management decisions.
That's our role. I think it's a very good example. Thank you for the question. And it proves that, yes, we can be fast. But, of course, that's also a decision that you need to take to then rearrange the resources.
This is one case. Don't forget we have 600 scientific outputs per year. Yes. We can realign resources at any point in time, which will then lead to a slowing down in other areas. But, yes, this is also our role, a very important role, a role that we're very proud of, that we are involved in and can produce together also with ECDC.
Here, an example of EU agencies working strongly together and helping the member states. And the general resource question, I think I answered, but yes, of course. I said it at the beginning of my answer. You can always inject more resources and you will get a result. Yes.
You will. But given the current geopolitical context and what's happening with other priorities, I go by the decision. Daniel Kahneman said once, base your decisions on the things that have happened rather than on the things that you hope for. And in terms of what has happened, resources have been limited in the area of plant protection process products. So I go by that, with also the work program and how we can address this.
There was a question about Parkinson disease. I cannot go into the detail because I don't now have the exact tax text. So I cannot, you know, say to you exactly what we said. But what I do know is that research here is certainly ongoing, and that we are well aware of the issue. Should there be a mandate to reconsider new research, we will, of course, look into that, and it's something that is also clearly our role.
We have PFAS. And the work, of course, is also ongoing at the moment with the European Chemicals Agency. You will have seen the output of the European Chemicals Agency, which has done the work of the RAC committee, at the risk assessment committee. I believe now it's discussions in the SEER committee, in the socioeconomic committee. We are well aware.
We are certainly there waiting also for the output to see how that impacts us and how that impacts us where we are working with PFAS already with the member states where we've created back in 2023, I believe, a sort of working environment in order to look in more detail into this. And we have also been recently invited to Europe, thank you very much, to an event at the European Parliament, which was organized also by you, mister Heusling. And you also heard our opinion there, what we can do also regarding TFA, the metabolite, and you talked about what in pesticides where we can then give a risk assessment on this. Here, I'm just trying to look through. You talked about new genomic techniques, the way I understand it.
Now you talked about GMOs. And I think what I can say here is that we are well aware of the political context, especially in GMOs, but we remain within the legislative framework that we do the risk assessment as to what we are being asked to do. This is what we do. This, we give a risk assessment. You said, oh, about this or that, over the last, I think you mentioned 100.
But here, I strongly defend that we do an independent risk assessment independent of all influence within the current legal framework, and that's what we publish. Fahazekamp, thank you very much for your support of our independent science. Talking of tails, I think we're very clear in our opinion that it should not be done, should be replaced by husbandry practices that prevent tail biting. The legislation is even clearer. The risk management or control is not within our tasks.
I think you also pointed to our welfare opinion that clearly says that most welfare consequences cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in the current housing system. So this is something where our experts have been extremely clear that significant improvement would not only require more stimulating enclosures, but enrichment features, housing sizes, etc., that here, we have really something where I think the experts were very clear, something extremely difficult to do. It's up to the risk manager what they do with that. Ramazzini study, also noted down because I think here, very clearly, it's also transparent. We have met together with ECA, with the Ramazzini Institute.
They have, following repeated requests by us, finally released more of the details of the data, but there is still some raw data, etcetera missing, which we're looking forward to receiving in order to conclude. The timelines and what has happened there is available on our website, and I strongly defend against any accusations that we are not independent. And here, I really must take umbrage and say no. We have the strongest system to ensure the independence of our experts. We are fully funded by the public, and therefore we have full independence.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we have the part of the catch the eye. We start with Bernjeuber. Bernieuber? Thank.
Alexander Bernhuber
Thank you very much, Doctor. Kritz. I'd like to underscore what you said at the close there, and maybe call on colleagues when we're looking at recommendations from EFSA. We should recognize them. Very often, we are looking at decisions which are supported by EFSA, and then suddenly a study is pulled out of a hat and questioned.
You said at the end yourself that EFSA is an authority financed by public money. So I think if you start calling into question your work, even in this house, I think those are rather questionable actions from members. But my question is looking at lab meat, cell-grown meat. We're seeing this as an issue. There's a question of what we're allowed to call it, what we're allowed to label it.
I'd like to ask you what the state of play is in terms of requested procedures. I know that there's a scientific decision that you'll be issuing. But what about a political decision that we could take if we should take a decision saying these cell cultures are ones that we don't want to see on our dinner plates and citizens' dinner plates. How many staff will be freed up where you're currently bogged down working on these approval procedures on recommendations? Thank you.
Thank you. Andrew Curtis.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Thank you so much. Dear Nicholas, dear doctor Chris, welcome once again. I remember our very well, time cooperating in 2017 when you joined EFSA before you were NEMA. And to know that you have now experience, view, and situation. You know, I just can raise question about very one sensitive issue related to biosecurity and to possibilities, you to discuss issues related to biothreats.
Now using new synthetic proteins, using synthetic genes, using synthetic capacities, with AI. That situation is very dangerous from biosecurity point of view. My question is, are you do you see enough capacities at all agencies level to, you know, to help detect biosecrets on the ground in the fields? And how do you see possibilities to strengthen cooperation between EMA, EFSA, ECCA, European Environmental Agency, and ECDC in the field of biosecurity because biotech act now is on pipeline, and we need to assess such situation in more detail. Thank you.
Thank you. Lynn Bylan.
Lynn Boylan
Thank you, chair. I'm gonna just come back to the maximum residue levels for banned pesticides, because I think doctor Chris, and thank you for joining this exchange. I think in your responses there or in your opening, you said the food and feed omnibus proposal covers this. But, actually, the food and feed omnibus proposal references the problem, which is that the residues of the most hazardous pesticides are making their way onto our shelves and into the food that we eat. And I know that the omnibus introduces the possibility to set maximum residue levels to technical zero on a case by case basis in an acknowledgment, of course, that the commission are moving far too slow on this issue.
So I suppose this is your view that a ban on the export of these chemicals in the first place would actually improve health outcomes. So if we just cut it off at the supply, rather than trying to have to deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
Sebastian.
Sebastian Everding
Sebastian Everding. Thank you, chair. I will continue in German. Director,
Access to food is a big achievement, and EFSA plays a very important role in scientific investigation. But there is a gap, and it's due to classification. Highly processed food. It's a term that is being used a lot, and yet there is not a clear definition.
Sebastian Everding
That leads to problematic situations. Oat milk is in the same category as highly processed meat, and that has consequences. This lack of classification creates confusion among consumers, but it can lead to plant-based alternatives scoring worse and being at a disadvantage. With regard to health and animal welfare, we need to move towards more plant-based options. Therefore, my question to you is how does EFSA view the necessity for a far clearer definition of highly processed food, so that consumers are better informed and can make an informed judgment?
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
You. Let me ask the FARA second very quickly because it's the second.
Sander Smit
Gratios Milles, Presidente. Mr. Kish, you stated that FSA is not responsible for risk management. However, under Article 22 of the General Food Law, the FSA is the primary scientific reference for food safety in practice. Your scientific assessments and rapid alert system analysis act as the mandatory legal trigger for the European Commission as risk manager, and the member states to act.
If EFSAS data show that audits in countries like China or Ukraine and the self-certification in Brazil are consistently failing, which the commissioner acknowledged already, isn't it FSA's proactive responsibility to signal this, to advise? Because without your scientific trigger under Article 53, isn't then the European Commission legally paralyzed to uphold unsafe imports? How then do you want to claim that FSA bears no responsibility in this process? I understand you're not a risk manager, but there is a role for the FSA there. So thank you very much.
Just a short. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. We also keep this question for May 4 when Varelli will be here. So now before giving again the floor to mister Kritz, we have the remote participation of the EP representative of EFSA management board. So I ask them for a quick speech. Missus Astrid Thorst, first.
