Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety – Extraordinary Meeting (ENVI Extraordinary Committee 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 sittingsPierfrancesco Maran
Compromise number two. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted.
Compromise number three. Who's in favor? So we go back. Compromise number three. Who's in favor?
Raise his hand. Who's against? Quobstain adopted. Compromise number four. Who's in favor?
Who is against? Quibstain adopted. Amendment 104. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Quibstain? Rejected. Compromise number five? Who's in favor? Who's against?
Quibstain? Adopted. Amendment number 40, who's in favor? Who's against? Who's abstaining?
Rejected. Compromise number 41, excuse me. Amendment number 41. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstained? Rejected. Final vote by roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed, and it's adopted by 53 votes in favor, three against, 21 abstain.
Thank you, and congrats to the rapporteur. We make a quick pause, waiting for the commission. Okay. So we can go on with our work. The let me now welcome Commissioner Roswell to the Parliament and to this exchange of views, which is part of the structured dialogue.
This is an occasion for us to discuss the current commission work program and the priorities for the coming years. Before opening the first round of questions by our coordinators, which will take place in a ping pong format, I will give the floor to Commissioner Roswell for around ten minutes to present the ongoing activities and the priorities in her area. Please, Commissioner Roswell, you have the floor.
Jessika Roswall
Thank you very much, dear Francesco. Honorable members, thank you for this opportunity to reflect on the past year and also to outline my plans for the month ahead. But let me start with some comments on the world around us. We are meeting at a time of very high geopolitical uncertainty and volatility, rocked by real wars and the trade wars. And these events have highlighted just how exposed the EU is to high oil and gas prices, and vulnerable to supply change, and how dependent we are on other countries for critical raw materials and oil and gas.
There are clear lessons here for the EU. As we stated in our communication adopted last week, we need to take short-term measures in the energy field, but also double down on structured transformative measures. I do, of course, speak about electrification, decarbonization, and scaling up renewables and clean homegrown energy. But our dependencies on oil and gas is not limited to energy and fuels. Fossil fuel stocks is also a significant source of input for a number of sectors.
Chemicals, plastics, fertilizers, textiles, just to mention a few. For this reason, we need to take concrete actions toward the circular economy and to boost the EU bioeconomy, both of which mean more resource efficiency, more strategic autonomy, more security, and more competitiveness. The cheapest barrel of oil is the one that we don't need. Last year, we started some of the groundwork, including measures to support plastic recyclers and the EU bioeconomy strategy, but we need to scale up our actions. I'm working full speed on the Circle Economy Act to strengthen the business case for circularity and remove single-market obstacles for secondary raw materials.
The second bioeconomy biotech act will build markets for bio-based materials. They show our determination to deliver this transition. Our collaboration within this com committee is vital if we are to manage the current geopolitical instability and vital if we are to transition to a resilient and sustainable circular economy. So, I also want to thank you for the collaboration, and I also look forward to all this to continue. Now, I would like to touch on some of the milestones from the past year.
Let me start with an overarching priority. Simple, effective rules that are really easy to implement. On March 19, the European Council again reaffirmed its commitment to simplify EU legislation. We have all three institutions committed to advancing the commission's simplification proposals, including the environmental omnibus before 2026, and it's time that we deliver. I therefore encourage you to accelerate the work on the omnibus, and also the environmental permitting so that an agreement can be reached still within this year.
My colleagues and services are fully prepared to support you. We have prepared a balanced proposal to simplify without lowering standards, and I urge you to maintain your focus on reducing this administrative burden and legal complexity. I believe that if we stick to that agreement, an agreement can reach be swift, reach swiftly. And I count on the parliament to support us on the simplification opportunities in the single market. So let's get rid of the need to have authorized representatives in every country where a company is active.
This is an example of a clear and visible signal of simplification and one of the single market's terrible 10 that we identified last year. Still this week, we will also publish a very targeted amendment to the waste shipment regulation to deal with the specific issues of waste management arising in border regions, to Switzerland. This is a quick fix, urgently needed by a number of regions to avoid disruptions and keep the high standard local waste management practices. And I, here, also urge you to adopt this quickly. Second, as you know, water resilience is a personal and political priority for me.
It is also becoming a core aspect of our security and preparedness. No society or economy can function without water, and a broken water cycle will drive insecurity and conflict. Last June, we presented an ambitious water resilience strategy, and we are working hard on the implementation. Just last week, I visited a wastewater treatment facility in Malta to speak with stakeholders on the ground and to witness innovation in action. And I have met people across Europe from farmers to industry and to conservative conservativists and to civil society, to discuss water insecurity and how we can help.
We have launched structured dialogue with member states to discuss the implementation of our water rules, and we are working with member states and stakeholders to enhance water efficiency. And we are developing a digital action plan that will harness the untapped potential of digitalization to boost water security and efficiency. These are just some of the steps that we are taking to protect and restore the very lifeblood of our society, environment, and economy. I also want to highlight the strategic importance of water energy nexus. Water is critical for energy production, with the energy sector accounting for 17% of total EU water abstraction, for example, cooling of power plants.
And this is a vital perspective in today's unstable world, and we need to keep it front and center. And in this context, we also need to balance water resilience with a clean transition and the critical materials we need for it. This means more recycling, but probably also we need more clean mining in Europe. And we have consulted publicly on it, and it will soon be published a guidance, and have started preparation for a targeted revision of the water framework directive building on the stakeholders' input and the experience in member states. We will, of course, pay particular attention to simplification and the need to address bottlenecks while keeping our high water standards, and protecting the environment and human health.
And, of course, water resilience is closely related to efforts to protect our seas and oceans, and this was an important part of the G7 discussions in Paris last week, and is a topic where we can still deliver meaningful solutions in a challenging multilateral context. My message to our partners was therefore clear. The implementation of the High Seas Treaty or the BBNJ remains a top priority for the EU. Third, on PFAS and chemicals. Ensuring human and environmental health while boosting competitiveness and innovation is at the very core of the European project.
I have seen firsthand the cost of PFAS pollution in human health, environmental damage, and economic losses. And citizens are very concerned about these forever chemicals accumulating in our bodies, in water, and in nature. We owe it to our children and future generations to address one of the biggest pollution problems in all of our time. And we owe it to our businesses to provide clarity, certainty, and predictability on how PFAS can be used as safely as possible. The EU chemical agency, ECA, is working full speed on this, and I hope we will be able to put forward a restricted decision by the end of this year.
As you know, focus will be on the use of PFAS in consumer products. We are also continuing the work on PFAS cleanup and to avoid the pollution source, in the future. And I'm encouraged by the innovation taking place and the safe substitutions of PFAS that are being developed. Beyond that, me and Stefan, we have been looking at a range of options to simplify and modernize the REACH regulation. We have engaged with many of you and with stakeholders to understand what a balanced approach might look like, combining modernization and better enforcement.
That means addressing the uneven playing field for industry and simplifying overly complicated processes while ensuring we are protected from harmful substances like endocrine disruptors and PFAS. Reflecting the discussions we have had with many of you and with many stakeholders and civil society, we have come to the conclusion to not open reach at this point. We are at a point where we need certainty and predictability, that would not be helpful. But we also need to simplify for our companies and for the citizens. So instead, we are looking into ways of simplification and modernization by way of commodity logic. We will put forward an initiative to improve enforcement regarding non-compliant products and substances, both at our borders and in terms of more effective market surveillance.
Work on all of this is still ongoing, and I'm looking forward to sharing more details with you soon. I want to end with a word on the core of the responsibility, the ecosystems which are the foundation of our economy's security, including food and security, clean water, and air and more. We are working hard on the coherent and the cost effective implementation of our nature directives. In March, the commission published two guidance documents for national and regional authorities. First, on the protection of derogation provisions for the Bird Directive.
This highlights the space for flexibility improvement, while maintaining the ambition of the core of the directive. And second, guidance on the Natura 2000 and climate change to help member states to adapt to the growing pressure of climate change. As we said in the omnibus package last December, we are now in the process of stress testing the nature directives as the commission has committed to stress test the entire Keys during the mandate. We will soon start a public consultation on this, and we will look into a balanced way of the legislation. Does it achieve its objective?
Is it simple to implement? What can we do better? I do not know today what the outcome will be, but we need to take these questions together. When it comes to the nature restoration regulation, it is a crucial part of our efforts to restore the ecosystem. I am committed to its implementation with flexibility, support, and guidance tailored to member state specific realities, and involved in close coordination with national authorities and key state stakeholders like farmers and foresters.
They share, honorable members, we have an ambitious agenda from simple rules to cleaner water, to stronger ecosystems and more. Our success depends on close collaboration. So in conclusion, let me assure you of my commitments to a continuous open dialogue with stakeholders, with civil society, and with member states, and, of course, especially with this House. So I thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss the challenges, and opportunities ahead on how we can meet them together. I'm looking forward to continue this work.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, commissioner. Now we have the first round. One speaker for every group. It's ping pong. So one minute and a half for the speaker, one minute and a half for the commissioner, and then a reply for thirty seconds each.
We start with EPP Solís Pérez.
Susana Solís Pérez
Thank you, sir. I could like to speak in Spanish. Yeah.
Commissioner, dear commissioner, first of all, thank you. Thank you for being here with us today. I wanted to ask you about the environment omnibus. There's a simplification package. Unfortunately, the speaker lost her mic temporarily.
So simplification. Simplification is not deregulation. It means making things more foreseeable, easier, and also, of course, less costly, as you've explained. Now I have to say, we were expecting more from this omnibus. The commission has looked at competitiveness and simplification, and that seems to be their priority.
I understand we need to cut red tape. We need to speed up processes. That's fine. And the omnibus would actually be an opportunity to do so, but I'm not sure we're there yet. I understand that there are positive developments, technically speaking.
For instance, the directive on industrial emissions, simplifications which are perfectly relevant for industry, that's fine. But what about livestock farming? That's left aside. And yet, we need to have a separate instrument for agriculture. I think the commission has stated that.
And also, it's too limited. It's too narrow. You know, the standards sometimes can be a real obstacle for companies, for undertakings, and an obstacle to competitiveness. For instance, when it comes to waste regulation, it's a very complicated piece of legislation, and it's making things difficult for us. Same thing for the framework directive on water.
