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 sittingsDimitri Szodras
This alone cannot justify rejection in the absence of a demonstrated risk. Finally, we must consider the agricultural reality. PD flumetophen is an important fungicide used to protect key crops such as grapes, apples, pears, and vegetables, and to control serious fungal diseases. It helps to fill gaps where alternatives are limited, replace substances already withdrawn, and provide a new mode of action essential for resistance management. At the time when farmers are already facing a shrinking toolbox, rejected it would further limit their options without a clear safety justification.
Colleagues, this is not about lowering standards. It's about applying EU law consistently based on science and evidence while ensuring workable solutions in practice. I therefore propose that the envy committee reject this objection. Thank you.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you very much. And our next speaker is Martin Hojsi from the Renew Group.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you very much. And yes, it's only Category two CMR, Reprotox Category two, very toxic to aquatic life. But what I think is also very important to realize is because these are not the cutoff criteria, but it's also very highly persistent. Remember PFAS? They're also very persistent.
And this is something which itself, it's not also a cut off criteria. However, the issue with the commission draft is that EFSA peer review identified an amount of data gaps, including insufficient information on the genotoxicity of metabolites. Short and long-term toxicity, including carcinogenic potential linked to the SDH inhibition. Now for a number of these, there are test methods. Furthermore, according to EFSA, data gaps do not allow it to conclude on consumer risk from the consumption of drinking water, as well as the effects of PD Flumetofen, the active substance itself, but also the metabolites on water treatment processes.
Now in the times when we are increasingly facing water crisis, and we hear from the utilities cleaning the water about the incredibly rising cost, this is something which I'm wondering who's gonna bear the cost of additional cleanup. Probably not the makers of this substance, but the entire society. So I'm wondering about the prudence of the commission here. But there are more shortcomings summarized in the text of the objection. The PPP's regulation provides that active substances can be approved if it does not have any harmful effects on human health, including of that, vulnerable groups.
However, instead of authorizing PDflumetofen only once the data are submitted and safety to Mamaz confirmed, the commission approves the substance, which conditions attach to member states to pay particular attention to the data gaps and pay particular attention to the consumer risk and the protection of groundwater. Clearly, the commission hasn't done its job. So instead of asking the applicant to do the job, it's dropping in our member states, and I don't think this is fair. It's dropping in on the water treatment of the utilities. It's dropping it on society.
So the commission evades the responsibility and, yes, just wants to grant the authorization. And I'm sad to say that it's one of the typical practices that led the ombudsman to ask the commission to review its approach to definition and implementation of mitigation measures and authorization of plant protection products. So I believe the objection needs your support, colleagues, and I hope it will get it. Thank you very much.
Thank.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you very much. I would like to ask if we have any other speakers. If not, then thank you again. Oh, sorry.
Anja Arndt
I'll be speaking German. Thank you, chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, today, it's about the active substance pydiflumetofen, which is used by farmers and is important to them. In the past, we asked how high the risk was if this is used appropriately in the field. Now today increasingly, they assess according to the precautionary principle, and they look at what the potential harm of a particular substance is for humans and the environment.
And if you take this approach to medicinal products, then many of the active substances used there would have to lose their registration. But in medicinal products, you look at the dosing, that's what guides you. And there are 80 plant protection substances that have lost their authorization. And if you reduce that number further, it means our farmers have no longer opportunities, and there are crops that are very sensitive, and increasingly farmers are losing active substances that they can use against harmful substances, and that then threatens the existence of our farmers, but also the food sovereignty and the supply of food, and that's why we need substances that can be used. Otherwise, we will depend even more on imports.
This is true for fruit and veg, but also for cereals. Increasingly, we'll have to rely on imports if we continue withdrawing the authorization of active substances. And it's difficult to understand this because we'll have higher transport emissions, rather than protecting our own agriculture and providing support to them. And at the end of the day, we'll be importing products that have been used, that have been grown with substances that are banned here, but are not banned where they're grown. And, piediflumetophen, does bring risks with it.
I'll grant you that, but we need to look at a careful assessment and not just have a flat rate approach to weakening our agriculture. I believe that the substance should be used for as long as there is no equivalent alternative. And we think this is in the interest of our farmers and also in the interest of our own food security. And that's why we will not agree to article 115 paragraphs two and three being used here. Thank you.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you, colleagues. So I would like now to give the floor to the commission, mister Amud Bitterhove from DG Santa, head of unit E4 pesticides and biocides. And you have the floor for 5 minutes.
Almut Bitterhof
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Thank you for giving me the floor. Commission has well heard the concerns raised here from several colleagues on the new active substance, pitilformetophen.
And we fully recognize that this is a substance that has some unfavorable properties. Properties. It was rightly stated that the substance is carcinogenic category 2, reprotoxic category 2, and it is also highly persistent in soil. I would like to mention first the state of play of the discussions on the substance, which I think is not well reflected here so far. The draft regulation is actually still under discussion by the member states, and there has not yet been any decision taken on it.
We are actually at a rather early stage of discussion with the member states. This means that actually all possible outcomes are still possible. I would like to go back one step to the EFSA conclusion, which, of course, is the basis for our risk management decisions. And I would like to state there that the EFSA conclusion did not identify any critical areas of concern. This means they did not flag any issues that would be of so much concern that the substance per se would need to be not approved.
The substance also does not meet any of the cutoff criteria that are set out in the regulation 1107 2009, and therefore, in principle, it is possible to approve it. It is possible to approve it, but as a candidate for substitution. This means a candidate for substitution because of the properties, they are rather unfavorable compared to other substances. They need to comply with stricter rules than other pesticides. They can only approve for seven years instead of ten.
And before member states can authorize them, they have to carry out a comparative assessment, which needs to conclude that there are no safer authorized plant protection products available. Also, minor uses may be disproportionately affected, and resistance management must remain effective. In this context, I would like to note that p-dflometophane could be helpful for resistance management. That's quite important, because resistance is a concern. As regards the claim that was made that member states have too much discretion for action and that the commission does not responsibility and rather evades its responsibility, I would like to clarify that the regulation on plant protection products 11072009 itself gives the member states the responsibility to define and implement the necessary risk mitigation measures.
And they must do so based on the outcome of a risk assessment that they must conduct prior to the authorization of products. This doesn't mean that the commission has no obligations in this respect. The commission's obligation is to give guidance to the member states for such action at the stage of approval, and that is what we have been proposing in the draft regulation on p dflometophen. More concretely, the commission has clearly communicated that there are certain areas to which member states have to pay particular attention. And these are areas which we consider crucial and where member states have the obligation to act.
They have to pay particular attention to the consumer as a risk assessment for crops that can be used as feed. They have to pay particular attention to co-formulants, to the protection of operators, and to the protection of groundwater. To complete the picture, in case of candidates for substitution, member states are not obliged to mutually recognize authorizations for products that were given by other member states. They can decide not to do so. As regards the claim that pediflometophen harms human health by being a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor, EFSA actually did not raise any specific concerns in their conclusion.
They considered it sufficient to set a data gap for the additional information. They also noted that currently there is not any validated test method available. So, to conclude, we have heard your concerns. Some of them are justified, but the draft regulation is still under discussion with the member states, and we have taken all the steps to make sure that there is control by the member states if that substance would get approved. So all aspects will be considered in the following discussions that we are still having with the member states.
Thank you very much.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you very much, Miss Bitterhof. And now I'm giving the floor back to our reporter, mister Klausho.
Christophe Clergeau
Yes. Thank you, Kjell. And very quickly, thanks for the commission of this nuanced presentation. In fact, it's very appreciated. I would like to do three remarks.
First one, the notion of a critical area of concern. It does not mean that there is no concern. It does mean that there is at least one use case that it is safe and that not all the use cases are problematic. So it's a concept we have a problem with. We do not mean there is no concern.
And when you clearly explain that EFSA recognize that there are data gaps, but also absence of test method on key element about risks for human health, it is in itself a huge problem when you authorize a new active substance candidate for substitution. And last element, you didn't answer on the obligation for the commission to assess the coformulant in the representative formula for a new pesticide. And it's an obligation you have, the court of justice records you very precisely that you have to really implement. Thank you.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you very much. And we will now move to the exchange of views to the next item on our agenda, exchange of views on the draft opinion of the commission proposal on acceleration of permit renting procedures for energy infrastructure. First, I will give the floor to Amiraporter to present his drafts. And our first speaker is a reporter, Rasmus Norquist.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Thank you, chair. And, I think it's clear to everybody today that we have an issue when it comes to the need of accelerating, when it comes to grids, when it comes for our electrification, for renewables, especially if we want to meet both our climate and energy goals. And we can clearly see that we have a problem. In my opinion, though, I state I mean, the starting point is also that many of these obstacles to the fast renewable deployment, they actually come from poor implementation of existing EU rules. As one hand and the other hand that we see that there's some administrative and governance bottleneck at national and local level when it comes to the rollout of this.
But that said, I think it's an important proposal we have from the commission. We do I do, however, in the draft opinion, propose a few safeguards because I think when we see the proposal from the commission, it's clear that what they are doing is looking into especially environmental and nature protection and how we can move faster there. And when I have this very constructive approach, first of all, it is because renewables replace fossil fuels, and that is net positive for the environment and for biodiversity. And then also that the commission actually rightly targets projects with no significant environmental impact. So I really want these proportional safeguards to align with the precautionary principles, not to block but to balance the proposal from the commission.
And I want to highlight three points from the draft today. First of all, it is on the designation of renewable acceleration areas. Here, I think we can all see that it has been rather chaotic with the implementation at the national levels. And this is why we suggest mapping to be science-based and transparent, and for the environmental consideration to be proportional and well justified. Again, slightly safeguard to put in.
The next point would be the overriding public interest, a very important point in this proposal from the commission. And there, we add nuances and safeguards aligned with, again, the principle of proportionality and not least also case laws from the EU Court of Justice, so that environmental impact assessment still will happen. And then my third point would be that the commission widens the exemptions from environmental assessments, especially, for example, for repowering or small scale solar installations. And here, we nuance it, with, again, I think, rather reasonable safeguards, especially also including against project scaling where you can take many smaller installations, to not have the right assessment done. I think it's important from envy position that we stay quite focused on our scope and where we can actually play a positive role in parliament's work on this and come with a clear opinion to the ITRE committee so they have something clear and obvious to work on from our side.
We have a very strict timeline, with vote here in committee. I think it's June 15, and already nine days later, something like that, the vote in Itre. And I think it's important that we give the Israeli committee the time to actually take in our opinion. So I have been talked to some of the shadows also in this very strict timeline. And I look really much forward to work with everybody on getting a strong, clear opinion that can be used and can work in the right direction for this very important proposal.
Thank you, Chair.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you, Mr. Reporter. And now we move to the shadows. And our first speaker is Virgil Dania Popescu from the EPP Group.
Virgil-Daniel Popescu
Thank you. Thank you, chair. Dear colleagues, the commission proposal addresses a well-known and very concrete bottleneck in the energy transition. The excessive length and complexity of permitting procedures for renewable energy, grid storage, and recharging infrastructure. Today, projects that are essential for decarbonization and energy security can take many years to be approved.
Speaker 10
This is simply not compatible with the pace at which we need to move. For the EPP Group, this proposal is therefore a good necessary starting point. Without faster permitting, there will be no acceleration of renewables, no timely grid expansion, and no credible pathway to meet our climate objectives. At the same time, reducing the administrative burden is not optional. It is essential if you want the project to be delivered and investments to materialize across the union.
Virgil-Daniel Popescu
We particularly welcome the stronger focus on digitalization and the introduction of one-stop shop through a single national digital portal. This is exactly the type of concrete solution we need, and it must help avoid fragmentation at the national level. Our objective is straightforward: make procedure faster, more predictable, and easier to implement while maintaining strong environmental protection. Environmental ambition and industrial development are not in contradiction. On the contrary, accelerating renewable energy and grid infrastructure is a condition for both decarbonization and energy security, including reducing our dependency on external energy sources.
Speaker 10
We should also be pragmatic in how we minimize environmental impact. Prioritizing the reuse or renovation of existing industrial sites and already developed areas can help accelerate projects while limiting pressure on natural land. At the same time, we must ensure technology neutrality. All technology contributing to decarbonization should be treated fairly, including hydrogen, CO2, storage, and other storage solutions without creating unnecessary barriers. Turning to the rapporteur draft, we recognize the focus on environmental safeguards and public acceptance. They are an important element that should be part of a balanced approach.