Astrid Thors
Thank you for the microphone, and dear honorary members of the Envy Committee. May I say that this is a kind of testimony on my part because I have had the honor and privilege to represent the EP now for four years in the EFSA Management Board. My last meeting on the management board will be next June. And I can say that I tried to play a very active role, being both on the audit committee and on the subgroup on independence. And that subgroup, I can assure you, that we were very thorough.
We're going through the rules that ensure that the experts, anybody who is doing scientific work and the staff are that they are independent, that they are not influenced by money that could influence their opinion. Let me also say that the management board really is what we are talking about. It's about managing the EFSA. We do know that we have the independent panels and the scientific work is done, which is without our interference. What we can influence is the work program.
Let me also say that during the years, I have seen that the management of EFSA is in good hands and that is also proven by your latest discharge report on the agencies. No remark. But there, and maybe I could say also that this is kind of a small recommendation for the European Parliament. There should also be more contact between the EP representatives on the Management Board and the Budget Control Committee. We had a time when there was a strategy adopted by the previous management board, so we can say that the biggest things we had to deal with were appointing new panels and also appointing the new Executive Director.
If there is something I would like you to remember, it is that there could be a good reason for the EP to make a study on how executive directors in different agencies are appointed. There was also a situation where we could not see all the documents that had been behind the appointment.
Astrid Thors
The executive directors. I think that is one of the things. Chris has made many important recommendations as to the questions, the challenges that are facing EFSA today. I think that we have achieved quite a lot with the new transparency regulation that we implemented for the first time. There are some challenges also in the satisfaction rate as to the, let's say, dealing with regulated products that have been discussed today.
But in summary, it has been a good time to be on the EFSA management board. We have seen how they are prepared for introducing AI modern tools and how really EFSA is also trying to be prepared for the new horizon and new questions that are coming up. So thank you very much for your attention. Thank you for the appointment. It has been an interesting time.
And really, hope that the successors will have as good and important insight into the work on EFSA and also that they will be able to start to work on the new strategy, which is soon to be adopted next year.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. Take the occasion. All the colleagues and me, you and Mrs. Sanja and Musis Milanovic that will take the floor after me for your efforts representing the EP in the EFSA management board for those years. It will probably be the last time we met in this position.
So thank you for your job. And Missus Sanya Musice Milanovic, the floor is yours.
Sanja Musić Milanović
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon to everybody. Well, I would say that as we conclude this exchange of views and my mandate, just as of the European Parliament of the FSA Management Board comes to close, let me really briefly reflect on our shared work. First of all, I would like to say that it has been a privilege to serve in this role and to contribute to EFSA's important work at the time when, as a scientist, I think I can say, science-based decision making is more important than ever. During this period, I will emphasize only two things out of many.
During this period, we have achieved important progress together. First of all, I would particularly like to highlight the steps taken to ensure gender balance that we did across EFSS all scientific boards, strengthening both inclusiveness and the quality of decision-making, as well as the successful appointment of a new executive director, ensuring strong and stable leadership. These achievements reflect our shared commitment to transparency, to excellence, and the continuous strengthening of FSA's governance and credibility. I would also like to personally thank all colleagues for the constructive cooperation, professionalism, and dedication shown through this mandate. I'm quite confident, I am confident that EFSA will continue to build on these foundations, adapt to new challenges, and successfully address the challenges ahead in the years to come.
Thank you very much.
Nikolaus Kriz
Yes. I know, but allow me this liberty that I also take this opportunity to thank Astrid and Sonya for their invaluable work on the EFSA management board. It is an important link to the European parliament and an important oversight, of course, that you therefore have. So thank you very much. Then, mister Bernoubert, thank you very much for your support of our independence.
We feel very proud of our independence, and we need and value every support that we get. And then let me quickly go to the research issue. Very clearly, there's one at the moment, one lab meet, as they're also called colloquially, application in the system with EFSA. And that has also been publicized by the company. Public knowledge, of course, it's the fat, sorry.
It's the duck fat cells, which are with us. So, unfortunately, it would not, and it's in, I think, at the moment, questions to the company. I'm not entirely sure. But, basically, at the moment, the research resource liberation would be very limited, as it currently stands. Having said that, also, I want to caution as somebody who's had now experience at EFSA for nine years in sort of saying, oh, we liberated here and we shifted over there because we have experts in animal health, in animal welfare, in toxicology, and, of course, a toxicologist that is very steeped as a staff member in certain areas.
Even a toxicologist can, but it can't be just easily put into another area. So it's not as simple as saying, oh yeah. Three people there. They go over here. It's just the way it works with the diversity of the work that we do.
We always say that 11 different scientific panels. I think that's the most scientific panels of all EU agencies to my knowledge, and they all cover very different forms, when you compare that to the Medicines Agency. Thank you for the reference, Mister Andre Kaites, about that. Yes. I was there 17 years.
And even now with the new regulation, they have essentially two medicines, human medicines and veterinary medicines, even though there's some other committees that they have. And coming to you regarding biosecurity as a vet, you also referenced that I immediately thought about biosecurity on farms to prevent the spread of disease, but you mean, of course, also cross-border health threats and potential malicious health threats, which is a very important topic. I know the commission takes a great interest in crisis exercises, and there's the serious cross border health threat regulation that sets out how we go about addressing this. And, yes, it will need close collaboration, especially between EFSA, ECDC, like you say, ECA, and EMA in terms of the therapies. But, yes, this at the commission level, I do know they are very much addressing this.
Then we had the coming back to the MRLs, thank you very much, for banned pesticides and the ban on the export, and that clearly is not an EFSA decision. It's clearly something where risk managers, political decision makers need to make the decision. We, under the current framework, assess MRLs of products for import to set them, but a ban on the export is completely outside our remit. As is at the moment, ultra or I should say ultra-processed foods. Because when we talk about ultra-processed foods and the nutrition aspect of this, EFSA is not tasked with looking at that.
Of course, we are aware. We are following everything that's going on in this area. We are in contact, and not only in contact, but in exchange with the WHO that is working on that. But it's also a very complex package to open, and goes into nutritional aspects. You know, we always say we are responsible for safe food.
But, of course, when you talk about healthy, the personal choices, etcetera, there's a completely different aspect. And we will see also how that lands exactly in the mandate for the energy drinks because, of course, we can give a scientific assessment on the content of energy drinks and update, but then there is still the individual choice of what people do. Then we had the audits, which I can finish already because that's very clear. The audits are done by the F, the Food and Veterinary Office, not by EFSA. So we do not even have the possibility to act on the audit because it goes directly from the Food and Veterinary Office that sends inspectors into all these countries that you mentioned, which are then done via risk management procedure with the commission.
And so, there, our role is outside. Thank you. I hope.
Thank you.
Oh, no. One last. Sorry.
If you
Nikolaus Kriz
Allow me, because on the exposome, we are very aware, and I forgot to mention it. And, of course, for us, it's also not a step earlier than exposome is, of course, also the exposure assessment, which we integrate into our risk assessments. But with exposome, we still have, we're not there yet. We still have a way to go, where there's also interest from the about knowledge, about the exposome, of course, about research being done and then about how we integrate that. But I think that may come our way.
It's not with us at the moment. But in terms of exposure, of course, that is being integrated into our risk assessments. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Oh, no. Thank you so much. All the committee appreciated your competence and passion on the topic. So, thank you.
And we switch to the next point. We have an exchange of view with the commissioner on the upcoming 84th session of the International Maritime Organizations, Marine Environment Protection Committee, which will take place from April 27 to May 1 in London. This will be an opportunity to discuss the EU's priorities for the session, notably on shipping decarbonization, air pollution, and marine environmental protection. We have Missus Fotini Johan Nidu, director for Waterborne Indigimove, and I leave her the floor. Thank you.