Again, there's a blockage on a number of projects because of it. It's making things more difficult. Therefore, a simple question to you, madam. Do you think that this package is up to the task? Do you think that we can actually achieve the targets that you have spoken about, the percentages that you want to save here?
And what about the standards that are really the most important for our undertakings today? When do you intend to deal with those most pressing matters? Thank you.
Jessika Roswall
Thank you very much for the question. And as I said in my first intervention, I think that our proposal on the environmental omnibus, with the permitting part of the omnibus, was very balanced. And I really hope that the co-legislators, the council, and the European parliament act swiftly to actually do, to come to an agreement within this year, because the different member states, different businesses around Europe really ask us to do that, especially when it comes to permitting. I took one example that you mentioned. I mean, I agree with you that we have a lot of regulations that are complex, and that is why the commission is very committed to doing simplification, making the rules we have more efficient, easier to implement or to achieve.
The waste regulation has one thing that we addressed. I spoke about it in my first intervention. It's about the EPRs that we have authorized representatives in all the member states. One concrete example on what we put forward as a simplification, and now everybody doesn't agree with that proposal, what I understand. I that's my plea to you that I think this, but with that said, we will continue to do simplification, for example, as I see it in the Circle Economy Act.
And waste is one thing that we need to see as a resource. How can we address that? And then I have, like, 10 seconds. Right? Right?
Left?
Yeah.
Jessika Roswall
Good. And then I would just say to you shortly that we also address that the water framework directive has now been open for call for evidence that is addressing the processing. And then it was something else that you also took up again. Well, we also had stress testing the nature directives, as I said. So we are continuing.
It's a continuing ongoing work. Thank you.
So it's best 30 seconds.
Susana Solís Pérez
Yeah. Gracias. Thank you very much.
Much, commissioner. I'm not sure you answered another question of mine. The industrial emissions directive, in it, there was a commitment by the commission to have a separate proposal for farming, for agriculture. I really would like you to answer that point. What's happening about that?
And then also within this directive, you've got the June 1st for the transposition deadline, which is just around the corner. Negotiations, I think, are coming a bit too late in the day for that. And so, legally speaking, I think the industry is in a situation of uncertainty. They don't quite know what's going to happen. So I'm wondering, are you going to stop the clock?
Well, you've stopped the clock before in the past. Is that perhaps an idea here, or do you think it could be paused until we conclude the Omnibus negotiations? What's your idea on the timeline?
Jessika Roswall
Sorry to repeat. It was on the industrial emissions directive. That's the last one. Okay. So, we addressed, thank you again.
We addressed the industrial emissions directive in the omnibus targeted, on some of the things that was raised during the stakeholder call for evidence. For example, when it comes to farming, we have, I mean, some of the it was addressed some of these things in the so, I mean, what you're saying, I would argue the opposite, that it shows the importance of swiftly address the omnibus package that the co legislators actually do these changes as fast as possible.
Thank.
Delara Burkhardt
Thank you very much. Thank you, madam commissioner. The circular economy, that debate is really kicking off in this house as well. There are a lot of high expectations. And I think we need to be clear.
It's not just about sustainability. It's much more than that. We're talking about independence in terms of the import of resources. We're talking about more economy here in Europe itself, keeping it here. Because, you know, we're talking about competitiveness.
We talk a lot about that, but a third of our global economic performance is simply thrown away because we waste materials. We waste resources. So that is something that we need to bear in mind. The circular economy, how can we make sure that it's not just some kind of, you know, second importance legislation? And then secondly, when it comes to manufacturer responsibility in the omnibus directive, is that a positive example?
I mean, we've heard different feedback, really quite different feedback. People have been complaining, in fact, criticizing this when it comes to the funding basis for manufacturer responsibility that is being put under pressure. So it's not just black and white. It's not that straightforward. And I think that, it's an example that illustrates the fact that it's not enough to just introduce strict rules in order to move forward.
Thank.
Jessika Roswall
you. Thank you very much for the question. If I may start on the, to totally agree with you that the circular economy is not only about environmental and using the resources within the planetary boundaries, even though I think this is a, I mean, we know we are extending that too much today. It's also about reducing our emissions, reaching our climate goals. But mainly or maybe more important today or if I don't I should not say it more or less, but it's also in the geopolitical situation that I also started in, shows how important it is to use the resources in a more resilient way, because we are in a world that we are totally dependent on a lot of resources, not only oil and gas, but also a lot of other critical market.
So that is what I think. If I got your second part of the questions correct, it's on the secondary materials. What we are trying to do in the and you have thirty seconds later to say if I misunderstood your question. I mean, what today we know is that the secondary secondhand, no, second material is, of course, today much more expensive than the virgin materials. That is what we try to address and see how can the real business cases are in this.
And when it comes to funding for manufacturing, I think you have to repeat the question because I didn't really understand the question maybe. But we try to address some of the secondhand materials in the textile waste, in the waste regulation that we've negotiated, like, one year one and a half year ago, and try to address exactly the challenges when it comes to secondhand materials. And now the chair is asking me to stop.
Okay. Thirty seconds.
Delara Burkhardt
Actually, my question was on manufacturer responsibility or liability. It was on that question. I'm sure we'll have another opportunity to discuss this at some other point. I wanted to ask you another question, which has to do with the question of striking out a lever, for instance, in the use of materials. It seems a bit random.
We don't seem to have a database for this option. You know, we're talking about different types of products. It seems to us that the striking out of leather in this context is rather a random approach. Thank you.
Jessika Roswall
Sorry, I didn't have the translation, obviously. On the EUDR, I think we can be very proud all here together that we managed to do the agreement in December. We are now approaching April, and we are doing as we were promised to set by the co-legislators to address some more simplification also on the objective. But I've been very clear, also focusing on the implementation, not opening. And then as you also know, some of the things that we need to do is when it comes to the objective is to take out the letter as one of the things that was discussed, and also will be addressed in this package that we will deliver soon.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now for the patriots Andre Nottek. One minute and a half.
Ondřej Knotek
Yeah. Thank you, chair. Good evening, madam commissioner. Thanks for the update, and thanks for being here. I would like to touch upon two things you didn't mention, but I think they remain as a homework on your table.
This is the EU deforestation regulation, so you are mandated by the review clause, recently revised in April. Today, basically, you shall present some further simplifications. And, of course, my question is whether you are able to deliver on this, because the sectors impacted, citizens impacted, they call for particular changes, especially on the fourth category, to be defined in this new reopening, because some countries really represent very low risk, and they should be treated as a low risk. Secondly, the quantity of checks and inspections are now on percentage level, but they should be maybe much more on, or allowed in the legislation on the risk assessment basis rather than on percentages because this is a red tape. And as you are aware, also this related IT system database is not fully running. So if you will present, and the time you present this, hopefully present this new simplification that also you are able to restart the functioning of the IT system?
Thank you very much.
Commissioner?
Jessika Roswall
Thank you very much for the question and a little bit following up on the Lara Burkhart. And so, we, as I said, are now focusing fully committed on the implementation. That means both on the IT system, as you know, we discussed a lot here earlier to see that that is also fit for purpose, if you may say so. And the other thing is on the simplify, continue the simplification and making the regulation efficient and implementable and feasible to implement, maybe in close contact with different stakeholders. And I have had a lot, me and my colleagues have had a lot of meetings on that.
So we are absolutely delivering on that. And that I've said, it is close, it's in the very near future, we will deliver this simplification package that we promised in the negotiations in December. On when it comes to a new category, as was raised, that is something that we discussed in the trialogue. You also discussed the parliament together with the council. And that from the commission side, I've been very clear from the beginning, I don't see that is doable, and that was also not in the final text.
So we are not working on that. Going into that road, we have already disclaimed, not disclaimed, but we have said this is it's not possible to do. So that is not on the agenda for us. When it comes to inspections and risk based, of course, that is something that we are doing, and that was also clear in the discussions. And, of course, we continue working on that.
You have 30 seconds.
Ondřej Knotek
Thank you very much. I'm partially disappointed about the fourth category, but this will deserve a further debate. I believe we will find a way to do it. My second additional question is on the urban wastewater treatment directive. It is a high priority for many member states.
We all understand the need to have as pure water as possible. We also understand the polluter pays principle, but the impact on the availability of medicines is high, and the impact assessment of the commission, the data is very probably wrong. So, are you now ready to work on new real data together with all stakeholders? Thank you.
Thank you, commissioner.
Jessika Roswall
In 30 seconds. Thank you very much for the question. And, I've been here in parliament also have a debate for, you know, like, couple of weeks ago on this. And I will continue saying this is an important, directive, important true tool to reach clean water that we all want, of course. I understand that there are concerns, and we are in close contact with different stakeholders.
I am personally engaged with different industries. Just when it comes to these concrete questions that you say about looking into the data, we have looked into the data again, and we continue to do that, of course, again, in close contact with different pharmacy pharma, egg organizations and others.
Alexandr Vondra
Yeah. Thank you very much. Welcome back, madam commissioner. We certainly appreciate your work on the environmental omnibus. That's a significant undertaking.
At the same time, some elements appear to run counter to the goal of the simplification and easing the burden on the businesses. Our key concern is the design of extended producers' responsibility, which places a disproportionate focus on pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. For example, under the urban waste water treatment directive, this sector says some substantial financial administrative burden, and in parallel with the caliphant agreed at COP sixteen, those industries should contribute 1% of annual profit. So in the pharmaceutical sector in particular, these cumulative measures risk affecting the availability of medicines for patients across the EU, while also weakening Europe's competitiveness. There are already indications that the investment is shifting outside of Europe.
So, again, would you measure those impacts on sectors and the end users? And even more, how will commission take into account current supply chain disruptions given the urgency? Would you consider introducing a stop-the-clock mechanism here?
Commissioner?
Jessika Roswall
Thank you. Thank you very much for the question. And, I mean, again, I won't like to repeat myself because this is an important regulation to have clean water. We have a lot of regulations on that, but we also know that it's something that concerns people. And I understand from both questions that we also agree on the polluter pays principle.
When this was investigated the first time on who is the polluter, it was clear that it was these two sectors. And, also, I want to remind everybody that this is the fourth, the quarter narrow treatment of 1, 2, and 3 is paid by the taxpayers. So this is important to have in mind when we discuss this. Then, of course, I'm very, that's why I have a lot of discussions with pharma industry and cosmetic industry and other industries also, when it comes to water treatment, for example. And, of course, I also understand the concerns when it comes to medical supplies.