However, several of the proposed changes risk adding complexity and legal uncertainty, and could ultimately slow down procedure instead of accelerating Zen. If we are not careful, we risk to replace in today delays with new procedure obstacles. If we want real results on the ground, procedure must become simpler and not more complicated. This is why for EPP group, it is important to preserve the core elements of the commission proposal and to focus on target improvements within the ENVY remit. In conclusion, we support the overall direction of the commission proposal, and remain fully committed to constructive engagement in the committee.
Our objective is to contribute to a balanced and pragmatic option for Itra. Thank you.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you very much. And now we move to the S and D groups. Our next speaker is Sakis, Arnautoglou. You did it right.
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
I will speak in Greek. Good morning.
We are dealing with this very clearly. Europe needs to develop renewable energy sources as soon as possible, as well as the recharging points and structures. And if we don't do that, we won't be able to meet our climate objectives, reduce the use of fossil fuels, and achieve more appropriate energy costs. To do so, we need more flexible authorization systems. So we need to speed up this process, but not to the detriment of security and trust of consumers.
The transition will take place far more rapidly if this is credible and done properly. We see that there are administrative problems, problems of coordination, delays, and communication issues between the different governance levels. That's the problem, not the content of the legislation. That's what we need to focus on. There's no social dimension either.
These types of renewable energy shouldn't be imposed. Citizens need to see them as something that's positive, something that provides employment, something that reduces the cost of energy in the bills that they're paying at the end of the month. In addition, this would reduce the number of appeals before local authorities. As I said, we need to protect those projects that are low risk charging points, energy points. The problem is that exceptions should not become the rule.
Let's not forget either the accumulative effects and the issue of protecting Natura 2000 areas and our heritage. We need to take advantage of the current facilities. The problem is that these facilities need to be authorized appropriately based on scientific data. Then there's the principle of the common good. There's no doubt that the development of these networks should contribute to the common good, but they can't be a blank check.
We need to protect vulnerable areas, and we also need to promote more advanced technologies. Then with regard to alternative uses, we need alternatives regarding the various projects. However, that should not lead to greater legal uncertainty. We do apologize, but the reader is, the speaker is reading very quickly, and we're doing what we can. We need a clean transition.
András Tivadar Kulja
So I'd like to ask you to respect the speaking time at the end. At the same time, please try to speak a bit slowly to give a chance to our interpreters to translate everything correctly. Now we move to the PFE Group. Mr. Knock knock, the floor is yours.
Ondřej Knotek
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, allow me on behalf of our shadow Victor Efferens firstly to thank the reporter and to present a couple of remarks. The commission proposal addresses the slow deployment of renewable energy storage and grid infrastructure across the Union. Projects are too often delayed by over-complex and fragmented administrative procedures.
These bottlenecks need to be addressed in the global context of a brewing energy crisis. This is very important. However, the speed must not come at a disproportionate cost of the environment. We agree with the reporter on insisting that member states should retain their right not to grant a presumption of overriding public interest to certain technologies and the need for the commission to support member states in their efforts. Our amendments will aim at improving the effectiveness of the proposal while maintaining high environmental standards.
A little bit deeper. Firstly, we introduced a clear distinction between permit granting procedures and application granting procedures. As in most member states, grid connection is not a permit. Secondly, we propose to maintain the role of independent facilitators only as voluntary, to avoid adding unnecessary administrative burden and ease the implementation. Binding obligation would risk reintroducing red tape and run counter to the aim of the original proposal.
Thirdly, on digitalization, we agree that national digital portals can streamline administrative procedures. However, they must be set up in such a way that ensures efficiency and interoperability. And last, fourth, we propose the possibility of publication of the connection decisions of network operators anonymously. This would safeguard sensitive data and improve the trust of economic operators, which we see as crucial. So once again, thank you to the reporter for the draft report, and we are looking forward to the upcoming cooperation.
Thank you, colleagues.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you. And now we move to the ECR Group, mister Tarzu. The floor is yours.
Claudiu-Richard Târziu
Thank you, chair. I will speak in Romanian. ECR's prescient objective.
The ECR supports this objective to speed up granting permits because it is an important element in our energy infrastructure and our energy autonomy. However, the legal framework is not the only bottleneck. Administrative capacity, institutional coordination, and an efficient implementation in the member states are also part of the bottleneck, which is why I believe we should be balanced in our approach. First of all, spatial planning and land use must be flexible and adapted to national realities, including when it comes to protecting agricultural land, local communities, and their strategic priorities. Secondly, tools such as tacit approval may contribute to reducing administrative delays, but we need clear legal safeguards which are compliant with national administrative systems.
Next, this acceleration of permitting was not to sacrifice public trust, dialogue with institutions, legal clarity, or coherence because these are the guarantees needed for project success. We are ready to work together to build a framework that will cut down bureaucracy, accelerate investments, and respect subsidiarity, competitiveness, and the legitimate interests of the member states. Thank you.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you. And now we move to the renewed group. Jeanette Baljo, the floor is yours.
Thank.
You, chairman. I'll be speaking Dutch.
Jeannette Baljeu
Often mention energy nowadays, but it doesn't really help us a great deal if we can't get it anywhere, which is why this file is important, is to make sure that we can simplify the building of infrastructure. Now the Renu Group has a pretty straightforward approach. Without grid expansion, you can't have electrification, you can't have integration of renewable energy sources, you can't make industry sustainable, and therefore there's no solution to net congestion, which is why this is a very important file. I'd like to thank the rapporteur for his approach and for being constructive. I appreciate that he's trying to achieve a balance.
Speaker 16
What we see in The Netherlands, for example, my country, is that this is already a major problem that net congestion stops the building of homes and expansion of industrial areas, and also the building of loading infrastructure. So faster permitting is not just a luxury, it's really a matter of urgency, but it does have to be done in a secure way, and we need to make sure that we protect the environment. So we go along with what the rapporteur said. Swifter permitting cannot lead to weaker decisions or, at the end of the day, more court cases. So we really need to look at what works in practice.
Jeannette Baljeu
We need to have clear deadlines, better coordination between the various authorities, digital procedures, and we need to avoid files being reopened because of additional requests for information. Now if we can organize this properly, then I wouldn't want there to be tacit authorization or agreement. That doesn't lead to greater clarity. We have to have clarity from the outset, and we need certainty. That's really of importance.
And we also need to look at the effects. Take the example of nitrogen. What's the trade-off between building infrastructure and then the emissions reductions that you achieve at the end of the day? It's important to look at that and have the big picture. So I don't think that temporary emissions is a way forward.
So we need a high level of environmental protection, legal certainty, and grid expansion. That's the balance that the renewed group is looking for.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you very much. And now we move to the left group and our next speaker, Martin Fuentes.
Martin Schirdewan
Yeah. Fuentar. Thank you, chairman. I'll be speaking German. The climate crisis really calls for an increase in the use of renewable energy.
We all know that this is a pressing matter. The war in Iran has again pointed to the fact that we are open to price shocks and dependent on others. People struggle to pay their bills because gas and oil companies, during the first month of the war, had $30,000,000 a day of additional profits. Now, not promoting renewable energies in the right way will not lead to grid expansion. It will lead to legal uncertainty.
There will be more court cases. And at the end of the day, there will be delays in projects. But if you plan it properly and if you have solid environmental checks in place, then then can lead to success. Making permitting quicker for renewable energies is of paramount importance. Is of paramount importance, and changing the rules on permitting will not help people in terms of the cost of energy.
It won't bring prices down immediately, and we're not faced with a climate crisis. We're also faced with a biodiversity crisis. We're on the eve of the sixth mass extinction, and the commission's proposals would lead to far-reaching changes to the habitat directive. And the habitat directive is a very important building block of EU environmental law, and the commission should have a stress test and check the habitat directive and see whether it can still protect nature. And, therefore, weakening the regulation now doesn't make sense, but there seems to be this overriding public interest rule, and that means that you can put out of place certain other rules. But the core provisions of the Habitat Directive are being undermined.
These are not just technical adjustments. They go to the heart of the matter. How can public interest matters fit with nature and habitat. And we're ignoring the precautionary principle, and these changes would really upset the whole approach taken to permitting and would actually lead to more planning problems than they solve. I welcome the fact that the rapporteur in the draft has made similar points and has voiced similar misgivings, and we are more than happy to then support this.
Martin Hojsík
Indeed, I want to appreciate the commission proposal, because, yes, the renewable projects are often facing a lot of unnecessary obstacles. And at the same time, I recognize in the commission proposal that, like every other project, they need to be done together with the communities, and for the benefit of the communities where they will be located, not against their will. I don't think steamrolling works. But I see this, directed prime at certain renewable energy sources and not all of them, and specifically one that's close to my heart, and that's geothermal, especially the next generation geothermal. So I'm wondering if the commission is planning concrete steps also in this direction in the near future, and if they're gonna be in the geothermal action plan, because indeed, the permitting is, I would say, insane.
Geothermal faces the same permitting as all, sorry, oil drilling, for example, and this is not something which is in any way reasonable or actually correct. So, seeing this proposal, I wonder whether the commission is gonna look for additional, renewable energy sources that need a similar approach. Thank you.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you very much, colleagues. And, I would now like to give the floor to the commission, Miss Pablo Ray Garcia, head of unit C1 renewable and energy system integration policy from DG Enter. You have the floor for five minutes.
Paula Pinho
Good morning. Thank you very much. Thank you, chair, and thank you to all those members having intervened. And in addition, I would also like to welcome the work of the rapporteur and the presentation of the draft opinion. It was already mentioned by several speakers.
It's clear that the current energy crisis calls for urgent action to reduce our fossil fuel dependency, but equally to meet our climate objectives. With the permitting proposal in the risk package, in a balanced manner, we have included key measures to accelerate deployment of renewables, grids, storage, and recharging stations. And to make this possible by 2026, the length of the permitting procedure should decrease across the EU to a maximum of two years. And it's important to underline that today, we are very far from this. Moving to the MV draft opinion, we note and we very much welcome the call for a strong implementation of existing rules, and the use of good data.
So the use of adequate geospatial data and other objective environmental criteria. This is also something that we are prioritizing in the commission, where implementation efforts are ongoing. We have been preparing and disseminating best practices, including via different fora, our permitting expert group. We have also issued reference guidance documents, and we are in close contact and supporting member states in their implementation efforts. We also appreciate that the draft opinion supports a number of new measures proposed, including on benefit sharing rules for renewables, tacit approvals, digitalization.
And we have also seen and welcome the reinforcement and clarification of a number of other measures in the commission proposal. We would nevertheless express some caution on new requirements on simplification of environmental assessments and how these are put forward. Because in our experience, to have successful implementation, it is really very important that any additional conditions are very clear and implementable in all member states. And we appreciate that some of the proposed new elements may create additional complexity. We will also like to mention a couple of particular aspects in the opinion, on targeted assessment of alternatives. We had this measure in the 22 emergency regulation, and we have seen that it was particularly useful to give full force to override in the public interest presumption for renewables, for infrastructure.
And here, important to mention that, of course, this is without changing the character of this presumption, which remains rebuttable. We also see that the opinion introduces additional conditionalities to streamline the environmental assessments of refurbishment of grid projects. And here, it's important to mention that these projects merit a simplified approval procedure given their limited impacts under clear conditions that can then be easily implemented. So here as well, very important to keep the implementation in mind. When it comes to Greece development and related planning, here, impacts should not be ignored, but at the same time, the procedures need to remain proportionate and operational.
As otherwise, it brings creating uncertainties and further delays to an already long planning process. So to conclude, the proposal on permitting acceleration is really central to push fossil fuels out of the energy system, and also to electrify it whilst at the same time ensuring full respect of our climate ambitions, which, of course, are central to the environment and to biodiversity. So in this regard, the commission, of course, remains fully committed to support the parliament in the process, including with any relevant technical clarifications that could be useful so that we advance with this proposal swiftly and ensure a high level of ambition. Thank you very much.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you very much. And now we move back to our reporter, to Mr. Norquist.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Thank you, Thier, and thank you to the shutters and the commission. It looks rather good that we agree on the whole idea that we need to speed up the process. And also as the commission says, it's really central to get out of our dependency on fossil fuels. So far, so good. I heard comments that I think we can easily work together on both on the question on nitrogen from renew, the important point on the Habitat directive as well, and not least also some of the social question raised by S and D.
And then I look forward to work with you all to have a clear opinion on from the NV Committee, and whereas as EVP said, they found some of my proposal a bit too complex. I mean, simplify is a keyword at this time. So I'll be happy, of course, to work constructively with everybody to get something simple and good, but also which is actually giving clarity and legal certainty, because that's also what we need in this. So there is this balance we need to do. And, what I hear from everybody, I think we can live up to this very strict timeline we have in order to be able to get the opinion out to the work in the ITRI committee.