Fotini Ioannidou
Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm here. And many thanks to the NV Committee for the invitation to brief you on the upcoming MEPC session. As you pointed out, this is going to start on the week of April 27 and will be preceded by a technical session and intercessional working group the week before.
So just to remind you of the context, you might remember that last October, after three years of intense negotiations and approval in April of the net zero framework, unfortunately, the IMO decided to adjourn the session, which is now set for some time this autumn. And in fact, this was the result of deep divisions, a lot of pressures during that session, and clearly, there was a lack of concessions for the adoption of the net-zero framework. Until that time, clearly, the EU had presented a very strong united voice, and this was really the reason behind our success and the fact that, as Europe, we have been a very important player. And, of course, as you know, in October, we didn't remain united. Now in December, there was a transport council, and clearly, all the ministers emphasized the need to reestablish the EU's unity.
So the session, the MEPC session is going to decide on the next steps for the adoption of the framework, including the continuation of the extraordinary session, and it is also going to decide on the next steps in terms of the intercessional work groups. The outlook of the session is a bit complex, and the agreement is expected to be difficult. We have big divisions between IMO member states. We have those that are supporting the net zero framework, others that want to even raise its ambition, others that show openness to negotiate using the NZDF as basis, and also some others that want to renegotiate completely on the basis of different proposals, and I'm referring to Liberia, Argentina for the latest, Panama, US, or even the Gulf States. The US have launched a diplomatic demarche in view of the MEPC in April.
They are strongly opposed to an instrument that mandates a transition away from fossil fuels. And, also, they are strongly opposed to an international organization collecting revenues. They also ask that the net zero framework is completely removed from any consideration, and they are reaching out to everybody across the world, including us. Throughout this period, we have been coordinating with our EU member states, mainly at technical level, at expert level, and we have been working on a number of clarifications, preparing input for the so-called guidelines, which are important parts of better defining the net zero framework. It is clear, however, that the matter, it's not of a technical level.
It's a matter of the highest political importance. And, for this reason, we really believe that we need to do our utmost that the U unity needs to be secured. This moment, preparing the position of the EU through discussion in the council. And, of course, I mean, first of all, the EU approach towards negotiations is not decided at this point in time, but it's also not something that can be said publicly. But what I can say at this stage, and I hope, yeah.
I mean, we believe that this will remain as principle, in the EU approach for negotiation is that, first of all, as EU, we need to remain a constructive and reliable partner, that we need to engage with all our counterparts across the world to build bridges and achieve broad concessions at IMO. That is important when we are speaking about a global agreement. And, the second point where we also believe this will be, something remaining in the EU approach is that any discussion cannot start from scratch. We have been working for three years to agree on the NZED, the net zero framework. And, therefore, this should be the starting basis for negotiation because it's also honoring the world and the compromises that have been done over these three years.
As I said, the week before, there will be the intercessional working group where there will be mainly discussions around the guidelines. We, as EU, are tabling two submissions and there are as well some elements. The elements that are independent from the measures are likely to be less controversial, but whatever touches upon the measures itself will be difficult. As I told you last time, after the October session, of course, in the meantime, our EU measures continue to apply. They will continue to drive emission reductions.
They will continue to create demand for sustainable fuels and drive innovation. Because of the call of our industry to clarify the position and the interrelationship between the two, we have in the recently adopted European maritime industrial strategy made a clearer statement that once there is a global measure, there will be a proposal for revision of the EU legislation in order to at least avoid double payment. But, of course, before that, we need to see what these measures are. So if I can sum up on this point, first, we go to the MEPC with the intention to engage constructively, with our partners, building on the progress we have achieved so far and, trying to build bridges to achieve agreement. The EU position is being defined right now, this week, and next week.
And, we are working to bring back EU unity, and we are quite confident we are going to achieve it. And, of course, as you will be remain in very much committed to have an ambitious global agreement, because this is the only way, that, we can really make an impact in terms of client climate, but also to, achieve a level playing field for our industry. One last point, beyond the theme of the greenhouse gas, is that last October, we had on the table the designation of the Northeast Atlantic Ocean as an emission control area for sulfur oxides, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides. This has been a victim, you know, of all the difficult session now on the greenhouse gas, but MEPC 84 is expected now to adopt the legislation in April. And let me conclude by thanking this committee for its continued interest in the work at the IMO, and also thanking you for joining us in April.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. We move to the group representatives for 2 minutes each. We start with EPP, Peter Lesser.
Peter Liese
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the commission. Yeah. Indeed, many of us were very disappointed when we learned of the failure of the negotiations in autumn. And to be honest, we cannot shy away from the fact that the position and the behavior of the US administration were completely unacceptable. You know, the United States exercised pressure on the representative of several member states, using their kits as a threat.
So they told participants, when you don't follow the US line, your son or your daughter that is for study or for a school exchange in the United States will see the consequences. We need to speak out against this behavior. You know, we want The United States to work with us, and we cannot punish all the citizens for what the administration does. But this cannot be unmentioned in such a debate, that this is unacceptable. And, I think, it is right when the commission said the member states should reunite, but they should not reunite on a weak position ignoring this unacceptable behavior.
And, you know, those member states that left the common EU position should feel the pressure in all possible ways. We know there was a new position. This was not perfect, but good, and we should not go back to a weaker position. A global agreement is necessary, but I would also say it can't be at any cost, because the effect for the climate is not by a global agreement but by the actual emission reduction. And, when you have a weak agreement that rather doesn't change a lot, then it's better to work bilaterally with other parts of the world.
And, definitely, I don't think we should weaken the EU ETS, in light of what happened. And this is an issue for carbon leakage in many ways. You know, we need to avoid carbon leakage for European ports and European shipowners. And I think we did a lot in our legislation to avoid that. And if it needs to be improved, let's do it.
But we also need to avoid carbon leakage for the our industry. And when the CO2 costs of the transport to Europe are not included in the general cost, then we may see that the environmental benefit of some of our measures is weakened because outside Europe, environmental standards are lower. And then the cost of transport, also the CO2 cost of transport, comes on top. So we should not be compromising at any price, but we should uphold an ambitious position here. Thank you.
I will be speaking Maltese.
Thomas Bajada
We are.
Entering a decisive moment for the global maritime sector. This is not just an environmental discussion. It is a question of competitiveness, jobs, and social justice. Today, I agree with you that this is an important political point. Today, European ports are already under pressure.
Traffic is shifting to North African post ports where standards are lower and costs are cheaper. And this means that Europe is losing jobs, and local economies are being impacted. If we move forward without a global framework in the IMO, we risk that the European ambition that I believe in, that of a cleaner world and better well-being for all, will be penalized, not rewarded. At IMO level, the negotiations are extremely difficult with systematic blockage by major global players, and I believe we all agree that having no global outcome is not an option. So my question is simple.
How does the commission intend to navigate this global impasse? More specifically, what landing zone do you see between no agreement and a functioning global network framework? And how will a compromise be achieved that preserves both environmental integrity and ensures global use? And let me speak not just as a European, but as a young person from an island. For us, this is not about technicalities and numbers.
This is our daily life. The ships that bring us food, the maritime routes that sustain our economy, the businesses that rely on reliable and affordable maritime connectivity, which is also connectivity that keeps our country alive. And all of this is at risk. I don't want to see a global system where those who can afford it move ahead, and many others, especially islands, are left behind with rising daily costs and with our small economies paying the heavy price. That is why we need to agree on a global framework in the IMO where everyone shares the same ambition, to ensure justice for the islands, for the Mediterranean environment, and for the European people.
Because at the end of the day, connectivity is not an option. Justice is not negotiable, and we cannot fail when it comes to people's lives. And I look forward to the mission we have in the few days ahead of us in London so that we can have one, framework, a global framework for everyone. Thank you.
Anne-Sophie Frigout
Thank you.
