Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
ENVI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsOlivér Várhelyi
Last year alone, 2,500,000 consignments were checked at the EU borders. The overwhelming majority of them complied with the EU requirements. And those that didn't were rejected before they could reach consumers. This shows that the system works. Risks are stopped at the border before they can become problems inside the single market.
But the world is changing. Supply chains are becoming more complex. Trade volumes are growing, and health risks are evolving. That is why I'm currently visiting EU border control posts to highlight their essential role in this system. I also want to experience firsthand what are their constraints and day to day challenges to fully harness their capacities and pros and procedures.
I recently visited the border control post at the Port of Antwerp in Belgium and at the Port of Algeciras in Spain, two of our busiest entry points. Our position is clear. European standards must not disadvantage European producers. In January, we launched a task force on import controls. It gives member states and the commission a platform to coordinate, share experiences, and make sure controls are credible, proportionate, and harmonized across the EU.
But coordination alone is not enough. We are also stepping up enforcement. We are increasing audits on exporting countries by 50%, and audits by border control posts by a third. Commodities and countries with repeated issues will undergo closer monitoring and stronger, coordinated checks. This includes pesticide controls.
Products containing traces of three hazardous pesticides banned in the EU will no longer enter the market. This sends a clear signal. If a substance is not allowed to be used in Europe for health or environmental reasons, it should not enter Europe through imports. And we are backing this up with capacity. Hundreds of national officials will receive dedicated training on official controls.
We will also create a pool of 30 national experts in border control posts and their operations who will make targeted visits to border control posts, observe and analyze how they are organized, and collect and share good practices. To conclude on this, the task force on import controls will guide the next steps, focusing on practical solutions, implementation, and harmonized approaches. Moving now to our plant legislation. I want, first of all, to welcome the agreement on the new genomic techniques. It maintains our core aims, the proportionate science-based framework that boosts innovation in plant breeding while ensuring safety and transparency.
It also takes a balanced approach to patents, and I'm aware of how important it is to strike here the right balance. I can reassure you that this piece of legislation will keep our agriculture sector competitive and ready for the future. And I very much encourage you to move forward with the adoption of this agreement as the council did at the April. I'm also glad that we recently reached an agreement on forest reproductive materials. For the plant, productive materials negotiations are underway, and I'm confident we can reach agreement in the next few weeks or months.
Honorable members, these objectives go hand in hand with our focus on nutrition under the EU Safe Hearts Plan. The Safe Hearts Plan has a clear aim, to reduce premature cardiovascular related death by a quarter by 2035. We know that prevention is the most cost-effective way of addressing cardiovascular diseases and their risk factors. One of the focuses of the plan is the so-called ultra processed foods and their impact on health. Our aim is to empower people through information on food processing in the EU, and to encourage a shift towards healthier diets.
We will also look at how best to support public health actions on prevention, encouraging food reformulation and healthier choices. We adopted the Safe Hearts Plan as part of a wider package in December, alongside the Biotech Act, which aims to make Europe's biotechnology sector more competitive. In March, you had the first exchange of views with the commission on the proposal for a directive as part of the biotech act. The Biotech Act proposes targeted changes to regulatory procedures in several areas to encourage innovation. One of them concerns genetically modified microorganisms in products other than food and feed.
The proposed amendments maintain the strict safety standards we already have in place for genetically modified organisms. At the same time, they aim to streamline and tailor the procedures, which should speed up access to the market for safe products. This will allow farmers, companies, and consumers to benefit sooner from bio-based innovations. These innovations are often environmentally more friendly, and they are already coming to the market in other countries like the US or Brazil. These initiatives reflect my overall priorities: reducing unnecessary burden, supporting innovation, and ensuring that our rules are properly implemented and enforced.
Our annual simplification report showcases this work and is, of course, available to everyone. So dear chair, honorable members, we're committed to upholding the high safety standards for our health, our environment, and our food. By making our legislation work better for everyone, we protect our health, empower our farmers, and maintain our competitive edge. Thank you for your attention. And, of course, I'm more than happy to answer your questions.
Esther Herranz García
Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, commissioner. I'll be the first speaker. First of all, I'd like to thank you for making reference to the potential for digital labeling so that consumers can be informed. But I'm going to ask you specifically to take into account the special features of people with disabilities, people who need support. For example, the visually impaired and blind people who find it hard to use electronic devices, so that we can ensure that the electronic labeling can be adapted to all citizens in Europe, and so that they can all make use of the labeling.
And secondly, I'd like to refer to what you said about border control. This is, of course, extremely important, and I'm delighted to hear what you said about no risk to human health. But I'd also like to talk about plant health. There aren't many controls done on plants coming into the European Union. We've had famous cases such as Xylella fastidiosa that came in through our ports and caused a number of problems to the health of plants grown in the European Union.
We can all remember citrus fruits and the diseases that come in through our ports. So please strengthen border control. I'm delighted to hear about the task force, but I'd like to talk about the role of an organization that works extremely well and is well known, and it would be important to take it into account when drawing up future border control. And I'm referring to EFSA. EFSA is able to do this.
It knows what's going on, and it's able to play a very relevant role in the border control for food coming into the European Union. I'd like to hear what you have to say about that. But I'm going to give the floor now to the other colleagues. We have two minutes. I stuck to my two minutes.
I hope you will do it too. Mister Androcaites, for the socialist, now you have the floor.
Floor for two minutes.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Thank you very much indeed, chair, dear commissioner. You know that last week, the parliament adopted a report on the sustainable future for the European Union livestock sector, touching the issue of farmer's resilience, food security, and challenges posed by animal diseases. The report calls to bring back product production as a core policy orientation, taking into account the diversity of our production models and the ambition to keep production all across the European Union, knowing that many member states are facing big challenges, of course, considering livestock contribution to rural economy and the environment. This push for productivity comes at a time when animal welfare situation is already a very sensitive topic, creates a lot of challenges. And experiencing pressing pressures from two factors, lack of veterinary doctors, especially in rural areas, and slow expansion of the European Union Reference Centers for Animal Welfare.
In 2018, we established a center for pigs. In 2019, for birds. In 02/2021, cows and horses. 2024, for fish. How are you planning to solve these issues?
Enable the development of new centers for animal welfare. Your reference center for animal welfare. And also encourage education and members encourage member states to strengthen the education and training of veterinary specialists so that they can ensure sustainable development of animal farming, guaranteeing implementation, evidence-based animal welfare standards. Because we need to know that only evidence based animal welfare standards should be placed on in our livestock practice. Thank you.
Esther Herranz García
Thank you very much, Mister Andriocates. And now the floor goes to Madam Bonte from Patriots.
Speaker 7
First of all, thank you very much. Thank you very much for your presentation. Of course, we all agree on many of these issues of security and safety. And of course, this has to be also part of trade agreements. Our consumers have to have trust.
Speaker 13
They have to feel that all products are safe, whether they are from the EU or from third countries. We've seen that it's necessary to be very careful at this particular point. In Brazil, we've seen there have been different issues concerning fodder, and there have been a number of different lacunae. In other words, there have also been growth hormones that have been found in certain animal fodder that are used in Brazil, and a number of other issues. So this has to be something that has to be immediately taken into consideration.
Speaker 7
Salmonella is another problem that we've seen. A very simple question now. Now what can you tell us, commissioner, about the possibilities of imported meat from Mercosu countries? How can we be certain that those products are safe and that our particular criteria, parameter, the various different measures that we have in place are also implemented in those countries for meat and for meat imported in particular to the European Union. We really must have this taken up by the European Union.
It can't be something that's dealt with at the national level by the national authorities. National authorities don't have the capability to conduct the necessary additional controls. Task force, European audits, this is obviously very good, but there are a number of different countries or enterprises in those countries where there is no transparency whatsoever, and it's impossible to contract the necessary controls. Now our farmers are livestock raisers. They are all subject to very strict controls.
Speaker 9
And, of course, this has its consequences as far as costs, and we see what happens when we have these cheap imports. Thank you.
Alexandr Vondra
Thank you, chair. Dear commissioner, allow me to return to the question which I have been discussing with commissioner Roosevelt a week ago, and I would be interested in your view. The EU pharmaceutical industry is facing fierce global competition. However, the EU regulatory framework is making things worse. Extended producers' responsibility, as included in the current commission proposal on the revised urban wastewater treatment directive, is an element that causes me wrinkles.
In the name of the Poulter's Pay principle, it disproportionately penalizes companies. The stakeholders I have met confirm that they are ready to be part of the solution. There is certainly a fair share of the responsibility that they need to bear. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that the pharmaceutical industry is a specific sector. Human medicine is unlike any other chemical product.
Access to medicine is a fundamental component of the right to health. So here are my questions. Do you agree that the current commission proposal calls into question the accessibility and pricing of the medicine? And secondly, how could we reverse this negative trend and keep the sector both competitive and keep it in Europe, not to allow that they would disappear outside of Europe. Thank you.
Esther Herranz García
Thank you very much, Mr. Bondra. And now on behalf of Renew, mister De Brandi, you have the floor for two minutes.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, madam chair. Commissioner, I would like to focus on the food and feed omnibus proposal. And there's one thing that we fully agree upon, that is that the current system is not working anymore and it has to be fixed. But you've chosen a very bold approach, removing the standard reapproval. And if we look back fifteen years, last 15 years, roughly 10%, 54 of the active substances were not reapproved, and because they were too dangerous.
31 out of the 54 were not on the radar of independent science or the European Commission. They were only not reapproved because of this 10 year reapproval system. And simply because science, independent science, does not have the capacity to go through all these active substances. So without the current system, they would most probably not be identified, and would still be on the market. At the same time, Science has been arguing now for years that we have to be stricter on pesticides because of the cocktail effect and because of the cumulative use of pesticides.
My question is about the fact that you did not deem it necessary to undertake a proper impact assessment. You argue that there are hundreds of millions of reduction in administrative costs, but you have no idea what the costs for the environment and for public health will be. So my question is whether you're still willing to undertake such an impact assessment. The Dutch parliament has asked science to make a scientific assessment, and they came to the conclusion that your proposal will not reduce bureaucracy, nor can it guarantee equivalent health standards. So maybe you can answer that as well.
And then finally, your portfolio is about public health. There is a lot of reason to put much more effort in trying to look for the links between the use of pesticides and neurological diseases like Parkinson's disease. But you seem not to be very active and actively urgent acting very urgently on that. So I hope you can respond to that as well.
Thank you.
Esther Herranz García
Thank you very much, Mr. Gerbandi. Now on behalf of the group of Greens, mister Hausen, you have the floor for two minutes.
Martin Häusling
I want to make my speech in term. Her commissioner. Now, commissioner.
Well, we've seen that there are numerous different issues which have to be discussed. I don't think we can just go through these issues very quickly. Now in parliament, right now, the issue of patents is extremely important. And we're in the midst of a dialogue right now, so we can't really look at this as no problem that we can just push it aside for now. It's a very important issue.
Deregulation, microorganisms, well, there's no security standards in place, no traceability, and no issues of how to deal with this in the agricultural sector. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about how we're gonna deal with this in the agricultural sector, looking at what's going on in the United States. Now as far as the security measures there, I think we have a number of different bad examples which we ought not to follow. Then food and feed. Now there's a German report stating that article 191 and 188. There, I think there's sufficient food for thought on this particular matter.
Very important that we have to think very carefully about any sort of approval systems or blanket approvals now facilitating the approval situation. No. We really do not have sufficient information with regard to biological means of combating this particular scourge, or the synthetic means as well. So I think, indeed, I think it's very important for us to look at this with great profundity. And one, as far as better frontier controls.
Now I always ask, well, why does it are it it's very difficult when we export the same products that we're creating impediments as far as importing. Well, the question then arises, why are we exporting them in the first place?
Sebastian Everding
Thank you, chair. I will continue in German.
Commissioner, we're in the year 2024. We began together here in 2024. You, in charge for animal protection. Now for decades, we've fought for protection of animals, and this is something that fortunately is in your portfolio right now. But unfortunately, nothing has really changed.
Although we've heard about harmonization of border controls, but in actuality, nothing has been done whatsoever as far as the protection of animals. We are experiencing major suffering of animals with animals encaged, with animals in livestock situations which are totally unacceptable. So, also with ducks, geese being force-fed. So there are still in Romania death or killing stations. These are terrible things.
The list goes on. So I don't want to do you injustice, but I'd like to ask, where has change taken place? What is being done? Hundreds of thousands of Europeans are waiting for you as commissioner in charge of animal protection to do something. We've been waiting for months now.
And, really, right now, who is to take over this particular issue? If it's something that you neglect, who's gonna take care of the issue of animal protection? So I personally would like to express my lack of any trust whatsoever in your office on this particular front. There are very few here in the parliament who are fighting for this particular issue, but there are hundreds of thousands of Europeans that are interested in this. So I think, indeed, something has to be done because it is extremely important for, once again, 100,000s of Europeans.
Esther Herranz García
We don't have any representative from ESN, so we can move to the first round of four answers from the commissioner. Mister commissioner, ten minutes.
Olivér Várhelyi
Okay. I will try to make it in 10. Not sure I can make it. On the digital labeling, first of all, I think that we have already foreseen this facility so that people with any disability should be able to read even the digital labels. But, of course, this will depend largely on the implementation.
But I take a new note of your request, and, of course, we're going to address it also through the implementation phase. On border controls and plant health, you may have seen that I visited Algeciras, which is the biggest entry point for plant products to the European Union. And, we had quite an interesting exchange with the controllers. And it seems that there are two big issues where we could help them and where I have already offered them help. One is the discovery of newer and newer pests because as our trade relations are expanding, of course, we have more and more regions supplying us with plant products.
And on that, more pests are coming in. However, it takes quite a long time to actually establish with certainty whether the actual pest in question is invasive in the European Union or not, or whether at all it is present in the European Union at all. And if not, then what level of danger it poses to our biosecurity. So we have agreed, based on their proposal, to establish a data bank and artificial intelligence tools with which they can establish, with certainty on the spot in much less time than currently when they have to go to national authorities. For example, in Arjaciras, they have to ask the Museum of Environment Heritage to create a proper official assessment, which could take days or weeks.