And that's also something that the commission is addressing, and also in close contact with the members days when this now is going to be implemented. Quite lengthy periods of implementation also, I would like to add. And we also the commission working in not me, but my colleague on the critical medical sack. So this is a joint working together. And, of course, in this world that I'm also concerned about how the industry is sustainable, not sustainable, but growing, and they are an important industry for us.
And this is why this communication is in close contact, in a close dialogue in the way forward. But I would also add that this is important to implement this directive in an efficient way.
Alexandr Vondra
My second question relates to feedback from stakeholders. He wrote me, you know, this is the owner of a small online electronic shop, operating in five member states. And under the packaging and packaging waste regulation, now he faces initial registration fees of €6,000 in one registration and then additional cost of less than 5,000. So expanding to all 27 members would create a significant financial burden for SMEs. So my question is, are you concerned that this regulation risks fragmenting the single market, one of our core achievements, by creating high barriers to entry into the market for SMEs?
Jessika Roswall
Okay. Thank you very much. And maybe it's linked to what I did not answer on the first, on the former question, is also because, of course, we're also addressing the EPR, the producer responsibility also for the farm and the cosmetic in the urban wastewater treatment directly. But here, it's a very good example or a bad example on how the single market does not work when it comes to waste. It this is costly.
It's having not only 20 different member states, 27 different rules. We can add some rules. And that is why I think this for me, both the proposal that is in the omnibus when it comes to EPR and the authorized representative is one example. But also we need to continue making these regulations easier, not only for SMEs, but, of course, it is important that they can really use the single market.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we go to renew German Jan Gerbrandi. One minute and a half.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Madam Commissioner, for being here. This committee tonight sounds more like INCO committee than NV committee somehow, but okay. I also believe that simplification is important. But if you look at surveys among citizens in Europe, they also find other things extremely important. Like, for instance, that the products they buy do not contribute to deforestation.
You said a few things about the EUDR. I've asked for many documents. I received only part of it. I had to appeal again today in plenary to receive the rest. But, parts of the documents that I did receive have been redacted by the, by the commission.
And I have a few questions on that. First of all, the US trade deal, how important has that been in the decision to postpone the EUDR? Because there is a direct link. Secondly, there is a letter from Chancellor Mertz to Ursula von der Leyen. And Ursula von der Leyen responded later that the postponement had now been arranged.
But somehow, the date of Vonderland's response was deleted from the letter that I received. It was redacted. So why was that done? And there's also serious belief that one single company raised the concern about IT problems. And I received some information about that, but an internal cabinet note stating exactly that was also redacted.
So why was that done? And was that done with a deliberate purpose for me to make it impossible to draw that conclusion, or were there other reasons behind that? But I'm still waiting for the other documents. Thank you.
Thank you. Commissioner.
Jessika Roswall
First, let me say something about the EGR. For me, it is a really important regulation. Regulation. We are tackling deforestation. Everybody who I talk to agrees with that.
But it was also raised by many here, by many ministers, by many companies around Europe that also asked for simplification because it was not, it was too complicated, too costly to implement, and that cost will eventually come to the consumers and also the SMEs and what we talked about earlier. So this was the main objective for the co legislators, and that's why we looked into it again, and that's why we also come to the conclusion. But also started with, as you know very well, that because we had a lot of meetings on the IT system that was not, and I was myself sitting hours also with the data team and seeing that this is, had too many data points that would come in a too short period of time. And that we are addressing both with the simplification, inputs that are coming in, but also, with fixing the data system as such. This is important to say because I don't know all the details on the questions that you asked.
But for me, I think it's important to be, of course, very transparent with you trying to answer your questions. I know you got some answers, and I know that we are working on also trying to get you the other questions that you have. So you have asked for it again, and we have not. So we are continuing to work with you.
Thank you. You have 30 seconds.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Yes. Well, thank you. But this is what you've been saying all the time. And when I try to read the documents that I asked for, it has not been confirmed that it went this way. For instance, the service providers for large companies, those who were dealing with the requests, they were only asked by the commission after the delay was decision was taken whether they had problems with their IT systems.
So that seems to be the other way around.
Sure.
Jessika Roswall
Thank you again. And I would like to disagree because we had a lot of discussions with stakeholders before. Of course, we continue to have that who also addressed and not warned me, but asked me questions about this, and also asked the DG. So, but we will continue having discussions also in trying to give you the request materials.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now it's the Greens, Rasmus Nordqvist. One minute and a half.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes. Thank you, and thank you commissioner. I will speak to you on the circular economy, which is perhaps not a surprise for you. I'm happy to hear about the ambitions you put forward when it comes to the circular economy act coming this fall, but I have some questions on what is actually already happening now, which also perhaps shows us a bit how serious it is being taken. And I want to point to a letter I wrote together with a group of colleagues earlier this month on textile circularity, especially on the ESPR and on sold good derogations, but also more broadly.
So, really, what I would like to hear from you today is if we can get a commitment to actually doing the monitoring and reviewing the derogations you have done on the unsold good destruction, as it is, because I think we are looking into something where we can see really abuse emerge. So I hope really that you can promise us this. And then, more broadly, back to ambitions. If you are with the ESPR delegated act, with the waste frame that way direction revision, with the circular economy act, are gonna propose the missing pieces in the puzzle to actually make European textile industry circular because we need some really serious commitment from you in order to achieve this. The industry is there, but they need the ability to scale up, and that is on our table, and the proposition will come from you.
Thank you. Commissioner.
Jessika Roswall
Thank you very much for the question. And I know this is important for you. It's important for me also, and not only the textile when it comes to circularity. But as I said earlier also, especially in these difficult times that we are in, I think it will be an even stronger momentum to go circular, so to say. I'm also quite proud that we have updated regulation when it comes to textile waste, but also when it comes to unsold goods.
But, of course, you are right that we also need to monitor, see to that we are, the legislations are enforced and, of course, that it's not misused. And the derogations that has been put forward is all the delegated acts that we have put into force to have a smoother implementation of the regulation as such. But, of course, and also what to add is that a lot of this monitoring and responsibility is also at the member state level. So this is an important discussion for me to have, of course, with them. But, of course, as always, we are committed to review any derogations that we have put into force every, I don't know, every regularly.
But thank you for the question, and this is an important question for all of us, I would say.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Well, I choose to hear that as a clear commitment from your side, also to look into what the member states are doing as is, of course, within your prerogative as well. Then my second question would be a bit I've been quite critical about what we have seen from the commission coming with clean industrial deal, with winter package, and now industrial accelerator act, because it is a bit made in silos. So could you promise us that you will actually be probably integrating this into the circular economy act, so we're actually getting an act that will change the industry and the reality on the ground in Europe, and not just on the paper we're speaking from?
Jessika Roswall
Okay. I could be very easy and say yes. I would definitely say it's an integral part, well, what was the deal, in the clean industrial deal, in the competitiveness compass, in whatever strategy we put at the moment. Even though, I mean, we talked about textiles in the first part of your question, but then it's all the other materials. It's about, as I said earlier, to the Lara Burkhart.
This is about the resilience and the planetary boundaries and the climate change. So it is absolutely a part of the clean transition that we are doing in Europe and also elsewhere at the moment.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, commissioner. Now we move to the left, Janus Shasted. You have one minute and a half.
Thank you, chair. I will speak in Swedish.
Jonas Sjöstedt
We have a rather unique EU Commission. It's the first time that we have a commission that's actually putting forward proposals to deteriorate our environmental legislation rather than make it better, making it worse rather than better. And it seems to me that the commission is very much under pressure from the industry. And one of the industries that has been lobbying hard is the mining industry, lobbying the commission. Euromines, for instance, has been meeting with the commission 108 times, and that was just last year.
So what they want, of course, is less ambitious environmental regulations on water, in particular. They want exceptions as well from the European EU water framework directive, which is our main tool to make sure that we have good water for people who live in the EU. But that's what they want, and this is extremely troubling, very worrying. You know, we have mining waste, and we have laws on that after two disasters, in fact, collapses that happened, and we had to legislate. So we must ask, you know, why is it that people who live in mining areas aren't entitled to the same kind of clean and healthy water as people who live elsewhere?
Why is it that people who live in a mining district should have, you know, inferior environmental legislation? So for instance, in Norbotten in Sweden, all those who live in the, you know, in the parts of Sweden where we have mining exploitations in those areas, in Sweden in particular, just by way of an example, why is it that these residents don't have the same kind of legislation that protects them, enables them to have safe water like the rest of the EU?
Commissioner, you have one.
Jessika Roswall
Thank you, I will answer not in Swedish, but I will answer in English. But thank you very much for the question you requested. And, I mean, I don't agree with you, and you know that. For me, this is, I've been saying this so many times. The green and clean transition that we are doing now is not contradictory to the competitiveness that we're also working on.
They are two sides of the same coin. And coming from where you're coming from in the North of Sweden, you show you know that that is what is happening. The industrial industrialization happening in a lot of places in Europe is actually doing that. And the rules that we have on environmental standards are something that applies to all member states, to all members in the European Union, and that is really important. And I also have said it many times that we need to see to it that we have clean water, clean air, and invest in nature.
This is really important for me. When it comes to the water framework directive, and also may I say that I've been very no. I don't know. Unfortunately, that was Swedish. I've been very thorough seeing too that I meet very many different stakeholders, NGOs, different parts of civil society, agencies, businesses, industries, and organizations.
So I've not listened to only one. I listened to a very broad, different perspective. On the water framework directive, we had said in the resource EU action plan that we intend to review and revise the water framework directive, particularly to attend the need, as I started in the beginning, sorry to be overdue, that we are in the situation now that we also need to do the transformation. We need the critical raw materials, and we need to address that. And one of these answers is to give some guidance when it comes to the Water Framework Directive.
Sorry.
Thank you. You have 30 seconds.
Well,
Jonas Sjöstedt
I apologize, Jessica Roswaal. But, you know, on the one hand, you're saying the same rules should apply to all. At the same time, you actually concede that the water framework directive should be downgraded because of mining areas. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people in my country, in Sweden, who don't have the same rights to the same clean water as everyone else. You know, are you prepared to travel to the mining areas?