Dear colleagues. As we come up to MEPC 84, European Union is actually making its maritime transport more fragile. We've already taken decisions that have consequences. ETS maritime, whereby carbon quotas have to be bought, and that's expensive for operators. And that has got worse since the full entry in force of the regime in January.
And then you're suggesting a 14.5% carbon tax in the future. Very, very ambitious targets when alternative fuels are still rare, costly and technologically uncertain result in explosion of costs, hundreds of thousands of euro per trip, increasing pressure on the competitiveness of our fleet and ports. And yet, the IMO is already thinking of new international constraints, including an international emissions tax. In other words, first of all, you have overregulation, and then we'll have extra regulation on top. So that's a double penalty on maritime transport.
The consequences can be seen between 2023 and 2025. European ports lost 11% of their market share. Obviously, that benefits non-ETS ports and means more circumvention. What a lot of hypocrisy. We're not revising or reducing your world emissions, just the European ones.
So, considering the geopolitical context, this is irresponsible. When is the revision going to review the situation and recognize that ETS leads to market distortions, penalizing the competitiveness of European ports?
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. We don't have a speaker for ECR and Renew, so we go to Asmus Nordquist from Greens.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes. Thank you, chair, and thank you to the commission. I mean, this upcoming IMO session is a defining moment not only for the shipping industry but for international climate governance. I mean, are we moving ahead together or are we letting a few countries block as we have seen? I mean, we know how important the shipping in terms of shipping is for the emissions, the global emissions.
Something is just gonna be increasing. So that's why we need to act. And I think what's important to say is that the EU should, first of all, I mean, get member states, of course, in line with what we already agreed upon. I mean, that's what's so strange now is that just because The US start this pressure, all of a sudden, member states start as well. So I hope the commission will be very clear towards the member states.
I also hope that we are as active as we have seen The US being already now trying to push other countries in the MO to step back from what was on the table. We need to be very explicit that the proposal that switches push from Argentina, Panama, Liberia, Japan to remove the greenhouse gas pricing mechanisms is totally unacceptable. And this is so important also when you talk to the shipping industry. They're asking for this because they also want clear investment signals. So I think we need to be very active, very strong, and I want to really echo the speech from my colleague from EPP, Peter Lise.
I mean, what we have seen in the IMO talks is unacceptable when it comes to international politics, and we need to be very active on this matter, and saying that the net zero framework that was actually agreed upon needs to be pushed through, but also that a bad deal is not an option. It's not an option to step down, ambitions that we will need to move ahead. Thank you.
Sebastian Everding
Thank you. For the left, Sebastian Everdinger. Thank you, chair. I will continue in German.
If you look at the figures, they look very impressive. A 200 ports in the EU, 18,000 shipping trips a day, a big part of our economy, and pollution for our waters. Pollutants, climate change, the oceans are under attack, species are dying out, whole ecosystems are being disrupted. And as profits rise, decolonization is progressing too slowly, even at decisions at the IMO. Ambition is not enough.
We need binding rules, no excuses, no false hopes. But what's behind these figures? We have to say very clearly that at the moment, many fish are dying in the Baltic. I have pictures here. This is one victim of what’s going on in our oceans at the moment.
Whales have no nationality. It's not a German or Danish whale. They're not aware of borders, but borders are what is wrong with our protection efforts. Efforts need to be global. Our reaction, our measures are national, fragmented, and that is the big problem.
Timmy wasn't the first whale to die. Won't be the last. There will be stranded whales in the future. But will we be better prepared next time? And how can we help faster?
If we go on in the same way, we will not succeed. So my appeal with regard to this meeting of the IMBO is that we should have a coordinated emergency plan for whales and other species that can be activated quickly, that requires responsibility, so that we can save these mammals. We need more coordination at the European level. We need to take action for whales like Timmy and for others, and to protect our oceans. So please take this point up in your list of priorities.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we have the Catch the Eye. We start with Ingeborg Terlak from EPP.
Ingeborg Ter Laak
Thank you, and thank you, chair. Shipping is the backbone of our global economy, and we only feel it once.
Waterways are blocked like they are.
Ingeborg Ter Laak
Right now. But today, it's also one of the sectors where global climate action is still lagging behind. So that's why the upcoming meeting of the International Maritime Organization in London is so important. And last year, unfortunately, we did not reach a global agreement. And that matters because if we fail to act globally, we risk fragmentation and unfair competition.
But Europe has to take its responsibility. With the ETS and the Fuel EU maritime, we are already setting clear rules and guiding, and creating incentives for cleaning shipping. But we all know shipping is global, and European action alone will not be enough. So the key question for the next conference will be quite simple: can we move from discussions to delivery? And we need a global framework that's both ambitious and workable.
At the same time, we must ensure a level playing field so that European companies are not put at a disadvantage while we try to take better care of the environment, which we all share. So, in short, it's about credibility. We want a global transition, and we need global rules. So therefore, I would like to ask, I have some questions. How confident can we be or can the commission be that this year, we can deliver on real progress towards a global framework, given the political division we saw last year and we still see up to this day?
And second, how will the Commission ensure that any IMO outcome is in consent with existing EU legislation, especially ETS and Fuel EU maritime, and avoids creating loopholes and a double system? And third, our global progress takes more time. How does the commission see the EU continuing to lead with strong ambition while we also ensure a fair and competitive playing field for our industries? Thank you.
Thank you. Andrew Katis, SMB.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Thank you. Thank you, chair. Thank you, colleagues. I would say one very strong message. It's not up to the European Commission.
It's up to member states to decide and to achieve a common position. And, of course, I fully agree with Peter Lee's proposal. We need to address our strong statement in front of such unacceptable behavior of United States. And, of course, also, we need to encourage council of heads of states and governments once again to see to find ways how Genki developed redeveloped common position at international level as one European Union. Although we know very well how big the influence is in different countries of some shipping lobby and so on.
We know very well the situation. But now it doesn't matter. It's up to council now to express a strong statement, related to such United States behavior and, of course, mobilize all our governments to be united.
Thank you, chair.
Jana Nagyová
I have a couple of questions. But first of all, I'd like to say I'm relatively depressed after what I have heard and what I followed from the situation in the IMO because I had a chance to be there last year. I will follow this year, and I have to admit that already last year, it was very sad, as far as IMO is decided by consensus. And, unfortunately, it's clear that the consensus is far away, and I am that the US are even stronger. And, unfortunately, as far as I understand, they are not alone on this side on the negative side.
So, my question is how the commission sees the real chance to achieve consensus, any consensus, because otherwise, European ships and ship industry will be significantly disadvantaged due to fuel maritime and its application here, but no implication in other countries and how the commission proceeds or how the member states of EU proceed in order to get others on board. Then I would like to ask you, because it seems to me that US is behaving extremely pragmatic and simply chasing money, chasing profit. And it means that one of the issues maybe for them is biofuels, like first generation biofuels and huge investments they did in the past in the sector. And, obviously, under fuel of maritime's general first-generation biofuels are
Jana Nagyová
allowed. So my question is whether commission and member states are willing to somehow discuss so that sustainable biofuels might be allowed unless they prove certain percentage of savings. It might
help to get you
As on the board, but you know better than I do. And the third question is whether we can have access then to the updated materials information for IMO before coming there. So because last year, it was huge back, and it was very difficult to get through all of them at the very last minute. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. So we go back to the commission for the concluding replies, missus Yonadio.
Fotini Ioannidou
Thank you very much for all your remarks and interventions. Well, many of them are not questions, but I'll start by saying a few things on the level of ambition. It's clear that what we want as the EU is an ambitious agreement. At the same time, it's important that we have a global agreement, and it is also important for the climate, but it's also important for our industry. So we are going to try, I mean, as EU, we are going to both push for a global agreement, and we are going to be the ones pushing for a high level of ambition.