So we are creating now a tool to be able to react much faster and also to eradicate any danger because the longer it waits, of course, the bigger the risk is. The second is, of course, the new diseases entering, potentially with these shipments. And again, here, we agreed that this is where we need to synchronize much more the work of the different points of entry, because what we see is that there are some who would like to test, let's put it this way, the consistency of our control systems, and they try to enter from the same source different consignments at different entry points of the European Union. So the faster we can link up the entry points with real-time information, the more efficient we're going to be to actually find these shipments that could bring in diseases to the European Union. To Mister Andrukaitis, the livestock report of the European Parliament.
I paid a lot of attention to the report. Very interesting ideas in that. You know that the commission is also set to create its own livestock strategy. It is foreseen, I think, my fellow commissioner, Hansen, has already announced it at the plenary last week for July 7. And here, of course, it will be a very important principle that we should help with this strategy, to keep the production in Europe and to continue to maintain our food sovereignty and our self sufficiency on food.
I do agree with your assessment that we're lacking vets. In some regions, this is becoming a major risk. And therefore, we are working with the national authorities of the member states to increase their capacities, but also, to link up the national systems closer so that they can help each other. And yes, it would be, I think, a good idea to expand further the animal welfare centers. Now they are established in line with the applicable basic regulation, the official controls regulation.
Of course, we are happy to work on further centers. To Mrs. Bonte on import controls, you mentioned the specific case related to growth hormones in Brazil. This is a case that we have immediately addressed. We have established on the basis of our own audits that we have run in Brazil, the illegal use of hormones, growth hormones to be exported to Europe, I mean, meat containing growth hormones to be exported to Europe.
First of all, we immediately alerted the member states where the shipments and the consignments were addressed, and we have asked them to keep them from entering the markets. Second, I immediately took direct contact with the Brazilian agriculture minister and asked him to remove from the list of certified establishments both the farm from which these products were coming, and also the certification body that has issued the certification for the farm in question. So what I can tell you is that from those establishments, there can be no more exports to the European Union as long as they have not rectified the situation. When it comes to the enforcement of our rules in third countries, this is also a good example because here, especially because of this incident, we will now have two official audits in Brazil assessing the level of compliance. And we are going to constantly update our focus of risk assessments to target those establishments where we see the most risk.
This is actually a topic that I always discuss when I'm visiting the entry points, to make sure that we are on the same page when it comes to risk assessment. As you know, risk assessments are currently made by the member states. But with the establishment of the task force, we also want to streamline and coordinate more the risk assessment strategies within the European Union. To Mister Vondra, this is for a commissioner to contradict another commissioner. I understand that this would be the gist.
The question is an absolute no-no, so I'm not going to do it. And I want to rely on one document that we have adopted in July, which is the water strategy of the European Union. In the water strategy, we made it very clear how we think the urban wastewater directive should be implemented. And in that, I think, that there are two very important criteria. First of all, the implementation of that directive should not lead to shortages when it comes to basic medicines.
I agree with you that we have to make sure that very basic pharmaceutical products that people take because of chronic conditions, so not because of personal convenience or any other personal choices, but out of pure necessity. So, we are talking about insulin. We're talking about blood pressure products. We are even talking about contraceptive products. We are talking about antibiotics.
So, very basic products. We have to make sure that the implementation of the wastewater directive will not have an impact on their availability, and that is the second message in that strategy, or on the pricing and reimbursement system of the member states. And for that reason, I think that, when it comes to the implementation of the urban wastewater directive, it is a very interesting discussion that is emerging in this house. I hope that this house will come to an agreement on that. And maybe that could also open up the way for some fine tuning of the implementing strategies of the directive. I personally am ready to contribute so that we achieve the two criteria that have been already adopted by the College.
To Mr. Gebrandi, standard reapprovals. Let's let me give you a broader explanation, and then I will come down to the details as well because maybe this is of interest to others as well. First of all, the simplification exercise, the omnibus, does not change any of the assessment criteria. It's very important to understand from the very beginning.
So no criteria have been changed. What is changing is that we should only require bureaucracy to act when it has added value and where it helps us to continue to protect human health and the environment. Your example is that 54%, if I'm right, 54% of the reapprovals have been negative, while 31 of these products have not been on the radar of the authorities as posing a risk to the environment or human health. Posing a risk to human health and posing a risk to the environment still continues to be the responsibility of EFSA and the Commission to address, and we will have a continuous review of this. This has not changed either.
But what has changed is that, first of all, we want to make sure a much lower impact on the environment by front loading the biopesticides. We are convinced that by promoting biopesticides and their faster approval, and creating a fast track for them, the replacement of chemical pesticides that are posing a bigger impact on the environment will diminish much faster. Because this way, we can also ensure that there's a replacement of these products for the farmers to continue their activities. It is also clear that if we do that, we should also be able to help eliminate the backlog that we see in the system. Currently, the system works in a way that although we have five years of periods of renewals, it takes, on average, 10 years to actually get the final assessment of the renewal.
So even if the product is, at the end, considered to be unsafe, no renewal will take place. The product most likely will stay on the market five more years. So now what we are doing is that we are allocating additional staff to EFSA to address the backlog of roughly 200 products. And by the time the biopesticides system of approval will kick in, we will have no backlog, but we will have additional staff. This year, we're allocating roughly 19 additional staff to EFSA. And by the end of next year, we hope that we will have altogether 48 additional staff only to address the backlog issue.
This means that by the time the new system kicks in, we will have a much more efficient approval system in place to approve products, but also a much more efficient system to actually address risks that are coming up during use. And I think that with this, we will find much easier the pesticides that are creating risks. Now coming to the approval without time limits. The approval without time limit is conditional, very strictly conditional. And these conditions are there to protect all of us, the environment, and also human health.
The idea was to create this opportunity only for those that are low hazard substances, so which are not products that are identified for substitution, so that we know that there will be a product coming, which is less risky. And that they are not to be re-evaluated as high-risk products. This means, in practice, that this is not going to be the main rule to follow, but this is going to be the exception. Second, it also means that these active substances will get their approval without having to be revisited. But it doesn't mean that the products that are using these active substances are going to be authorized unlimitedly.
Because if you look at the proposal, what we are making, this unlimited authorization is related to the active substance. Substance. It is not related to the product. The product will continue to be reassessed every 15 years. So it is not fair to state that we have done away with standard reapprovals.
There will always be a reapproval of each and every product that actually the farmers are using that are actually to be used in agriculture. The non-time-limited approvals are related only to the active substances. So I think I answered also your question related to acting for human health, that promoting biopesticides is also a very important element to lower the impact of chemical pesticides on human health. And in that, I think that my proposal confirms that. To Mr.
Heusling, patents, and traceability. Well, I think that the proposal that has been adopted by the trial or the core legislators is very clear on traceability. In Europe, we have very clear rules on patentability, very clear rules on the public nature of patent registries. We have included additional traceability rules in the proposal. And it is very clear that we have not changed any of the regulations related to the traceability of GMOs or GMMs in food and feed.
So I think, that what we have seen emerging from the discussions of the council and the parliament are very clear. And they contain the necessary traceability elements. Now you also asked about the, as you called it, blanket approvals. I think I have answered that question. And then we have your question on controls and exporting pesticides to third countries.
Olivér Várhelyi
the third countries who are authorizing the pesticides that they use. We have no power over that. But what we are making very clear to our third country partners as well is that we wouldn't like to see back the pesticides that have been banned in the European Union coming back to our markets as max residue pesticides. So I hope that with this, we are also giving them an incentive to start moving away from all the pesticides that are banned in the European Union for the sake of their own environment and the health of their own citizens. And finally, to mister Everding, well, to be honest with you, I have seen last week, only last week, that the European Parliament adopted a proposal, an animal welfare proposal into law on cats and dogs.
I thought that was an animal welfare proposal. Not to mention that, I think that the envy committee is not responsible for animal welfare, but it is the agri committee. Still, I'm happy to answer your question on that. So that is something that we have achieved. That is something that we have agreed at the end of last year.
We are now also going to make some announcements about this year's proposals coming forward on the ending of the KGH. You have seen my very clear messaging about that. End of the year, we're going to come with these proposals. So I think that to state that nothing has been done in animal welfare is a very far cry from reality. Thank you.
Esther Herranz García
Thank you very much, Mr. Rachelle. And now before continuing with the intervention from the colleagues, I want to remind you that the CATCA is open for anyone who can join. Mr. You have two minutes.
Thank.
Christophe Clergeau
you. I'm going to take the floor in French. I would appreciate if the commissioner could go point by point through what you said on legislation on the pest pesticides, and I have a very different view of it. What bothers me here is that you said some things that are factually wrong.
Christophe Clergeau
Of course, traceability rules for category one NGTs are not the same for GMOs. What you said is wrong there. And on the legislation on pesticides, you say that authorizations without a time limit will be reserved for the least dangerous pesticides. That is not true. That is not what is contained in the text that you submitted.
It's only the most dangerous pesticides that will be subject to regular review. That is not the same thing at all. You know that full well, because when it comes to medical devices, you have an approach based on the least dangerous devices. If you want to have this approach for the least dangerous pesticides, then withdraw your draft and submit a new one, because what you said is factually wrong. And I have a precise question on the latest scientific information. Do you have a legal study which shows that proves that what you wrote in the text is in line with the European treaties?
And to end, I would like to ask you once again about the issue of subsidies for financing the health care sector NGOs. Over 70 MEPs from 12 member states from across the political spectrum, including the EPP coordinator from the Environment and Health Committee, requested this. A few days ago, it was requested that calls for tender for subsidies for this sector would be open for 2026. So will you commit to reestablishing this for 2026 and 2027? That would be in line with the strategy of your colleagues at the Commission, and it would show that you are listening to the Parliament and to the European people.
Thank you.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Commissioner Farheli, for being here. Following the recent scandals, Chinese poultry meat with failing traceability and hygiene according to your own Digisante audit of November 2023, Ukrainian acts with repeated salmonella and doxycycline contamination throughout 2023. Brazilian beef contaminated with the ban to study all hormone that still entered the EU market despite commitments according to audit CT 2025 241 and the cellulite crisis in infant formula caused by our oil from China in December 2025, self certification from third countries has clearly proven to be structurally ineffective. Do you share our and my concerns that imports from China, Ukraine, and Brazil are undermining these food safety standards, still and despite the commitments you yourself have made on December 9? What concrete additional controls have you already mentioned, a few, and audits have now been introduced for Chinese poultry products, Ukrainian eggs, and this Brazilian beef?
Speaker 23
Are the announced 50% increase in audits in third countries and stricter border checks actually already being implemented, or will it remain on paper? Do you have an impact assessment that our national food agencies are truly capable of handling the promised higher frequency of controls? Have you received signals of overload, for instance? And how do you, commissioners, see the future role of EFSA? We had the director, Chris, here.
Speaker 22
Should EFSA not only also proactively and unprompted advise on food safety threats from third countries, even when this is politically inconvenient, maybe sometimes for the commission exactly as independent EFSA does and will continue to do for in reviews for active substances in plant protection products, contrary to what mister Gabrandi of Renault seem to suggest here. So what's your opinion on that? What's your vision for EFSA in these coming years with Mercosur being provisionally implemented, but also with other problems? I think parents were really concerned by the cellulite crisis, and European citizens want answers. Thank you very much.
Emma Ytterell
Thank you so much, commissioner, and I will actually follow up on one of your last remarks that you did. Commissioner, it's time for you to give some real response about your plans on the updated animal welfare regulation. My party, the Centre Party, have asked for regulation on updated animal welfare standards in the EU for more than 10, 15 years. The Swedish farmers have asked for this for more than 10, 15 years. In December, you say you couldn't confirm any policy options considering the scope and the content.
And I applaud your DG's thorough job in preparing this regulation. But at this point, it's turning into a joke when year after year, you always say it comes next year. It comes in six months. It comes at the end of the year. The reason why we ask for this, it's not only that we have food that has been produced at the standards that consumers can feel comfortable about, it's also the unfair competition among the farmers across the member states, among the producers of food, but also the need to reduce antibiotics use.
Increased animal welfare is strengthening One Health, reducing dependency on antibiotics. It's indeed a competence of this committee, not only food safety, but also the One Health approach. So, as it is now, I want to have some clear answers from you. Will you present a legislative proposal later this year? That's my first very clear question.
Second of all, can we expect this proposal to include not only targeted amendments, but a comprehensive overview of the animal welfare standards in the Union? Because that's what is being asked for, not only from the Swedish farmers, but also for the Swedish people. Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you, commissioner. Good to see you here. I strongly believe in open markets and the benefits of global trade, but we also have to be honest about the risks. Today, Europe imports around 75% of its protein feed and up to 90% of key vitamins, often from a handful of countries. So how do you square this with our ambition for food security and safety?
What is your concrete plan to make our food system more resilient when supply chains are disrupted or a sanitary crisis hits? And importantly, are we being bold enough on the solutions? Because we already have technologies, biotech, fermentation, new breeding techniques that could reduce our dependencies and strengthen European production. Are we moving fast enough to deploy them at scale? Or are we still letting regulation hold back innovation in the Biotech sector?
Thank you.
Esther Herranz García
And now we have two colleagues who can ask for the floor once again for the second time. And I, as we have enough time, I give you one minute, everyone. Mr. Gerbrandi and Mr. Hossing, you have one minute.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like to ask the commissioner because in his answer, he said that in your food and feed proposal, you make a distinction between low-risk and high-risk substances. I haven't seen it in the proposal. So maybe you can again explain that to me. And secondly, you said there is no eternal approval for the product, just for the active substance.
But the active substance is being approved at the European level, the product at national level. So you would create a huge difference within Europe and a lot of gold plating if you allow that system in the future. Maybe you could reply to that as well.
Mr. Hoslin?
Yeah. Comsazi and
Martin Häusling
Commissioner, you were very selective in your response, and you didn't respond to many of the things I asked. The biological material is permitted. Is this truly biological material, or do we have some sort of label trick going on here? And it's actually synthetic. So actually, it's a kind of fraud with labeling, if you like.
Now food and feed and the various violations that exist, do you see that as totally non-problematic? Now, what about genetically manipulated microorganisms? You said that there are great advantages for farmers. I don't see those advantages. You mentioned something in the United States to that effect.
So what sort of implementation does there exist of this material in agriculture? I'm not aware of that. Genetically manipulated microorganisms have a reproduction rate of just a couple of days. Actually, sometimes just a couple of hours. So it's a totally different dimension, and I think something has to be looked at carefully.