Are you prepared to go to the town hall or the Central square and talk to constituents there and explain all of this? You know, the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are not benefiting from the same clean, good water as citizens across the rest of the EU. You know, I think if you're commissioner, you have a responsibility to bear here.
Jessika Roswall
And yes, I will. And I had a dialogue meeting with the NGOs, for example. I don't recall everybody, it's the transparency register, a couple of weeks ago, with people from Norland, from the North Part of Sweden, but also others. So definitely, I am very open to having these discussions. But as I said, we need to do a lot of things at the same time, and that doesn't mean that we will lower the ambitions when it comes to environment or clean water.
We discussed it earlier. But we also need to be mindful that we have the responsibility to see that we have the critical materials that we need for the future, and some of these materials are now extracted from other parts of the world, polluting there in a not sustainable way. So we also have a European perspective of responsibility in this.
Anja Arndt
I'll speak German. Chair, Mrs. Roosevelt, I'd like to focus on one point. Without a strong materials industry, you cannot have a functioning circular economy. The European raw materials industry has shrunk by 19% since 2018.
In Germany alone, since 2020, about 50,000 jobs have been lost. The consequences is that recycling is under pressure and capacities have reduced by 18% in three years, not because we don't have enough material, but because they cost too much and they are not always of the same quality and not always usable. And the artificial materials industry is shrinking, and it needs to benefit from these. So without demand, there is no recycling market. And in spite of that, the EU is strengthening, is sharpening the regulation with new requirements, ever more new requirements.
And this means more costs for an industry that is already under pressure, and a weakening of the circular economy that we want to strengthen. And so we need to change course. We need a moratorium for new taxes on the industry. Secondly, more market forces rather than regulation. And we also need realistic frameworks for recycled materials.
You cannot do this through regulation. You need to do it through market forces. Mrs. Roswell, how do you want to ensure that the European industry can be strengthened so that the basis of a functioning circular economy can be created?
Thank you, commissioner.
Jessika Roswall
Thank you very much for the question. And, I know that I've been saying, I think several times here also, I talk with both also with the ministers that the plastic recycling industry is, in Europe, is in crisis, and due to a lot of different things, of course. But we tried to address that, and we saw that problem is now, and I think this is important to really get the circle economy in Europe at full speed. And the circular economy act, as you know, will come later this year. So but we addressed the plastic recycling industry already before Christmas last year in the first game.
But, of course, we continue to address this also in the Circular Economy Act. So the question was, how can I reassure that the industry, I mean, I would say that we, and this is exactly what we're trying to do with the Circular Economy Act? How can we tear down the hinders that are between member states? How can we make it a business case to use secondary materials? How can we see to that we both help the market to create a demand and, at the same time, a market for this.
So this is very important for us. And I think one thing is, of course, as you say, that it is about taking, well, making those regulations more easy and making it scalable so you can scale up on the internal market and using the single market that we share so much.
You. You have Torti Sako.
Anja Arndt
Thank you for your answer. There are in the economy rules and regulations, which mean that if you limit too much entrepreneurial freedom, the result is that the businesses cannot trade effectively. And that's what happens if you have recyclable quotas. Concerning these quotas, I'd like to know what your position is on that in general, and which quotas you are planning for.
Jessika Roswall
I think you touched, thank you very much. I think you touched on a question that we discussed a lot, and I think I don't have the perfect answer on every material. But we have in some materials already regulations when it comes to batteries, for example, on quotas. We recently ended or finalized the dialogue on the end of life vehicle with quotas. We have it on PET.
I would say that, and some ask me for quotas. Some industries ask me not for quotas. Some NGOs ask me for quotas. Some not. So, I mean, this is one something that I'm very mindful of and how can we use it in a way that we actually create this business case for the circularity, and that we'll kind of continue that discussion with you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now the first round is over. The second round has different rules. So every speaker has one minute. At the end of the first part, there will be a reply by the commissioner, and then the second part of the round.
We start with Oliver Shank from the EPP for one minute. Thank.
Oliver Schenk
you. I'd like to speak German. Commissioner, thank you for joining us here today. I think we've spoken about a range of issues already. And I'd like to focus on one very fundamental question.
You've said that there's no contradiction between environmental protection and competitiveness on the other, and we share that position. But if you look at our industries, we often see the problem that the regulations that we impose on industry cannot be complied with, and that affects investment. I'm thinking in particular of the chemical industry and other industries as well. And so my question is how can we reduce regulatory burden? How can we increase planning predictability so that business trees have the opportunity to invest in new technologies that are green.
She's not gonna give an answer.
Pierfrancesco Maran
but no. In second round, it's one minute each, and at the end, the commissioner.
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
Alright. Commissioner, thank you for your remarks. And, of course, you presented an ambitious vision linking environment, security, and competitiveness, and that is very important as far as I'm concerned. But European citizens and regions now need delivery, not only direction. Can you please, could you please clarify three concrete points?
Because I've never heard of a precise timeline. What is the precise timeline in financing behind the water resilience agenda, especially for Mediterranean regions like Greece, where I come from, areas that often face drought and water stress? Second, how will the commission guarantee that simplification means fewer administrative burdens without weakening environmental and health protections? And third, it's very important regarding PFAS and chemicals, internal chemicals, how you will balance strong public health safeguards with legal certainty and competitiveness for European industry. Thank you.
Thank you.
Zala Černilec Tomašič
I'm gonna speak in Slovenian. Well, my.
Question refers to the environmental omnibus because it changes the regulation on batteries but does not regulate the exchanging of batteries in areas where Europe could be a leader, such as smart wearable devices, such as glasses, where a user could change batteries by him or herself. But sometimes these batteries are so small that the users are afraid to change them themselves. And sometimes, they are not even necessary to change. And also, a nice design is required with such devices. So often, there cannot be space for large batteries.
And we cannot damage our industries with new requirements because we should not ask our companies, our industries to change the design in its entirety. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Fiocchi. I don't have any request from the Patriots I mentioned.
Pietro Fiocchi
Thank you, Commissioner Roosevelt. I appreciate your difficult job. Don't know how much. Of course, my opinion is that the European Commission does not have a very strong strategic approach to this, and sometimes when they take a decision, they kill our economy and our jobs in Europe, and they make us more dependent on other countries which we cannot control. Last but not least, what is happening around us is the closing of the Ormond Street, and we are now getting fertilizer in Europe, which may result in a decrease in agricultural production for this season.
So, but let's get to the point. Ubuntu wastewater, which interests me. You are aware that there are more than, well, there are hundreds of water plants in Europe which are under infringement procedure because they're not up to standard on the tertiary product treatment. And now we want to push the quarterly, which means thousands of water treatment plants will be under infringement procedure. And so for me, this is important.
Now, extended producer possibility, that would be raising taxes, meaning raising the cost of medicines and raising what the European cities will pay, but will not solve the problem of cleaning the water. That's it. I stop here. I have many other topics, but this is one. Oh, no.
Sorry. Circular economy. Are we doing something to harmonize the input by the different member states? Because if you do recycling in Italy, then you go to France, they define the same product in a different way. Here it is a recycled product.
You go there, it's a dangerous place. And then you have a lot of problems going across the borders in Europe. So we should harmonize Europe on this.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much, and thank you again for being here today. I would like to ask you a couple of questions on the Water Framework Directive. And clean water is not only a question of citizens' well-being. It is actually also an important business issue. So water and freshwater ecosystems have an economic value of €11,000,000,000,000.
That's 2.5 times the GDP of Germany. So when we talk about clean water, fresh water, it is, of course, of all interests of citizens, but at the end of the day, it is also part of our competitiveness and the way we think about our whole situation also as businesses. So how are you going to ensure and safeguard the integrity of the Water Framework Directive? Do you think that there would be a street like what you, I think you said, with reach that you are now thinking of a different way forward? And can you confirm that the revision will remain targeted if you go forward with it, and in accordance with the commission's water resilience strategy?
And finally, if you go forward with this, do you intend to do an impact assessment, including on the effects of water quality and investment conditions, before proposing the revision? Thank you.
Alessandra Moretti
Thank you, chair. Thank you, commissioner, for having joined us here this evening to talk about these important issues. The legislation that we're looking at is faced with lots of obstacles: security, international stability, energy, stocks, trading issues. So there are many variables in this parliament, which weaken our approach to the task. I think that this legislation needs a solid majority.
On the Circular Economy Act, which I hope will be presented very shortly, we need to take a less ideological approach and to focus on development and sustainability of the whole continent, and I'd like your opinion on that. I'd also like your opinion on water treatment in urban areas. This one of the basic principles that needs to apply is the polluter pays. And I'd like to know if there will be a second study on the requests that are coming from the business sector. The socialists are against any form of stop the clock.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Here for the sec for the first part of the second round from the EPP, Stefan Kuller.
Stefan Köhler
Thank you. I'd like to speak German. Commissioner, you know my love for the topic of bioeconomy. The road map is clear now. Thanks to your work.
Thanks for that. But you said at the outset that we have an oil crisis, and that needs to be taken into account. You've spoken about the Biotech two text, which will be presented. Could you give us an insight about the future of the bioeconomy and the role it can play in dealing with the oil crisis? Maybe you have some suggestions on that.
Have five minutes, sir.
Jessika Roswall
Thank you very much. I think I will go from the beginning. So I think, Olavashenka, I mean, it's a very good question. And, of course, we, as I said, need to do simplification, continue working that and making the regulation less burdensome. That is something, the overall objective that me and my colleagues are working on.
One thing when it comes to how to make the industries really want to invest, I mean, we have a problem with investment in Europe that we need to address. It's not only me, but also my colleague, Marie Luisa Albuquerque, for example, when it comes to getting more money to work, so to say. What I can say, and that's linked maybe to Stephan Curry's questions on the bioeconomy and also the circular economy, how can we, in Europe, create lead markets? And that is something that we are working hard on because I think that is how we actually can get investments and industries to really want to do this for the long term investments. But I think this is, so I think the things on the bioeconomy and the circular economy, this has really good potentials, and that is that we know.