So thank you to everybody.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you very much. And yes, the timeline is very tight. The deadline for amendments is 05/07/2026, 11:00. And, also, I would like to mention that according to rule 57, the opinion shall deal solely with those matters that fall within the areas of competence of the opinion giving committee, and amendments falling outside of the areas of competence of the opinion giving committee shall not be admissible. We have votes in envy on June 15 in ISRA committee June 24, and announcement on plenary will be in July.
And now we'll have a short break, and we'll continue our meeting at 10:00. Thank you very much.
Thanks.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Welcome back, and we now welcome executive vice president Stephane Sejeune to this exchange of views, which is part of the structured dialogue. The purpose of this exchange is to provide members with the opportunity to touch base on adopted and upcoming legislative proposals, such as, for instance, the Industrial Acceleration Act and the Circular Economy Act. To give as many members as possible the possibility to raise their point, I would ask you to keep your question as concise as possible. Executives vice president, the floor is yours for ten minutes for your opening remarks.
Stéphane Séjourné
Thank you very much, sir. Pierre Francesco, ladies and gentlemen. A year ago, before your committee, we were already looking at the extent of the challenges that we had from an economic and environmental point of view. And the specter of the stagnant economy was in the minds of MEPs. The accelerated erosion of multilateralism was underway, and also calling into question the global climate agenda.
And since geopolitical movements in the world have increased, and the figures clearly highlight this since the start of the crisis in the Middle East, Europe had already spent almost $25,000,000,000 to import fossil energy, $25,000,000,000 just to absorb the increase in prices. And that situation teaches us a clear lesson. Competitiveness, decarbonization, and financial security aren't such distinct objectives. They are all under the geopolitical context. And I wanted to recall some pillars because we already set clear milestones with the clean industry agreement, six milestones to be precise.
They are the condition of a number of projects throughout Europe: high investment, sufficient demand, access to raw materials, affordable energy, guaranteeing a level playing field, and also competencies. And I'm going to focus on the first three in my introduction, starting in particular by saying that we have adopted voluntary pragmatic measures such as the CSAF and the new framework for state aid. In summary, some €36,500,000,000 already authorized in terms of state aid, with 6,000,000,000 for renewable hydrogen in Italy, for example, 3,700,000,000 in Czechia for biomethane. And that's why in that upcoming financial framework, we want to focus on the European Fund for Competitiveness, and it needs significant financial force that can lead to private investment in the clean transition. At the same time, we're activating a number of other levers together with the EIB, some €75,000,000,000 to be mobilized within three years to finance energy infrastructure with the ETS, our carbon market.
We also want revenue to be reinvested in the transition and in innovation. The review planned for July should ensure that the funds directly support 100% of our industry, either in terms of investment and modernization and in decarbonization, given the urgency. We need to move ahead as quickly as possible, particularly with regard to demand, and that's the objective of the Industrial Acceleration Act, IAA, with a simple principle. Taxpayers' money, first and foremost, needs to be used to produce on European soil with made in EU, low carbon conditions in subsidies and public tenders. Why?
Well, without sufficient demand from the outset, major decarbonization projects, for example, for energy intensive industries and for derisking would make it hard to ensure long term purchases, and the result would be that investment is delayed or canceled. And what we need to do is reverse that trend in this particularly difficult situation. But, of course, we need to be independent. We don't need only to deploy our own technologies, but we need to manage innovation and production in Europe so as to avoid dependence on that sector. Circularity is also very important when it comes to dependence and resilience, with the Circular Economy Act planned for this autumn.
We want to create a veritable, single market, and I'm thinking in particular about harmonization of expanded producer responsibility, harmonization when it comes to the processing and circularity of waste, reviewing the rules on electronic waste, making it possible to better use critical metals. So we need to be able to assess the entire chain, but also keep the raw materials that we need and on which we are dependent with regard to what's going on in China. And all of that forms part of the continuity of the eco-design regulation, with the banning of the destruction of unsold stocks, the digital product passport, for example, for made-for large batteries, and that's going to be compulsory by February 2027. I'd just like to say something about the chemical side of things. We seek to protect health and the environment and at the same time, competitiveness and innovation in the sector, as highlighted by my colleague, commissioner Waswell, last week, bearing in mind the numerous debates with political groups, the council, and all of the stakeholders on the text, we came to the conclusion that the REACH legislation should not be open at this stage when we need certainty and predictability that would not necessarily be useful at this stage.
Instead, we're looking at possibilities for simplification and modernization, but also implementation of enforcement on modernization of other means, including by way of cosmology. I think my colleague mentioned that. We're also looking at initiatives that seek to improve the implementation of legislation. What we want to be is credible during this stage. Noncompliant products and substances should not enter the European Union.
That is also something that we need to look at, because banning and legislation can't go against our border legislation. We need to be able to control these products. And on PFAS, the commission has undertaken to put forward a proposal to restrict those as soon as possible after the receipt of the final opinion from the ECHA. That's expected by the end of the year. At the same time, we're implementing our action plan for the chemical sector to guarantee production in Europe.
That's a sector that's under extreme stress. It needs support, but it also needs priorities. And the alliance that we've built should ensure priorities, particularly with regard to critical molecules that are necessary for production. We need to be independent, but also when it comes to competitiveness in the sector. We're losing or we have been losing a number of jobs since the start of this committee's term, and we need to implement measures to save the chemical sector.
So those are some of the major files that I wanted to introduce. I'd be happy to answer any questions or go into further details. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Commissioner, perfect, on time. The first round by the coordinators is a pimp-on formula. Yesterday, commissioner Oksda enjoyed it, and I hope even you will appreciate it a lot. It works with a question of 90 seconds, an answer for 90 seconds and a second round of 30 seconds each. Especially on this second round, I recommend the coordinator to respect the thirty seconds.
That is something that never happened, yesterday. So we start with EPP, Peter Leese.
Peter Liese
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Vice President. I agree that decarbonization is crucial also in this crisis, or in particular in this crisis, because we need to reduce our dependency on oil and gas. At the same time, competitiveness is an absolute must in these times. So which means when these are the priorities, other things are maybe not a priority. And when we want to speed up procedures, when we really want to allow industry to invest, then other parts, even other parts of the Green Deal like biodiversity or zero pollution, are maybe not at the same level.
Speaker 23
So we need to prioritize decarbonization and competitiveness. And I would you are nodding, so I guess you agree in principle, but I would like to understand more precisely. And in particular, in the area of chemicals. When we ask the chemical industry to decarbonize, it's already very difficult. But when we, at the same time, put into question a lot of substances, it's a particular challenge.
Speaker 24
And on PFAS, I think it's not yet clear enough. So how can we assure that there's not so much uncertainty that the essential use is really protected, and this Damocles word is not anymore over the head of the chemical industry. Thank you.
Thank you, commissioner.
Merci. Thank.
Stéphane Séjourné
you. Just in general, I think that since the first energy crisis with Ukraine and now with Iran, one could consider that this isn't an isolated crisis that's going to last for a short period of time or just a situational issue. It's structural. There will probably be no going back. There will be successive energy crises.
So ensuring our energy independence and avoiding, with regard to decarbonization, is perhaps the good solution. The second point is that we can't put decarbonization against competitiveness because if we note that there won't be any going back, we could find a business case for our industries, which is significant in Europe in terms of jobs and sovereignty. Therefore, the commission has made simplification proposals and will continue to do so, including with regard to the cases you mentioned, but also we need to fine-tune these with tools that don't hamper competitiveness, that ensure protection, particularly with regard to reducing to a minimum the production of PFAS. We've undertaken a number of plans here. We want to enable the industry to continue to use them when the objective when diversification or replacement isn't possible, and where there is no impact on the consumer.
And we need to be strict with consumers and PFAS in contact with the consumers. That's what I explained, and what we will seek to implement through our reforms and our proposals. That's what should ensure competitiveness and protect consumers. We need some decisions there. I have a feeling that increasingly that balance is reaching or achieving consensus.
We've got partnership with the parliament and the council, and we should be able to build something that's balanced. And that's what I'm trying to do with my colleague.
Peter Liese
Thank you. So I'm not fully convinced that the equilibrium is already there. So the headline is always, we prohibit. But another question on the chemical industry. I think we agree that something has to be done to give more flexibility to the chemical industry in the ETS.
Speaker 23
How can you then avoid that the front runners that have already invested a lot of money in the decarbonization are punished? So efforts must be rewarded. And how can we find the balance here?
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Fantastic timing also from Lisa. Now we expect the same from the commissioner.
What sort of Jess?
Stéphane Séjourné
Well, on the ETA, we're revising that. We need to seek to maintain the mechanism. I think it's a good mechanism in itself.
And this phenomenon, well,
It should be more for taxation than investment. Here at the European Parliament, when I was with you, the instrument was designed as an investment one. Some 5 to 10% of ETS revenue is reinvested, for example, for decarbonization of our industry. We need to use more ETS revenue for investment. Otherwise, we'll be jeopardizing the tool.
And in terms of acceptability for companies, which see it as a new tax as opposed to a real opportunity to invest. Responsibility is shared by companies and member states. So it will also be our responsibility to look at this, particularly with regard to the chemical sector when we're revising it for greater use of investment. That's what we'll do, I think. We'll have another opportunity to talk about that when we are preparing for the revisions, so that we can optimize that mechanism.
Christophe Clergeau
Now s and d, Christophe Claudio. Thank.
You, chairman. Good morning, commissioner. Thank you for being here. I don't think we should no longer have a fight against biodiversity loss priority. I think health and well-being are at the heart of European competitiveness, after all.
We'd even go further on REACH and PFAS to say very clearly that the socialist group has not agreed to not reopen REACH until there's been an open discussion on a package around improving the implementation of a whole series of measures to promote the treatment of chemical products to the benefit of health and environment. So, yes, we can go through comatology, but not just to simplify, but also to improve the implementation. And we absolutely need to reinforce the means of the European Chemicals Agency in order to speed up the procedure for dealing with dossiers. And for that, we need to confirm commitment from the commission and that the agency can open new dossiers, for example, on polymers as it's done on PFAS. And the last point on REACH, the commission must absolutely make the commitment to continue working on a review to REACH and that it be possible to open this at the beginning of the next mandate in a different geopolitical and political context.
Then on the PFAS, I'm not entirely sure we agree. I hope we do. When you say that the priority is to eliminate PFAS in products coming into contact with consumers, well, PFAS are everywhere. First of all, they're in water, but also in the soil. So the issue of contact between PFAS and consumers is not linked to the product, but rather to the entire environment in which they live.
So I think this is too restrictive an approach. And what the chemicals agency has produced in their assessment is to move towards a general restriction on the use of PFAS with derogations for use cases and not exemptions on whole sectors. So, can you clarify that point? Because derogations for use cases are not the same as exempting whole sectors.
Well,
Stéphane Séjourné
First of all, to say that the goal is, of course, simplification, but also modernization, and also the enforcement of measures. So this balance is what we're looking for in the commission. Now, obviously, we have to admit that consulting political groups leads to two very different arguments, of course. We must admit this. The question is, should we call into question the review either because of a fear of moving more towards implementation or towards more simplification.
This is the message that we set out with Commissioner Roswell. We'd like to say that the commission would have more of a balance than other institutions, is not what we hear in the discussions. But if that is the case, and I've understood the socialist comments on this, first of all, we need to look at measures that are based on science, scientific evidence. That's why I recalled in my introduction the fact that we were waiting for the next report that is supposed to be published by the end of the year, which would allow us to see the economic consequences and the health consequences, as well as recommendations on what to implement. Given that framework, we do have some time to think about this, and comatology is not going to prevent consultation and a political balance in any case, because each group has their own priorities and demands.
And, also, on this aspect, I would repeat, we will also be taking into account, not just contact with the public. I mean, we're here, we're talking about cosmetics, clothing, textiles, etcetera, but we will also be considering the environmental consequences, so indirect contact with the public. So that will also be taken into account in our reflections, obviously. Now the question is, given that industry is suffering from competitiveness issues and energy, international competitiveness with unfair competition in certain sectors. So we need to have an answer for the health issues, but also be able to act in parallel on the competitiveness issues as well.
That's why both of them need to be presented to the industry and the industrial sector together, and I'm convinced of this. If we want to be at all credible and in terms of acceptability from an economic point of view as well as the necessary provisions for protecting human and animal health. I think the balance is possible. Once again, if I consider the declarations from the different groups, you think that this balance is not possible at the moment. So we will take on the responsibility of finding this balance to allow for consumer protection as well as competitiveness and the necessary simplification in a series of sectors, in particular, in the chemist chemicals agency so as we can allow a series of chemical products as a group to come.
on. Thank.