Tell us about that.
Esther Herranz García
And before allowing you to answer, I'd just like to remind you that I'd mentioned the issue of labeling for people with disabilities, that they are taken into account in labeling because that's very important. So please say something about that as well. You have 10 minutes to provide your answers.
Olivér Várhelyi
So, mister Clairjot, I think that the proposal is very clear. And if you want, I can read it out for you, if you want me to. We see that approval periods will remain limited for active substances that have certain hazard properties and are identified as candidates for substitution if they are essential for protection of plant health or where uncertainties identified during the risk assessment point to the need for a revaluation. This is the definition of what still needs reassessment. On top of it, we are proposing that in cooperation with the member states, we should put together periodically work programs for full renewal procedures for active substances with the unlimited approvals as well, to be based on safety concerns, new scientific knowledge and available monitoring data, also new updated data requirements or guidance documents.
We can also initiate such procedures at the request of any member state or the commission itself, and we can initiate, therefore, targeted reassessments of substances as well. So I think that we have the full security system over this. And it is very important to understand, and maybe with this, I'm also answering the question of mister Gebrandi, that,
First of all,
Olivér Várhelyi
It is still the case now that active substances are authorized at the national level. So if your worry is gold plating, then, you know, the union level is still different from the national level. Gold plating is still there, even now. So it's not going to be because of the proposal that we make. But what we make is that there will be much bigger clarity, and the level of safety of the approval system, because the approval system will not take ages.
And we will not be faced with the consequences of still using pesticides that are basically on the market because of red tape, not because we know that they are safe to use. So, to mister Clergeau, whether there is a legal study, and whether the proposal is in line with the treaties. This is a very basic question of the commission making proposals. All the proposals the commission makes have to pass the legal test internally before it gets to the college. And this is why we have a separate legal service in the Commission.
So if there is a commission proposal approved by the college, it is natural to state that the proposal is in line with the treaties. On health NGOs, I don't think that this is the committee where we discuss this normally, and I'm going to the other committee, still this week, but we will have ample opportunity to discuss it there. But I'm also happy to answer now. I have also seen the livestock strategy passed in the European Parliament, which was not exactly sending me the message about the funding of NGOs like you claim. What we made very clear also in the quant committee is that we are running very low on our budget.
With all the loss that we had to encounter, 20% of budget loss in the second half of the implementation of the budget. We had to make ends meet, and we had to make difficult choices. And in that, yes, we abandoned the funding of operational costs of NGOs, not cooperating with NGOs and not financing actions and projects they are delivering to implement our common public health priorities. We continue to fund these NGOs in their activities when they are providing additional input for the implementation of our public health priorities. But as we are cutting also any operational type-related cost reimbursements for the member states, I think it is obvious that we cannot continue to fund operational costs.
Then to Mr. Smith on China. We had discovered through our own audits shortcomings related to the level of compliance in China related to poultry meat. And there, we have made very clear to the Chinese authorities that we expect them to fully comply with all the conditions. The Chinese authorities undertook to remedy all the shortcomings.
We have a unilateral undertaking on their behalf, reflecting all the critical points that we have addressed with them. And now we are going to send back a mission to see the level of compliance. And after that, we will also have an additional audit to be deployed on the ground in China to make sure that all our conditions are met. In relation to the impact assessment on national authorities, yes, I fully agree with you that it is the competence of the member states, by law and by the treaties, that they are to control imports when it comes to SPS conditions. We are requiring them to increase this level of control, but we are also helping them to achieve it.
First of all, with the doubling of the external audits, I do hope that we can really raise the level of compliance in the third countries to our rules, so that by the time these products reach the markets, the level of compliance is going to be significantly higher than it is today. So it would mean that the controls to be carried out in the ports would be more seamless. Second, we also request them to increase the level of controls by one three at the entry points. For this, we are helping them with over 640 people trained. So we are financing and training the national civil servants of the control authorities so that they can cope with the workload.
On top of it, as I announced in the opening remarks, we are also creating, I would say, an early or quick reaction team to be deployed to cases when we see at entry points that the member state in question is not able to cope with the pressure coming in. We will have roughly 30 people working on that. We already have 10. And we will deploy these colleagues to the most difficult cases, either because of complexity, or because of the size, or because of the lack of local capacity. So we are helping the national authorities to cope with this exercise.
Whether to deploy EFSA as a body into this, I think it goes beyond the merit of this discussion. But what we see is that member states are willing to cooperate even closer with one another. So maybe we can spare EFSA from that. EFSA, as I told you, has already quite the work cut out for it, especially when it comes to dealing with 200 substances that are still pending. And I do hope that they will now concentrate on all the backlogs.
You also mentioned the case of the child's food problems. We are very vigilant about this. Our rapid reaction system works well. The producers have alerted all the member states. We are helping the member states concerned where consignments were passing, and we have asked everybody to remove from the shelves all this.
And, of course, now we have asked AFSA for the scientific opinion on this ingredient that has been imported from China so that we can see whether there is a broader scientific problem with this substance and whether we should not remove this substance completely from child formula in the European Union. On to Mrs. Wiesner on animal welfare. Whether I can comment that I will present the proposal. I have announced it in this house at least three or four times already this year, also at the end of last year, that yes, we are coming with the first proposals in relation to the implementation of the ending of the KHH.
You will see that it comes still this year, end of the year. We have started our work with a broad consultation, a broad consultation that has not taken place back in 2023 when the proposals were announced or the policy drive was announced by the previous commission. That consultation did not involve all the stakeholders. Now it does. And now we're looking at solutions that are also practicable on the ground, practicable meaning also economically viable.
We're looking at the sectors one by one. We had sector by sector discussions with all the stakeholders, and I do hope that the first sector we will address this year. This is my plan, for sure. Then to Mrs. Bossa.
Yes, we started in the Biotech Act to open up ways to use the GMM solutions that are basically enzymes, which are byproducts to create products. In that, we made very clear as well not to have any overstep of the GMO regulations. So it is very clear that these products are to be used only to create ingredients that do not contain any traces of GMMs. The enzyme industry has a huge potential, I agree with you, especially when it comes to replacing chemicals. And there, we are ready to work with you.
But the Biotech Act already allows for this part of the enzyme development sector to go ahead in Europe. To Mr. Gebrande, I think I have answered. Also on the low risk, high risk, I read out to Mr. Clercio.
And to Mr. Heusling, on the labeling, I think that we made it very clear when it comes to what are the requirements for the NT1s and for the NT2s. For the NT1s, there is going to be a public register of the seeds. These seeds on their packaging will have to include proper labeling of this kind, of this nature of our product. And they will always be transparently available for all the users and for the wider public.
For the NT tools, the rules are also clear that they follow the same traceability requirements as there are for normal GMOs. I hope that with that, I have answered the questions. We are also over time. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
Esther Herranz García
So thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner Raghelis. Thank you for your answer to all the questions presented by the members. It's important for us your work because you know that we have to defend the European consumers, but at the same time, we have to defend our producers. And imports from third countries are really worrying these days.
We are concerned about the claims against the trade agreements from the European Union, and most of the questions come from the security in our borders. So thank you very much to everyone. And now it's time for the next point of the other operator.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Good afternoon, everybody. We will now move to our next point, which is the exchange of view on hold. So we move to the next point, that is the change of view with the commissioner, Ulster. Welcome. Thank you.
Which is part of our structured dialogue. This is an occasion for us to discuss the current commission work program and priorities for the coming months. Before opening the first round of questions by our coordinators, which will take place in a pinpoint format, I will give the floor to commissioner Osta for ten minutes to present the ongoing activities and upcoming commission initiatives that fall into his large portfolio of responsibilities. Please, Commissioner Oksutra, you have the floor.
Wopke Hoekstra
Thank you very much, chair and honorable members. Truly, very good to see you. Thank you very much for inviting me for the exchange of today. If you were to look at the world and if you look at Europe, it has never been more necessary, and I would say more urgent for our continent to bring climate competitiveness and independence truly hand in hand. We have a climate problem.
Last week, a sobering report on the state of climate confirmed once again that unfortunately, Europe is the fastest warming continent on the globe. Secondly, we have a competitiveness problem. If you look at our economy, we simply need to step up. And clearly, we also have an independence problem. The latest energy crisis, the second one in just five years, highlights once again just how vulnerable we are and how vulnerable our dependence on fossil fuel imports makes us.
In 2025, the EU imported more than 80% of its gas and more than 95% of its oil. And in the first 60 days of the Iran war, Europe's bill for fossil fuels imports increased by over €27,000,000,000 for no additional energy. So the commission will ensure that homegrown, affordable, clean energy remains a top priority going forward, again, for reasons of climate, competitiveness, and independence. And that is the whole idea behind Accelerate EU, published two weeks ago. What it does is it sets out short and long term measures with, in our view, lasting benefits to speed up the shift to clean energy and electrification, to boost investment, and to reduce reliance on imports.
On ETS, in our view, in my view, no instrument exemplifies this better than the ETS. And the President has been recently also crystal clear, and I want to repeat that here, the ETS is working. And since 2005, the system has roughly halved emissions in the sectors that it covers. So putting a price on carbon, by the way, as many others across the globe are now doing, has massively reduced fossil fuels consumption and our dependency on imports. Without it, Europe would now consume 100000000000 cubic meters more gas, making us even more vulnerable.
And ETS has driven major investments in renewables and, of course, also in nuclear. So the commission is taking short and medium-term measures to maintain a clear and stable long-term signal, whilst modernizing the system for the post-2030 period. And this includes the recently adopted proposal to amend the MSR decision to stop the invalidation of the allowances in the reserve above €400,000 to enhance market stability and to manage price volatility in the future. I kindly urge you to speed up the negotiations on this file as much as possible. The earlier this proposal is agreed by the co-legislators, the more allowances will be saved from invalidation, and the greater is the firepower of the MSR.
As a key element of delivering the 2,040 target, in July we'll present the ETS review. It will make targeted improvements while maintaining clear, stable, long-term signals and a manageable decarbonization pathway for our industries, given that that is absolutely critical. First, the ETS linear reduction factor will be set as a contribution to the agreed economy-wide 2040 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90%, as all of you know, by 2040, with up to 5% of international credits. This will create space for emissions in 2040, but of course also beyond. And second, integration of permanent carbon removals into the ETS will create additional space for the hardest-to-abate sectors and generate the much-needed demand to kick start and also to scale up the removal sector.
Third, ladies and gentlemen, appropriate carbon leakage protection will be ensured. We will look at a slower phase-out of free allocation. We have recently proposed to close CBAM loopholes, for example, on downstream and on circumvention, and to support sectors most exposed to the risk of carbon leakage through a temporary decarbonization fund. And I would hope that we can see quick progress here in parliament, also in the council, to ensure a swift entry into force of those proposals. Other measures will support industry, such as a new industrial decarbonization bank aiming for €100,000,000,000 in funding to deploy low-carbon solutions in energy-intensive sectors.
An ETS investment booster financed by €400,000,000 ETS allowance is corresponding to approximately €30,000,000,000 by 2028. We want it to be simple, and we want it to be fast. So let's be clear. The EU ETS has created strong trust required for the carbon markets to function. It is a driver for investments.
It is a driver for innovation. But for it to stay that way, we need to ensure and enhance predictability, stability as well, and that is what this revision will do for the next decade. And I'm very much looking forward to having that conversation once the proposal is there. Then, on national targets. In addition to the EU-level measures, of course, member states will remain absolutely central to delivering the EU's climate targets.
Think of permitting and the use of ETS revenues, for instance. National targets will be based on cost efficiency and fairness, taking into account national circumstances and managing uncertainty, such as from natural disturbances. We will build a framework that drives transformative reforms and investments in each and every one of our member states. We'll offer more flexibility to cut emissions in the most effective ways across different sectors, while at the same time scaling up carbon removals. And the bioeconomy, of course, is a crucial enabler for our climate transition.
And here too, predictability is essential because it does give industry and communities the confidence to invest. We'll underpin this with stronger governance accountability, and this includes the revision of the governance regulation, turning the NECPs into strategic investment plans. Ladies and gentlemen, on climate resilience. The past three years, unfortunately, have been the hottest on record. And this affects farmers watching crops wither in droughts, families escaping from floods, and businesses grappling with broken supply chains.
And science unfortunately tells us that there is more in store for us. It will get worse. And that means higher average temperatures, hotter summers, and more intensive floods. Yet here's the hard truth. Europe is not ready even for the best-case scenario of global warming.
Our policies, our infrastructure on which our population, but also our defense relies, simply are lagging behind. Resilience is therefore a major economic and security opportunity, but it is also a necessity. Businesses are asking us across the union for practical tools to adapt: climate data services, smart sensors, drought-resistant crops, resilient health solutions. And this is a fast-growing global market, which Europe could lead. So every euro invested in resilience saves several in avoided damages.
And you must act on climate resilience to protect our economies and societies, and translate this into advantages in enhanced security and beyond. And later this year, as I'm sure you are aware, we will propose a new EU climate resilience framework, which will then empower regions, businesses, and citizens and give them the tools to thrive in a changing world. In short, it will embed climate resilience by design in every EU policy. It will establish a common temperature trajectory, so we will have a shared understanding of the risks we're actually facing. It will promote open access digital climate tools, and it will help make Europe the global hub for resilience innovation, so that our companies, once again, cannot just survive climate change, but they can profit from actually solving it.
Ladies and gentlemen, then briefly on international. Through platforms such as Santa Marta, I really wanted to salute those who were there next week or were last week with me. And also the Open Carbon Markets Coalition. We're building coalitions of the willing, countries that are ready to move from commitments to delivery, coalitions that actually recognize that the transition away from fossil fuels is inevitable. Fossil fuels dependence means structural vulnerability, particularly for us, but frankly speaking, for roughly 75% of the globe, whereas clean energy means resilience and security.
And for that, of course, we need to double down on electrification. Think about some wind, grids, storage, and nuclear. Towards COP 31, we will need to ensure that parties will do whatever it takes to reach our Paris Agreement objectives. And that means they will have to come with credible plans to align with the global stock take and keep 1.5 degrees within reach, no matter how difficult, as we've seen in the reporting also of today. That means that parties should step up and deliver their NDCs in full, and we should also work with partners to accelerate the energy transition and resilience.