On the concrete questions on timeline, on if I may I think on the second part, asked me about the environment and the nature directors, and we are doing stress tests, and I don't have a better timeline that we will do on the Boston Habitat during 2026. The water framework director we have, we are converse the data is overdue to when it comes to when you can come in with inputs. That is processing now. We have gotten 3,000 something answers, and we are processing these. And that maybe also to Sina Bossa, a question on that, because I'm going to do an impact assessment on that?
Yes. Because that is the work has started on that now. But on the guidance, which I asked, was a question earlier, that will come very soon. And in May now, the agreement that we concluded on the trial on the water pollutants, that will come into force on May 10. So, I mean, a lot of things are happening now.
And then I can talk about the other things in the water, resilience and efficiency. I think, it's important to work in dialogue here, with different member states. So, and then on the PFAS, if I got your questions right, can I, this is an important question to me? And you and I will continue to have a dialogue with you here, because the work in the ECA is ongoing. I will, and they are working at full speed.
We are preparing, of course, how can we make the safeguard both for people and people's health, and the industry. And I hope that we can conclude that in this year. Now I'm looking at the clock. On how the gases. I mean, I understand, and it's not the first time that this has been raised to me.
I mean, if we talk about circularity and if we talk about how we can create products, whatever product that is collectible, that people also collect and then is sortable to dismantle, I understand that there can be products that are very hard to dissolve and separate. And this has been, I'm taking not my glasses, probably, but other glasses can be. So this has been raised, and we are looking if it is necessary to do some of the irrigation. But it's too early for me to answer concretely on that, but I'm aware of the challenge in this. Pietro Fiocchi asked me a lot of questions about fertilizers.
He didn't ask me questions, but I'm totally with you. I think this is an issue. I raised it in the beginning. This is an issue that is coming to us, adding on a lot of other challenges that farmers have today. We need to address this.
I think the bioeconomy and digestives that we have are working on at the moment can be a part of the solution. We can also talk about biogas, from manure and other things. So this work is ongoing. On the labeling, it's a tricky question. I agree with you, and I think that is also for other questions that we, of course, need to make it easier to both put them on the market, but also easy for us as consumer to understand.
But new rules also come with complications. So it's a balance, it's a balancing act. On the urban wastewater directive, I think I answered earlier, but, I mean, we are taking into consideration the things that you raised. But at the end of the day, we also need clean water, and we agree on the Pluto Paste Principle. Now on my ten last seconds, just on the first part of your question, Stine Bossa, it's, of course, using digitalization, having a dialogue, and also, of course, creating investments in water is how I see it.
But I think that we can do both, both simplify, you know, if more making the water framework more directly more efficient. Finally, I thank you. Don't know. It was on the new study on the urban wastewater directive. Exactly Alessandra, on how to, I would say, we have done one new study on the urban wastewater directive.
We have done one, and then we did a new one. And then, of course, we have taken into account all the different studies that have come from all over Europe. But as always, I said it earlier, we are always open to also see to that it is up to date and, taking into account the worries that can be in the European Union. Finally, again, on the bioeconomy, can I do more insight on the biotech act on the bioeconomy? I mean, for me, I think we saw in the bioeconomy strategy what were the shortcomings.
Where are the bottlenecks in Europe? How can we make use of the homegrown resources that we have? So we are trying to address that in the biotech act to see how we can actually make the products that is put on the market faster, and also how we can, and that's maybe linked to the first question from Oliver Shenko on how we can boost the investments in this industry. So it's a lot of things that we are doing, but the first part of this is well, the second part is the biotech to act on.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we have the second part. We have some map to speak. We I will close the catch the eye after the end of the first speaker. So if somebody else wants to speak for us, we start with the Greens, Martin Austling for one minute.
Martin Häusling
Missus Roosevelt, in Germany, as you know, we have some issues with the nitrates directive. And in 2023, there was a suspension. And in Germany, there wasn't, you know, much done in order to abide by that legislation. We sent you a letter. You responded to that letter, and you said we're keeping an eye on the situation.
So I'd like to know when you are going to lose patience with Germany? When will your patience run out in terms of Germany and the nitrates directive? We're not doing anything. It's really being pushed into the long grass, so to speak. So when will your patients run out?
Is Germany going to reengage with this procedure, or do you intend to do anything? Second question, PFAS and pesticides. I'm surprised. PFAS in pesticides has not really been mentioned. I'm surprised by that.
We're talking about tons of pesticides, which bring PFAS into our soil. The commission is doing nothing. You know, you're saying we'll wait. We'll wait another 6 months. I think it's a scandalous reaction.
When will the commission react? When are you going to do something about pesticides with PFAS? Bearing in mind that there's such a large volume of pesticides that have PFAS in them? So when are you gonna do something about it?
Thank you.
Ingeborg Ter Laak
Thank you, Commissioner, for joining us tonight. I think it's very good for you to have a chance to exchange your vision on how to protect the environment and on the same time, boost our competitiveness agenda. But I can also see that every intervention we had here today, it's a dare balancing act between our health and our prosperity, our economic prosperity, and it's also for water. Water is vital for our health, and it's vital for our industry. We're committed to protecting our water quality through the water framework directive, and we remain doing that so.
But, of course, we're also revisiting it right now, particularly in the context of facilitating access to critical raw materials. So that's my first question. Could you please explain more about the specific provision on the water framework directive that are seen as barriers to the mining sector, and if national implementation or the underutilization of existing flexibilities play a role here? And my second question is about what you said about strengthening water as an essential part of Europe's transition into a circular economy. How are you gonna, how does the commission plan to strengthen the role of water in the Circular Economy Act, particularly when it comes to improving water reuse and safeguard water quality across industries?
Thank you.
Sebastian Everding
I would like to extend our debate to Wales, if I may. We have stranded in Wales, unfortunately. A lot of people in this room, I think, have been following these news. It's really unpleasant. The reactions have not been coordinated, and they've been slow.
And we're talking about hundreds or even thousands of messages being sent in by people, by constituents who really care about Wales and care about their well-being. So what's been happening can happen on any coast here in Europe, so it's a real issue. And, of course, if we're looking at fisheries practices and climate change, if we don't become more sustainable, then I think it's a ticking time bomb. We'll have more of such cases in Wales. So the reactions so far have been improvised, I would say.
Sometimes it's private individuals who decide to, you know, make a donation to try to help out. It's not enough. What we need is something coordinated. We need a system to deal with the problem of whales. And therefore, my question to you, are you thinking about a framework in the EU for that in order to help us protect the species and also make sure that we have climate adaptation and protection of our seas to help the whales?
Thank you.
Thank you.
César Luena
Thank you very much. Thank you, chair. Well, first of all, madam commissioner, the nature restoration legislation, you're saying you're not going to reopen it. That's what I've understood, at least. And I'm pleased to see that this is not going to be re-opened.
I mean, you can always say a few words about it if you wish. Again, I look forward to what you might have to say about this nature restoration issue. What about the member states? Where are they with this? You know, I think all of our member states would like us to move forward.
So where are they? And then a couple of questions. The habitats directive and the birds directives, could you guarantee that you're not going to use those directives in order to bring down standards, lower standards? I'd like to have some reassurances. Then the water framework directive, could you also confirm that there's going to be stronger implementation?
We've already heard about the mining sector. We want to make sure that new technologies are used in order to protect our ecosystems and our health. Can you reassure us on that? And then, thirdly, on resilience and climate change. I mean, this is an important part for you as commissioner, particularly when it comes to nature-based solutions.
I'd like to hear a few words from you on that subject as well, if I may.
That is Tingen.
Beatrice Timgren
Thank you, chair. Thank you, commissioner. I will speak in Swedish. It all.
Today, the European industry is under a lot of pressure. Commodities are expensive. There's a lot of competition around the world, and there's also a regulatory burden. And that's why I'm a bit worried about some of the initiatives coming in, for instance, the law on the circular economy, the chemicals package in Alia. I fear that this will actually impose more of a burden, more of a reporting duty on a lot of stakeholders here.
Now in Sweden, we know that we perform well when it comes to the use of our forestry resources, our sustainability. We're doing well, but we have a question regarding the future. Are we going to benefit from these new initiatives, or are we going to be punished by these new initiatives? For instance, the bioeconomy. Can you guarantee that we're going to maintain sovereignty in terms of our forests?
Are we going to exclude certain EU credits that actually impose a limitation? And also, I wanted to know whether you were going to adopt a risk-based strategy so as to make sure that we deal with our forests and deforestation properly. I'm asking this because the current legislation in the EU, as far as we can tell, is not actually sustainable. It's actually something that leads to deindustrialization, and that is something that concerns us. Thank you.
Sigrid Friis
Thank you, and thank you, Commissioner Russell, for being here with us tonight. I read your update on PFAS last week in Aftonbladet, and I was very pleased with the direction you set that Europe must step up the efforts to reduce the spread of PFAS and ultimately phase them out while speeding up on the safer alternatives. So thank you for stating also tonight that you will introduce restrictions and that you will do it before the end of this year. I think both speed and also ambition is really important, and PFAS stays in our environment for decades. They pose serious risk to human health and the environment.
But whether we actually deliver a real phase out or if we just prolong the problem, it depends on one key issue, and that is how we design the possible derogations for the so-called critical sectors that do not have a viable alternative yet. So can you maybe elaborate or let us in a little bit on how you plan to deal with this issue? Because it's still unclear to me. If we make derogations and if they are not time-limited, they risk becoming a loophole that delays the actual transition and that locks in pollution. If they are time bound, they might create the urgency and the certainty that we need to drive the innovation in creating viable alternatives.
So will you commit to ensuring that in the PFAS restrictions, any derogations under the proposal are strictly time limited and that they align with the scientific evidence and advice of ECA, so that the phaseout can become a real phaseout and a reality within a very clear time frame. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. For the KHDI, I have two speakers. We start with Jutta Paulus, please.
Thank.
Jutta Paulus
thank you very much. Thank you, madam commissioner. Chairman, I'm going to speak German, if that's all right by you. Very briefly, the water framework directive, if I may touch upon that, because it's not clear to me, and maybe you could be kind enough to explain. What is the basis for a stress test going forward?
What basis should we use for such a possible stress test? I mean, last year, you may remember that we introduced a number of changes, making things easier for the stakeholders. So I'm not quite sure what this means. Stress tests, how on what basis are they going to be implemented, and in particular, if we haven't seen particular results yet? And also, are there any counterfactuals that you've included in your examination?
