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 sittingsPierfrancesco Maran
Compromise number six, page 30, quiz in favor, quiz against, co abstain, adopted. Compromise number seven, page 33, coups in favor, coups against, co abstain, adopted. Compromise number nine, coups in favor, who's against? Who abstained adopted? Compromise number 10, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained adopted? Compromise number 11, page 50. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstained adopted? Compromise number 12? Who's in favor? Who's against? Quabstain adopted.
Compromise number 13, who is in favor? Who is against? Quabstain adopted. Compromise number eight, who is in favor? Who is against?
Adopted. Compromise number 15, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain check? I open the vote.
I close the vote, and it's adopted. Compromise number 14, who's in favor? Who's against? Co abstain adopted. And now we vote, final vote.
Oracle vote. Vote is open. The vote is closed. No. No.
No. You cannot. No. No. Shame, you can't.
So it is adopted by 59 votes in favor, 22 against and 4 abstention. Congratulations to the rapporteur. Now we go to the item number 12, the CF. So compromise number one, quiz in favor, quiz against, to abstain, adopted. Compromise number eight, quiz in favor, who is against?
Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number two, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
Adopted. Compromise number three is in favor? Quiz against, quiz stain, adopted. Compromise number four, in favor, quiz against, quiz stain, adopted. Compromise number five, quiz in favor, quiz against, quiz stand adopted.
Compromise number six, in favor, quiz against, quiz stain, adopted. Compromise number seven, quiz in favor, who's against? Who abstained adopted? Amendment 257. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Check. The vote is closed, and it's adopted. Amendment 258, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Amendment 259, who's in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? Adopted. Amendment 261, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise nine, who is in favor? Quiz against, quo abstain adopted. Compromise number 10, quiz in favor, quiz against, quiz abstain, adopted. Compromise number 11, quiz in favor, quiz against, abstain, adopted.
Compromise number 12, who's in favor, who's against, who abstains, adopted. Compromise number 13, who's in favor, who's against, who abstains, Adopted. And now the final vote by roll call vote. Vote is open. The vote is closed.
And it's adopted 63 in favor, 15 against, 8 abstention. Now we go to item 14, the objection we do by roll call vote. No. Vote. The vote is open.
There is a plus-one. The vote is closed. So it is closed. And it's rejected. 39 in favor, 45 against, one abstention.
Thank you. We make that up.
We will start in.
Adam Jarubas
We will start again in 5 minutes. Okay. I think we can start with item 15. We now proceed to the consideration of two draft reports on two important proposals, namely a proposal on amending the CBAM regulation and a proposal on the temporary decarbonization fund. Each rapporteur has the floor for 5 minutes.
Mohammed Chahim
Thank you, chair. Let me see what I can say on this topic that I think we have discussed many times. Let me first thank everyone who reached out to us during the process of the first draft of this report. We spoke to a lot of stakeholders. You can imagine how much interest there is from industry, NGOs, even other countries.
And despite the differences, they agree on two things that we need, a strong CBOM as an instrument, and most of them also agree that we need to have a significant scope extension. And as Rapporteur, of course, I welcome this broad support. On the scope extension, I did not include any additional CN code in the first draft of my report. It's not because I don't think we should do anything there. It's because I think that should be a process of the parliament with all the different political groups.
I'm really interested to see all the amendments being submitted, and then we can have a look with the shadows to see which ones make sense and also which ones not only make sense in this, from the original idea of the instrument, but also make sense when it comes to operability and implementation feasibility. Because at the end of the day, we should also not forget that should be part of this principle. So extending it to, let's say, fridges and washing machines because we now have the fridge slash refrigerator combination already in seems reasonable. I think the adjacent CN code should be something we should look at. Then the idea, again, is a climate instrument.
It's about a level playing field. Our producers have been paying their fair share on CO2 pricing for the last 15 years in ETS. And now I think also it should be done by importers or producers outside the EU that did not have to pay this price in the last 15 years. On article 27a, I think I was clear about it, and I think I should stick to that clarity. Keeping that article would effectively mean a game over for our low-carbon industry investments in Europe.