Christophe Clergeau
Thank you very much. Well, we'll be able to come back to the circular economy and the law being prepared on this, which is very important for our group. But my question is more on the Industrial Accelerator Act. Is there not a contradiction between the goal of recovering 20% of the European GDP in industry and the very limited scope for intervention in this legislative text because certain consider that we're only covering 50 to 15% of the industrial basis. I'm not criticizing having sectoral plans and sectoral priorities.
You've said you've got several of them, and that's quite positive. But are we going to deal with only 15% of the industrial basis and hope that the rest recovers by itself? As an envy committee, if we work about the environmental transformation of all industries, we need tools that are designed for all industries. Thank you. Well, I can only agree with you.
Stéphane Séjourné
And the text itself is not the only factor at play to reach the goals laid out in the introduction of the text, because the goals need to be considered in light of all of the legislation or legislative proposals being presented. Other proposals, I mean, we'll do this in defense, technology, and biotech as well. I think a circular economy will be participating in the reindustrialization as well. It should allow us to reach our targets, in terms of industrialization. So it's the whole of our industrial policy that we need to look at, which should allow us to reach our goals.
The accelerator has its scope. So Etech automobile, if I can just sum it up briefly. That's not enough to cover 20% of the industry. The measures aren't enough. I agree with you.
If we look at all of the proposals that we've come up with, normally speaking, that should allow us to reach this 20%. This is the goal we've set for ourselves. There's a whole services sectors which are suffering, like, due to the arrival of AI being used massively in production methods and in companies. We've got to recreate the industrial jobs in Europe, but otherwise, we're going to have social problems linked to this in terms of loss of jobs. We see deindustrialization means loss of jobs, and industrial creation is less significant in terms of creating jobs than the old industry, the heavy industries, which we were more familiar with.
So that they've got to transform and modernize as well. So jobs are changing. Our capability for creating new technologies and innovation, all of that is at stake as well. We shouldn't just look at this 20% objective as bringing back old technologies, but also constructing the new industry of tomorrow between cleantech, biotech. There, we do have the capability.
We need to produce in Europe, of course. If I look at the data we have today, if we do nothing, all of the European cleantech will end up 100% Chinese in terms of both technology and production. So that's not going to achieve the reindustrialization goals we've set for ourselves. That's why the accelerator is a good opportunity for that sector to allow for production in Europe and the capability of job creation and mastering European technology.
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
Thank you, chairman, commissioner. It's almost never too late to do good. But from Missus Vandelay on nuclear, there's not going to be a mere culpa. We'll never hear European Commissioner claim that there's a European preference, but there's so much more to do, and it's a difficult situation. The political context doesn't help, but we've been dismantling the industry for decades.
And Mr. Sergey Vernet, you are part of the state of affairs. 14,000,000 direct and indirect jobs in our car manufacturing industry. If we don't do something, China will take over. Our markets are too open.
We depend on China, which has these threats against us and the U. S. That imposes humiliating treaties on us. Now, what's the response from the commission? Legislative omnibuses, which simplify our own rules, but there's a real deadlock here, and there's a failure.
We have more free trade agreements to diversify our trade partners, but we could continue pursuing our decarbonization goals, and we want electrification using renewable energy sources. What we would have preferred to hear is sovereignty, reindustrialization, which is what was mentioned in the Letter and Draghi reports. And we know the challenges: AI, quantum physics, and so on, quantum computing as well. And you know, you won't by 2035, an industry which produces 20% of the GDP. You want to have independence from China in 10 years, but my question is straightforward.
Thank.
Stéphane Séjourné
you. I don't really think we have a choice, to put it bluntly. We need to make sure that we're in a position to produce in Europe for reasons of economic security. We need clean tech, and there's a paradox. There are those who want to electrify everything, but at the same time, don't do anything to be fully independent or to at least diversify our dependence.
You can't electrify everything, both transport and industry, and then at the same time depend to the tune of 100% on technology, innovation and production. We'd be creating a new type of dependence after the fossil dependence we had and the digital services dependence we had in the U. So, there'd be a new dependence on the part of our industry. And its operation would depend on that. So I don't know what will happen in geopolitical terms in the future, but over the past five years, we've learned that rather than react, we need to anticipate.
And that's the change in mindset that we need at the national and European level. We need to anticipate the next crises, except that this is an epochal change upon us. And, you know, we can't produce 100% of everything in Europe, but we need to certainly go that way for certain industries. As I said, we don't know what the geopolitical context will be tomorrow, but we need to protect our consumers and our industry over the next few years. In particular, when it comes to trade flows, you can see that they're fragile.
They can be destabilized by a conflict, which we have no control over, but which we suffer. There's the war in Ukraine, which will have cost the European economy between 1,000,000,000,000 and 1,500,000,000,000. And then there's the war in Iran. That's cost us 25,000,000,000 just in supplies. I'm not even mentioning the indirect cost, but just the supply cost.
Now imagine that money being invested in modernizing our industry, invested in innovation, in job creation, we would already have achieved what we set out to achieve. We would be less dependent on a number of countries, and that's the objective that we have. We want to speed things up, and that's why we have this made in Europe approach in certain sectors. Now, in relation to nuclear, things are moving. Now you can say it's a shame we didn't do this before, but things are moving.
It's mentioned there's a strategic sector in the Accelerator Act where we want autonomous production. There's €200,000,000 that will be made available to support innovation in small modular reactors. And we've also changed the legislation to move from green to clean, so that we can integrate low carbon technology in our legislation and in the support that we provide. All of this work is ongoing, and it is badly needed. If we want electricity sovereignty, we need to adopt certain technologies, and that's certainly the objective that the commission is pursuing with this change in doctrine in relation to nuclear.
You have the second question.
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
Commissioner, what you say is very welcome, but the order of magnitude at which this is done is not enough. We're talking about tens of billions when we should be talking about hundreds of billions in terms of investment in innovation, and so on. And there are still too many regulatory obstacles. There are major obstacles, in particular when you look at the geopolitical shocks, and we don't think that all of this fits together. What you announced goes in the right direction, but the Green Pact runs counter to these objectives.
Stéphane Séjourné
Wouldn't you agree? Well, I hear that there is support for the competitiveness fund. It's over seven years that the money is available, but under the competitive competitiveness fund, we will be able to pursue decarbonization, have industries of the future be competitive. And I do believe that the commission has come up with investments in keeping with the challenges. There has to be political support for it as well, of course, because Parliament and Council deal with these matters too.
But the commission's proposal is ambitious. The budget was criticized because it was ambitious, including by your own political party, but I count on your support to top up that budget rather than have cuts to it.
Alexandr Vondra
Yeah. Thank you, commissioner, for being with us. I think that we may all agree that the key role of the commission is to be the guardian of the level playing field. And it exactly relates to my two questions here. The first issue is the exemption from the application of the EU procurement rules to electricity generation.
Speaker 33
We can agree that procurement obligation may hinder development, and that is exactly why the commission grants exemption to 10 member states, including Germany, Netherlands, and Denmark. While some others have not been exempted yet, like my country, the Czech Republic. I may pay tribute to the influence of the commissioners, Hoekstra, Jorgensen, or to the president of the commission herself, but I think, really, we need the equal treatment here. So I would like to know your comment on this and what are you going to do. And second question relates to my favorite issue, which is the EU taxonomy.
There is a growing political will, the commission to support SMRs and nuclear in general, and you play a very important role here. And you said that this is a strategic issue, not just a transitional one. So but we need to change the EU taxonomy to put this on equal treatment with the renewables. So when will you submit the new delegated act to taxonomy on nuclear? Thank you very much.
Commissioner?
Thank.
Stéphane Séjourné
you. The commission isn't going to reopen the issue of taxonomy on a legislative issue, but I think it was a hard compromise to find. It involved lengthy debates. And what I just said about opening up to other sources of energy production, particularly nuclear, I'll continue to defend that within the Commission. I think that the geopolitical context means that today, we can't move away from an energy mix.
We need independence and sovereignty on this continent in terms of energy. Now as to procurement, there is an exemption when the market is competitive, we're going to be reviewing that. I'd like to look at everything, and we need to see if we need to adapt. We can talk about that again if you wish. However, when it comes to the review procedures, I wanted to make it possible to ensure greater flexibility when we have an energy mix and when that is modified.
Perhaps that's the trade-off that we need to do. We do need flexibility. We've shown that in other sectors, particularly the automobile sector. And the energy sector also needs flexibility during periods of crisis, but the other side of the coin is that we also need to speed up the energy mix so that we're less dependent when we have crisis and volatility. When there are urgencies that call for financing of fossil fuels in emergency situations, well, why not?
But we need to speed up the mix. That's clear. And that is perhaps the balance that we need to strike in Europe. We need to grant the flexibility that you want when there is a strong commitment to produce energy independently. I know that the Czech Republic opted for nuclear energy.
Others make different choices, but that all needs to form part of the conception. We need that trade-off so that the European Union can be independent from an energy point of view as quickly as possible.
Speaker 33
No. Thanks for the second response. I agree with you and thank you for your bill. But I do not agree with you on the taxonomy, and you know that. It's taken as a transitional, the nuclear there, and we need to transform this into the strategic, exactly like renewables.
And if you are walking in the corridors, there are rumors that it's because Austria, despite losing the court case, is still continuing its legal challenge to the court of justice regarding the taxonomy. So we have heard a great deal of Viktor Orban's blackmail. So do you see the Austrian appeal as an obstacle to proposing a delegated act in a better form?
Stéphane Séjourné
I'm not going to answer your question directly. Nevertheless, for the time being, this is the commission's position. We're not going to be opening that legislative package on taxonomy. That's the commission's position. I understand what you're saying, but I don't have any mandate to open that up without the agreement of the commissioners, and without a collective decision.
There's a form of consensus here at the parliament that hasn't yet been reached. I take what you're saying. Nevertheless, the commission's position has not changed. I'm the vice president, and we're not changing the view.
Pascal
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mister Vice President, for your very strong words on the link between independence, freedom, sovereignty, and decarbonization. There's no opposition among them. On the contrary, electrification is the only way of getting a hold of our own destiny again, given the external shock. So whether it's linked to certain value chains, or critical materials, or fossil fuels.
So my question is, first and foremost, on the role that you want to play in the future electrification plan, which will arrive in a few weeks' time, and which will be the first time post Mideast war where the European Commission can truly pick up the gauntlet on electrification, both for political and geopolitical issues. I know you're not directly in charge of this. It's DG Ener. And I also know that the European Commission could settle for a new target-setting exercise, certain midterm objectives, fine, where we're going to again divide on whether this is binding, not binding, whether it's nuclear or non-nuclear, etcetera. Honestly speaking, there's no interest in that at all.
What's important, and I think what's important in your portfolio, in your responsibilities, is to think in the opposite direction. That is to think about the positives. Electrification is not a theory. It's reality. Specifically, what we deploy in terms of the supply, nuclear networks, energy efficiency, etcetera, as well as on the demand side with electrification, mobility, industrial heat, etcetera.
I mean, electrification is very concrete. It's not a theory. So what is your view of a successful plan proposed by the commission in a few weeks' time?
Commissioner.
Stéphane Séjourné
Merci. Thank you. Well, given the importance of the issue, the commission has decided to place this directly on the commission under the commission's responsibility. Is there a problem? Okay.
Only one mic is on now. So given how important this issue is, we have made this text a horizontal text, put it directly under the commission president's responsibility, who is in charge of making a presentation together with all of the commissioners and the commissioners responsible for the portfolios. On the plan itself, we know what the goals are. We want to get a handle on innovation, technology, and production. We want to increase our deployment capacity in terms of networks and infrastructure at the same time as creating a European consensus, which at the moment is very diverse.
Given, in fact, the difference in energy prices there are between the member states. And the more there's a difference in prices, which is starting to expand even between Italy, which has a very high energy price because they were very dependent on gas. We're about €150 per megawatt, and Spain, which has an Iberian exemption, in the electricity market, which is now €25 per kilowatt hour. And there, you've got a difference which doesn't really, to be quite honest, push member states to find any kind of convergence on an energy model because each one is playing to their competitiveness, and we ourselves are seeing the effects of internal competition even more. So the longer we wait, the longer we have to deal with the crisis, the more the oil prices rise, the harder it's going to be to find an agreement amongst ourselves if we just look at things from a mechanical point of view.
And that's the paradox that we have to get out of before it's too late. We've got national competences on the energy mix, European competence on decisions to be taken in terms of electricity market, aids, and financing that we can provide in terms of correcting, constructing networks, cross border of facilities, and grids, and then production and internalization of new technologies, clean tech, producing clean tech in Europe, and investment in tomorrow's new technologies. So all of that has to be looked at as a whole, with a bit of innovation. I mean, that's something we're very much in favor of, and we're very much waiting for your proposals, any kind of incentive mechanisms in addition to decarbonization? At the moment, this is only linked to the ETS with the limits, as I mentioned, on investment.