What's the cost for the health care system? What's the cost in terms of cleaning water, drinking water, or other costs? For instance, the ecosystems and any detrimental effect on the ecosystem, you know, impact assessments that we need to take into account, it seems to me, because this is something that people do care about, and they want clean water. I also have a question on reach, if I may. Can I move on to reach?
I welcome the fact that a decision has been taken in that regard. Note not to open this regulation, not to open up the legislation, but what about the promises made in 2022? There was a promise regarding the process to restrict dangerous chemicals. I think two-thirds of these chemicals are actually stuck in the system. They're stuck in the pipeline.
And, again, that leads me to be concerned about the health of our fellow citizens. So when will that process be terminated, do you think, by the commission?
Lefter per Clausen.
Per Clausen
Thank you. I will speak in Danish. I
Will be speaking Danish in 2024, you highlighted in parliament that the simplification of the rules shouldn't lead to deregulation. And you said that the work to phase out dangerous chemicals was to be intensified. After that, the commissions, against its own promises, have delivered an omnibus package, which makes the protection worse and allows cancer-richness products to be placed on the market. And I must say that's a development that is really troubling for me, and I would love to know what the commission plans to do to mitigate this, especially considering that the revision now seems to be scrapped, and we need to be simplifying everything. Will that be another case of simplification without the necessary analysis of potential consequences being carried out?
Are we to accept that we will, in the future, be facing a situation with less protection against dangerous chemicals for both citizens and the environment?
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Thank you. So giving the floor for the last time to the commissioner, let me thank you because this formula is particularly intensive on Monday evening.
Sure.
I'll take.
Jessika Roswall
Thank you. Thank you very much for the questions. And I will see. It's a lot about PFAS now, so maybe I take them in together. It's from best decides.
It's from also reach so I cannot give all the answers tonight because we, you know, we have been having a lot of, I've been visiting a lot of hotspots. I've been talking with a lot of stakeholders. I've been talking about innovators both when it comes to cleanup, but also when it comes to substitution. So I'm also very hopeful. But with that said, I don't remember now who asked when it was, signatory.
So, I mean, speed is of a set of vessels. I agree with that. But that doesn't mean it's so easy, because it takes time. And I wish we could be speedier, and we are, but the heck is working. So, I mean, again, we are trying to do it this year.
And I think that for me, it is, as you say, something that we need to address in one way. How can we safeguard and also try to see that we can stop the pollution at source, so to say, for the future? But this I today, it's hard to me to say so much more than that, because it is in the process together with you, but, of course, with ECA, but also with the member states, and also with my colleague, Stephan Seschini, of course. When it comes to, maybe just following up on Jutta Paulus also on the reach. We, as I said earlier, see that now is not the time to open reach.
But, of course, as I said, also, we need to do things simpler, not only for industry, but also to make things faster when it comes to finding chemicals that are hazardous. So this is why we are looking into digitalization, looking how to modernize and simplify, and try to also be more on top. So this is a constant working. So this is something that we are working on, at the moment also on how to use the commodity. This is the word I cannot say, not even in Swedish.
I cannot say it. But this is something that is ongoing. Then if I go back to where we started, it was a little bit on German and the nitrates. And I just can say to you that I have had a constant dialogue with all member states, not only on nitrates, but, of course, very often on nitrates directive. Directive.
With Germany, I have met the government, the minister on agriculture. I would argue that we had a good discussion. What my perception is that the German government are aware of and have a goodwill of trying to see on the solutions. So we are in dialogue with them on that. Ingebori, I think you put it very well on it is, of course, a balancing act when it comes to transforming the green the industry that we are doing at the moment with health and environment.
I would say it's a necessity. It's nothing, it's not, it's a balancing act, of course, but we see and I see that the clean and green transition, the industry that we're doing, is not only because of people's health and the environment, it's also because something that we in Europe have competitive advantages in. But with that said, of course, that is a core interest for the commission, working on how to lower the energy cost because that is one of the reasons that industry are in problem, but also on reducing reporting burden, finding the legislation more efficient. But with that said, the current situation that we are in at the moment, with dependencies or whatever, shows that we need to do this transition. It's nothing that we, it's the way forward, and it has really put the light on that now.
Maybe that was also something that was talked about, but I will come back to that maybe. On just on the water nexus towards the circular economy. In my first introduction remark, I talked about the water energy nexus. I could also add the water circle economy nexus, because, of course, water is something that needs to be more, it's a circular. But I will say one thing that we are addressing is reusing water more efficiently, and that, of course, is reuse.
Not only me, but industries, all of us need to do that, and we are revising or looking into that regulation also. So that will absolutely be strengthened. Let's see. On the here, it was also questions on, I mean, just on the marine, we are and then linked maybe to the nature restoration, Cesar Luena, and also on the whale question maybe. Because, of course, for me, and I said, and also linked to Beatriz's Timgren's question.
For me, it is very important that we talk about the investments that we need to do in nature. Nature restoration regulation is an important regulation. I get a lot of questions on the cost, and I try to say to the bank that it is an investment. And we know a lot of reports recently has said that if we don't continue to have the deregulate degradation in biodiversity, that will cost us not only security when it comes to water risk scarcity, but also when it comes to our industries that are dependent on the nature, at least is so we need to see that link and connect the dots. And that is how I see it.
And what is, and I have these discussions with the member states that Cecilina asked about. And, of course, it's very diverse, dispersed in different, very different views. But my view is that we need to see that this is the time also to start doing the investments in nature. And I linked to Beatriz Stenger was because Beatriz Stenger mentioned nature credits and chemicals that are afraid that we will add new rules. I totally disagree.
I mean, what I said, I said it several times, we know that the funding gap for investment in nature is huge. Investment in water, which we all need, not only because we all need clean water, because the industry needs water, the energy production needs water. We need to invest in this. We need to invest in nature, and the public money will never be enough. So we also need innovative solutions.
Nature credit is one thing that I pointed out. It will not be the whole solution, and it's nothing that the politician is putting on. It's an instrument that will come from the bottom up. So I would say I would argue that it's a totally different view. Then maybe on the water framework directive, maybe just on Cesarena, know I'm overdue again.
When it comes to the stress testing of the regulations, I may be naive, but I think that we have an obligation as politicians to see that our regulations are fit for purpose. For me, that is important to see that, if we have high ambition in the regulation, for example, as we have in the water framework directive that member states should achieve water quality by 2027, and we have not reached them. Why don't we need to look into the regulation? Have an exercise that we actually see that these regulations are fit. I don't see sometimes I feel that I feel I'm in the polarization discussion, but I think it is fair to say that we are looking into this.
I don't have the answers on what that will come into, but we are in process, we will start a stress test this year. And what the result will be, we don't know. But that will have a continuous dialogue together with you, but also with others. So for me, that is, well, a responsible thing to do, actually, since the regulation is also quite old. Then, I think I more or less answered everything.
I probably missed it was on the water framework. Maybe if I was not clear enough to Youtha Saulos Youtha Paolo. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.
I think a little bit on the same theme as my answer to Cecilina is that, what this is the reason for what we need also to do this, and I said it earlier to Sina Bousseau so that, of course, when we have now I cannot be more concrete today, but we have not just closed the open call for evidence. We need to process the inputs, whatever has come in. We, as you correctly said, that we have updated water framework directive that will come into force now the May 10. We, in that updating, also said that we will do some, we have some clarification when it comes to deterioration. We, of course, also have said that we will also do guidance when it comes to some of the mining, well, the mining industries.
Well, let's put it like this. Lot clarification on the flexibilities that are in the current water framework directive, and also using the amendments that already are in the directive, that is what we're trying to do when it comes to the guidance that we will provide very shortly. Then I will come back to you, of course, in discussion when we have gone through all the stakeholders' input and also have dialogues with different interests. I have probably missed some questions. I am apologizing for that, but I would argue, well, I would say, please apologize me for that, but also say, rest assured that I will come back.
I really appreciate that you are putting all these questions to me. I think that it's important that we continue having dialogue if we really want to achieve what we are doing at the moment. We are in a technique shift, industrial shift, green transition, clean transition, call it whatever you want, that I think is really important for Europe, but also for us, as citizens. So, and here, we need to go, do that together.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. Now we take one minute to change the speaker. So let's turn to the last item of today, which will open the horizons of our committee. We are pleased to welcome Mister Dejan Durevich, chair of the committee on ecology of the parliament of Montenegro. This exchange of view is particularly timely as Montenegro is considered a front runner candidate country for the accession and aims to close all negotiation chapters by the end of 2026 and join the EU by 2028.
Of course, for all of us, it's important that Montenegro and that we look forward that this positive will have success, and we everybody of us know that the environmental chapter, the chapter 27, is particularly important in this dossier and in the accession of the negotiation. So today, I will first give the floor to chair Duhovich, then to envy members, then to the half outstanding rapporteur for Montenegro, Marian Sarc, and there's also the chair, yes. And, to the chair of the delegation of Montenegro, Thomas Walton. Finally, back to doctor Dulwich. So, welcome to the European Parliament.
We hope soon as a member state, and I leave you the floor for your speech.
Dejan Djurovic
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I'd like to express my thanks for giving me an opportunity to present the progress made in the framework of our accession to the European Union. We, of course, are in need of expertise, and we look forward to further cooperation in the very important negotiation chapters that are within the remit of your parliamentary committee. And particularly, we're talking about chapter 27 on the environment and climate change. The parliament of Montenegro is really focusing on trying to achieve these goals, the chapter 27 issue, we have a roadmap to achieve our closing criteria.
We have prepared and sent to the European Commission all the relevant documents relative to the measures taken, 11 laws, decrees, and strategies in all the various sub-areas. And we had positive feedback from the European Commission after defining a proposal for a law, and our parliament will look at the various legislative texts and try and adopt them as quickly as possible. In order to be able to meet the challenges adequately, we have many plans for our institutional rebuilding. Now in terms of the actual key in the environment, in terms of implementation in particular, Montenegro has really defined 8 transition periods with regard to waste, pollution, industrial pollution and wastewater, and specific plans for implementation have been finalized and provided to the European Commission. So we're aware of the fact that the European Commission, on several occasions, has insisted on the need to strengthen our administrative capacities. Now our specific ministry as well as the government and all parties involved are working very hard on this, and this is why I'm here today meeting you and your committee to help to further the process and to show how we are going to be able to comply with the obligations, and it will be, therefore, necessary to support our members of parliament, committee on ecology so as to achieve the goals in terms of improved administration.