We will push, and I know I'm running over time, but I hope I have one minute of extra time. We will push to support the shift to net zero, which is a cornerstone of energy security and, of course, also of economic resilience. We will turn initiatives like the Action Agenda, Mission 1.5, and the Global Implementation Accelerator into real engines of delivery, driving electrification, innovation, and investment on the ground. So in short, ladies and gentlemen, COP 31 must not be about even more negotiations. It must be about implementation, accountability, results for the benefit of all.
So a lot on our plate, even more happening all over the world, but very much looking forward to continuing this quest with all of you, and also very much looking forward to the debate that we have in front of us. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, commissioner. Now we have the round of coordinators. It's, as it was mentioned, a ping pong. So, the coordinator has one minute and a half, then the commissioner, one minute and a half, and then there is a second possibility for follow-up question of thirty seconds and thirty seconds of answer. We start with DPP, Peter Lisz.
Peter Liese
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for all your efforts and your presentation. I have two questions. First, on ETS one. I want to thank the commission as a whole that you committed to the ETS, and I encourage you to continue to fight so that we keep this main instrument of decarbonization in Europe. But it's also very clear, and thank you for the communication here, that we need a review.
It was never meant to be that we have no more allowances in 2039. The challenge is now to give more space to those industries that have objective problems because, for example, hydrogen is not coming as fast as we wish. But at the same time, those front runners that are already on their way and calculated with the existing ETS that they will also be rewarded. In Germany, we say, must be rewarded. So are you ready to look at some specific tools so that we encourage those that are ambitious, without asking the impossible from others?
Second part, on heating and road transport, the case is even more clear when we see our dependency on oil and gas. Because in ETS one, we sometimes have the challenge of hydrogen or CCS. In heating and road transport, every ton of CO2 that we reduce will be also with less dependency from other parts of the world. The case is more clear, also technologically easier, but we have the social challenge. And that's why my question is, why are the member states so late with their social climate plans?
And what are you doing to push them? Because the money should be available now. In the crisis, people should already have the alternatives, and the legislation encourages them or even obliges them to have the social climate plan ready, but most of them don't have it.
Thank you. Commissioner.
Wopke Hoekstra
Thank you very much, Mr. Lise, and very much concur with, of course, what you said about the huge importance of the EDS. Indeed, a great system, which in my view, we can further make work with flexibility, but frankly speaking, also with conditionality. Because we do have the opportunity to boost investments in Europe. We do have an opportunity to make sure that the money that we generate via the system is indeed used by and for industry.
And that is precisely what this review should be about. On the social climate plans, unfortunately, you're right. From the top of my head, roughly half of them are late, and that simply is a missed opportunity. It is something I will discuss with those member states again during the next NV Council, because indeed, this is, I mean, this is not just something that is lacking for us from a bureaucratic perspective. It is a tool that is potentially truly very helpful, particularly in a time of crisis that we're currently facing.
For around 30 seconds.
Peter Liese
Thank you very much. I can only encourage you. More general on the revenues. Member states are obliged to spend all the money on the purpose. That's in the law now.
But, in the discussion with your services, we understood that the tools for the commission are rather limited to check if member states are doing it. So one member state has announced that they will spend the money only in three years, and the commission doesn't have any tool to check that every year they will spend the money on purpose. I think it should be in the review that the commission has much more tools to check where the money is going to push in the right direction. Will you include such things, such as obligation in the review?
Wopke Hoekstra
Thank you very much. And, Chair, I just realized how dramatically dangerous this whole ping pong formula is that you have now exposed me to, but I'll to survive it. The Mr. Lisa is absolutely right, dear Chair. Yes, there was an improvement made, I think, in 2023, by the way, delivered primarily by Parliament to make sure that ETS revenues would be invested in the transition.
But there are two weaknesses to this. One is indeed the ability that we have to check, that is limited. And I cannot say what amount of greenwashing takes place, but it would be naive to think that none takes place. And secondly, and that is a complaint that we hear across industries, even though this money goes back to the broader transition, from the top of my mind, less than 10% of the money that we give back to the member states. As we give you the full set of numbers, 80% of the ETS money roughly goes back to the member states. And then less than 10% of that is spent on the companies that have generated that money.
And that is a missed opportunity, not just for these companies, but also for the whole system. So I would like to have more reciprocity, that would help our companies. But then indeed, it will be great if not just we as a commission, but you also as a parliament have the ability to see what is happening. So more transparency and at least in our case, more tools that then allow us to intervene if necessary, will be very much appreciated. What we will do is we will take this idea with us, and we will seek to include that in the proposal.
And of course, then we would very much hope to get your support also in basically getting such a toolbox, because it's not always the case that the monitored is also looking forward to the monitoring.
Thank you. Now, S and D, Mohamed Shaim.
Mohammed Chahim
Thank you very much, Chad. I had some words in Dutch prepared, but I don't think that that's useful if I look at the debate now. So let me follow on what my esteemed, highly esteemed colleague, Peter Lisz, has asked. Beside because S and D do believe that effort should be rewarded. But then the question is, we have to define what effort is within the ETS system.
Because remember, we have benchmarks defined with every sector, and that are people that are companies that actually have invested in decarbonization compared to their peers, and some of their peers were actually quite far away from those benchmarks year after year. That's why we said if you belong to the 20% worst performers compared to your peers, then we should do something about the free allowances, because you're not investing. You're not showing any will to invest in Europe. I think those elements need to stay in that reform. My group is willing to think about smart ways forward, especially post 2038.
I think it's good to have an ETS price for the least, else we don't have a C bond price, and these two are connected. But just get phasing out the free allowance or having a different trajectory without conditions that those amounts should go to the decarbonization of our industry will not be accepted for us. Europe is really having a fight internally. On the one hand, we're talking about electrification of every sector, but we tend to forget the cars. On the one hand, we go to Colombia to talk about fossil fuels phase out, and now we again hope by 2040, we still can find some flexibility for sector a, b, and c.
At some point, that game cannot be played. Europe needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The only way forward is decarbonization, creating European-produced electricity and energy. That's the way for our independence, and you'll get climate neutrality almost free, connected to that. Thank you very much.
Wopke Hoekstra
Thank you, chair, and many thanks to mister Shaim. Probably, together with the rest of the audience, I'm truly curious what he was what he had planned to say in Dutch, but maybe that we'll do later. So just to be clear on where we're absolutely on the same page, I would actually like to build two types of conditionalities into the revised ETS system. The one conditionality is the one I just talked about when having the conversation with Mr. Li, and that is about the conditionality that if you pay as a company or as a sector, you also get part of that money back, so that you can then become cleaner.
I think that is fair game. And that's, by the way, really a reasonable ask by many sectors. The other conditionality that, in my view, we need to bake into the system much clearer than we have had in the past is that if you enjoy free allowances, that is not a free lunch, and that you actually then make investments in Europe that then help going forward. And of course, one of the complicated things we need to solve is, on the one hand, making sure that those who have indeed invested tremendously in the transition have put their cards on the table, that they will not be punished for their investment strategy and their behavior in the past. And at the same time, I think we also all feel that large group in the middle that in many cases is also facing an unfair level playing field is taken along and is helped, but in a way that is more conditional than in the past.
That, in my view, would be the two conditionalities that I would hope we all want to see in a further improved system.
Second question is in Dutch.
Mohammed Chahim
No. No. It's not. I wanted to ask a question on ISDS and Colombia, but I think someone else will ask the question. I have to say, our privilege is that we meet a lot of brilliant scientists as members of parliament.
And one of them that I met is Schott Husskamp, who works on ocean science. He monitors the ocean, and he tells me, Mohammed, we spend more money. We know more about space and the universe than, sometimes, when it comes to our oceans. And we know that the Amok is essential when it comes to climate change, and also the effects of that on our farmers, on our inner cities. And one of the elements is, can we create finance, long-term finance, like we did, for example, for the European States Agency?
Can we create certain funds specifically for the AMOC? Because it's important. It will affect our lives significantly, and it's very important for us to monitor it from a European perspective. I'm very interested to hear your answer to that.
Thank you.
Wopke Hoekstra
Thank you. And on a more philosophical note, I'm indeed, as Mr. Shaheem, I'm intrigued by the depth of the oceans, by the way, also by space, but that's a topic we will not embark on today. I think there is a lot to explore and a lot to gain from knowing more about humanity. Specifically, on this example, and many thanks also to Mr.
Shaheem and others who wrote the letter, because this is a phenomenon that we don't fully understand. We don't really know how it will play out, but there are a couple of truly frightening scenarios, at least part of what is potentially ahead of us. What we are doing, because that was his question about, through Horizon Europe, we are, as an EU, funding multiple research projects that focus on tipping points, including AMOC, and we will continue to develop the evidence base. There is, for instance, the project explaining and predicting the Ocean conveyor, which is coordinated by the University of Hamburg that has started in 2022, and it will end in 2027, and that has delivered part of these results. Horizon Europe also contributes significantly to closing the current research gaps and to enhance research cooperation on AMOC, and as beneficiaries of the EU Research and Innovation Framework programs are legally obliged to disseminate and then also exploit the results.
There are a couple of other things that we have been doing. There's also US funding an initiative that brings together researchers from not just the EU, but also Norway, the U. K. And Canada that has the same objective. So I think we're doing our fair share or more than our fair share.
If there would be any doubt on that, then we'd love to continue the conversation, because it might be in the view of some a tail risk. But if it is a tail risk, the dramatic damage it might potentially do would warrant to understand it much better than we do today.
Speaker 32
Thank you. We don't have any requests from Patriots, so we skip to ECR Alexander Vonder.
Alexandr Vondra
Yeah. Thank you very much. So we read this acceleration paper two weeks ago published by the commission. Yeah. The mixture of some reasonable things with the advice is like to shower with cold water.
Yeah. This is not the reason why we are paying the commission, you know, to make those proposals. But, let's focus on those reasonable things. Some of them are, the measures which bring the burden on the shoulders of the member states and, you know, in the fiscal requirement stability, it's not as easy. One good advice is on the nuclear.
I agree with that. But after two years long pressure, tomorrow, we will have the first exchange of view on the delegation act on taxonomy, how to revise that. But by the commission, when the commission proposed this delegated act to put nuclear really on equal treatment with the renewables, we had a structured dialogue with Teresa Ribeira and she refused to respond, even in the ping pong format. So I'm now interested about your response, whether it would be better or the same ignorance like your colleague. Yeah.
And secondly, the reality is that Japan, China, all Asian countries with their big price of gas, they are going on coal. And before the nuclear would be in place, it would take 10 to 15 years. Why not use the coal to stabilize the market when the prices of gas are too?
Wopke Hoekstra
Thank you very much to mister Vondra. The by the way, a quick question for me to understand. Do we need to talk via you, or can I address people directly? Or how does it work in a ping-pong format?
We are open on it. We are experimenting with that new format.
Okay. Then I will continue to experiment myself as well. The well, the bar as high as Mr. Vonder puts it is probably something I'm never gonna make, but I was truly encouraged by the by that he was saying that there were some reasonable things somewhere deep down in the proposal of the commission, which I think is clearly a win given the state of the conversation that we typically have. And nuclear indeed is one of the areas where he and I are very much in agreement.
I continue to articulate that if I look at this from a climate perspective, a competitiveness perspective, and an independence perspective, and I realize that we are truly in a hurry. We need all of the solution space. And that means some. That means wind, that means heat pumps, that means interconnectors, that means grid investments, and it also means nuclear. The commission is not going to force that upon the few member states who are very much against this.
But it is something that we need to have as part of the solution, particularly because renewables alone, at least in the near future, will not be able to save the day. So I'm in favor of both. I think we should also try to bridge the ideological divide that sometimes seems to be there. Of course, nuclear needs to be safe, both in terms of its storage and in terms of its operation. But if that is the case, I do think there is merit to embark on it.
And one of the things, and I hope that also goes in the direction that Mr. Vondra likes it, Jorgensen has recently come up with the proposal to not only have a renewables target going forward, but also an electrification target going forward. And that means that we are agnostic about what is behind that mix, which I think is a good thing. Let me just, because I'm running out of time, say his second question, to put it diplomatically, on core, I'm less convinced. Well, I'm less convinced by the statement he was making.
So I'll some questions there, Achie.
Alexandr Vondra
No. Again, China, Japan, all the Asian countries are now running on coal as a consequence of the high price of gas. And, you know, your program to build an innovative hub in Europe, it requires to have cheap energy, cheap electricity. And this policy is just feeding the Chinese monster, because who is the hub? China.
Not us because, and in fact, Peter, Lisa was very right with the need to do something with ETS and the impact of the energy intensive industry. So, are you comfortable with the current situation?
Wopke Hoekstra
No. I'm very uncomfortable with the current situation, both with the energy crisis we're facing, with the climate problem we're having, with the competitive issues our companies are facing and with the huge dependency that we continue to have after 1973, after 1979, after 2000 and what was it, 2022, we now have the next energy crisis. And what it shows is that for Europe, there is no substitute than to become energy independent. At the same time, and by the way, let me also echo what Mr. Commodore was saying about his worries about our dependency on the Chinese, because I share them in full.
I think it is dangerous and it is something we should backwalk. At the same time, if I look at the solution space, we need to go for those things that work on climate, on competitiveness, and on independence. And that means the whole list I just gave, that means far more electrification, including grid connectors between our member states. It means more renewables. It means heat pumps.
It means nuclear. But going back to coal, and I know some take a longer time to phase out, which in itself I understand. I don't think that is going to provide us with the long term solution that we need.
Pascal Canfin
Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. As you can see, Renaud is the largest group in the room to support your action and also because we care a lot about the topic of today. It has been said a couple of times already, but I want to insist on the fact that we are in a new sequence with the war in the Middle East. And it's a new game changer, and it's all about building a freedom deal.
Speaker 38
So if for some, the green deal is a word they can't support, the freedom deal could be the way forward to bring altogether the pro European forces to build this agenda where you have electrification. It's very striking that you get no question on cars, as if the topic had disappeared just because now there is a massive change, a massive change in the public opinion. Now the share of EVs is, in some countries, higher than what it should be in order to reach the 20, 30, and 35 target. So this massive move demonstrates that the people are there now because they have understood that it is a freedom deal. It's good for purchasing power.