Do we need to find anything new on that? Do we need to change the existing ones? Well, that's the discussions that are ongoing amongst ourselves, which should allow us to end up with a plan which is efficient and effective in response to the urgent nature of the situation. So this is a fairly negative assessment, really. I mean, if we don't try to deal with it at the European level tomorrow, then the national considerations will take precedence, and the inequalities will continue to grow.
And if we don't manage to reconverge and synchronize things with a bit more aid, the question really is, is then do we aid a bit more those who are still too dependent on carbon-based fuels? I mean, that's a real political decision that will have to be made, but that's basically the data involved and what's on the table, and all of the parameters that will probably have to be looked at within this framework. Thank you very much. Well, my colleague Martin will come back to the issues linked to PFAS and the chemical industry as in the second phase. I have a second question on the competitiveness fund that you're in charge of.
Pascal
Within renew, we're very much attached to the issue of dual use. Brussels, Europe, for obvious and legitimate historical reasons, doesn't have any clear use of dual use concepts, unlike the Chinese or the Americans. The competitive fund that you're going to be in charge of will have various aspects. The main one, for example, we can discuss the amounts, but the main one is for wit defense and another one for decarbonization, the other for bioeconomy, etcetera. So there's an enormous amount of technology which is dual.
Fuel is dual. Drone, dual, material materials. So how, in terms of governance at your political level, not simply the technocrat level, how can you guarantee that the competitiveness fund is this hope for opportunity to create this dual use culture, which has produced extraordinary effects in the US, whether it's the Internet or geolocation?
Commissioner.
Stéphane Séjourné
Well, that's why this is called resilience and not just defense, because within that section, it covers raw materials, critical materials, certain number of dual use aid for industry for certain industries. Germany is in the process of switching part of its companies in terms of national rearmament, and their federal objectives have changed. So part of the automobile sector is being used with civilian technologies moving towards the military and vice versa. So we are in a changing economy with two priorities, our dependence and rearmament. In terms of defense, we need to have a competitive competitiveness fund which responds to both of those issues, which are very linked.
Our energy dependence is also our economic strength, where this all meshes, we need to be able to pick this up again and to allow us to have a strong European economy so that we can have a stronger voice in geopolitical issues. Once again, I agree with you. What's important is to maintain a certain amount of flexibility within these envelopes. I do think there's a tend trend towards including certain sectors or industries and to want to segment the competitiveness fund to be sure of the amount that the sector might have available or the company can have over the next seven years with some sort of predictability, but that's counterintuitive to our goals and the way the world is going. It's going very fast.
The things are changing, evolving, and there are priority requirements that are different. Last year, we mentioned defense issues. Today, we're talking about energy. Next year, there will be other priorities. I think the competitiveness fund must allow us to respond to those issues that as they crop up.
Maria Ohisalo
Thank you very much, Chair, dear Commissioner. I would like to start by expressing our strong concerns regarding the announcement in the Resource EU action plan of a possible revision of the Water Framework Directive. We urge the commission to refrain from reopening this cornerstone of European environmental legislation. Experience tells us that such a process would almost certainly lead to its weakening. I recognize Europe's strategic interest in advancing projects linked to critical raw materials and the green transition, of course.
However, there is no evidence that the water framework directive constitutes a structural barrier, as stated by the commission's own review, your reviews. On the contrary, delays are largely due to limited administrative capacity, insufficient resources and fragmented implementation across member states, as highlighted by the European Court of Auditors. Lowering environmental standards will not accelerate projects. It will increase uncertainty, discourage investments, and penalize responsible companies. Commissioner, as an MEP coming from Finland, I cannot leave the Critical Raw Materials Act unmentioned here.
The inclusion of the Sakatti mine in the list of strategic projects is deeply troubling. The project is located in the protected area of Viankiapa, part of the Natura 2000 network. Now also the Sokli mining project raises significant concerns regarding water contamination of the Nortioki River, which brings us back to the issue of the water framework directive. This is not just about certain mining projects, but it is about the credibility of our whole nature conservation system. So commissioner, my question is, how does the commission justify reopening the water framework directive when the real challenge lies in the implementation, and when doing so risks undermining both environmental protection and long-term economic stability?
Thank you.
Thank you, commissioner.
Thank.
Stéphane Séjourné
Thank you for your clear question. I'll try to respond as clearly as possible. But first, I'd like to try to convince you about the fact that we can't electrify everything and produce in Europe without opening mines in Europe, and at the same time, process and recycle. Once again, I fully understand, but it's a paradox that we need to all think about, because the entire debate on the need for electric vehicles to electrify everything we do and be more independent also involves not being 100% dependent on critical materials from China. So there are two options: production, recycling, and processing in Europe, and diversification with other provider countries.
EU resources is the strategy of reducing dependence. Then you spoke about the targeted opening of the WFD. The difficulty is that we had the Quiruna project about extracting raw materials and having the greatest amount in Europe to reduce our dependence there, with rejection or water levels far higher than the required quality, but companies couldn't extract. We're going to look at the project again, of course, but what I can tell you, and this is a commitment that all political groups could take, is to look at targeting only in this issue, to ensure the security of all of the major principles of that directive. That's a commitment that we could all take.
We'll also look at that with the political groups, but it's necessary from an economic and strategic point of view and one of sovereignty to be able to open that directive for European sovereignty. In terms of Finland, the Kimber is one of the examples of the mines that we labeled. Well, why did we do that? Because it's the highest possible quality lithium extracted in social and environmental conditions that can't be found elsewhere in the world, and that complies with the criteria set by law. Those are economic, environmental, and social criteria.
Therefore, we have all of the guarantees set to be able to label the strategic European project there. But then again, we need to break with that paradox. To make batteries in Europe, we need mines, and we need to ensure that we have the necessary extraction capacity, bearing in mind environmental practices, but that's the strategy.
One question?
Maria Ohisalo
Yes. Thank you very much, commissioner, for your answer. One of the problems here is that by trying to modify something small and then coming to this house, there is a huge risk that these projects might be diluted a lot. And I want you to understand the risk and know that there is always the risk, for example, of the right to couple with the far right, and then a lot of the environmental and climate legislation might be in danger. One big question is also regarding different strategic projects, the local people support here.
So I want to ask you, commissioner, how do you ensure the public support for the green transition in general and the credibility of the union's environmental legislation when these strategic projects go clearly against the will of local governance and environmental concerns are not being addressed before the project selection.
Commissioner.
Stéphane Séjourné
Once again, on strategic projects, we comply with the criteria. It's not a political decision to support such and such extraction, recycling, or processing in critical raw materials, but the criteria were set by the co-legislators. And we follow labeling depending on, in accordance with strict criteria. I can open new tender processes, but the process of selection itself is done by groups of experts who comply with the criteria very carefully, to allow for the transition, to allow for the funding of that transition, to create jobs. And that's perhaps the issue of deployment to production, and we need to look at that here.
We can't deploy all of the new technologies to say that we're green and that we're going to ensure this transition, but we need to ensure that deployment goes hand in hand with industry and production. That's what I have to do to create jobs and also to make it possible to include the companies in the business case for the strategy. That's what's at stake over the coming months and years. We need to ensure that we have the conditions and industrial policy that is in line with the decarbonization policy. And that's where we want to establish our strategy for the new European economic model.
Now at the.
Left, Katrina Martins.
Thank you. I'll speak in Portuguese.
Catarina Martins
Commissioner. I was listening to the debate on competitiveness, and it came to mind that the GAP results were higher than 40%. Repsol, at 153%. BP, 453%. And I assume that investors are paying the price of the cost of living.
I'm not sure what the competitiveness is there. I also have some problems with the debate that thinks that decarbonization can be left aside. It can't be. I agree. But I think that biodiversity is important too.
To give you an example, in my country, in a few hours, a windstorm destroyed significant amounts of the GDP. And after the wind destroyed everything, we have the risk of forest fires. So, climate and biodiversity are essential. Commissioner, we have a huge crisis currently with the war that the USA and Israel are waging against Iran. I think that the European Union is not behaving appropriately.
It's not doing what it can to stop the war, but at the same time, there's a clear problem of the cost of living and employment that's affecting the industry, SMEs as well, which form a significant part of European employment possibilities. We need to ensure that this crisis can be overcome by preventing permits for polluting companies. The polluter pays principle should be used. We need to focus on all decarbonization objectives. We need to also think about the impact on the cost of living and employment.
So what do you think of that possibility, and what are the commitments that might be undertaken?
First.
Stéphane Séjourné
Of all, the commission has always sought to ensure flexibility, and we did that with the first war in Ukraine and the issue of Russian gas, and we're continuing to do that. The situations in the member states differ greatly. Sincerely, some member states are able to provide targeted aid. Others seek to compensate a number of producers who are making huge profits during the period. There's been an inflation of prices during the war in Ukraine.
We continue to give flexibility to the member states. But what I might say to you, madam, is that if we think that this crisis is not isolated, and that there will probably be no going back, or if there is going back, it might be temporary. And if we don't look behind at all the money mobilized and lost by Europeans during the crisis, what we need to do is ensure the necessary flexibility to deal with the situation for consumers and for the industry, but we can't make drastic changes with regard to our energy mix. Now, for those reasons, we need European consensus on the fact that the crisis isn't an isolated crisis. It isn't because there's one form that went from 2022 to 2024, and it wasn't a situational crisis because we have long-term supply issues.
All of those issues need to be put on the table. I'm willing to make the trade-off that I mentioned between structural measures and flexibility, either in terms of permits or taxing super profits, and also accelerating the change in the mix and decarbonizing our economy. And if we manage to do that and we respond to the emergency and we can prepare the future, that will enable us to deal with any future crises and be better prepared. Currently, we're just reacting. We're permanently reacting to situations.
We need to prepare for crises. We know how much that will cost, and we know what leads to dependence. So we need to act in both those spheres.
One question.
Catarina Martins
Commissioner, making the most, or subsidizing companies that pollute the most is an error when it comes to decarbonizing the economy. It doesn't ensure jobs because it doesn't cover all of the companies, and nor does it guarantee the fight against the crisis of cost of living. When you talk about supporting families, you say we need targeted measures. But then when it comes to industries, we're enabling people to earn more. These aren't targeted measures.
So I agree with you that we need to be prepared for future crises. What I wonder is, don't you think it's time to do away with isolating the Iberian Peninsula? The Iberian Peninsula produces some of the cheapest energy in the European Union. You're saying that nuclear can be the future, but that costs 4 times more. If we allow for renewables in the rest of Europe, we would decarbonize, and energy would be cheaper for all the people.
Is that or not a strategic objective for clean energy and industry in Europe?
Energy.
Stéphane Séjourné
Infrastructure is a priority. I said it in the introduction. And I think that now we need to take decisions so that we can progress with infrastructure that is currently too dependent on bilateral agreements, but would be of general interest in Europe, particularly cross-border infrastructure involving numerous countries. And there's a contradiction, the divergence of our energy mix, and that needs to be looked at, but this is why I was focusing on nuclear energy. We need diversification.
Portugal probably has more sun and more wind than a number of other countries in the center of the European Union, which don't have that cleantech. So the member states need to be allowed to have different technology as long as they fulfill the objectives we've set of sovereign production of electricity, energy independence. That's why the commission is changing its doctrine when it comes to nuclear. For the rest, madam, that's up to the member states. I was responsible in the national government.
We promoted a number of cross-border facilities, but now political discourse needs to lead to acts. I fully agree. We need to connect the Iberian Peninsula. I think that's a.
Stéphane Séjourné
Idea both for the European Union and energy production, but also for the Iberian Peninsula in terms of supply security. But we would need a political agreement, and that's not up to the Commission to decide for the member states.
Last of the first round.
Anja Arndt
I'll be speaking, chairman. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, mister. In the case of the combustion engine, Europe was strong. Engines, transmission software development, all of that was rooted in Europe for decades, and we were in the lead across the world.
And that means that value creation was here, profit was here, salaries were paid here, and taxes were generated here. The combustion engine wasn't just an engine. It was an engine of prosperity for Europe, and it's exactly that engine of prosperity that you are destroying because there are fatal new problems that you are creating by forcing us to go to vehicles. In the case of e-vehicles, the most important and the most expensive part, the battery, is not in European control. China controls the majority of battery production.
80% is produced by China. And even if we were to have batteries in Europe, we would continue to be dependent because we import 100% of our lithium. That basically means that we can build factories in Europe. But if raw materials, precursors, and key materials come from China, it's expensive and dangerous. In addition to that, there are magnets.