Now this exchange of expertise and good practice with the European Parliament's committee will be essential and very useful in our endeavors. So we will do our utmost to ensure that we can guarantee that we will be up to the mark and we will be able to achieve the goals within the correct time frame. I would like to take this occasion, this opportunity, to mention the fact that we very much appreciate the assistance, technical assistance, financial assistance that has come through from the European Commission, the exchanges of know-how and so on that have been organized. And this visit will be something that we can begin working on with the European Parliament, more specifically in terms of exchanges and cooperation. Now we are very focused on the environment and environmental protection, which is essential for public health, for the economy, and for the stability of our societies as a whole.
We don't just want to join the EU, but we want to be an active partner. We want to follow the legislation. We want to adopt the acquis, align ourselves, and ensure that natural resources are protected in the long term, so that institutions as well can be transparent and take action rapidly. This is why we really do believe in dialogue, partnership, and joint responsibility. And this is why the European Parliament and the European Commission as well are our key partners on our path towards accession.
Everything that has to do with know-how and financial assistance and technical assistance as well that you are providing to us is very much appreciated and essential. Now we do hope to comply with all obligations in the framework of our roadmap. We are aware, of course, of the fact that we will be facing considerable challenges in the coming months, in closing chapters, not just chapter 27, but through our cooperation with yourselves, we will be able to achieve those goals and eventually become full-fledged members of
the European.
Dejan Djurovic
Union. Minister Chulevich and the work of the parliamentary committee that I represent is something that we would like to express our concern and our appreciation for the huge task ahead of us, with the need that we have to cooperate. And I want to reiterate our request that all the suggestions and following our proposals for legislation can be provided to us as quickly as possible in view of the very short amount of time available to us. Thank you once again.
Pierfrancesco Maran
We have the representatives of the political group to Minotitsch. We start with EPP, Ingeborg Terlak.
Ingeborg Ter Laak
Thank you, chair. Yes. And thank you, Mister Dvorchic, for being here. And as a member of both the environment committee and the effort committee in the European Parliament, I see the intersection of environmental policies and the EU enlargement as a key area of focus. And this makes this exchange extremely relevant and timely at this moment.
First of all, I would like to express our full support to Montenegro to continue progress on the path to EU accession, as it's clear that Montenegro is committed to tackle its environmental and climate change challenges as we all face them. And it's good to see that progress, particularly in the climate and environmental areas, is there. However, I would like to highlight that the accession process must always remain merit-based. This is critical for both Montenegro as well as for the EU. The EU environmental standards are evolving, and Montenegro will need to ensure it's aligned with those standards as part of the accession process.
The EU climate is constantly strengthening with ambitious targets such as the 2020 2040 climate goals. Montenegro has made commendable steps. The adoption of the national energy and climate plan, the NAEP, and the new climate law last year were positive milestones. And those steps are encouraging and show Montenegro's commitment. However, I must emphasize that more work needs to remain, especially on the climate chapters.
Progress on climate issues has been positive overall, but the terms of specific climate equities needs to be more rapid action, and it is really needed. So we need to, you know, speed up this process. But to be concrete I have some concrete questions. What steps is Montenegro planning to take in the short term to accelerate progress on the climate chapters and align more closely with involving EU climate regulation, particularly in the light of the 2040 climate target? While Montenegro has made important strides in adopting the NECP and new climate law, how do you plan to ensure that these laws are fully implemented, and what measurements are in place to monitor and also assess process?
And how do you envision the pace of these environmental reforms, and how can you accelerate it? And what kind of assistance do you need from the EU, do you need from the Parliament to support Montenegro in this process? So thank you very much for being here and taking your time to enlighten us on how far you're progressing. Thank you so much.
Marta Temido
Thank you, chair. First of all, I want to congratulate Montenegro for the beginning of the drafting of the session treaty. This is another important step in a long process where 14 chapters have been successfully closed, but there is no time to lose, for those who believe in Montenegro's ambition for becoming the twenty-eighth member state in 2028. We know that Montenegro is progressing towards the European Union green goals, but we also know that the green agenda faces legislative challenges, implementation challenges even in our member states. This is why, I would like to listen from you, chair Dorovich.
Thank you for being here and for having the time for exchanging with us about the legislative work. Last February, the committee on foreign affairs had the opportunity to meet the prime minister and minister of foreign affairs in Podgorica. And the cluster green agenda and sustainable connectivity includes several chapters that were planned to be closed this year. You mentioned 11 documents that are now being assessed, addressed in your committee. Can you elaborate a little bit further on that topic?
I also would like to raise a particular topic, the case of the construction of a wastewater treatment plant in Botun. This specific situation shows that funding for projects is not everything politicians have to take care of when implementing reforms. How is the situation right now, after the referendum results and the political parties dispute? Can you also elaborate further on that? Thank you so much.
Pär Holmgren
Thank you very much, chair. And, I would really like to start to thank doctor Jurowicz for joining us this rather late Monday evening here in Strasbourg. And also congratulations on your rather ambitious plan. Really interesting to hear. I do have a few questions.
First of all, as you know, the network of protected areas in Natura 2000 is really key for the EU's work on biodiversity and nature protection and, as are the corresponding network of Emerald sites for non-EU European countries. How are you moving forward with the formal protection of your nominated candidate Emerald sites? And are you preparing to propose more areas as candidates for Emerald sites to improve your network both within Montenegro and to neighboring countries? And then secondly, as I'm really sure you are well aware, the EU climate law sets binding, really binding, and I would say rather ambitious targets for 2030, 2040, 2050. And to reach these targets, we really need now to urgently end our dependence on fossil fuels.
And further, I would say that the current geopolitical situation has proved once again that this is also a matter of security and independence. But in this context, it is to me a bit worrying to see that Montenegro is now taking steps to increase its use of fossil gas. Although I know you are decreasing the dependence on carbon, and I also know that you have a lot of hydropower. But when deepening your reliance on fossil fuels, in this way, how do you plan to protect your citizens from the cost of volatile fossil fuel prices and probably also stranded assets in fossil fuels infrastructure? And how do you reconcile plans of up to three gas power plants with aligning with the EU climate legislation?
Thank you very much.
Sebastian Everding
Thank you, chair. I will continue in German. Aufo Maina
Welcome to the parliament, but I'd like to start by acknowledging the progress that Montenegro has made in the accession process. The way in which Montenegro will implement chapter 27 could become a benchmark for the whole West Balkan region. So it's not just a formal step. It needs to reflect real preparedness to work on biodiversity and preservation of nature. You need to have a practical approach.
And that means that areas such as the Ulsin saline area and the Kamatia Gorge. Forgive my pronunciation. And Vull Yajice and the Long Beach in Utzin need to be protected in a very effective way. And the test will be the implementation, and there needs to be a ban on worsening of this situation, and the resources and the political energy need to be put into those issues. And there are also the issues of torturing animals, and stray animals in particular. And so, how will Montenegro ensure that nature and diversity are protected in an effective way prior to accession?
And also, how will Montenegro deal with stray dogs in a long term sustainable approach. So the whole credibility of the EU enlargement process is at stake here. I look forward to hearing your answer.
Jutta Paulus
Thank you very much for being with us. It is a great honor for us to have you here tonight. I'm sorry that this room has become rather empty at this late hour, so I truly apologize for that. I'm very happy that Montenegro is on a very good way to access the EU, and because, of course, we're stronger together. And that is true also for us, not only for Montenegro, but also for the rest of the European Union.
I would like to focus on a unique feature that Montenegro has to offer, which is, of course, the Blue Heart of the Balkans. You have this unique biodiversity. You have the last free flowing rivers in the whole Europe. And while transitioning away from fossil fuels is, of course, paramount, we must make sure that we don't destroy biodiversity and ecosystem services on the way. Last week, I have been visiting restoration projects in my home country in Germany, and I was very, let's say, surprised to find out that there are really detrimental consequences of hydropower, which were not really visible at the time when this hydropower was built, but which emerged decades later, causing immense costs.
So I would really ask you, will you consider, while going, of course, away from coal and gas, going to the renewable energy sources which are not as detrimental to biodiversity such as solar and wind? Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now the outstanding rapporteur of Montenegro, Marjan Šarec.
Marjan Šarec
Thank you, dear colleagues, Mister Jurowicz, dear Dan. Let me start on a positive note. Enlargement is moving forward again, and that is something we should clearly welcome. It reflects renewed political will on both sides, but credibility remains key. Progress cannot come at the expense of standards.
It must be built on the full respect of EU laws and rules, not on lowering them. Chapter 27 is particularly challenging because it requires not only legislative alignment, but real implementation on the ground. It touches on air and water quality, waste management, biodiversity, and climate action, issues that directly affect citizens' health, economic development, and quality of life. For Montenegro, this has an even deeper meaning. The constitution defines Montenegro as an ecological state.
This is not just a symbolic statement. It is a commitment. And that commitment must be demonstrated in practice through concrete policies, strong institutions, and effective enforcement. Nature protection, in particular, goes far beyond a tick-box exercise. It is not only about designating areas on paper, but about ensuring that ecosystems are genuinely preserved and sustainably managed.
At the same time, we should be mindful of the current political momentum. It is strong and it creates opportunities, but it also brings risks. There is a danger of rushing reforms of creating so-called paper parks, incomplete protection frameworks, or weak enforcement mechanisms that do not deliver real results. Our task, therefore, is clear. Our common task is to ensure that progress on chapter 27 is both ambitious and credible, that it delivers real environmental protection while bringing Montenegro closer to the European Union.
Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. I leave the floor to the chair of the delegation with Montenegro, Thomas White.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you, chair, and I thank all the colleagues that found themselves in this room tonight. And I thank my colleague, Dan Jovich. He joined us here tonight. It's a bit of an unfortunate moment. It's Monday evening, Strasbourg, so many members have not even arrived or are trying to get into bed to stem this parliamentarian week.