Speaker 37
It's good for sovereignty. It's good for all of us. My question is on ETS. As Peter said and as Mohamed said, we need to make sure that it is an investment-friendly tool. So what is your plan to make it more investment friendly regarding, for instance, not only the money for mom estates, but the innovation fund?
Speaker 39
I mean, have the power to design differently the innovation fund. We have room for manoeuvre. What would be the concrete proposal you can make?
Wopke Hoekstra
Thank you, Chair, and many thanks to Mr. Carfin. It's, of course, a salute to all the members of renewal that are present. It's always a bit dangerous, right? Because I once learned that the moment a member of parliament said, well, I'm here to help you, that's the moment you should really wake up, because you never know what is coming next.
Let me first echo really what he said on cars. And it is not just that this is true in Europe, it is also true in the largest of our three member states. In France, in Germany and in Italy, in particular, the numbers of what we have seen in terms of like-for-like growth in January and February have been absolutely spectacular. March is partially also in the data, but April is not in the data. And April is going to be influenced to a large degree by what is happening in the Middle East.
So the like-for-like data for most of the first quarter were already hugely promising before this crisis. So we know what, at least, the period thereafter will have in store for us: even more growth in terms of electric vehicles. So I can only fully support that. Then for the ETS. I cannot have a I cannot put a proposal on the table, but I am very much with Mr.
Confirm that this indeed should be an innovation and investment strategy. That is, I think, the opportunity that we have. So it makes sense to, in the domain of the ETS, look at the conditionalities that I just mentioned, but also how to trigger investments, not in China of many of the internationally operating companies, but in Europe. How do we incentivize that? How do we make sure that we come up with recipes that not only provide companies with European money, but will make it more attractive to basically have adjacent or additional member state money.
I think that is usually important as well. And then frankly speaking, and that is adjacent rather than in the domain of ETS, I think we need to look at that whole framework, which includes CBEM, where I hope the parliament continues to play its role. Indeed, the innovation front and can we carve out things that are maybe a bit unorthodox, like I've recently done with nuclear, but that in my view truly work? And can we look at all those dimensions that are related to the level playing field? Because in the end, all these elements, and that is not a coincidence, are part of the Clean Industrial Deal, right?
It's all of these elements that we need to put together. Sorry. I got too excited. It's, it was a bit long.
Pascal Canfin
Thank you. Just, my question would be funny question would be why don't we withdraw your proposal on cars because it's not needed anymore now, but it's not my question here. It's specifically on the innovation found, we have been pushing a lot as a group last term to design it as a decarbonization tool, not only financing long term innovation or disruptive innovation, but making sure that we deploy underground concretely the technologies we need and we already have. And that's exactly what we need to do with the electrification plan as well. It's not only a target setting exercise because otherwise, it will take months to agree on a figure for 2040 or 2050, I don't know.
Speaker 37
It's about creating more assets on the ground. So what would be your new method to concretely drive electrification, the user electrification, the assets of electrification, sorry, on the supply side and on the demand side?
Wopke Hoekstra
Yes. Again, that is exactly the process we're currently in and where on July 15, we will come up with a proposal. And just to be completely transparent, it certainly will not be the case that all the work is then done, because then we have to design for the ETS. But much of the work, again, on CBAM, on the Accelerator Act, and many of the other parts will still be ongoing. But let me maybe mention two things that I think are critically important, precisely for what Mr.
Confern is asking. One is, if we really want to have this, if we want to really see a takeoff here, we need to make sure we set the parameters right to create lead markets. And frankly speaking, we're experimenting with that, and it's not easy in the domain of green steel. But this needs to be the answer in many parts of, frankly speaking, all the industries. If we set parameters, and of course, there be, you can take time in terms of graduating to a new model, right?
The pacing you can discuss. But if we set the parameters differently than what they are today, then the industry will respond. And we need to have much more of that, and that should be part of the debate. I would like to have, not just within the commission, but also with parliament. Secondly, the innovation fund. I think that is working really well.
But here, just like with the ETS at large, there is an opportunity to go from good to great, partially because of exactly the things that Mr. Coffin mentioned. But one of the other things I'm, for example, looking into is, hey, could we also help some of the start ups and smaller scale ups that currently don't easily get the money because we limit it to still a relatively small number. Whereas for many of them, getting money from the innovation fund is, of course, has financial value. But what they are typically saying to me is, look, this was the biggest stamp of approval I could ever get.
And it doesn't really matter how much money I then get. It's a stamp of approval that allows me to much more easily get additional access. So that is also something I would like to bring into the design.
Michael Bloss
Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Actually, I think it's a very good question of Pascal. If you see that the e-car uptake is better than expected, why don't you withdraw the law that is basically watering this down?
But I want to ask you also other questions. The first is when we voted on the climate law, the socialists renew and the green set only if we really make sure there is no article six certificates inside the ETS, and I hope you respect that. But also the climate law says that we have a 90% target, and this article 5% can support it. And we don't know yet how you look, how these article six certificates look like, how expensive they are, and they were asked by the member states. So for me, it should be very clear that you are designing the ETS to meet the 90% target by 2040.
And this is something that also members of this house and also member states have asked. So can you commit here that you are designing the ETS to meet the 90% target by 2014, not watered down to 85%? And another question, you have said that you need a lot of firepower, and we should be fast with MSR. But I wonder if you understand that this MSR, this is not just a price question, but it will actually mean you have additional to the cap, billion allowances in the system. So normally, this MSR proposal that you put forward should result in not changing the LRF or anything because it actually solves a lot of your problem already.
So now with this MSR, does it mean that you were not going to change the other factors like the LRF? Or how do you see MSR, LRF, the integration of CDR playing together? Because if you do everything, then you have something, but it's not really an ETS that is giving you some guidance that provides security for companies and for investment.
Wopke Hoekstra
Thank you very much, Chair. And I think this debate, and also the question by the esteemed member, Mister Blowes, shows that these conversations are never over. Right? Because I thought actually we had articulated the parameters of the 90% conversation, and also the flexibilities, even though we come up with the proposal much later. But I admire the clever way he approaches it, but I think it is trying to move the goalpost somewhat.
What is it that we agreed on? And how are we going to go forward with this? In the climate law discussions, we agreed to up to 5%, not necessarily 5%, but up to 5%, depending, of course, on the cost-effectiveness of it. That is, I think, it's going to be the parameter to come from the international credits. These, by the way, will apply as of 2036.
So we have some 10 years in designing a system that is waterproof. What we're now looking into, and then I'm going to lean to probably both sides of the house. On the one hand, as commission, we were quite clear that we don't want to use international credits as compliance credits to be surrendered by individual installations. That's one side of it. That's why maybe the side that Mr.
Bloss likes more. The other hand, and that is probably what he likes less, is that we're now analyzing what is the most cost-effective way of using these credits, and that includes creating space within the ETS. And I've always been transparent about that as well. We're currently looking into options. We're currently looking into the design because it not just needs to fit with the political compromise that we have built.
It also needs to be certifiable. It needs to be verifiable. It needs to work in the real world. So that is our approach. On the MSR, that is just a standalone approach.
So you cannot derive from that any things I will either do or not do going forward. That is part of the ETS review. But again, there as well, I admire the cleverness of the question.
Michael Bloss
Cleverness, yes or no. I would like to have an answer. My question was clearly whether you will design the ETS in a way that it reaches the 90% target and not 85% in 2040. That's and you made right now a very good case why we should be doing that, because there could be some kind of support from international credits, but we have no clue how, you don't know how much they cost right now, and I don't either. So it makes sense to design it towards 90%.
And this was, I'm not sure if it's a clever question or not, but it's an easy question to answer if you want.
Wopke Hoekstra
Sorry, Jeff. Then we are back at the debate that we've had before, right? Is this a white dog with black spots, or is it the black dog with white spots? Is it 90% minus 5%, or is it 85% plus 5%? And that is a conversation that I've had with, I think, almost everyone.
Almost every one of you then takes home the explanation that they like the most. And if you read carefully through the proposal, the legal proposal, you will find, I think, page one, it is 90% minus 5%. And then later in the text, it says 85% plus 5%. Our job is to create a system that does justice to the conversation. And frankly speaking, I am completely at ease with each of you explaining it in the way you like, as long as we deliver on what we have agreed.
That's the way forward. Nothing less, nothing more.
Now it's the left.
You very.
Much.
Anja Hazekamp
I'm delighted to see you here at our committee meeting, sometime after the conference that was supposed to put an end to our dependence on fossil fuels. We need sustainability, and the road map is good news. I'm looking forward to the action now. However, we need a reduction in pressure on the environment. I think we should just eat more plants because 80% of the food climate impact comes from the production of meat products.
Now there's a significant impact because of animal protein. So don't you think that we should focus on excluding direct payments for fossil fuels, when it comes to the production of animal food products. This could be an opportunity. And, would you be willing to fight for the prevention of subsidies for the production of meat products and to focus on plant production? I think that the roadmap is a great idea.
I'm delighted to see you here.
Wopke Hoekstra
Of the questions. It was indeed, it was very good to be in Santa Marta last week, and it is an important step for a couple of reasons. One is we all see that the COP process is, well, let me say, imperfect, if I want to articulate it in a diplomatic form. It has not delivered, certainly not the last time. And that means that we have been clear to the IPCC, to the UN, to the next Co-President, what we expect in terms of this being less about high drama and more about implementation.
And I think we can do better. Yet at the same time, let's also be realistic about how difficult multilateralism is going to be going forward. So the second track, the second leg to stand on is more pro rata initiatives. And that is why I was there in Santa Marta. It's a first, but it is important that this was organized so soon after the COP.
It is important that it is spanning a wide group of countries from various continents, and the organizers also being from Latin America and Europe. I think that's hugely helpful. So I can only comment on this. And indeed, this will be about phasing out, but frankly speaking, also about providing alternatives. And we have, just to be very clear, the road map ourselves.
That is the road map towards 90% or 85 plus 5%, if you will, for 2040. It is not branded in the same way, but that is exactly what it is. And I think the focus we should have in these conversations is about providing the alternative because no one, in his right mind, is going to phase out fossil if there is not a superior alternative available. We have that superior alternative. We need to move into it much faster.
But that, I think, is the name of the game: creating energy abundance in the domain of electrification, renewables, and nuclear. Then very briefly, the subsidies Madam Hussegamp is asking about are way above my pay grade. I am dealing with subsidies for fossil fuels. There, we indeed should move forward. And that is at the heart of the conversation we had last week.
And as I've said before, I'm going to try to move forward here at an EU budget level, which is not easy, but easier than the other thing, which is making sure we do this at a member state level, where I have maybe the influence to power, but not a formal decision power. So this will take longer and be more complicated.
Anja Hazekamp
Yes. Well, I think it's quite unfortunate that in your response that you didn't go into getting rid of the subsidies overall, but perhaps you could go into that with greater detail because that is part of the reality. We have to be aware of these examples, when we have meat protein, this huge consumption of meat protein is extremely detrimental for the environment. And there's also, you said you're in charge of the environment and climate as well. So obviously, you have to deal with this particular issue as well.
We have to speak about the subsidies that exist for fossil fuels, subsidies for meat protein. It's as simple as this. They are issues which these cause, these are detrimental to the environment, essentially. But I think it's quite clear that we are not to promote this type of consumption. And as climate commissioner, perhaps you could take a position on this with a simple yes or no.
Wopke Hoekstra
With madam Hasencamp, has always started very friendly and has always ended with deep disappointment on her side. That's that I'm not sure it's going to be different this time. But let me clarify, because indeed about the fossil fuel subsidies, maybe there was a bit too much tongue-in-cheek from my side. Because we are actually doing quite a bit right, we will help to support farmers to adopt more climate-smart practices by offering an additional source of financing. As part of the CRCF review, we'll also look into a certification methodology for the reduction of emissions.
We're looking into what we can do with the potential of green gas. So there are many things we're actually doing in this domain. And indeed, where I think we do agree is that politicians trying to a large degree influence what people have on their plates typically is not the way that citizens like the most. And if that is already a conversation to be had, in my view, that is typically more a conversation you should have from a health bank. We don't have time to explore this in even more detail, because I think there are some elements where at least we partially agree, others where we don't.
But I very much look forward to continuing the conversation, also on the sensitive topics where we disagree. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now the second round has different roles. The speaker has one minute. The commissioner will reply after the first part of the first round, for five minutes. I request everybody to respect the fact that it's one minute.
Otherwise, we will not be on time. We start with Raul de la Rocs.
Raúl de la Hoz Quintano
Thank you. Thank you very much. Please let me speak in my mother tongue, Spanish.
Speaker 45
So I wanted to ask you about, more specifically, about accelerators or.
Industrial accelerators.
Speaker 45
Industrial accelerators. As it couldn't be in any other, so although it might strengthen local industry, and at the same time, we've seen the possibility of reducing our external dependence, which is extremely vital as well if we take into consideration the commercial context in the market situation. And at the same time, it ought to serve in order to create or to bolster the demand for steel, and of course, thereafter, investment would increase. So I'd like to better understand what the logic is behind this particular decision of the commission concerning steel. Now, the introduction of annexes, the zero carbon element in there, if it's not incorporated along with a criteria, a European criteria, contrary to what takes place in other sectors like in the cement sector, this would create a legitimate doubt because low carbon, but not the European dimension as well for decarbonization.
And for that particular reason, the question is concrete. What is the proposal exactly as far as zero carbon in that particular sector, in the steel sector? Thank you. Thank you very much. And I'd like to ask something.
Annalisa Corrado
First of all, a particular question with regard to mitigation. China indicates to us very, very practically indeed what the need that exists to invest in sustainable, in the sustainability sector. Now, of course, carbon emissions have dropped considerably in China. And actually, right now, well, the situation is simply that way because they don't have anything better to do. So but coming back to adaptation, which was presented at Santa Marta and at the next meeting, which is to take place in Tuvalu where we've seen the consequences of the climate crisis more concretely, the question is this.
Now, as far as the time frame, as far as adaptation, because we know that, it's important. It's important, particularly when we speak about resilience by design, the entire energy infrastructure, all connections, the infrastructure that is planned that has been planned these particular years require some sort of guideline in order to understand exactly how one will move towards greater resilience. So I think this ought to be part of the acceleration that we've been speaking about, and what we do indeed need.