For those, we use rare earth metals such as neodymium. And, again, the situation is critical. China controls 60% of the global extraction of these rare earth materials. They control 91% of the processing and 94% of the permanent magnet production. This is something that you are ignoring, it's a dangerous situation.
If China were to stop the export or restrict the export of batteries and these raw materials and magnets, then it's not just one bit that's missing. No. It's key components that go missing for e-vehicles, and our assembly lines will grind to a halt. This has happened in the past. In 2025, in fact, China put rare earths on export control lists.
And in European car manufacturing, there was an exceptional situation, which is that our conveyor belts ground to a halt because the materials were not available. And basically, you're still going for electrification of cars, and this is a political priority. Now in the commission, you will say all day long that Europe needs to move away from the imports of fossil fuels. But what are you doing? You are forcing our car industry into a new dependence on one country only, which is China.
You talk about resilience, but you are creating a vulnerability. You talk about independence, but you are creating a new dependency. You talk about transition de industrialization and so on. But in the case of e-vehicles, we are losing control, the control that we had in the case of combustion engines. And that's why I'm asking you, how would you explain to citizens that the commission apparently wants to save our car manufacturing, but at the same time is forcing that same industry to become dependent on China?
Commissioner.
Madam, deputy.
Stéphane Séjourné
Dear member of parliament, point by point, you've made a case for an industrial policy and for reducing our levels of dependence, and your German citizens buying more e-vehicles to the tune of 60% uptick are basically showing that we're on the right track. You're clinging to an old model for political reasons, probably, but that won't stop the European Commission from making sure that European sovereignty on this issue is supported and guided. Again, we noticed that crisis after crisis, we're dependent on fossil fuels. There's the Russian gas crisis that's cost us $1,500,000,000,000. It costs the European economy, in particular Germany.
Then there's the crisis in Iran. Again, we're not involved in that in any way. But in terms of buying additional fossil fuels, it's costing us €25,000,000. Jobs in Germany are being lost, 20,000 jobs a month, and I don't think it's the combustion engine that is saving those jobs currently. So you need to flank this change and produce in Europe, but that means that you also impose your own technology.
It means that you go for innovation, and it means producing a part of the vehicles in Europe. That's why we have the Accelerator Act. And 70% of vehicles produced in Europe need components that are produced in Europe. And I don't want to wait for China to cut off our supply of raw materials. I want us to source those raw materials.
So I come to the opposite conclusion than you. We'll continue to promote an integrated industrial policy, the made in Europe for producing, and will diversify our markets with new partners.
Thirty seconds.
Anja Arndt
There are penalties to be paid by the car manufacturers because CO2 emission targets per kilometer have been brought down. And these penalties and the fact that jobs are being lost is something that will destroy the car industry before your flanking measures kick in, and before that transition occurs. So there's a real need to act, and I would ask you once again to take a position on this. What can you do concretely now for the car industry, and are you willing to do away with the penalty payments?
Well,
Stéphane Séjourné
On these fines and penalties, we've already taken a decision. We allow greater flexibility. We don't want fines to be imposed on car manufacturers who are facing a difficult situation. In fact, we're looking at subsidies to try to help them. So there seems to be this paradox on the one hand to ask them to pay fines and then at the same time to look for financing so that jobs can be kept and production can be kept.
So we've taken that decision this year. We'll continue to do so for next years if necessary, but the figure seem to indicate that for the next year, there is no need to do this. There are historic levels of e-vehicle sales over the past few months that will continue over the next months. And the purchase of an e vehicle, be it a secondhand vehicle or a new vehicle, is becoming more and more profitable given the geopolitical context. So we're fairly confident that car manufacturers will be in a position to sell enough vehicles to meet the targets that we have set collectively.
Now if there is a need for further flexibility, we'll make sure it is available. We always have. We want to flank the industrial transition, but not by getting rid of jobs or closing factories.
Pierfrancesco Maran
The second round, we are really late. The commissioner asked for ten minutes more. I not kindly, but I will give 60 seconds, everybody, and no more. We start with Stefan Koller.
Stefan Köhler
Yeah. Thank you, chair. Dear commissioner, thank you very much for appearing before us today. I wanted to use the opportunity to follow up on a letter that several of my German EPP colleagues and I sent to you in April. In the letter, we addressed our concerns regarding the patentability of NGTs and the potentially insufficient safeguards in the upcoming legislation.
In our view, the directive on biopatterns needs to be refused and adjusted if necessary to clarify the scope of patentability of NGTs. We called on you to provide a clear political signal ahead of the plenary vote. When can we expect your reply, or maybe you can give us some clarification today? Thank you very much.
Thank you. Ellen Fritzsson.
Heléne Fritzon
Thank you. I'll continue in Swedish. Yeah. Welcome, and yeah.
Welcome, Vice President. This is a very good opportunity to speak about chemicals. I need to say that I'm very disappointed that you don't want to look further into reach. This is the most ambitious legislation that we have in the world, but we need to cover some areas that are lacking. The commission is talking about simplifications.
Often this only concerns deregulation. We have an example in the omnibus. So, is there a political will to enhance the protection against hazardous chemicals? I hope I would be proven wrong that you have lowered the level of ambition. But, my question is, are you willing to go for prohibitions of dangerous chemicals?
Speaker 43
The changes that we have now will not protect the health of the people.
Speaker 44
Thank you, chairman. Well, thank you, Commissioner. You talked about a change in doctrine and strategy. We're convinced that this needs to be done because of issues, and we're heading towards deindustrialization. And that's why we are asking for this change. On energy, does the commission really have thoughts about a single energy market?
Speaker 45
Have you thought about this instability pact? Will it make our industry larger to, for example, the green steel industry? They're being discriminated against because there's a rigidity of the DNS. So I'm wondering whether we can head in a different direction on this, again. Are you willing to look at critical raw materials? We need to take scrap out of the equation.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you very much, and welcome, Executive Vice President. Now to start with chemicals, as Pascal promised, I besides the expected action on the PFAS, I'm wondering whether there's gonna be any action from the side of the commission on the endocrine disruptors. If you look at the vote we had on the chemical omnibus, there were only a few votes missing from changes requiring action on cosmetics on the endocrine disruptors. And I think this is definitely an area which needs the commission's attention, also for the sake of circular economy. Second, in terms of the energy, I'm wondering whether the Commission is planning any action or anything to do vis-à-vis the overall design of the market, especially the bidding zones, and intervene to ASEAN's competencies here?
And second, what are if there are any updates on the planned actions vis-à-vis the geothermal action plan, especially the next generation geothermal technologies, because this is a baseload that is available everywhere. Thank you.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes. Thank you, and thank you, Vice President. I will leave the courtesy for some other day, in view of the time constraint, and go straight to the question. We know after the stakeholder dialogue you hosted last week on the Circular Economy Act that the message from stakeholders really are consistent that the Circular Economy Act is the most ambitious and positive industrial and environmental promise of this mandate. That also means we need to get it right, and we heard a fear from them that it would be a bit the low hanging fruit and just waste regulation that we will see in it.
So I want to hear from you today that you keep the high level of ambitions that you are not trimming back already, and also that you're using not just low hanging fruits, but actually go and use trade measures so we get also virgin material cost up and so forth. So really reiterate your promise that this will be ambitious.
Emma FOUR
Commissioner, are you a seller of cancer? Last week, the European Parliament adopted the chemical products omnibus with regard to health and the environment. And then the banning of PFAS and endocrine interrupters wasn't adopted because of the right and the far right. We're poisoning people. Cancer is a political disease.
Speaker 48
It's the disease of capitalism. Since the 90s, the number of people affected by cancer in France has doubled. That's the result of a deadly political choice, refusing the ban of PFAS and endocrine disruptors in all kinds of products. You are making a choice. You're allowing industry to profit to the detriment of our health.
Speaker 49
Mister Sejeune, when are you going to do away with the Macron ridiculous situation by saying that we need to treat the causes rather than the effects? You have the ability and the duty to do that, and we're going to do that next year.
Roland KANEFF
Thank you, Chair, Mister Vice President. Our decarbonization policy has been based on so-called price signals or deliberate inflation of fossil-based fuels for at least two decades now. Now and for several years, we are living in a situation of the strongest possible price signal, which is not artificial, by the way, and not legislative compared to ETS. And we are already facing the even stronger market signal, which is a shortage of fossil fuels. In this situation, the production of any kind of alternative fuels from biofuels to hydrogen to synthetic fuels could be not only beneficial, but it could only be publicly accepted, which is not really the case for electrification.
Speaker 50
And here, my question is, I don't see any priority on alternative fuels, modernization of refineries, etc., etc., in any of the commission documents and legislative proposals. I think this is a great gap that we should fix as a matter of hours, and not months.
Thank you.
César Luena
I'd like to protest formally because it's not normal that eight MEPs can talk to the vice president for 20 minutes, and then 12 or 15 people only have 15 minutes. It's just unfair, and I don't think that that's right in this chamber. Now I've heard you're concerned about the energy crisis, sir. I do agree with all of the omnibus regulations too, I don't know if I agree with all of the regulations providing exceptions. But when you talk about nuclear energy, and I can see you seem to be attached to that, but, you're ready to promote nuclear energy as far as I've understood.
If you have time, you can answer, of course. But then, listen. With everything you've said about energy, you haven't said a word about the Santa Marta summit. Not a single word. That's pretty significant.
Now if you've got time in this disastrous debate that we've had this morning, well, perhaps you can answer. A number, another question, if I may, on deforestation, the regulation. There was another turn of the key yesterday. I don't know if you've got anything to say about what happened. And then on lead and the withdrawal of lead bullets.
Does that mean, or is that another surrender to the sectors? Because I don't know if you've been listening to the MEPs.
Speaker 57
Thank you, chairman, Mr. commissioner. The current international client shows the fragility and the structural problems in Europe in terms of fossil fuel dependency, and you've recalled that there's no going back before the next crisis. So in this, electrical development is obviously a solution as long as we don't undermine nuclear as they've done, as Macron has done with the closure of Fessenheim two days ago. Another way the EU and France are at the forefront and present economic and environmental advantages is biofuels, biodiesel for example, and bioethanol. The share of this, however, in the fuels market is limited by the fuel quality directive, based on an arbitrary ceiling.
Speaker 56
Now in the current context, my question is, is a simple easy to imply measure that would be efficient, is that should that not be simple to apply for an updating of this directive to avoid any sort of shortages and to limit fossil fuel energy in our mix?
Sigrid Friis
Thank you, and thank you, Stephane, Commissioner, for being here today. I really appreciate it. I want to also put a highlight on PFAS as not only a health and environmental problem, but also a critical issue for our companies and for our competitiveness. In Europe, we already have innovative companies that are marketing or develop PFAS-free alternatives in critical sectors like batteries, heat pumps, hydrogen, solar panels, wind turbines, but their innovation and their competitiveness is increasingly at risk. We see how China is leading the world in the PFAS-free patterns.
It's followed by the US and Japan. The only European country in the top 10 ranking is Germany, but we could be about to lose yet another innovation and competitiveness race. A comprehensive PFAS phase-out across all sectors could create more market space for these European companies' innovative products to succeed. That's why I think it's important that the Commission gives a clear commitment towards a strong, universal PFAS restriction in order to help not only citizens' health, the state of our environment, but also the European companies. Could you intend to include industrial uses in the scope of the restriction?
And if a comprehensive PFAS restriction doesn't cover both consumer use and industrial use, how will U. S. Commission incentivizes companies to innovate further towards safer chemicals and keep up also in the global competition. Thank you.
Thank you. Commissioner.
Stéphane Séjourné
Well, I can, I'll try to be brief but clear on new genomic techniques. Reach an agreement on that. I'm happy with that. There is one point on patents. I know what sort of commitments have been made in the commission, and I can confirm to you that we will fulfill our obligations, in particular in terms of transparency on those that issue.
Obviously, the agreement was between the co-legislators. We take note of that agreement. The question of transparency will be key there. On PFAS, I won't come back to the balance I referred to in my introductory comments and the different questions, but endocrine disruptors are another subject for which we also want to be able to act. And there's a pillar in our modernization approach with two elements in the endocrine risk disruptors.
We want to be able to restrict and identify them, but we want to, the question is how to be effective in ban or restricting those that are already identified by scientists. And the second category, those who are not yet identified, that need to be identified. So we have both of those aspects. Now to see how all of that fits into the balance with the simplification aspects without weakening the whole system, that's another issue. But we will also be looking at that issue in the balance, that I mentioned.