If for any reason the commission thinks we should adjust the scope of CBAM, we have showed in the past as parliament that we can move fast, and they should then come to the parliament with an urgent procedure or a request for an urgent procedure, and then we can deliver if needed. But already now, having this really creates insecurity and legislative unpredictability for a lot of investors in the cleantech and is not in line, I think, with the crisis that we are in now. Then international credits in CBAM, I think we've had that discussion in ETS and also in the twin, sorry, in the 2040 discussion. I think here, it's a bit, we have to be very careful what we do. I understand that we should develop or should look at least in how we improve the cooperation that we have with least developed countries, and to see to what extent we can help them and create maybe even a win-win situation.
But just in general, talking about article six without the right conditions, without this that is, like, some specific specifications, what we mean, I think, would not be good at this stage. But I'm happy to explore this further. Also, I'm reading into the Inter draft report to see what they can inspire us on that. Yeah. That's what I would like to say at this stage.
I propose introducing stronger safeguards against circumvention, enhanced reporting, improving traceability, the inclusion of preconserval scrap in emissions counting, and stronger tools to address misdeclarations, to ensure a better system and to uphold the integrity of our system. Next to this, we must also improve the practical functioning of the CBAM. The timely publication of default values of newly covered products is essential. At the same time, reporting actual emissions data should remain the guiding principle. We also need more clarity in key areas.
The definition of pre-consumer scrap must be precise, and the burden of proof should clearly lie with the importers claiming post-consumer scrap. Likewise, rules on abuse practices must be better defined, with clear criteria and safeguards for how the commission exercises its powers. This improves the functioning of SIBAN. And then one final comment. Give me ten seconds.
I really struggle with how we treat Ukraine. I have to say that we have to reassess the force majeure that we have in place. I cannot imagine what country and what situation we can think about under which the force majeure is activated. And let's please have that discussion internally to see what conditions should be met in order to help a country that clearly does not have the means to, first of all, decarbonize, let alone have independent verifiers that look into the real emission data. I think this is something very complicated.
And I hopefully, with the discussions with the other shadows, we can maybe come up with a solution there. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. And our solution should be to open the EU to Ukraine in 2027. Now the other rapporteur of the other file, Pascal Confund, for five minutes. You have the floor. Thank you.
Pascal Canfin
Okay. We'll do it this way. So first of all, this proposal of what we called last term an export rebate is, I think, why I, and I hope so, widely shared in this parliament, that we need to find a solution for exports in order to offset the price of carbon for companies being put at risk of being less competitive on export markets. So the SIBAM was designed initially for the level playing field between the import and the domestic production. Here, we are talking about how can we make sure that it is also true for domestic productions when exporting on third countries markets.
And there is a proposal from the commission, which is before we go for potentially something different in the review of the ATS, something that could short-term fix the problem for those companies being most at risk of being less competitive. So I welcome the proposal, but of course, I would like to improve it in some directions. The first one is that I think we need to stick to the initial idea. The initial idea is to cover the part of the production which is exported. And based on this, having some sort of mechanism like this fund to offset the potential negative impact, but only for the part of the production which is exported.
Speaker 7
So my report makes it more clear. So the scope of what could be covered by the compensation within this fund is more limited in my report because it's only on the part of the production which is exported, because I think it is more clear and more legitimate as well. But in parallel, I extend the scope to downstream operators. In the steel industry, in other industries, there are strong requests to have a mechanism, such a mechanism like the fund, not only for the raw material, but also for the more downstream and transform products. And I think, for instance, for SMEs, it's important to have more products covered by the scope of the fund.
So a scope which is on one side more focused on exports, on another side, broader when it comes to the type of products which are covered. The third, main message is I think we could have a tool found which is more agile. In the proposed draft by the commission, it's only a reimbursement expected in 2029. I think there is no reason to wait for so long, and we could have two waves, two cycles of payment instead of one. It sounds a bit technical, but actually for some SMEs and so on, on top of this, if we extend the scope of the products concerned that more SMEs are concerned, it doesn't make sense to wait for three years, '27, '28, '29 before even four years with this year, '26, before being reimbursed.
So I suggest two cycles instead of one. And the last one, one of the most sensitive discussions around this fund is the issue of fertilizers. I think that it could make sense to have farmers in the grain sector covered by this fund. I'm not advocating for farmers being in the ETS, for farmers being in the CBAM, of course. I'm advocating for farmers, again, the grain sector, wheat notably, being covered by the fund.