Speaker 48
Thank you very much, Commissioner, and thank you for being here. So I'd like to address the automotive package with what I hope is a very simple question. The Commission has introduced flexibilities as a pragmatic step toward reaching the target. However, I am very interested to hear the Commission's Commission ensure this move aligns with the goal of reducing compliance costs and administrative burdens. As we and parliament discussed broadening these flexibilities, for example, by including other sustainable metals like aluminium or additional alternative fuels.
Speaker 50
I would like to know from you if parliament moves, if the parliament should move in that direction, what will that do to the promised reductions and complexity costs? Do you see risk that adding more flexibility could undermine the other goals of burden reduction and making sure the laws are proposed are workable for businesses? Thank you.
Speaker 22
Welcome to this particular committee. Now climate prediction or pragmatic approaches, realism, these are the questions that one has to ask with regard to CO2 limits, the ETS system, the taxonomy. All of this is quite clear. Now madam Funderlein has emphasized this particular issue as well. Also, with regard to natural gas, the use of natural gas, the European approach, the particular guidelines that will be sent there, the production of biogas as well, and, of course, manure as well and the role that will play as so indeed, because of all of these things, particularly the manure issue, as you understand, livestock raising has been demonized.
And in The Netherlands, a number of different academic institutions have worked on this and have found very concrete solutions to provide for some sort of solution with regard to emissions from livestock raising. So I'm wondering, will we be able to work in a pragmatic fashion, in a realistic fashion as well, with regard to this particular environmental issue?
Speaker 49
You said to me. Right? Sorry. I listened to the transcription. It was a bit delayed.
Emma Ytterell
Thank you so much, commissioner, for being here, but thank you particularly for being in Santa Marta last week. I think it was incredibly valuable that we showed leadership that Europe sent US, our highest climate commissioner, really to be there. So thank you so much for that and a big warm thanks. On ETS topic, I think we need to say it as it is. The ETS is under attack.
And messing with ETS, it's a little bit like peeing in your pants. Short term, it might be nice and warm, and you show industry and EPP that you are doing something about it. Long term, it risks creating a real mess because the whole benefit of ETS is its long term predictability. And I don't want to create a big mess for the future because we are the ones that need to clean up afterwards when all of these short term fixes to ETS, the short term fix to MSR, a little bit of additions of allowances here. We don't do the benchmarks as we would have in April.
They're still delayed. All of these things, they bulk up and create this huge uncertainty. And certainly, stability was always the biggest benefit for industry when it comes to ETS. So my worry is, and my question is, aren't you worried that all of these short term quick fixes of the ETS really disrupt this long term robust, predictable system that we have built for years?
Thomas Pellerin-Carlin
Thank you. For S and D, Thomas Pelargn, Caroline.
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. So before becoming a politician two years ago, I was an energy researcher, and academics actually have a word for the historical moment that we are living in, and they call that mid transition. And indeed, we are currently in the middle of a transition where we both have a fossil fuel system and a clean energy system that coexists. We see that today with oil and electricity. We have the fossil fuel system where we rely on imported oil and where the price paid by the caretakers and the factory workers is influenced by the decision of bullies, like Trump.
We also have the clean energy future that is already partially there. In my home region in Normandy, we have at home nurses, people who drive 100 kilometers a day as nurses to go to the home of people that they care about. And most of the nurses over there in my region have already moved towards an electric car, of course, because it is cleaner for the air, for climate, but also because it is simply cheaper. And so we have that coexistence, and we know from academic research that it is precisely at that moment now where the old system is fighting back, when the empire strikes back, if you allow me that reference. And so we need to stop the uncoordinated policies.
And sometimes I hear commissioners telling me that electrification is the future, and then I see a CO2 standard forecast proposal that proposed to slow down the electrification. So you've heard today that a part of this house believes in full sea ocean nostalgia. They want to bring back the internal combustion engine. They want to bring back coal. You also see that there is another part of this house that believes, like you, I think, in clean energy abundance.
So you were very clear, mister commissioner, on the ETS, on heat pumps, and on renewables. Can you please provide me with the same level of clarity on electric cars, especially by saying, what would you say to people that in this house believe that we should save the internal combustion engine? And what's it done even further, the CO2 standard for cars regulation you proposed last December when oil prices were two times lower than they are today?
Lena Schilling
Good to have you here, commissioner. I'm still in my head with the short-term benefits of the peeing in the pants, but I will try now to focus on climate policy. And there, I want also to ask a bit the question on the post-2030 architecture because we need to think about the future and how we can actually provide getting to that 2040 target with the 90% decarbonization, which we are discussing here all the time. We heard rumors that the commission is thinking of replacing current effort sharing and LULUCF targets by economy-wide targets, and I wanted to ask you if you can say that's true or not. And if not, how do you intend to reconcile it imperative?
Because we know as far as everybody read it in the climate target, we write there needs to be also effort sharing and sectoral targets. And following up on that belief that we can only get to the twenty-forty target when we have also sectoral targets, can you ensure if there are flexibilities in the system, the like-for-like approach will be upheld by strictly separating the fossil and biogenic carbon cycles, and with different targets for emission reduction and for removals? That would be great to know. Thank you so much.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you, Chair, and most welcome to the committee, Commissioner. With the ongoing war in The Middle East and the sharp rise in cost of fossil fuels, both the affordability of the alternative with the renewables as well as the need is really raising quickly. But the question is, who will provide those alternatives? Back home in Northern Sweden, we have a number of investors who have planned huge investments in green fuels. Sustainable aviation fuel, for example, would have been very much needed today when we might run into a deficit within a couple of months. But they all doubt that the green transition will happen as planned.
They think there's a substantial political risk in doing these investments. And what will you do to convince them that this is the time to actually start the domestic production of green fuels? Secondly, in March, China's export of solar panels doubled compared to a year ago. It's a huge increase not only in panels, but also in battery technology with global export. At the same time, the European producers are struggling.
This would be the perfect time to take initiatives to support domestic solar and battery production. We have producers, but they have a competitiveness problem with the state subject subsidies in China. What interesting ideas do you have in your back pocket?
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. So now the commission has five minutes to answer. If somebody wants to take part of the cash GI, we close it after the commissioner.
Wopke Hoekstra
Five minutes for 8 people. Yeah. Okay. That's a recipe for disaster and the struggle after today, but, I'll try to do it a bit succinctly. Yeah.
I'm gonna do it in the order in which the questions have been asked. I'm gonna start with Mr. Delhaos, who was asking a hugely important question indeed about steel. And I'm fully on the same page. What we need to do here is we need to become cleaner, but we cannot become greener and at the same time be rather more dependent on China.
And if you look at the fundamentals of particularly the steel sector, and you look at what has happened in the last 15 years, it's absolutely dramatic. Huge dumping in Europe, thousands of jobs lost, many plants closed, and the thing that happened in the end is more imports. So that is why we have presented the action plan on steel and metals. But this can only be the beginning. I think we need to do much more in developing lead markets.
We're still in the process of defining what green steel actually is. But in the end, we will need this for steel. We will need this for aluminium. We need this for chemicals. We need this in many other fields.
So this is all to say that I very much echo what he was mentioning, and that we will be pushing this forward, but we will need your help to create these definitions and these lead markets. Then to Madame Corrado. Many thanks for her kind words also on the and her presence, of course, last week. The good news is indeed Ireland and Tuvalu are continuing. And I'm very much with her that ideally this conference going forward is gonna be about mitigation, but also about resilience, and because both are important.
And by the way, resilience in particular is also something that our friends from the Global South are asking about, because typically they are at the receiving end of that. Our own resilience framework will come at the end of this year. That might also inspire us to bring some things to the next episode of the conference, but of course, in a completely different setting. So how we will exactly take that forward, I think we will need to see. But if at all possible, I will absolutely go again, and I'll take as homework for me that we will be focusing on not just mitigation, but also on resilience.
Then many thanks to Mr. Hansen, for his, I think, spot on point on compliance costs and on flexibility. What I think we should be doing is to leave the car proposal as it is, given how complicated it already is. And I understand those who are saying, look, to what extent do we actually need it? At the same time, I think it does help.
It provides the flexibility that many are looking for. So I would hope that all co-legislators can support it roughly in the same form as we have it today. I think that is by far the best economically. It is also by far the best politically. So I would really insist that we don't deviate too much from that.
Where I'm fully with him and where I think we have more homework to do, maybe not in the domain of this specific proposal, but more generally, is to define flexibilities, lead markets and standards, indeed, as he was saying, in aluminum and many other fields because that's actually going to trigger the market. And that's going to be hugely interesting for those who are supplying Europeans in Europe. So there, I'm very much on the same page. Then in the direction of Mr. Smith, and I'll park part of his appreciations, if that is the way to phrase it, because otherwise, it's going to get complicated.
My logic truly is to have not an either-or type of ideological divide, but it's either climate or it is competitiveness, and it is one is always at the expense of the other. I think we need to make sure that those things go hand in hand. And by the way, some of the examples I have mentioned in this conversation on carbon farming, but also some of the examples that he mentioned, for example, on biogas, I think are part of the solution space. And so it is something that I would love to further explore with Commissioner Hanssen, but also with others: biogas, natural fertilizer, a couple of the other things that he has mentioned. If they work for climate, they also work for the wallet. Why not pursue it?
Well, knowing that Commissioner Hanssen knows this domain much better than I do, but I'm very much looking forward to looking into it. Then, in the direction of Emma Wiesner, I also wanted to thank her very much for last week. Thanks also for the kind words, but I think it is hugely important that such a large delegation of the European Parliament was there because that is being seen. And I think you were by far the largest delegation of probably one of the best-known parliaments in the world. And so that really matters.
She'll probably forgive me that I'm not going to take the analogy that she used a step further, but just focus on what she asked about the ETS. I'm fully with her that we cannot have quick fixes for perceived or real short-term pain. What we do need to do is come up with a design that takes the non-level playing field arguments that are, in many cases, justified into account, also by those who might not have completely lived up to the expectations of Madam Wiesner and myself, and see how we can bring them forward. And that is why I'm then back to the conditionality again, because I do think there is a logic of providing some with some flexibility as long as that means European investments and better performance along the way. And I think that second part, we have a bit underestimated or forgotten in our current design.
So that is something I would want to change. Mr. Palin was giving a great example from his home turf, and he knows I have a sweet spot for Normandy. So that's always easy to agree with, and also with his points about the mid transition. That's quite often the case.
And then you have examples of what works, you have examples of what doesn't go well. And given what he was saying, I couldn't help thinking of the famous Churchillian quote, not only inspired by Normandy: when you're going through hell, keep going. Certainly not hold the whole transition is part of it. But it is true that, for example, in the domain of the level playing field, we're facing issues that we simply have to fix for our companies. I think that's the dimension we have underestimated.
We've also underestimated the power of the burst of the state. We have we're now doing purchasing typically based on just the dimension of price. I think that is a missed opportunity. So that's another thing I would want to add to the mix. But there can be no doubt, this transition is going to continue.
And as a matter of fact, I think our brains are too often skewed to think that it is linear. It might be linear through some phases. It might even go down in some phases. But we are up for a rapid transition. That's my read.
Also wanted to thank Madam Schilling very much and her comments on post 20, the post 2030 framework, hugely important thing. I'm gonna do severe injustice to talk about it for just about a minute. What is on my mind? We don't have a proposal yet. What is in my mind is a combination of, let's say, minimum levels, but also flexibility.
Whether these are then too flexible for her and maybe not flexible enough for others, we're going to find out. But what I have to admit is that I am intimidated by the number of member states, frankly speaking, all 27, who have then explained to me how different they are from all the other 26. And in some cases, or frankly speaking, in many cases, it is true that the dynamics in Malta are completely different from in Finland. And that Belgium is very different in terms of its population density, in terms of its industry, than whatever other example you pick. So more flexibility, as long as you meet the bar, is, in my view, probably a good idea.
How it will exactly play out and whether I can lure her into the tent of agreeing, we have to find out. But that is basically at the heart of the proposal. Then I very much liked and that I think we were ending with because Madam Schilling was number seven. Number eight is Mr. Schuster.
He was making a very clear case for predictability. And again, I'm repeating what I've just said. There can be no doubt in which direction we're going. And I am convinced, I mean, when you are at a plateau or when you are somewhere in the trajectory, it's difficult to see. But we will see an acceleration.
And maybe sometimes it will be driven just by sheer economics, maybe it will be driven by outside events. No one could have predicted, or at least I didn't see anyone predict, what is now happening in Iran and also the effects that it has. But predictability also for the companies he was referring to in beautiful Sweden, I think, is crystal clear, where we have more to do. And that brings me to solar. Solar panel industry in Europe has been wiped out by unfair competition from China, in particular.
We cannot allow that, not in the next phase of solar, but not in other sectors either. So we need to do much more about a level playing field. And we need to make sure we leverage, once again, the power of the purse of the public sector. Because if we don't just look for the cheapest price, we take into account employment, if we take into account environmental standards, if we take into account all the elements that we hold there, then actually the procurement process is going to lead to completely different winners than it is often today. So that will be my thoughts, my remarks in his direction.
And once again, very much agree with his approach to this problem.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, Commissioner. Now the second part of the second round. We start with ECR Beatti Stingen. One minute.
Beatrice Timgren
Thank you. I will speak in Swedish. Well,
The commission often mentions analysis, and they might be good, but it's not enough for the European companies. Need these for ETFs, for example. So we need to see how and when policies are too expensive and ineffective that they need to be changed. Our economies are stagnating and the policies of the commission have not contributed to growth. It has made it more difficult for the European economies, and the result is that the investments move outside Europe.
We have exported our climate problems. So I would like to hear from you a concrete indicator of investments in companies and carbon leakage, for example, that will lead to you redrawing your proposals.
Speaker 59
Now, to conclude our round, we have all the revenue team. We start with Martin Ojzek.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you. And, let me start with one energy source that today was not mentioned at all. That can provide baseload, literally dispatchable electricity. And it's the next generation geothermal, so I would like to hear more about it from you, commissioner. But my main topic is something different, methane. As the shadow on the methane regulation, I wonder what's your reaction on the non paper from certain countries, which want to stop the clock when, especially today when the G7 meeting and the International Energy Agency are saying that, well, acting on methane could make readily available 15,000,000,000 cubic meters of fossil gas and help us to actually deal with the current problem on the supply side.