So, also, from my side, I would ask you for an apology. I can just start where my colleague, Marian Jaretz, just ended and support his statement. But there's also something in this that we, the European Union side, can learn from this country. I don't know of any other state within the European Union that is an ecological state by the constitution. So I think it's a good example for, you know, an accession process that, well, brings remedies and revenues to the country that accesses, but also brings a wonderful country into the European Union.
And whoever hasn't been there and hasn't seen it, there's a lot of natural beauties to discover. And there come my questions. Montenegro has had a quite impressive rise of tourism in the last years. You have been investing in the tourist industry, not just on the coast, but also in the backlands. And tourism very much comes also and specifically comes to a country like Montenegro because of natural beauties, natural values, nature that is still worth, you know, going there and experiencing it.
And this also helps tourism. Wild tourism sometimes destroys the natural beauty that is actually the root cause of the tourists that come. What's your position on the development in Montenegro when it comes to tourism versus ecology? And the second very concrete question, my colleague Marion Jaretz touched upon it, it's also about the implementation. So let me ask you two very concrete questions for chapter 27.
Montenegro will need to allocate or be ready to allocate 30% of the country's landscape towards Natura 2000. How do you see it in Skubcina or in the parliament of Montenegro? Will there be a majority to actually allocate these areas to Natura 2000, and will you be able to fulfill this condition until the end of the year? And to be very concrete when it comes to implementation, do you have any updates on stopping the illegal extraction of gravel from the River Moracha, which is actually endangering the water supply of the whole Southern Coast and is actually close to the capital? So in my view of the institutions.
Thank you very much for being here, and once again, welcome.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Thanks to all colleagues, and I leave the floor to mister Dubovich for your reply. First.
Dejan Djurovic
Of all, I'd like to thank you in relation to this idea that there are not many MEPs in the room. I've still received plenty of questions. So the number of questions that I've received is a testimony to the fact that all is well on that level. Mr. Weitz had questions which had a very local and specific nature, in particular, the extraction of gravel from the Muratza River.
So we stopped that a few months ago. So that problem has been solved. And I think that I can safely say that this is a subject which was in the news for a number of years, and it really was, I think, a black mark on our ecological record, but it's solved. Now concerning Boutoun, that was also linked to the extraction of gravel. And these criminal issues, this extraction was unauthorized, and the people involved in the extraction of Greville were the target of a real revolt on the part of our citizens.
And the problem that appeared in Botun was linked to the lack of transparency of the previous government, which launched into this project in 2018. And when we came to power in 2021, we discovered this problem. It was a well, it was a surprise to us when we discovered it. So I've started with the last questions, but I'll come back to the questions from the start. And to all of those who've never been to Montenegro, 90% of our rivers have drinkable water, which is rather good for Europe.
This is a situation which is very rare even in countries which are mountainous in Europe. We have the biggest lake also of all the Balkan region. This is a source of high quality drinking water for the whole Montenegro coast. So Montenegro doesn't have any problems as regards the cleanliness of its water. Where we did have problems was with the previous authorities where minimum, small hydroelectric stations were built for ecological reasons, but that was counterproductive because that turned our waterways into canals, and that led to a sort of a vicious circle, which we have inherited from the previous government that we have yet to solve.
Now I knew that you'd talk to me about saying that that is probably the biggest problem that we have and probably the biggest problem in Europe. Everybody who comes from the European Union to visit us talks about Plivlia to us. And in 2022, 2023, we have opened, built more power stations, and we know that Pljevlja needs to be closed. We have this contract with the energy union. And it's true that 50% of our electricity came from this power station in Plovdiv, but now we are developing solar energy and wind energy.
And I think that will allow us to put in place a robust power generation system, which will be able to deal with the closure of Pljevlja while still furnishing electricity to the citizens of Montenegro. At the moment, we have the smallest, the lowest electricity prices in Europe. So the citizens of Montenegro are particularly happy with this state of affairs. Regarding climate change now, the first question on that subject, we've passed a law on climate change, which will allow us to better harmonize our efforts. We have a deadline there, and we're respecting that deadline in spite of the fact that Mr. Charlotte is saying that it's not just about sticking to deadlines, but it's an obligation that we had towards the European Union.
The 12/10/2025, the government adopted the National Energy and Climate project, which was a significant problem for us because we were waiting for that to be adopted since 2017. And, there was I don't think there were any public debates or consultations as of 2023. Now I think there are still problems with regard to the countries around us, but we have managed in a few years to go from being a country which was at a low level. We've now moved to become the best country in the Balkans. So we are harmonizing also our CO2 emissions from vehicles.
So that's consumer information. We've worked on all of those issues. And concerning CO2 emissions, we have a big problem to deal with, which the last government passed on to us because there was this aluminum factory which had stopped. And the Plavalia Power Station. And so we were faced with this situation in which the aluminum smelting plant was sold to Ploevlia, and that allowed the previous government to profit from the trading, from the production.
Natura 2000 is completed. We are also concluding the maritime aspect of that. And in these past few days, we adopted all of the legislative texts concerning fishing activities. Sometimes I have the feeling that.
Sometimes I get the impression that some of these laws, how can I put this? They're maybe not realistic enough, not sufficiently realistic because, basically, the premise is that, apparently, there are fewer catches than what we should have been able to do. Now if we want to protect our seas, our oceans, I'm not sure that that's actually the right way to go about it. Part of the coastal one will be included in Natura 2000, so will be incorporated. The Emerald proposal is currently before the council.
It has been, in fact, for a couple of years now. We're also expecting a governmental decree on this point. I took note of your question regarding the just transition and subsidies. We need to work quite specifically on the phasing out of fossil fuels, and we also need to work on climate change and energy, of course. Mister Weitz, I know that you'll be particularly interested in this.
I know that this is one of your hobby horses as well. So we've got the Dulthin town hall and the government working hand in hand on the issue that you mentioned, also during your most recent visit. We have now an action plan that will allow us to fully protect the zone as it should be, in terms of access, etcetera. National strategy on diversity, biodiversity, again, all of that will be aligned with the EU standards and the UN Convention on the Protection of Biodiversity. So let me come back once to these small, hydroelectric power plants, if I may.
At the time, they were actually perceived as a source of renewable energy. But actually, now we're moving on to solar power, wind power. We're really focusing on that, and we've been working on that a lot over the course of the last few years. In fact, the Wassa wind power plant started operating very recently, that will allow us to get some electricity from wind power. It will be much more reliable, safe, secure, and it also means that we can cut back on privacy.
Then wastewater and waste and protection of biodiversity regarding those questions, let me tell you that we have been working hard to meet the requirements, the obligations that are becoming our obligations, of course, going forward, in order to reduce any detrimental impact on the environment. And most importantly, when it comes to local authorities, we've also got measures in place there. I mean, for the time being, they've been under-resourced. That is a problem. So we're working on that.
We're trying to shore up their capabilities, their ability to act as management authority, so to speak, at the local level. But you have to remember, 520,000, that's the, yeah. 520,000 population who are not citizens of Montenegro, as things stand right now, that we have a strategy on tourism and biodiversity. We're trying to avoid a certain number of conflicts in these areas. A 131 habitat categories and many bird species, protected bird species are currently the subject of public consultation.
So there's public consultations underway. And then, with the help of the EU, we will be able to define protection zones or protected areas. So that's what I wanted to say by way of a response. Allow me to finally say a few words, in my capacity as chair of the committee on ecology of the parliament of Montenegro, and to talk about tourism because that really is our main economic area of activity, and it finances a lot of other things. So I'm responsible for ecology.
I'm responsible for planning. And we have actually recently adopted a new plan for the Montenegro planning exercise that was the first of its type in 20 years, in fact. I mean, until that point, we didn't have clear deliberations for farmland, agricultural spaces, production of, you know, healthy foodstuffs, because, of course, that is also a pan-European concern in this day and age, it seems to me. So like I said, we have adopted a plan, a land use plan, which I think is important because it means that we can move forward as a country to guarantee quality food, safe food, not just for our own population, but also for all tourists or visitors to our country. I'm quite convinced that will be the case.
In addition to which, I would point out that, you know, wherever you might be, you know, in two hours, you just take two hours and get to the sea, to the seaside. You can be anywhere, in fact. Get to the sea in two hours, get to the mountains, in fact, to a ski slope in Montenegro, two hours away. No more than that. I think in the past, one of Montenegro's main problems has been the infrastructure.
Infrastructure was insufficient, weak, and that is why we have moved on to a second phase in our motorway scheme. The idea is to have a direct connection between the coastal area, the capital, Serbia, etc. We're also creating a road between Dubrovnik, Split, and Zagreb, linking all of those to Montenegro. There's already a track going towards Sarajevo, and then there's a second track that we would like to organize towards Albania, again connecting Montenegro and Albania. I think we have the potential as a country.
We definitely have the potential. Like I said, our country is definitely an ecological country. Mister Sharix has been pointing this out to us many times, saying that's not enough. It's not enough to just say that, to say in your constitution that Montenegro is an ecology state. That is not sufficient per se.
I completely agree. But let's not forget that for 30 years or so, you know, it's a clause in our constitution. For 30 years, nothing was done, absolutely nothing. Whereas I would argue that over the course of the last five years, we have achieved significant results in this area. You know, if for thirty years, nothing was done, you can't catch up on that or make up for that in five years only, but still, we're on the right track.
And, mister Weiss, I wanted to say that to alleviate your concerns. Also, regarding CBAM, which will be applicable as of January 1, well, in fact, it's applicable as of 01/01/2026, electricity exports towards the European Union from Montenegro. Obviously, this has a very strong impact on our economy, and we really look forward to joining the EU, to acceding to the EU. And that way, when it comes to cutting CO2 emissions, the actions, activities that we're funding right now in our country, we very much hope that all of the beneficial results of that will be felt as a consequence of our accession. So I hope I've answered all your questions.
I hope I haven't forgotten anything. If I have forgotten anything, then please let me reassure you that I didn't do that on purpose. If you ever want to repeat your question, I'm totally here at your disposal. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
So, mister Durovich, look forward to Sergei Negra to join you, hopefully, in 2028. I take the occasion also to thank all the workers and translators that helped us for our work. We don't have any other items. I inform you that the next meeting of the committee will be in May 2026 in Brussels and in June 2026. Thank you, and good evening, everybody.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
Oops. Thank you very much.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.