So I think there, we have member states with us. Now, because of the first intervention, oh, no. The first I don't know. I've heard a lot about carbon leakage, and I would like to say that indeed, the first and most important measure to avoid carbon leakage is exactly to have a global agreement. At the same time, as long as we don't have one, we take the problems of ports, of European ports, in particular, the southern ports, very seriously.
And you know that we have recently issued a port strategy. We have a number of measures there for those ports suffering from carbon leakage. And, of course, and very important, there is an ETS review that is coming up, where we are going to look at measures to better protect our ports from carbon leakage in the absence of a global agreement. I would like also to say that the net zero framework that was on the table in October has been the subject of intense analysis of the impacts that has been worked for over many years. So if the measure remains as is, we have a very clear view of what the impact will be.
And, certainly, the impact will not be difficult for remote regions, for islands. These are all elements that we have analyzed very carefully. Altogether, all IMO member states, not only the EU. On the question of, so I had a number of questions, nevertheless. Yes.
So yes. The question, how confident can we be that we will deliver? This is a very difficult question. We are going to do everything in our hands in order to deliver an ambitious global agreement that is also realistic, that is also drawing on the support of a big number of member states, if not all of IMO member states. That is what we are aiming to.
How are we going to do it? Things are not so clear from this point of view. April will be the first occasion for the ION member states to sit down and listen, and negotiate directly, maybe in the corridors, and try to overcome the differences. So, we don't have the solution on the how, but you can be assured that for us, it is a very big priority. It is clear as well that we don't want, and I've sent it in my intervention, we don't want to have a situation where there is double payment between regional international measures.
We have made it very clear as a commission at least that this is our position. Yes. Whether we have a real chance to achieve consensus, that is another difficult question, I'm afraid to say. We remain optimistic. IMO has been an organisation that has managed to deliver concessions on many difficult files.
Of course, this one is not as any other file, but yeah, we remain optimistic, and we are going as EU, with this objective to try to build bridges, with everybody else. On the question of US and biofuels, certainly, I mean, we are ready to discuss with the US, and, I mean, they have problems with the biofuels. They have problems with LNG in the way these two elements were treated in the net-zero framework. But probably, this is not their main problem. So we believe the main problem is the economic element.
But certainly, we, I mean, as you, we are going to act constructively on whatever can be taken on board within the limits of our condition, which is what we want is an ambitious global agreement that achieves the objectives of the IMO greenhouse strategy. So within these limits, of course, we are open. And, yes, last but not least, your question. So you are coming to MEPC again. And, of course, we would be pleased to share with you the documents, but once they are final, because now they are under negotiation.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. So we move to the next point, and I would now welcome the representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as well as the commission to join us for the change of view on the first international conference on the transitioning away from fossil fuels. Missus Daniela Duan Gonzalez. Daniela Duan. Hi. Daniela.
She's not from No? That's not Daniela. Mister. Sorry. It's Mr. Bassen Ersinger from the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy that is connected remotely.
If you are connected, hello. We see you. Thank you so much, and we leave you the floor for an introduction. Speech for five minutes. Thank you.
Bastiaan Hassing
Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you for allowing me to connect remotely to say a few words about the upcoming conference in Colombia. So let me start with a bit of background. We know that Colombia had announced to organize the first conference about the transition away from fossil fuels, back in September. They approached us just before the start of COP 30 with the question of if we would like to help cohost and co-organize the conference, which we thought was an excellent idea because there is a clear need for a platform where we can talk about actual steps, the nuts and bolts, if you will, of the transition towards more renewable energy.
As I said, this was at the beginning of COP 30 in Belem. Fast forward two weeks, and the topic of transitioning away from fossil fuels was all everyone talked about. That has led to an explosion of interest from basically everybody around the world who wants to participate. We had already, at the time, secured a venue and prepared for a two-day conference between country representatives to talk in, as I said, on the practicalities of speeding up the transition away from fossil fuels. So what we have tried to do in the meantime is make it as an exclusive process as possible by allowing other representatives from NGOs, from academia, from parliamentarians all around the world, from civil society actors and from the private sector as well to participate in their own sectoral chapters.
We first launched a call for written input that would have been around two months ago. That input has been analyzed, compiled and made available for in-person discussions starting on April 24 in Santa Marta as well. And the outcome of those discussions will then be fed back into the high-level segment for ministers on the twenty-eighth and the twenty-ninth by rapporteurs of those different sectoral chapters. We understand that the European Parliament has also registered a delegation, which is excellent news. There will be parliamentarians from, I think, all continents from Europe, obviously, from South America, from Africa, from Asia.
So I think it would be really valuable to have European members of parliament also provide their input, express their concerns and their experiences in what we have done so far in Europe and what we still need to do. The outcomes of the conference, we hope, will be threefold. So first of all, all of the written input and the discussions will be summarized in a report that will be made available on the conference website. We hope that the combined countries that represent around 30% of global demand for energy and around 20% of global supply of energy will give a very strong signal that they are in fact continuing their work on a transition away from fossil fuels towards a more renewable-based energy system. Especially in these times, I think that would be a very strong market signal.
And finally, we hope that this will be the start of a longer running process with a possible second and third conference, many details of which, of course, still to be discussed. I will leave it at this for now, Mr. Chairman, and happy to answer any questions later on.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. So we move to the commission. We have Diana Acconcia, director of Digiclima.
Diana Acconcia
Thank you very much, Chair, and good afternoon, everyone. And my intervention will be completely complementary to the one made by the representative of the Dutch government, because I will rather focus on why we are working on transition away from fossil fuels and why the European Union has supported a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels. First of all, and risking to state the obvious, we all know here that 75% of emissions of greenhouse gases come from the production, distribution, and use of fossil fuels in the energy sector. And that's why, in the last few COPs, transitioning away from fossil fuels has been prominent, from Glasgow, where we all agreed to phase down unabated coal power, to the very important milestone at COP28, where parties agreed on global efforts that include transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner. Article 28 of the UAE consensus that has been, I think, since then, the centerpiece of our action to mitigate climate change.
And this is why we need, or this is why at 30, sorry, there was a very strong call for a road map to transition away from fossil fuels. We should implement the commitment that we have taken in COP 28 and that, unfortunately, have not been seriously implemented yet. The European Union thinks that the road map should identify and enable measurable near, medium, and long-term steps and actions that support transitioning away from fossil fuels in line with the commitment of the global stocktake. The road map should also identify indicators of these and other key features of the transitions, and what are the barriers and the opportunities of such a transition. And very important, it needs to be based on the best available science.
And here, I think, comes the importance of the conference in Santa Marta because the tough road map has to be elaborated and discussed on all the possible occasions. And this conference, as the Dutch colleague said, will be a moment where a lot of different parties, including both producing and consuming countries, and this, I think, is a very important feature. We'll have an occasion to discuss in a context that we hope will be relatively neutral, non politically charged, non conflictual, and focused on the implementation of our commitments. You will also be aware that the European Union has presented a submission to the Brazilian presidency, our contribution to the road map for transitioning away from fossil fuels that they are implementing. And we have indicated in that submission a number of topics that we think should be discussed in the TAF road map. That, let's remind again, should build on the existing global stock take commitments, including, most importantly, doubling of energy efficiency and tripling of renewable energy by 2030.
I will mention some of the topics without going deep in the interest of time, but we think that the roadmap should take into account, among others, the global methane pledge target, how we decarbonize final energy uses with the view of reducing the use of fossil fuels, how we increase electrification, how we expand grids and storage capacity, these are both key elements and, I think, the key barriers to the scaling up of renewable energy at the moment. Introducing carbon pricing, that's also very important, and new fossil fuel drilling, introducing, extending producer responsibility, no new coal power, phase out fossil fuel subsidy that do not address energy poverty and just transition. This is a commitment that we have already taken, by the way, but has not yet been implemented. Effectively and rapidly decarbonize the transport sector as soon as possible and an uptake of cost-efficient and scale-up zero emission fuels innovation.