Flexibility, stability pact, all of those aspects were given by the commission during crisis moments. We've always favorably responded to member states either for recovery plans, relaunch plans, or in the framework of flexibility that we need to grant to member states to be able to deal with a given crisis. Once again, member states are not in the same situation in terms of the energy crisis. It's not the same overall. I mean, we mentioned the Italian situation.
We'll be able to discuss this again. I mean, the question is how long will this crisis last? Have we hit the maximum yet, or is there a prospect for a worsening situation? We depend on that, that we look at flexibility over the coming period. On the circularity issues, we have ongoing discussions in the college on that this week, in fact.
We'll be defending what I mentioned. So a series of interventions to try and stimulate the single market in terms of secondary raw materials, in particular. I think that's key given the context. We do see that part of our raw materials are sent out of the EU borders. There should be possibilities for looking at this in a business case.
And secondly, then on equipment waste, we should be able to modernize and even indeed standardize the definitions so that we can have a real internal market in that area. The third pillar in the Circular Economy Act, there will be different accompanying measures to reinforce the business case, the real business case in companies, because, in the end, we need to have a new economic sector opening up. We can't remain with public subsidies to try and get a circular model up and running. We need to look at this in our legislation as well. On the signal sent out, yes, we've based all of our strategy on the price signal.
This has been exceeded linked to the economic crisis situation. That's why I mentioned at the beginning the fact that we are open to proposals as well from member states and from the Parliament about new, more inventive provisions which go beyond just a price signal. Ben would allow us to speed up our energy sovereignty strategy. As far as biofuels, we have supported the reviews and changes. If we think of CO2 standards and the 2,035 goals in production of e-vehicles and technological neutrality that we've integrated as a principle during this review.
Biofuels are part of that strategy because they fit into the production of the European construction production criteria for energy sovereignty. We have understood prices and flexibility for the moment. We need to look at the profitability of the fuel as well. It is still a niche product, but if we look at the prices per liter, in any case, we don't want to exclude it. It's part of the deal that we have agreed to during the automobile package, and we'll take account of this in our discussions between the co-legislators on that as well.
The Santa Marta summit, I think it's the energy commissioner who needs to be asked about the international discussions on that subject, including relations with our partners. No doubt, mister will be very open to responding to you on the goals and definition of our European work in the discussions at the international level. An exception for lead, sir, we have included an exception for defense and security. I think that needs to take place. That was a decision we took in any case in terms of munitions and defense, the framework of these exceptions that will be authorized exceptions for lead shot.
Speaker 58
So I try to be as brief as possible, and yet still be specific given all the questions I received. Thank you for this exchange.
Speaker 59
For the commissioner, I apologize with the colleague for our delay, and now we have a quick pause to change the organization.
Avila Luk
So through the morning. Good morning, everyone, and I have the pleasure to open this joint meeting of the Econ and the R and D Committee and to welcome the R and D Chair, Pierre Francesco Maran, and all members present as well as Astrid Cousin, Director of Horizontal Policies in Digifismar, to this meeting. If there are no objections, the agenda is adopted. And for this meeting, we have interpretation in 12 languages. This meeting will be web streamed as usual.
We will now move to the adoption of the minutes. If there is no objection, the minute of the meeting of 12/03/2025 is adopted. Today, the Joint Economic Committee will exchange views with the commission on the implementation of the EU taxonomy regulation and the review of technical screening and the do no significant harm criteria. On 03/17/2026, the commission published for consultation a package of two draft delegated acts under the EU taxonomy regulation, which amend the existing climate and environmental delegated acts, forming part of a broader review of the technical screening criteria under the taxonomy regulation. According to the commission, these two draft delegated acts aim to address identified implementation challenges by clarifying and simplifying technical screening criteria, including the do not significant harm criteria, and review the so-called transitional activities in the climate delegated act.
Their review also responds to the legal obligation under the taxonomy regulation to regularly review and, where appropriate, amend the technical screening criteria. So two proposed amending the Legated Act are closely linked to the recent Omnibus One Sustainability Simplification Package and the Commission Communication, a competitive compass for the EU. The two draft delegated acts are scheduled for adoption in mid-June 2026, with the objective of coming into effect by January 2027. So I will now pass the floor to my co-chair, Pierre Francesco Maran, for his opening remarks.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you very much, dear Avila Luk. I apologize again to all the colleagues for our delay, but this meeting is very timely. Indeed, in addition to discussion, the two delegated acts, today's meeting will also be an opportunity to hear the commission about the so-called reality check on the taxonomy technical screening criteria conducted during the second semester of 2025 to a series of sector-specific workshops. I will now give the floor to Asit Kosen, director of horizontal policy in DG FISMA. Missus Kosen, have the floor for 7 minutes.
Thank you.
Astrid COUSIN
Good morning, everyone. Thank you, madam chair Aluk, mister chair Mahan, honorable members. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. That is indeed quite timely. Our exchange today gives me the opportunity to inform you about the proposed amendment on the EU taxonomy climate and environmental delegated acts, which are currently under review by the commission. Let me first start by reaffirming that the sustainable finance agenda remains a core priority of this commission.
In a world where geopolitical tension, energy volatility, and supply chain vulnerability have become the new normal, Europe's transition to a clean and circular economy is a strategic imperative for European competitiveness. It's a driver of resilience, innovation, and long-term prosperity. The EU taxonomy is instrumental to that agenda. It is far more than just a reporting tool. It's a cornerstone of Europe's ability to channel capital or invest investment towards activity that advance both climate, environmental ambition, and our energy sovereignty.
In an era where Europe must urgently reduce its dependence on fossil fuel imports, and accelerate the development of homegrown clean energy, the taxonomy can help to mobilize private finance at scale. The numbers speak for themselves. Over the past five years, corporate investment in taxonomy aligned activities have surpassed €1,000,000,000,000. This figure covers not only green projects but also greening of sectors facing the steepest transition challenges. This demonstrates that the real economy is generally delivering on the clean transition. Yet we must ensure that our taxonomy remains fit for purpose and serves European competitiveness, a framework that is overly complex or cumbersome risks deterring any investment rather than mobilizing it.
This is why simplification and ambition must go hand in hand in this review. The commission, as you know, is committed to simplification for EU businesses, one that is a burden on businesses while maintaining the union climate and environmental ambition. With no Omnibus ONE package, we have worked towards simplifying and refining EU sustainability regulation, notably sustainability reporting, sustainability due diligence, and taxonomy disclosure. Building on that and with the clear link that you mentioned, the commission is now thoroughly reviewing the technical screening criteria of the EU taxonomy. Those technical screening criteria are those against an activity that is assessed to see whether it is taxonomy aligned, compliant to the taxonomy.
These criteria are science-based performance thresholds used to determine two things. First, if an activity generally supports the EU environmental goals, this is what we call substantial contribution to the green agenda. And second, if this activity is done without causing harm elsewhere. This is the so-called do not significant harm criteria. It's important to remind that taxonomy alignment is not mandatory.
It is compulsory. It's not mandatory. It's facultative. It's rather a tool for business to attract green financing. The ongoing review of this criteria draws on extensive consultation with the platform on sustainable finance and the stakeholders.
In this process of ongoing review, we consulted and organized a series of 11 sector-specific workshops held between September and December, which were dedicated to review all of the taxonomy technical screening criteria, in particular, the do not significant harm criteria. This workshop proved to be an invaluable reality check, bringing together more than 250 stakeholders from sector specific industry representatives, NGOs, academia and financial sector participants. They all provided concrete feedback on the practical challenges to implementing the technical screening criteria. Finally, we had also more than 430 stakeholders responding to our call for evidence launch in November, and we just received over 460 submissions in reply to publication of the draft delegated act, which we are currently assessing. The feedback received was very clear.
We need to clarify, refine certain criteria on substantial contribution and do not do significant harm. We need to reduce unintended complexity, and we need to ensure better alignment with updated union legislation. Therefore, our review is guided by three objectives. The first one is to improve the usability, the clarity and the proportionality of the taxonomy by simplifying, streamlining the provision where appropriate, and improving coherence across the different activities. Second, updating the criteria to reflect the recent policy, legislative, and technology developments.
And third, addressing concrete implementation challenges raised by supervisors and stakeholders to ensure a consistent and reliable application of the taxonomy. The result will be an evidence-based revision, a revision that will maintain the taxonomy long-term purpose while ensuring that the technical screening criteria are more operational, are more proportionate, and are consistent with the recent legislative changes. Out of a total of 242 activities that are currently covered in the taxonomy, we are amending the substantial contribution criteria for 200 activities and amending the do not significant arm criteria for all activities. For businesses, this will translate into less red tape, greater reliance on existing documents and permits, easier demonstration of alignment with the EU taxonomy criteria, and therefore, better access to green finance. What I'm presenting today this morning is not a step back for ambition.
It's a step forward in delivering it. A taxonomy that works in practice is a taxonomy that drives real-world impact. Europe's sustainable transition, its energy independence, and its industrial competitiveness are not competing objectives. They are mutually reinforcing. And the EU taxonomy, when properly calibrated and well implemented, is one of the most powerful instruments we have to pursue all three instruments.
Avila Luk
The review is therefore a product, as you have seen, of a rigorous consultation, real world feedback, a genuine commitment to making our sustainable finance frameworks work for businesses, investors and, ultimately, for citizens. Chair, honorable members, thank you for your attention, and I look forward to our exchanges.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you, Ms. Astrid Cousin. So let's now move to the Q and A session. We will group the question, and then the European Commission will answer. So I will start with the ECO and EPP members, Mr.
Lewandowski, for one point, minutes. Thank you.
Good morning again, madam chair. I welcome, of course, the intention to simplify. This is the most vocabular, the more fashionable vocabulary nowadays in this season in the American commission. But if this is real, that is another question. For me, this is rather disappointing.
Taxonomy is still too difficult to evidence. The institutions, companies are not only asked to declare whether this is sustainable, but they should collect detailed data, data proof that this is really sustainable. It might not be easily accessible. And this is especially a problem for SMEs and individual beneficiaries. For example, a household applying for a renovation loan cannot realistically provide complex do no significant harm evidence.
This is really hardly possible. Once it has been checked in the value chain, the financing institution shouldn't be asked to repeat it once more. And in some cases, I find it more difficult and not simple. For example, buildings, lowering the threshold for air tightness and thermal integrity from 5,000 to 1,000 square meters that brings more households into the scope of this regulation, not quite available data in energy performance certificates. There is always a cost to work constant change.
Some I am at the end, of course. But yes. My, please. Last point is about timing, and this is important.
Good point, timing.
Avila Luk
And it should apply since January 2027 and may be used for financial year 2026. So the question is whether this is really making simpler for beneficiaries and whether some more implementation timeline is possible.
Speaker 65
Thank you, Mr. Levonorsky. Please respect your allocation of time, because some members also want to take the floor. So as I said, we will group the question, and I now give the floor to Serpa Pitikainen for APP. No, you asked for the floor.
No, you did not. Okay, sorry. Apologies.
In general, discussion.
Speaker 65
Hello. Good morning. Thank you. Thank you, chair. The MEP of my group who is in charge directly of taxonomy cannot attend this meeting.
But in any case, my group from Econ side have some comments. Yeah. And I think that we have to share our views. Yeah. So I think it's important to have regular updates on the ongoing work in taxonomy.
Our group has expressed concerns on the recent tax when it comes to this file. These concerns have been both on the content and also on the reality of the tax. We have seen the attentive weakening of standards and deadlines through the back door. However, our group remains committed to a genuine simplification of the use of the taxonomy for companies. Indeed, the reports have shown that there are still challenges in the taxonomy uptake, especially when it comes to alignment.
However, concerns that the change that is currently proposed will not improve the usability of the criteria for companies and financial institutions. The 2026 draft, the Leggetitat, adds cross references to a wide range of new legislation. And we are not sure whether they really bring simplification, especially for smaller companies, as they will have to check all underlying articles on national transposition. On the other hand, to our concerns, the trend of that of this draft is that the standards are weakened and deadlines are extended. So we would like to see another balance in which standards are upheld and usability is improved.
Annalisa Corrado
So this is a word of questions against weakening the standards agreed by legislators because it does very little for usability of the framework and other mines its credibility. We ask the commission to reflect on that. Thank you so much.
Thank you. NV, S and D, Analisa Corrado.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, also, to the Commission. Now the European taxonomy regulation is one of the cornerstones of our sustainable finance framework, and it's a real competitive advantage for Europe because it provides clear reference points based on science for investments. And we want to improve how it is applied, and we want to align it to the key priorities of the EU, such as the energy transition and developing zero emission technologies. But in doing so, we need to avoid simplification turning into a weakening of the system, and there is that risk given the broad economic activities that are being considered.