Why? Because when you produce wheat in Europe, you use a lot of fertilizers, and there is, of course, a huge impact on the price because of the CBAM. And when you export, your competitor does not have to pay SIBAM, of course, on the same market. So that's why our domestic production starts to be at risk in terms of competitiveness. And who is the main competitor?
Russia. So I don't think why we should give this present to Russia to overcompete our domestic production on export markets, mainly in the real life, mainly in the Middle East, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and the Gulf countries. We should be able to have this level playing field here. So that's why I put some farming production within the scope of the fund. I stop there.
And of course, thank you for your cooperation in the upcoming negotiations.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we leave the floor to the shadow rapporteur. Three minutes for speaker, or if a group has a different shadow for each file, at two minutes for speaker. EPP Buffo? Yeah.
EPP has two speakers, so two minutes each. We start with Adam Jacobas for CBAM.
Adam Jarubas
Thank you, Mr. Scherder, colleagues. I would like to thank Mohammad, our reporter, for his excellent work on the draft report. It is no surprise we clearly see the continuation of his strong contribution to the original regulation. I fully support his efforts to close the loopholes in the CBAM system. We cannot allow a mechanism that is easy to circumvent.
In this context, the EPP wants to highlight the growing problem of resource shuffling, where low carbon production moves to the EU while high emission production shifts elsewhere, bringing no real benefit to global emissions. We raised this issue already in 2022, and we see it happening today, especially in the steel sector. We support the deletion of the Argences suspension in Article 27a. It creates legal uncertainty and would damage both C-band and ETS. Adjustments, if needed, should be made through the ordinary legislative procedure.
At the same time, we cannot forget our farmers. If the commission is ready to sacrifice revenue by suspending CBAM, it must also be ready to use that revenue to support the affected sectors, especially agriculture. That is why, together with deleting this suspension, we will propose a mechanism to redistribute CBAM revenues to sectors in difficulty. Finally, two important points where we differ from the rapporteur. First, the inclusion of indirect emission in SIBAM must not come at the expense of indirect cost compensation in the ETS.
Second, while we support downstream expansion, we are cautious about any further horizontal expansion. We must first make the current system work properly before going further. I'm also open to talk about the force majeure clause mentioned by the rapporteur. I look forward to constructive cooperation with the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur. I'm confident we will find a good compromise.
Thank you.
Michalis Hadjipantela
Dear chair, dear colleagues, as EPP group, it is our absolute priority to keep European industry competitive and to deliver real decarbonization. The temporary decarbonization fund can do both. With our amendments, we are not trying to reinvent CBAM or the ATS. We are correcting a very concrete gap. As free allocation is phased out, companies that export steel, aluminum, fertilizer, cement, and related products are exposed to carbon costs their competitors in third countries often do not face.
If we do nothing, production and jobs risk moving out of Europe, and global emissions go up, not down. That is why we focus the fund on clearly defined, objectively identified leakage risk, and why we support is linked to export exposed volumes and to the full carbon cost along the value chain. At the same time, we insist on strong conditionalities and simplified procedures for SMEs so that support is genuinely linked to decarbonization investments. For the APP group, this instrument should be rule-based and WTO compatible. It is a bridge solution until the ATS review delivers a permanent and competitive framework.
I'm very interested to hear the views of colleagues from NV, but also the opinion of Itray so that we can build a solid, coherent position on this fund. Thank you.
Mohammed Chahim
Thank you very much. I will try to be as short as possible. But I also would like to grab the opportunity to thank him for his work and for his draft support. I don't think this file will be an easy file looking at where the council stands, but I have full trust in Pascal Kaufman that he's the right person for the job. For us as s and d, we are very open to have a good collaboration to make sure that this decarbonization fund will exist and that it's also useful for the sector.
We also follow the court of auditors that the proposal is falling a bit short when it comes to helping decarbonization. For us, it's about making progress on the decarbonization by the recipients of the funds, and that it should be very measurable and verifiable. We want to award those that have been greening their production, instead of offering just dividends to the laggards. We want to propose to support those that have invested in clean production that are in the top section of the sector in terms of clean production. We think this fund can be then conditioned more to make sure that we do not create, have solutions for the short run, but really create a structural solution when it comes to phasing out or moving away from carbon intensity.