Diana Acconcia
Okay. Sorry. I am almost finished. In fact, this is my last point. All these measures that will certainly be discussed in Santa Marta have to be included in stronger domestic policy frameworks.
And this policy framework cannot be effective if they don't include strong support to just transition, to support those workers and those regions affected by the transition. And this was also stated in GST 1. The very last point is to recall the support that the European Union has given to the energy transition in other countries, particularly in developing countries. International cooperation also has to be a very strong focus of the conference in Santa Marta. I would like here to recall, in terms of action of the European Union, the Just Energy Transition partnerships that we have with five countries and that have shown how we can put together investment from the financial institutions, regulatory dialogue, and also a very strong support to the just part of the transition to workers and to the regions, for example, where the coal mining that needs to be gradually terminated.
So, this is a little bit the economic background, and then happy to answer two questions later. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we move to the political groups. We start with the EPP, Esther Ramos Garcia.
Thank.
Esther Herranz García
you. Yes. There'll be the mission to Santa Marta, as you said, and we'd like to contribute as much as we can to the whole debate outlined by the commission, as well as the representative from The Netherlands. I regret there won't be representatives from all the political groups. That's a shame, but at least we'll be there.
What's difficult for me to grasp is that we've got this effort to transition to cleaner fuels, and the smaller emitters of CO2 are making all the effort, it would seem, rather than the larger emitters. Russia, U. S, China, both in the transport field and elsewhere, is going to be absent. But anyway, we will be there. We'll be working on the mandate given to us by parliament, and that's it.
Thank you, Chair.
César Luena
I'll be focusing on how we can progressively move away from fossil fuels by starting with a crucial point, the elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels. Clear commitments in the 8 action plan for the environment. And there we were calling for gradual elimination, but it's a gradual effort. We're still giving public money to fossil fuels. That undermines our credibility and delays the transition.
So eliminating these subsidies is key. We can't carry on financing the problem while we talk about solutions. And even more so in the current context, we're depending on resources that we don't own, where we are suffering by the situation caused by Trump and Netanyahu, is unacceptable. Large companies are paying less tax than they should, which is another problem because in practice, they're receiving an advantage. Subsidy.
So you've got, on the one hand, subsidies that are received by these big companies. On the other hand, they're paying less tax. Win. So a bit more enthusiastically than the EPP. I'd say this is an opportunity to make progress on the transition.
A couple of questions to the Colombian authorities and to The Netherlands that we have connected. How they see this conference having actual commitments, people signing up to doing away with subsidies to fossil fuels. And so I'd ask about that. The commission, how are things going on with this elimination within the EU, and whether there are going to be additional measures, whether they believe additional measures will be required? And then a final point on behalf of my colleague, how the commission strengthens cooperation with African countries at political level, governance, private sector to ensure that CBAM is applied, contributing to decarbonization and access to the European market?
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
We don't have a request from Patriots, we skip to ECR Alexander Vonder.
Alexandr Vondra
Thank you very much. So, look, I don't have any questions. Just a quick comment because my group, ECR, will not participate in Santa Marta conference. We are not supporting this process. We stick behind this consensus-based COP meetings where the largest emitent took part, and they should do much more than Europe is doing, and they are not doing this.
So, this is just a handful of countries which do have some special national interest or have the advantage in speeding up. But just to take you to the consideration that there are some other European countries which have a serious problem, especially in this war-torn geopolitical situation. And good luck to Colombia, as a host. I just understand that it's in their interest because they have an electricity mix with a huge hydro energy potential. So, yes, it's easy for you.
But, at the same time, Colombia is a big and growing exporter of coal, oil, and gas. So, yes, it's benefits, largely. And just reading the statement of the president of Colombia a couple of years ago, and this is still in office, that cocaine is less dangerous than coal. So try to explain to the people in my country, you know, because we have nothing but the coal. So I am in favor of decarbonization, but to select the speed which would not harm our competitiveness and wealth at home.
So that's my brief comment.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Even coal could be dangerous. So we move to the new Emma Wiesner.
Emma Ytterell
Thank you so much, Sharon. Thank you to the minister and for commission for being here. I look forward to meeting you all in Santa Marta and discuss how we can make this a successful conference. Colleagues, this is it. This is the meeting where we finally can address the elephant in the room without worrying about what the OPEC countries will say about it or veto any results of the conference.
I think this is an extremely important moment that we should seize. The countries that want to take responsibility on a global level on phasing out fossil fuels, this is the time where we have the chance to be concrete, to be specific, and to be ambitious, things that we haven't seen much of in the last COP meetings. So I am very positive going there with very positive feelings to Santa Marta, and I really hope we can make this a success together. But in order to do so, I have two questions. To you, dear minister, how would you define a successful outcome of this conference?
How do we develop the Belem declaration into a commitment, into something that is more detailed, a road map that is clear, and that has timelines? What's your position or what would you like to see, in order to measure this as a success, and how do we get there? And to the commission, the Belem declaration on transitioning away from fossil fuels was not signed by the EU. It was signed by individual member states, not even all the member states. So my question is, what were the preparations working with council going to this conference?
What have we been done in the past weeks in order to ensure that the EU could go there with a strong message? And how will we stick the union together, the member states together, in order to make EU be able to sign the outcome? Ask the United Union, how do we get all the member states on board? I think it's very important. We didn't do it last time, but after this meeting, in this conference, we really need to stick together as a union if we want to send a strong message.
Thank you.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes. Thank you, chair, and thank you to the minister and to the commission. I think with what we are facing right now in the world with escalating regional violence that really expose the fertility of the fossil fuel economy. I mean, to imagine world peace in this economy is truly difficult. So let's hope that this conference will actually mark the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel economy.
And I hope that we will really push from EU side that this end will be through a really a fair and people centered transition grounded in international law, because this is what we need. And it's also one thing to talk about this, but there's some details which is gonna be important. And first of all, we need to be able to tackle the legal barriers in all these investor state dispute settlement clauses there is in deals around. If we don't tackle those, how do we get rid of this? And the other thing I actually, and that's also a question to the commission if it's something we bring up from the EU side, and that is how we tackle the debt burden that traps the developing countries in the fossil fuel production.
So we actually make also this a push towards a debt convention in UN level instead. And then, of course, we need to preach and act at the same time. So, the plan for the total phase out of coal in 2030 as we should, gas by '35, and have 100% renewable in 2040 should be the roadmap represent from EU side. I want to also ask about the position from the EU because we've heard a lot from the commission about fossil free MFF. We're debating at the moment.
So are we gonna champion actually a binding framework to end fossil fuel subsidies and perhaps even introduce EU-wide fossil fuel profit tax. So one thing is to make the deal of moving on to another economy, but also all the other steps that go along could be interesting to see addressed by the EU at this conference. Thank you.
Günther Sidl
Thank you very much for being here, and thank you to the Colombians organizing this very important conference and being here today. In recent weeks, we've made it, we've seen absolutely clear cut that we cannot allow ourselves to be dependent on fossil fuels internationally. The war in Iran is making the fuel prices skyrocket, and those on middle and lower incomes are suffering greatly as a result. And for this reason, the world needs this conference to transition away from fossil fuels. The Santa Maria conference is so important because we've seen again and again promises being broken on sorting this out.
Speaker 61
The cost, those who are affected most are the having to be footed there. A just transition shouldn't just take into consideration the nature of the energy generated, but who's controlling it, who's profiting from it, and who is gonna be protected when old industries have to be closed down. A genuinely just transition has to have democratic ownership of an energy system, which provides targeted support for energy-impoverished housing and incomes for the global South so that they can invest in new resources. I put a question to Commissioner Hoekstra. He said he'll be participating in the conference, and I welcome that.