So I'm wondering what's the development vis-à-vis the methane regulation? Hoping only good ones.
Thank you. Stine Borsse.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much. Next part of the renewed team, exactly. So thank you very much for your fight for the ETS system. It is absolutely crucial, and it's been said throughout this session, that we keep that direction and that there is predictability out there for businesses and, of course, also for countries. I have two questions, and they are not easily solved, but please elaborate on your view there.
One is, again, the funds coming out of the ETS system. How can we steer more carefully the way they're spent? And if I heard you correctly, you said they should be spent towards the companies who have actually paid. I'm not sure that's the right way they should be spent to actually fuel the transition. They should be spent where it is difficult for countries to obviously find funds other ways to make sure that they are spent for the transition.
And then second, how do you see the bottleneck problem? Look at what happens between Spain and France. I mean, now Mister Bondra has left, but, obviously, nuclear power is a lot more expensive than wind and sun. And how do we even this out? How do we make this electricity market more liquid and throughout Europe?
Speaker 63
That is also to benefit all the businesses and, of course, our citizens.
Thank.
Speaker 67
you. Thank you very much that you presented CO2 and the infrastructure. An additional question I do have. When storage cannot be conducted, how do you think things will work out? Is there any de-risking factor there?
Speaker 66
And there's been discussion about a CO2 pipeline. Could it also be used for CO2 emissions as well? How do you see those particular possibilities? And is it flexible enough, something that we can use in the future?
Secret fees.
Sigrid Friis
Thank you. And I want to go back to the question of the CO2, the revision of the CO2 standards for KAR. And be really honest, it's not really my position to be asking for that revision as I think the existing frameworks provide already what we need, which is a clear pathway for decarbonization, strong incentives for electrification, and the long term predictability that both industry and consumers are asking for. But now, I, of course, recognize the political pressure behind the revision, and I'm here to engage constructively. I will also begin by saying that I think you as the Commission have struck a careful balance with your proposal, providing or preserving the integrity of the climate targets while also introducing some targeted flexibility for the sector.
I think it's very important that we, in the Parliament, both recognize and also maintain that balance in the approach. However, what I hear from some colleagues in this house, it is not just about fine-tuning. It is about making a direct U-turn or even watering down the ambitions of the regulation. It's a push to dilute the signal or to blur what zero emission actually means. Take one example.
Take the idea of creating a new category of cars running on alternative fuels, and then label them as zero emission. I know that you and the Commission assessed this idea before presenting your proposal. So I would like if you could outline the main reasons against such a category. Furthermore, biofuels is also a tool to help other sectors in means of transport, hard to abate sectors such as shipping, such as aviation sectors that are struggling right now and cannot be easily electrified. So an increased demand for biofuels for road transport, what would that mean for the overall pricing and availability?
Thank you in advance.
Thank you. And I.
Wopke Hoekstra
have minus 2 minutes. So what is the I've scared away half of the audience. So we have a couple of minutes left. Okay. Very good.
Maybe let's first start with the question of Madame Timken, by the way, says something with which I very much agree because it is indeed the case that this is only going to work if we bring climate competitiveness, and I'm adding always independence hand in hand, but she was very much focused on climate and competitiveness. And that is true. And let's also acknowledge that we have made quite a number of right choices in the past, but not all of them were spot on. For example, we should have introduced SeaBEM way earlier as part of the DTS. We should have been way more ferocious about carbon leakage, as she was saying, and a non-level playing field.
And that has also inspired me, and I'm sure everyone here is aware that in the 2040 design, it is exactly this combination and this quid pro quo that is in there, so that we don't fall into the trap of, again, moving ahead with climate action, but only at the expense of our own independence. It really needs to be all of this. By the way, Menatinkerin herself is from a country that, in my view, does this among the best. The current, but also previous Swedish governments have allowed the country a system that is based on renewables and nuclear, that is providing it with far cheaper prices than almost everywhere else, and it has ensured that the economy is thriving. So as a mix, your country is an example of how it could be done.
Then Mr. Ok. I'm always and he knows this. I'm always trying to burn a candle for every saint, but I missed the geothermal. So, apologies.
It's their part of the solution space, full stop. And there probably are other things that I've missed as well. Methane, and I'm going to move a bit into Jorgensen's portfolio. We've adopted the delegated act on standards. We're not planning to relax the rules.
And for the rest, I hope it is okay that I refer to him. Madame Bossa had two specific questions. The first on ETS, and why two companies? Well, maybe because it's, as I said in the beginning, right? If you look at the sectors that provide the ETS money, they currently see less than 10% of these revenues back.
And that, in my view, is not nearly enough, right? It's great that we have changed it, and that now the money is spent on the transition. But if that means that we're funding railway costs that we probably would have funded in any case, and that doesn't go to specific sectors, that's probably not going to be helpful if you want to change the dynamics in the chemical industry or the steel industry or whatever industry we're talking about. So that is my logic. How it will play out exactly, we're currently looking into it because, of course, it's easier said than done.
Secondly, where I think she and I are fully on the same page is one of the huge inefficiencies in our system is that we don't have a European energy market. It's a bit ironic, right? This union or this community started after the Second World War, not only with peace in mind, but also with having in mind that it would be effective to do things in the domain of steel and coal, energy, together. What is one of the domains where we do not do nearly enough together? It is the domain of energy and electricity, in particular.
So I know it is difficult, and I understand why, for example, Sweden feels it is at the receiving end of the interconnector with Germany. It is something we will not go into at this moment. But overall, we will need way more interconnectors between all our member states. That's just it's necessary, and it will drive down prices. Then Madame Bollieu, what I'm going to take home is her thinking about derisking, because I think that is interesting also as part of the design. And derisking, as we all know, is a precursor to investments.
So I'll take that as a to-do for the ETS design. The specific question on tenders, there I need to come back to, also because that is part outside of my portfolio. So I'm more than willing to look into it and either formally or informally get a reply on this. Then Madame Friis was, I think, in itself, saluting or accepting the CO2 cars' proposal, even though maybe it wouldn't have been completely necessary from her point of view. And she was asking, okay, but how then about biofuels and alternative forms?
I think we're facing both a political and a climate and an economic reality here. And in itself, I think it is smart to introduce a bit of flexibility in the mix, which is maybe not necessary or not wanted by all countries, but usually important to others. And that is so to some degree, is how, of course, we do business in the Union. What is at the same time critically important is that for those sectors that don't have a solution to get to net zero, that these types of technologies move into. In the domain of cars, and I stand by the full proposal, don't get me wrong, but in the domain of cars, we have electrification.
And I mean, I'm pretty sure that will be the way going forward. If you look at aviation or shipping, it is much less clear how you would solve that with electrons rather than with molecules. So there, you have the question, how do I get, if I need to get molecules, how do I get green molecules? So I would want to do more in these markets. And therefore, it makes sense to, on the one hand, create scale and at the same time, sure that the investment goes not into the domains that maybe not needed the most like cars, but transition into those sectors that really do need it.
I hope that is satisfactory as an answer. And thank you very much, Chair, for exposing me to both the regular formula and the ping pong.
Pierfrancesco Maran
We will now move to our next point, which is the exchange of views on the amendments tabled by the MV members on the proposal establishing a budgeting expenditure tracking and performance framework as part of the next MFF. As a rapporteur, I will take the floor first. So dear colleagues, the regulation on the budget performance framework is a very technical one, but with consequential impacts for the next long-term budget. Importantly, it is of relevance for the work of our parliamentary committee as it sets out, among other things, horizontal climate and environmental targets and how the principle of do not significant harm should apply for over 2 trillion of EU budget. This is why our committee has asked to prepare an opinion, and why we expect the rapporteurs of the lead committee to fully take it into account.
Discussion on the compromise amendments is still ongoing, but I wanted to point to two issues that I believe our opinion should particularly focus on. First, on expense and performance tracking. Going from a fragmented system to a single horizontal framework for tracking and performance reporting can be a positive step. It will make it easier to track clearly how EU funds are spent and to see whether we are on track to meet our climate environmental objectives. But we need to make sure that climate environmental contributions are adequately and appropriately measured and calculated.
Without clear measurement of our objectives, these do not become credible. Second, as this committee has already expressed, we need an ambitious target for climate action and environmental objectives. The proposal horizontal target is important and should serve as a minimum baseline. In view of the upcoming negotiation on the budget, our committee should clearly indicate what should be included in the target and how it should be measured. As we have seen with the current MFF, setting clear horizontal targets is of fundamental importance to set the direction of travel and to help the union meet its climate and environmental objectives.
On bio on biodiversity, as this committee has stated, the next MFF needs to have clearly identifiable and adequate dedicated spending targets. This point should be reflected in our discussion. Ambitious horizontal targets across the MFF and key program are therefore needed. In conclusion, dear colleagues, the discussion on the next MFF has just begun, and they will be long. The envy committee will have a key role to play over the next year, and I intend to make sure that our voice and priorities are heard clearly throughout the negotiation.
I look forward to hearing the opinion of all the shareholders and members who wish to share this view. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Now we leave the floor to the shadow for two minutes. We start with Renaud Steinboss.
Stine Bosse
Thank you. And I will speak on behalf of Anna Raskonellas. Europe is full of talent, people with ideas and projects and can help the EU achieve its ambitious policy objectives, in particular concerning the climate and the environment. The budget exists on paper, but too often is hard to access in practice. Layers of compliance requirements may be well-intended, but many times become an obstacle to desired results.
The Commission's proposal to move towards a single, simpler performance framework for the EU budget is therefore welcome as it forces am I in the wrong? No. As it focuses more on measuring outcomes instead of inputs. If we want to solve big problems, we need to start with something simple: good data, clear goals, and systems that actually learn and adapt. Right now, our EU budget framework struggles on all three.
It is too rigid, which makes it slow to respond. It is too complex, which makes it hard to understand what is working. And in some cases, it is consistent, inconsistent, which means we cannot compare results or scale. We have a system where we measure a lot of initiatives, but not enough outcomes. We count what we spend, not what we build, what we fund, but we are less good at tracking and addressing how EU spending actually contributes to our policy objectives. And when data is fragmented across multiple platforms and reports, no one, not policymakers, not Europeans in general, get a clear picture of what the budget's performance is.
So the proposal should be: First, on indicators. We need a few box ticking, output metrics and more meaningful performance and qualitative indicators that tell us where policies are working and allow us to adjust. Second, transparency and accountability. A single gateway should not just exist. It should be usable, integrated, and clearly linked with all existing EU dashboards through structured cross-referencing.
Third and last, on the do no significant harm principle, we need consistency to full harmonization across all programs, but we should also be pragmatic and make sure this principle guides better decisions and not block much-needed innovation. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to working constructively with the rapporteur, says Anna, and all shadows on the crucial file. Thank you.
Rasmus Andresen
Yes. Thank you, Thier and Raboteau. I mean, this is a key part of the MFF discussion because this is actually where we're gonna decide how we spend the money in the right way. So even when it comes to the Competitiveness Fund, it is also actually spent to make a better world and a better Europe. We have proposed a number of amendments, of course, across the entire legislation.
First and foremost, on the green spending target proposed by the Commission at 35%. As we have said a number of times in this discussion, we think it has to be at least 50% going as a green spending target and with a ring fenced 10 for biodiversity, so we can actually spend the money on doing good things. We also really think that we should be careful not to carve out these green spending targets, especially that the targets must apply to the whole budget and not be carved out, when it comes to defense and security. And then, of course, we want the commission to actually act when we don't see that the target is met. So they come with corrective measures without delay and not just consult as it says in the thing in the papers now.
Then do no significant harm, as my colleague from Renew also mentioned. I mean, we need to actually have teeth there. It needs to be something that can work. Therefore, we need guidance to be very clear, and we need a clear deadline as well for the commission to come out so it can get into force at the same time as the MFF regulation. Again, we don't think there should be exemptions unless it's generally emergencies, I mean, natural catastrophes or armed conflicts, not just overall exemptions as we're seeing.
And then thirdly, it's about transparency, accountability, and tracking. And here, we suggest that we add a dedicated biodiversity column to the Annex One so we can actually track the money. We also think that it's very important that we get the evaluation from the member states in good time for the midterm evaluation, so we can actually move on where it doesn't work. So, I mean, I look very much forward to this very important piece of the MFF work. I'm following it both here in envy and in budget as well, so I'll be sure also to take good envy opinions with me to the table in the Budgetary Committee.
Thank you.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Rapporteur. We do appreciate the general direction of the draft that you have made, but we still think there's substantial room for improvement. We therefore have tabled a number of amendments. And some of the most important ones for us are that we want to increase the overall climate and environmental spending target. We point that 50% as the target that you think would be most accurate.
And of that 50%, at least 10% should be dedicated to biodiversity. Then, when it comes to the dilution that is made through the defense and security spending, we do not want the defense and security spending to be excluded from the basis of the calculation. That, I think, is a serious weakening of the present proposal. When it comes to the do no significant harm principle, we think it's important to safeguard and strengthen it. We want to delete the proportionality and exclusion clause relating to the principle.
We also think that the guidance shall guarantee the explicit exclusion of direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies in the implementation of the do-no-significant-harm principle. When it comes to the biodiversity expenditure, 10% is a good target, but we think there also has to be a system for tracking the actual expenditure. So we see that is well covered. And then it's important to cover eventual loopholes when it comes to greenwashing. That goes, for example, for the annexes, where it should be very clear that expenditure like military, mobility, target support for farmers' income, road transport or support to airports never can be part of the green investments.
Thank you, chair.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Some other member wanna participate with the KHDI. So we no. There is some other. Anyway, I should ask.
So we give the floor to the commission, from DG Badger. We have Daniel Roskamp.
There we go.
Daniel Roskamp
Yes. Thank you, mister chair, honorable members of the NV Committee, and thank you for the amendments or opinion on the performance regulation. The commission welcomes the high level of ambition and the clear signals of this committee, that the union budget must remain credible and powerful as an engine for the green transition. The performance regulation is designed to ensure that every euro spent is not only accounted for but actively contributing to the overarching policy priorities. As we move forward, we aim to be in a place that the framework is simplified, transparent, and as a key part, a workable framework for beneficiaries on the ground.