In this proposal, there are some elements that do go in that direction, and we therefore seek clarification, do no significant harm. How should we read the compliance with this existing legislation being applied increasingly? Isn't this turning a rigorous selection instrument into one that looks merely at compliance? If you then look at construction materials as a sector, how can we make sure that weakening or lowering certain thresholds doesn't pose a risk to what is really the circular economy? Then on renewables and bioenergy, the commission states that aligning it to the RED sustainability criteria is enough.
Astrid COUSIN
Is that true if you want environmental integrity under the taxonomy? More generally and in closing, let me say, when can we expect a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the taxonomy on investment flows, in particular when it comes to the mobilization of private finance and closing the gap for investments in the transition, in the light of the various adjustments that you've introduced over the past few years? Thank you.
Thank you. I give the floor back to the commission for five minutes to answer this question.
Thank you very much. Indeed, what we are trying to do based on the extensive consultation is to reach a balance between simplification and still meeting the target of the taxonomy, which is having the ambition to be climate-neutral by 2050. 1 important element. So the first question on the taxonomy is too difficult and too detailed to comply, especially for household and SMEs. One important element to have in mind is that the taxonomy does not apply to households nor to SMEs.
They are out of scope. Also, individuals are out of scope. The do not significant harm criteria for household renovation was simplified, and an exemption for residential buildings is being added. The homeowner do not have to comply or to provide documents on the types of material used or appliance installed, and bank can still give them a taxonomy aligned loan. So they are out of scope.
This ensures that green financing is made accessible and also for smaller innovation by private individuals without any complex paperwork for the homeowner and other innovation company they are using. As regard mandatory taxonomy reporting, as you know, these only apply to the very large companies. So only very large companies are now subject to mandatory reporting. SME and smaller large company can use a taxonomy only when it is useful for them. In terms of the balance between genuine simplification and not to weaken the standard, the criteria that we are reviewing were subject to a comprehensive review, as I explained, really taking into account the recommendation made by the platform on sustainable finance or the experts and the different stakeholders, including NGOs and financial markets participants and industrial representatives.
So we really try to not lose sight of the purpose of the taxonomy, which is essentially aiming at channeling investment towards best-in-class activities from an environmental perspective. This means that only the most virtuous production methods will be eligible for the EU taxonomy. And lowering the standard drastically could expose us to potential legal challenge and have indeed a counterproductive effect. Having said that, and going back to how to make sure that it's simplified in a way that is balanced. On the do not significant arm principle, we are proposing to review all the criteria on the do not significant arm, including in the appendixes, which I outlined the generic do not the horizontal do not significant arm criteria.
This criterion will be streamlined and simplified, taking into account the feedback submitted by the stakeholders. Where possible, we, in the text, will outline possible ways of demonstrating compliance with the criteria, including using permits and alternative available documentation. Again, the review is with the purpose of making the taxonomy more usable, more practical to use. On the do not significant arm criteria, also to mention that this on the specific activities, we are also following the similar logics and with changes to be more concrete and to simplify the do not significant arm criteria for specific activities. I think that's it.
Maybe one word on the construction materials. The threshold to reuse or recycle construction material was raised from 70% to 85% to acknowledge the developing standard in market practice. We do take note of the different stakeholder feedback that this threshold is difficult to meet, but we will continue our discussion on this, and we really want to achieve the best-in-class ambition targets. And one last flow response on the monitoring of the capital flow. The platform on sustainable finance and the commission are working together to continue to monitor this monitoring exercise in order to update the data on a regular basis.
Thank you.
Ondřej Knotek
Thank you for NVPFE, Andrej Knoektech.
Thank you, madam chair, colleagues. The proposal is not sufficient. We need the taxonomy much more in line with the technical and global reality. What does this mean? So on the nuclear, the new construction permits and lifetime extensions, sunset clauses need to be prolonged by 25 years at least.
And also for nuclear, the fuel life cycle must be included, which is not going on today. On gas, regarding fossil gas fuels, the transitional period is also to be prolonged by, again, at least ten years. And, second point on exclusion of gas transition infrastructure for low carbon gases is also not a good direction forward. On the bioenergy, the power generation and heat cooling cogeneration. So for this, the full exclusion of blending with fossil fuels only slows down the transitional process.
On the do no significant harm compliance, the IPPC or EIA approvals shall be fully sufficient to demonstrate do no significant harm compliance, and this should be in the legally binding part of the text, which is not today. Last, not least, element, chemical substances. It's not realistic for a company always to track down 100% of necessary information in the value chain. So this also needs to be considered, that we do not put aside projects or chemicals just because we don't have 100 of the information. I have mentioned one two three four five elements, but this is just on the top of the iceberg.
Alexandr Vondra
There are many of them that could be put forward, and this only confirms that the taxonomy and the delegated acts are not covering the reality. We need to open the whole regulation and do the job seriously again. Thank you.
Alexandr Vondra
Thank you. The EU taxonomy is one of the most powerful tools we have to direct the capital towards a cleaner future, but to work. It must be grounded in science and not ideology. That's why the nuclear, in particular, deserves equal footing with the renewables. Firstly, energy security demands it.
Nuclear provides dispatchable, always on baseload power that wind and solar cannot. If we want to retire coal, we need to finance its replacement, and the taxonomy in the current form blocks us from doing exactly that. Secondly, the science is supported. If the taxonomy is truly about promoting decarbonization, then classification must follow life cycle emissions, full stop. Nuclear's life cycle CO2 output is comparable to wind.
And thirdly, our competitiveness depends on it. The United States and China are financing nuclear projects without any hesitation. Every day, we deny these technologies green status. European utilities faced higher capital costs than their global competitors. We are handicapping ourselves in a race we cannot afford to lose.
Nuclear, properly regulated, must not be just a transitional mean, but a truly strategic way of producing electricity. And therefore, the taxonomy must be reopened and corrected. Your commission president has already recognized that this anti-nuclear hysteria in which this legislation has been framed in this parliament is over because it was a strategic mistake. So the taxonomy should reflect that, and it should reflect it right now.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you. Now I give the floor to renew and we renew to Martin Ozick.
Thank you very much. And I have to say, for some reason, I feel that, you know, for among some of the political groups, there is a feeling that all the taxonomy has been such a horrible failure. I don't know. For me, 1,000,000,000,000 colleagues, 101 billion euros of taxonomy compliant investments over the last five years is actually a really great success. And that is something which went through with, you know, no significant harm, which went through with all the criteria.
And, mister Vondra, €6,000,000,000. Oh, sorry. I have to check. Maybe the precise euro is no. It's the €8,000,000,000.
€8,000,000,000 is the prospect for CHESS, the energy utility, to issue taxonomy-compliant bonds also for nuclear. So it's not stopping it. We don't need to open level one because there are investments that are in pipeline by the chess from Czech Republic into nuclear. It's the prospectus they published. It's a prospect they published, and it includes nuclear.
So we have to talk to chess that they are lying, not me. I'm quoting chess. In terms of the things that I really actually care about, and I think it's important, one thing is the call on the commission. I would like to ensure that it's going to be held with the guidance and do no significant harm rather than trying to dismantle. And I would also like to acknowledge that the commission is looking at correcting the criteria for the geothermal energy, because talking of easy to build, really emerging technology, dispatchable baseload electricity, the next generation geothermal is the future. And I'm looking forward to the free competition between nuclear and the next-generation geothermal.
Let the best win. Thank you.
Astrid COUSIN
Thank you. So I'll give the floor back to the European Commission.
Excuse me. Sorry. I was still reflecting on that. So on nuclear and gas and also all the different mix, energy mix, the first element is, as you know, the taxonomy is neutral in terms of choice of the energy mix of every single member state. And, therefore, it's not that the taxonomy is pro a certain energy or against another.
It's definitely not antinuclear because it is included in the taxonomy. Now you know that nuclear and also gas, we are fully aware of the importance of these on the transition and the need to the importance of those activities especially in the geopolitical context to face the energy volatility. We also know the political sensitivity around it, and especially the inclusion of the nuclear and gas related in the taxonomy, as demonstrated by the ongoing court cases. So any revision currently of the technicals of the technical screening criteria for nuclear and gas must be carefully calibrated and we need to wait for the court cases to be over in order to make sure that we can review them. And once we have those conditions met to revise the technical screening criteria for nuclear and gas, we will continue to assess, engage with the experts and the stakeholders to assess whether any revision might be considered in the future, and also provide the necessary guidance for the correct interpretation of those technical screening criteria.
On the do not significant harm principle, again, we are streamlining dramatically both the horizontal criteria, but also the sector-specific one. The idea is once again to make it easier to comply, to prove that we can use existing documentation. We can use permits to showcase the alignment with this criteria. On the transmission and distribution, we have heard the different stakeholders. And compared to the draft we have published, we include and also given the feedback of the platform and the act of our experts, we will reinclude the activity into the new review.
I think it's important to say that we also understand that renewable low carbon gases will be integrated to these activities. On the success and the uptake of the taxonomy, I think that's something we monitor carefully. We are quite proud also to have this 1,000,000,000,000 capital expenditure under the taxonomy. And once again, the guidance on the do not significant arm is or the review of those criteria is done really with the ambition of usability of the criteria. So we really try to make any changes that reflect either the practical barriers that we got as feedback from the stakeholders.
Speaker 69
We also try to reflect on the best practices of the markets and to try to make sure that we avoid duplication while being proportionate to the ambition of the taxonomy and the climate and environmental objectives. Thank you.
Speaker 68
Thank you. Now for the Greens, Utah, Paolo. One minute and a half.
Yes. Thank you very much for being here, and thank you very much for this exchange. Actually, I do have more questions than answers from your interventions now, because several of the criteria, which are now introduced, raised questions on compliance. And, I'm sorry. It's not about simplification.
It's simply deregulation. For example, if you extend the transitional deadlines for aviation where we have fleets which will be in the sky for 30 years, this is certainly creating a carbon lock in, which is what we do not want. As to nuclear, I would just like to point out that the platform on sustainable finance found that nuclear is not compliant on four environmental objectives on due no significant harm. And, the most important thing is you're told that this should be about simplification, but actually you're adding more complexity due to the numerous cross references to other legislation, which are in principle okay. But then please provide the companies with the relevant digital tools, provide a digital service platform where the respective company can simply, with a click, check whether this is compliant with waste shipment, with battery, with PPWR, whatever regulation, the taxonomy is referring to.
Siegbert Frank Droese
And you could easily start with a skip database, which you're planning to dismantle. So I don't see the point in calling this a simplification. Well, actually, for the user, it's not that. And instead, we are walking backwards, instead of forwards. Thanks.
Thank you. Now, Sigbert Dresse, Jasen.
Thank you, chair. I will speak German. Well,
Let me thank the Commission for their report. I take the view that your assessments and reports really need an update because the U. S. Under Trump, have declared that the Green Deal is over and that's a competitor. But when it comes to green allocations, I don't buy what you're saying.
So we need an update. So our competitiveness is at stake. So my first question is commission, what's the impact of the EU taxonomy on the competitiveness of EU companies in particular against the background of increasing geopolitical tension and global competition, and what adjustment mechanisms are available if there are measurable disadvantages from the application of it? Secondly, simplification and getting rid of administrative red tape, that's one of the targets that has been announced by the German government. Now at the risk of sounding like a lobbyist, companies are telling us that there's a real need for implementation because of the taxonomy.
Speaker 74
What tools does the commission use to make sure whether the red tape involved is proportionate? Thank you.
Sirpa Pietikäinen
Thank you. Now for the KHDI for one minute, we have Sierpa Pietikainen.
Thank you. Three points. Firstly, we need to create data that we can trust, that is reliable, and that is comparable, to make right investments. Secondly, do no significant harm needs to be also the downstream, and it is just the idea that you do not create, for example, for biodiversity, excessive harm when you are using bioproducts or mining, goods, so forth. And third point, and this relates to do no significant harm.
It is if you call a dog a cat, it doesn't change it to a cat. If you call something to be sustainable by following the regulation, it means someone is not the criminal because you are supposed to follow the regulation, not that it is a state. And the voluntary taxonomist idea is that we channel the finance to best class of investments and not on the sidetracks. And what we are doing now is toning this idea, and actually, it is downstreaming our funds to business as usual investments and calling a dog a cat. I think that doesn't change its nature, that it is more or less business as usual.
Astrid COUSIN
Thank you. Last speaker, Gerben Jan Gerbrandi. He's not here? Okay. So, we give the floor to the commission.
Thank you. Let me start by the nuclear again. Very important to mention that in the report of platform on nuclear, there is nothing that says that is against nuclear, and we manage, I think, to set appropriate condition to make nuclear a driver of the transition. So that's an important element. On the absence of nuclear technical screening review, the condition that led to the addition of nuclear related
activity.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.