Speaker 62
But an answer to what he's gonna give by way of input remains to be seen. We need to see specific promises and commitments to a timeline for transitioning away from fossil fuels in the EU. And that's why I asked the commission, does the commission support a binding accountability framework following the WHO tobacco model to make sure that the influence of fossil fuel industries does not have an influence on policy? And will he speak at the Santa Maria conference to prevent fossil fuel interests being represented at future conferences? Will the ISDS investor state dispute settlement be applied and exclude in the scrutiny of contracts and treaties any fossil fuel input and effect on them, and make sure that in future COPs, this doesn't happen?
Speaker 63
Will the commission ensure that there'll be an EU-wide timetable for transitioning away from fossil fuels in the EU? What is the deadline that the commission is looking at for oil, gas, coal, etc.? Thank you.
Anja Arndt
I'll speak German. Thank you, chair. Thank you, minister. The planned international conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta is being sold as progress. But in this form, I consider it to be a political mistake, because the fundamental mistake in this debate is a black and white approach.
Fossil fuels are considered, across the board, as being bad. Wind farms, solar panels are across the board good. It is not that simple in reality, however. There is a real CO2 manure effect. NASA refers to satellite data that says that a considerable amount of greening across the globe can be explained by CO2-based fertilizers.
CO2 is being considered one of the most important drivers of observed greening across the planet. That is a real phenomenon and should be considered part of reality. And we've seen an increase in harvest of 16%. Fossil fuels have a clear advantage. This conference underestimates them again and again.
They are storable. They're transportable. They can help maintain a baseload. And in highly developed economies, they are technically integrated. Moreover, their classic pollution can be reduced with technical approaches.
So two, No, and particulate matter can be filtered out and captured. CO2 is not a problem necessarily. The climate intensity as a result of this is overestimated. Solar power and its extension should not be regarded with an uncritical eye. The International Energy Agency points out that the so-called green energy technologies lead to much higher use of minerals and commodities.
An onshore wind park, according to the IEA, needs nine times as many mineral resources as related to a gas power station of the same power. That means more mining, more problems over land, more dependency on energy chains. If you want to give up fossil fuels out of hand, you disregard the fact that we're not just looking at a climate issue, but we're also looking at a question of welfare, security, supply, industrial policy, and geopolitical resilience. A policy which at the same time is getting rid of domestic sources of energy, yet at the same time is making itself more dependent on the import of rare metals, is not just unwise. It is silly.
Is there a possibility to have a sensible and accountable fossil fuel policy while trying to push for a transition away from fossil fuels because of the economic dependency and the material dependencies that are being generated are being systematically ignored.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we move to the. We start with Peter Leese. Mhmm.
Peter Liese
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the commission and the minister. I think it's important to transition away from fossil fuels. And exactly what we are experiencing in the last weeks after the outbreak of the war in Iran, we see that whenever we are dependent on fossil fuels, we have a problem in this kind of crisis. So it is whatever you think about the climate, it is good to transition away from fossil fuels. And Ursula von der Leyen, in her speech on Iran in the last plenary, she mentioned that through the European ETS, we have already 100000000000 cubic meters less gas usage than we would have without ETS.
So the situation would be much worse. And I think this conference in Colombia is also important from a geostrategical point of view. The French of Putin, the friends of Putin support fossil fuels. I wonder why. So, we still fuel the war against Ukraine when we consume fossil fuels, and we should stop that as soon as possible.
And it was very telling to me in Belem at the last day that Russia embarrassingly shouted at Latin America and even Argentina. You know, it's good that Argentina is still in the Paris Agreement. That's also due to Mercosur. But, of course, Javier Millet is maybe not the most ambitious guy on climate change, but he defended the Latin American position against Russia. So from a strategic point of view, it's important that Europe works with Latin America, and this conference is a good opportunity.
Thank you.
Thank you. Annalisa Corrado?
Thank.
Annalisa Corrado
Thank you very much. I'll speak Italian. There are a lot of questions that have already been posed. I want to just highlight the fact that this conference constitutes a very important development at a time when multilateralism appears to have been weakened across the board. A lot of people are moving away from that.
But for many of us, we consider it a very important system for cooperation. And how should I put this? Giving us a possibility to reduce escalation, in contrary to what we're seeing around the world today. Peter Lieser said, rightly so, that it's the friends of Putin who don't want to transition away from fossil fuels. I'd say it's also the friends of Trump who don't want to transition away from fossil fuels.
And these are all issues that, or rather, these are all people who want to make the EU fragile, who consider it just a market for their backyard. So decarbonization is an issue that will lend stability. It is of strategic autonomy. That should be beyond doubt now for us, but also for economic competitiveness. So for us, this still gives us a great deal of hope that Santa Maria will give us some progress where we didn't manage to make it see the COP.
And, of course, we want to make this historic. We want to have a permanent organization established, that would be progress. So I have a question here. Is there a possibility that this will lead to a stable platform where countries who take this seriously and want to push in the right direction can actually develop specific instruments? The second question is, is there a difference between saying, you know, having the most number of countries possible on board, but at the same time, making sure that these are countries actually dealing with this properly, that we don't see retrograde steps taken in what's being achieved.
For example, the participation of Italy in the conference does raise a wry smile, because we've just seen they're trying to undermine the ETS. And luckily, their amendments were rejected to a greater extent, but it's a question of striking that balance. Is it better to have, regardless of which countries, as many countries as possible onboard, or should we concentrate on getting good countries onboard? How do we strike that balance? Thank you.
Delara Burkhardt
Thank you very much. I'm really wondering which telegram group the AFB representatives get their information from. Fossil fuels are finite. They're expensive, and they are destroying our environment. They're making us dependent on autocrats, the friends of Putin.
They want us to remain dependent. Colombia and the Netherlands have all of my gratitude for this initiative. Our dependency on fossil fuels isn't only an environmental problem. It is a direct threat to our prosperity and our freedom. Once again, we have a fossil fuel crisis, rising energy costs, rising living costs, inflation, everything becoming more expensive.
Ordinary people pay the price, while the energy companies profit. It's important to stress that fossil energies are not only burnt, they are processed, they are made into textiles, into packaging. And that's why it's important that a conference like this one, there should be talk of the circular economy, and that is my appeal. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. So important consideration from many members of the parliament. We go back to the representative of the Dutch authority, Mr. Bassen Assinger. You have the floor for some answer and consideration. Mister Assinger?
Bastiaan Hassing
Yes. Thank you very much. And let me start by saying that it's very encouraging to hear, by and large, enormous support from the members of the European Parliament for this conference and the topics of discussion there. Before answering some of the questions, perhaps a few general remarks about this conference versus the COP process and the general UNFCCC process that also makes a constant reference to. As we've seen in Belen at COP thirty, there was a strong call for a road map that outlines how we can transition away from fossil fuels.
Equally, there was strong support against that. So this also ties in with Ms. Corrado's question about should we try and get all countries on board, or should we start with a smaller group? And I think that Colombia and The Netherlands have clearly chosen the latter model, focusing on countries that in some shape or form are already working on this transition, either through a membership of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, the Clean Energy Transition Partnership, or the coalition that The Netherlands leads aimed at phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. So the UNFCCC process clearly has a very important role to play.
It's one of the biggest, if not the biggest, political climate summit of the year. But there's often, it's you know, we come together there in a negotiation dynamic, and there's often not enough time to talk in-depth about the actual barriers that prohibit us from speeding up the transition away from fossil fuels. So having said that, some of the questions that were raised, for instance, by mister Luana, will we focus at actual commitments? We very much don't want this to be a negotiation focused conference. So you yourself mentioned fossil fuel subsidies, which is a very important topic, and we will certainly address that.
We will explain what we do in a group of countries. Currently, we have 17 members, and I think also Commissioner Hoekstra is in his mandate looking at what the European Union can do. We will share those experiences. We explain what solutions are out there. But I don't think that this is the time to have countries actually sign up.