Regarding the financial targets or the spending targets for the policy priorities, in particular, the green targets that has been mentioned here, we note that the proposal to increase the green spending target or climate and environment spending target to 50%, and to introduce 10% biodiversity, has been mentioned. However, the commission has proposed a 35% target, and that is already a significant leap forward, representing a carefully calibrated balance across all Union priorities. We are fully committed to biodiversity, of course, as part of this climate and environment spending target, and we have a dedicated number of intervention fields that monitor the efforts for biodiversity, and we remain ready to fulfill international reporting obligations for biodiversity spending. On do no significant harm, our priority is to provide a single and simple horizontal guidance document that minimizes administrative burden for beneficiaries, especially SMEs and local authorities. We must also ensure that this guidance is ready in time when the MFF comes into effect, and that's a crucial part so that all beneficiaries know which conditions apply.
Putting a three-month deadline, following the regulation's entry into force, into the regulation would make it more difficult for this guidance to be ready, in time for the MFF, as will probably be a delegated act. Thus, we recommend to remain with the guidance as it is. Our goal does indeed remain to have the guidance ready in January 2027, as stated in the regulation, ensuring that all necessary information for planning and programming is ready from early on. We also hear the call, of course, for more granular tracking in parts. The coefficient logic that we have right now in Annex one of the regulation is based on an established standard that we have in the current MFF and also previously, using the markers proposed by the OECD.
I mean, it has been used effectively under this MFF, and it can benefit from beneficiaries' experience with it. It also ensures that our green efforts are comparable to international standards and that they remain traceable across different financial frameworks, without adding complexity, and without adding more subjectivity. Finally, we consider that the green spending targets are an effective way to ensure that green spending remains part of the MFF, and that we have a cooperative and inter-institutional approach in maintaining the green spending targets. I have to reiterate that the guiding principle of the performance regulation at Annex one within remains simplification and increasing the impact and the performance measurement of the EU budget. We look forward, of course, to constructive dialogue on performance regulation, and hope that this framework is robust and efficient. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. And I also thank all the shadow rapporteur. I think there's space to find a common view, even from the amendments. Of course, we also have to work with the shadow rapporteur. They didn't take the floor today.
But I think it's really important that we consider our opinion on the budget relevant to our activity, because from that flows a large part of the results we can obtain on climate and environment. So we look forward to working together. The vote in Envy will be July 14, while Badge and Conte are supposed to vote in October, and the plan should be the 1 of November or December. So, thank you. Now we move to the next item.
That is the presentation of the study impact of the 2028, 2022, 2034 MFF proposal on climate and environment assessment of the commission proposal. The study was prepared by experts from the company Trinomics in close cooperation with the policy department. I'm now giving the floor to Robert Williams and Janet Benshopper, representatives of Trinomics, to present the study.
Janet Benshopper
Perfect. Thank you. That helps. So I'm here to present the study Trinomics, performed for the ENVI committee on the commission proposals on the upcoming MFF. And here, we try to answer one question in particular, namely, is the 2028, 2034 multi-annual financial framework fit for purpose as concerns climate and environment?
So we first performed some contextual analysis. We looked at how climate and environment evaluated across MFF cycles, and we found that the climate and environment themes were represented by a variety of specific and also mainstream funds under the current and the previous MFF cycles. And all of these themes will be combined into two large funds, the NRP fund and the ECF. We also saw that the climate and environment spending ambition across the five cycles has been raised. I will show something about this on the next slide.
And, also, we have found that expenditure tracking methodologies have become more systematic and harmonized, generally. We also performed a policy to budget analysis, and we saw that most major programs under the current MFF are broadly on track to meet or exceed even their climate related commitments and obligations. This is a different image from what we see for biodiversity, because the targets appear more uneven and dependent on future programming choices. We also see that climate and environment spending remains highly concentrated in a few large funds, notably the common agricultural policy for the current MFF, also the recovery and resilience facility, and the cohesion policy in Horizon Europe are important mechanisms here. And I mentioned that tracking methodology has become more systematic and harmonized, but at the same time, they also face major challenges.
For example, around verifying actual outcomes of spending, and also around inconsistent application across programs or member states. So, ah, yes. This is a chart which is not very easily visible, but I'll explain. It shows that the EU budget increased its relative and absolute spending on climate and biodiversity from the previous MFF, so 2014 to 2020, related to the current MFF, so from starting in 2021. What is also important is that instead of having different targets for biodiversity and climate as is under the current MFF, there will now be a combined spending target, of course, of 35%.
And last, what is interesting is that we implied an inflation correction and used 2025 prices for all the figures shown here. And it shows that the proposed targets for climate and biodiversity spending under the upcoming year MFF, so from 2028, are relatively lower compared to those of the current MFF. And now we move on to the findings around the outcome MFF. I will look at the horizontal principles and the funding instruments, and then also at the tracking and performance framework. And there's a lot of information, but I'll focus on our considerations that came out of our analysis.
So for the horizontal principles, there is the 35% target I mentioned just now. Do no significant harm principle, which will be applied across EU programs through a single and simple guidance. We recommend to consider three things.
Translate or ask her to slow down a little.
Yes. Of course. We recommend considering three things. First, to ensure that EU spending does not cause significant harm, the current DNSH framework that is presented in article 5 of the performance framework regulation should be legally strengthened, for example, through a delegated act. Of course, it is also important to consider ways in which at least part of defense and security spending could be included in the 35% climate and environment targets, which is in article 4.2 of the performance framework regulation.
This would have the ability to increase the volume of green spending under the next MFF. Last consideration is to introduce a legally binding biodiversity spending target in article 4.2 instead of letting it remain a nonbinding political ambition as it currently is. Then for the funding instruments, life will be discontinued as a standalone program. But at the same time, lifestyle actions will be embedded in a performance framework of the NRP funds and also, the ECF. And for the NRP funds, it will mostly be represented in the national plans of member states.
And the Connecting Europe facility and Horizon Europe are also presented here because they have an important role for climate and environment, and they will also be continued under the next multiannual financial framework. Around these funding instruments, we recommend considering three things in particular. Of course, first of all, to consider how the legacy of life can be best protected. It is a small program percentage-wise in the overall budget, but it has an important role because of its dedicated focus on climate and environment. We would also recommend considering broadening biodiversity and environment integration across EU programs.
For example, by embedding biodiversity objectives more explicitly under more programs. And last, also related to biodiversity, is to strengthen the policy architecture for biodiversity mainstreaming in the sexual health programs. This could be done in different ways. For example, by embedding legal biodiversity objectives across key sectoral programs, by increasing their rate in budgetary planning, and also by clarifying the role of biodiversity within the broader environmental objectives or categories. And last, we looked at the tracking and performance framework under the upcoming MFF.
It is mainly based on the list of intervention fields and EO coefficients and related thereto the performance indicators. We recommend considering three things in particular. First, to introduce outcome-oriented evaluation of climate and environmental commitments instead of focusing on planned commitments only. This would battle the current limited transparency on the actual outcomes of green spending, because that was one of the major issues we encountered in our analysis. Related here too, it is important to strengthen the overall accuracy and the transparency of climate and environment tracking.
This could be done by applying stricter and more evidence-based criteria by separate environmental objectives and generally improved methodologies. This would help to avoid overestimating green spending under the next MFF. And finally, article 4.4 of the performance framework regulation should clarify that overachievement of the spending target as this frame now is not considered a reason to adjust the level of green spending under a program, because the current approach allows programs to lower their climate and environment spending.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. It's something, really current with the debate we had a few minutes ago, and it also gives us some suggestion in the discussion in the shadow meeting for the amendments. Now I leave the floor to the political groups, and we start with S and D, Christophe Claudio. Thank.
Christophe Clergeau
thank you very much. I'm going to be speaking in French. To say it's unfortunate that there's no EPP speaker on this matter, that's a big shame. Then I'd like to underscore how these analytical elements back up the need to mobilize to preserve the life program as a specific program for actions to protect biodiversity. What's highlighted illustrates the risk to biodiversity.
The previous 6% figure was legal, but the idea is to get to 10% by the end of the program. So the risk of calling into question the mobilization on biodiversity appears to be higher than what you underscored, but perhaps you could go into greater detail there. Second question, would it be possible to establish a link between how we can combine the budget as is and other sources of funding, not only funding for biodiversity, but the innovation fund and funds outside the MFF, the social climate fund is outside the MFF, and issues of debt and the incorporation of the European Bank. So how can we have an overview of funds that might be mobilized on a European level, MFF and other, with regard to the climate and biodiversity objectives? And the final question is perhaps somewhat provocative, but you actually spoke about the role of the CAP in your biodiversity report.
We've seen issues related to the CAP, and now we've seen the new CAP. And I think that conditionality and the contribution to biodiversity are weaker. Might it not be possible to assess technically what the contribution of the next cap might be to the protection or restoration of biodiversity compared to the current cap? And if there's a specific reversal, might that not jeopardize the whole equation? I'm sorry.
There's another question now. Can you also establish a link between the needs for mobilization on a European level linked to the implementation of the nature restoration law and funds that could be mobilized through all of the MFF envelopes to achieve the nature restoration law objectives? Thank you.
Speaker 79
Thank you very much for your work. And I didn't manage yet to read the full study, actually, but I did have a look at, for example, the figures, which are pretty much self-explaining. And for anyone, the document is, of course, on the NVE committee page. So anyone can load it, download it, and have a look at it. I would like to push a little further in the right direction, which you have already lined out in your intervention.
You said that we need a better definition of do no significant harm, because what is significant? Right? And also, I was wondering at a panel which I joined some weeks back when there came a question up about the real markers and the, let's say, reinforced real markers, which the EU was using in the last budget, which were better aligned with EU policies and also had a stronger climate focus. I was wondering, we only have 0, 40, or 100%. But actually, I would think that some activities would, when it comes to biodiversity and climate, need a -20% or a -40%.
So we only judge whether something contributes to climate mitigation, adaptation, and biodiversity protection. But we don't look at whether something damages those. And also, I was wondering, how do you assess the 40%, which is given to agriculture, given that half of our landmass is regularly sprayed with substances that are, well, designed to kill plants or animals or fungi? So normally, they are not so good for biodiversity. So how do you assess the 40%, which is given to agriculture?
And last but not least, what do you think of the, let's say, very small ring fence pots that the commission has set out for cross-border biodiversity projects, where we had life in the last mandate. And quite a few life projects were cross-border because also a lot of the habitats directive ecosystems span across borders. Do you think that the money which the commission has put in that pot would be sufficient to continue with these projects? Because in the national and regional partnership plans, I don't see any capital saying, hey. Let's spend money on our neighbors' ecosystem.
Thanks.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you. And first of all, I would like to thank you for doing this report. It's very timely. I think it's very relevant and interesting. And it's also always a good feeling when someone confirms your own views, I mean, which you do in this report when it comes to amending the proposal that we have in front of us.
I think you really point at some of the main weaknesses of the suggestion, the risk that it will actually diminish the environmental investments as a percentage in the coming budget. The weakness when we when the most likely the life program will not survive as an independent program. How can we make sure that the good things that came out of it, and the benefits of the program, will survive? And that would be my question also, what kind of safeguards can we build in to make sure that the good examples of the life program don't get diluted in the coming MFF. And I think also you pointed some very important things to the application of the do-no-significant-harm principle.
So this will be most valuable in our work. And my question is, what would you do to make sure that the things we have achieved with life actually survives in the coming MFF? Thank you.
Janet Benshopper
Thank you for the questions. I heard my colleague is also online, and he is the life expert. So I would like to give him the floor first to respond to these relevant questions.
Speaker 82
Yeah. Hello, everybody. Yes. So I'll start with the last question about what you can do to safeguard what was good in life. Yeah.
I think it's a good question, and I think it echoes one of the other questions about the ring fence pots for biodiversity and the cross border aspects of that. And, yes, it is a good question, and I think it would my suggestion would be something to quantify and maximize how much of the pot does get assigned to the life from the central fund and how that's going to work because it it's not. It wasn't clear to us exactly how that's going to work. Like, who is going to run it? Who is gonna pick what’s funded?
How will you get cross border projects under that? Will it be a system similar to life at the moment where you sort of call for proposals and different member states can join together and come up with a project. You know, these are all questions which we couldn't really answer from the information that we've got because, you know, some of the strengths of life that existed and still exist in the current program, it's hard to see how some of those things will carry on because, you know, having done several evaluations of the life programs over the years, I think a thing which lots of the participants liked was the fact that, you know, the commission would set the objectives for that. And if they didn't align with what the member states, their objectives, it's still carried on. And you could see how that could happen in the small part that will continue, but it's smaller, and it's not exactly clear how that will work.
So if there was a much clearer idea of, you know, if you were an NGO looking to do a biodiversity project in a particular member state where it probably might not align with what that member state government wanted, then there needs to be a route to get that funding. There needs to be enough money to make it credible and a system that would support it.
Janet Benshopper
Yes. And then I can continue on the other questions, for Christoph. They are all relevant questions. And I think you have given us ideas for further studies mostly, because it is indeed very important to consider, for example, how funds outside of the MFF can be leveraged. It is something we have researched in the past, around circular economy financing, for example.
And it's never a matter of solely public funding, of course. But it was outside of the scope of this study. The same goes for the questions around the COP and the other issues. But, yes, I would like to research this further, of course, with. And then for the questions of.
Yes. The DNSH single and simple guidance is, of course, it sounds very attractive. It should lessen the administrative burden, but it comes with risks as we have discovered through assessments of how it has been applied now because there's not a lot of transparency on how it is applied. And it is also not clear how authorities in the member states apply this principle. So, that is why we have proposed to strengthen this legally within the current framework.
On the, of course, the negative spending on environment and climate, it is definitely not assessed in a solid way at this moment. And it is also one of our recommendations to track this better in the upcoming MFF. The question about the 40-100% coefficient system is a very interesting one. It is also something we assessed in the study to the extent that we believe it is quite limited to actually assess indeed the actual contribution of certain actions and spending lines, how to approach this in the next MFF, particularly related to the percentages we have not assessed, but this is, of course, interesting for future studies. And, yes, on the life matters, it is something my colleague, Rob, answered to.
So, thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
So, thank you. I hope that also the colleagues that are not present will have time to have a look at your study that is really important for our decision. So, now the meeting of today is over. Yes. The next meeting is tomorrow, starting at 08:45.
So, see you tomorrow. I thank you, the present colleague, the translator, and all the workers.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.