So what is successful? What does a successful outcome look like? Ms. Weisman asked. As I've said before, we do aim to make progress, and we will try to do that focusing on a couple of different steps. So countries will be asked to present their own solutions and best practices.
Now as I've actually said before, we have, through different rounds, gotten written input that will be used for more in-depth discussions in the different sectoral chapters in the days leading up to the high-level segment on the 28th and the 29th, and those outcomes will then be discussed by ministers as well. So as a possible outcome, we do hope that we will be able to link different countries either together for stronger international cooperation, or link them with financial institutions or private sector companies that invest in the renewable energy transition. I think, especially mister Lisa laid out the importance of having such an in-depth discussion, so not much to add to that. Finally, then Miss Correto asked also, could this lead to a stable platform? And this for me would be a very important element of a successful outcome, that we walk away from that conference having said to each other, yes.
This was useful. Let's do this again. Let's organize a second conference and possibly third conference and see how we can create a platform, a hub, some shape of a supporting infrastructure, if you will. So that's certainly something that we're going to discuss. Thank you.
Diana Acconcia
Thank you very much. I'll try to address some of the issues that were raised. First of all, on how the European Union is addressing the need to transition away from fossil fuels. I would point here to the general framework that is given for us by the climate law and the recent amendment that has entered into force of cutting emissions by 90% in 2040. And that obviously implies a transition away from fossil fuels.
It will not be possible to get to net zero in 2050 without doing it. But more specifically, the commission is also preparing a communication, Accelerate EU, which is our response to the current energy crisis. And there, there will be an array of short- and medium-term measures that we propose. But the long-term solution clearly will be the transition away from fossil fuels. On the point of what we are doing to reduce the emissions of those that are really the big emitters, the European climate and energy diplomacy keeps the pressure on the big emitters to decarbonize and discusses which kind of incentives and how the transition away from fossil fuels can also go hand in hand with economic development and growth, which, at the end of the day, particularly with developing countries, is the most important argument.
And here, I would also like to answer the question on how we reinforce international cooperation, particularly with the countries that are subjected to the CBAM, particularly in Africa. We have dialogues ongoing with the countries that are most exposed. We are helping them in the implementation, and we are also actively supporting the investment to decarbonize the sectors that are most exposed. Of course, this is an ongoing process that will have to continue over the years. Another point that I would like to try to address is the point on the declaration at COP 30 that the EU would not have signed.
In fact, just to be specific, to precise, there was no declaration on transition in a way from fossil fuels in Malay. In fact, as already said by the Dutch colleague, there was strong support by some countries on having a road map and strong opposition from other countries. And that's why the topic did not make it to the final COP decision. However, I would like to state that the EU twenty-seven supported collectively as EU the road map. And actually, we were really not happy that the roadmap did not make it in the final declaration.
So I would like this to be clear and not to be any equivocation. I would also like, with the permission of the chair, to quickly give the floor to my colleague of DG Energy to respond to the point on the fossil fuel subsidies. Thank you.
Thank you so much. We may.
Pierfrancesco Maran
And DG Energy, shortly. Two minutes.
To DG Energy for the last speech.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Ask the colleague entering to respect the debate in course and the speaker.
Speaker 69
Thank you. Just to reply to the question on the fossil fuel subsidies. Indeed, both mission letters of commissioner Okstra and Joergensen include work on this, and the position of the European Union is very clear. All fossil fuel subsidies need to be phased out or reformed to maintain the necessary level of support, for example, in the current times of crisis, but we're never endangering the EU's climate objective. Every year, the commission reports on energy subsidies, including fossil fuel ones.
Speaker 70
And based on this report, every year, we publish country-specific recommendations as part of the European semester. Moreover, as part of the National Energy and Climate Plans, member states have to indicate their pathway to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And this year, the commission intends to produce a framework for the abatement of fossil fuel subsidies within this year, in which the revision of the governance regulation will have an important place to play. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. We make a short interruption before the voting session. Okay. So we start again. I invite all the colleagues to take their position, and we make a vote to see if everything is correct.
I open the vote.
But it's fine. We can close the.
I close the vote.
And it's visible here.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Okay. So I informed that the subs as a substitute, there are Leonard DuPont for Christian Schneider, EPP Sofia Eriksson, a substitute for Thomas Bayada, S and D seven in Verbouk, a substitute for Bababonte, Peter Petiotz, Thomas Weitz, a substitute for Lennox Schilling from the Greens. We bought the item number 10, European Chemical Agency and amending regulation. The rapporteur is Christophe Lager. We start with the compromise number one, who is in favor of Raise His Hand.
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number two, quiz in favor? Who's against?
Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number three, who's in favor? Who's against, who abstain, who adopted. Compromise number four, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number five, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained?
Adopted. Compromise number six, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise number seven, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number eight, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number nine, who's in favor, who's against, who abstains, adopted. Final vote by roll call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed, and it's adopted by 58 voting in favor, four against, and nine abstentions. Congratulations to the rapporteur. So now we move to the amending decision item number 11 as regard to the market stability reserve for the building, road transport and additional sector, Rapporteur, Denuzo Neudova. Now.
We have a proposal to reject.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Yes. We start with the proposal for rejection by roll call vote. We open the vote. We close the vote, and it's rejected. Now raising hands, compromise number one, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? I would check. I close the vote, and it's adopted. It was totally not clear before. Many of you look against.
So final vote, by all call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed, and it's adopted by 58 voting in favor, 9 against and 9 abstention. Congratulations to the rapporteur. So we moved. Yes.
Yes. So we move to the next item, proposal for a regulation amending regulation. The rapporteur is myself. So we start with the proposal for rejection by vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed, and the proposal is rejected. So, we have the recital in 8 amendment 2. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
And it's rejected. We have the final vote by roll call. The vote is open. The vote is closed. And it's adopted by 71 in favor and 5 against.
Thank you. Now we have a small interruption. No. No. We Aristia, do we have a... Oh, okay.
That's.
Do you have the agenda?
It's the last.
Pierfrancesco Maran
one with before the okay. So we have now the next item that is the objection pursuant to rule 115. The rules of procedure, that is tabled by Bosan, Petrachen, Asseling, as a camp. It's a vote called vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. And it's adopted by 45 votes in favor, 29 against, one abstention.
And now we have an interruption until.
Now we will have an interruption till 06:15, where we will have a vote with Peche.
We will need an absolute majority.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Yes. I remember that in the vote, 06:15, it will also be possible a request of absolute majority. So I invite all the colleagues to remain present. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, and welcome also to the past member.
If there are no objections, the draft agenda can be adopted without modification. Interpretation is available in 21 languages. As usual, the meeting file is available electronically via the e-meeting application, and the meeting will be web streamed. We will vote on the decision empowering France to accede to the Inter American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, and the vote to enter the institute the institutional negotiation. Now we make a vote to see if everything works correctly.
We open the vote. I close the board.
No. No. No.
No? We
have greens
Can we do it again?
Pierfrancesco Maran
Yeah. They solved the problem. We made another try, so we open the vote. We close the vote. Now everything is okay.
So raising our hand that we vote for compromise number one, who is in favor, who is against? Who abstained? And it's adopted. Now we have the final vote by roll call. The vote is open.
The vote is closed, and it's approved by 96 votes in favor. Big congrats to the rapporteur.
We have a second vote.
Pierfrancesco Maran
But wait, because we have the second vote that is the hold on. Please a bit of attention because it needs a specific majority by local vote on the decision to enter into the inter-institutional negotiation. The vote is open. The vote is closed, and it's adopted by unanimity. Thank you.
I leave the floor to my colleague, Carispo from Pêche.
Thank.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you very much. Thank you to everyone. Thank you to the MV committee, the Peche committee working together, not for the last time, because we will be working on other subjects like this. Thank you once again.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.