We also think that this fund should primarily help the sectors that face pressure due to exports. That was one of the reasons that we wanted it as a parliament in the previous term. I think that should be continued. Just looking at production as a whole without accounting for the share of production exported, it doesn't make any sense. We are very glad to see that the Rapporteur has chosen this approach as well.
On the timeline, we're open to come to a solution that offers more certainty to potential recipients of the funds while safeguarding flexibility. Looking forward to continuing the discussion and the negotiations with the other political groups. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now for patriots, two minutes each for Sibam, Maylouz, Bezia, Klein.
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
Thank you.
Very much. In its current form, this has clear limits. It doesn't protect European consumers, and it increases the price of products that we depend upon. Upstream, there's a question mark about commission trade-offs. Why refuse to include certain products that can break up value chains?
Then for us, it's essential to support article 27 piece of the convention, where a sector might be economically weak, particularly with regard to fertilizers. And then we need to take into account the specific nature of outermost regions, which are isolated and more fragile economically. Uniform application of this would be nonsense, given the market with regard to these outermost regions getting supplies from neighboring countries. Now, for decarbonization, this doesn't offset the high costs for our companies. Therefore, we need to maintain free quotas, which are necessary for the upstream and downstream sectors that are fragile and for exporters, because this fund has a limited scope, and therefore, the administrative burden is worsened, the complexity of funding and timelines.
This is bureaucratic. To benefit from financial support, companies need to declare the amount exported to third countries, set out in terms of destination countries, and calculate the CO2 content. Now instead of favorizing delocalization of part of extra EU production, we really need to review the working of the carbon market, maintaining a reasonable quota price.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. The other shadow reporter is Jorge Boksade for two minutes. Thank.
Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Thank you very much. We're here because Europe's economy is bleeding and the hemorrhage isn't helped with compromise amendments proposed by the commission. It's just a deceit. This market of combating a loss of carbon is leading to a loss of work, employment, and exports with this temporary fund. The only thing the commission is seeking to do is manage social discontent with the directives leading to losses and dismissals, and companies will not provide stable employment.
Speaker 15
Then the new elections, because the fund is going to be concluded in 2029, just to justify this deceit to Europeans. So I think what has been done here is we've given back the proposal to the Commission. We've got the best industry, the best engineers, the best workers, and they've destroyed absolutely everything. The rapporteur wants to include processed products, agricultural products, and also include aid to export, but all of this in exchange for companies accepting this blackmail with regard to the Green Deal. They won't use cement or steel.
Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Companies have to use fertilizers, and exporters have to go above and beyond this emissions rights system. And then the states have to fund everything that the commission is proposing with more fines and more taxes because the taxpayers are paying. Aid is supposed to be for companies that have really suffered seeking to maintain employment, but it's the commission that's the author of this green deal that should be paying for all of this instead of, well, maybe it should come from the salaries of the commissioners. And everything on the climate has led to why we're here in the first place, so we need to deal with that. Thank you.
Speaker 9
For ECR, for the two files, Stefano Cavadania for 3 minutes. Thank you, President. I would like to speak Italian. Thank.
Stefano CAVIDAGNA
You, chairman. On a daily basis, we now hear about the difficulties that Europe is going through in trying to keep step with what is happening economically across the world. And often, there are choices being put forward by institutions. I'm referring in particular to the Green Deal, which of course led to these problems. Now, in 2023, we supported the concept of CBAM.
It's an environmental tax, and it seeks to protect those companies and industries which at European level were faced with unfair competition from those outside of the EU, those that did not keep to the same decarbonization standards, which were costing our companies a lot of money. Now Fratelli d'Italia and the ECR Group will fight for anything that produces negative effects to be blocked. And I'm referring to ETS one and future ETS two. They're coming up against their limits, and they're simply not capable of making our economy competitive. Now, when it comes to this particular reform of CBAM, we have a number of proposals to make.
The first is to extend the scope of these anti circumvention measures. Otherwise, the harm caused would be even worse. In particular, inputting new CN codes is too rigid by way of an approach and is based on assessments which only look at raw materials exclusively but don't look at finished products. We need to protect companies from unfair competition, also in relation to finished products. The rapporteur has chosen to delete the safeguard clause in Article 27A.
We believe that it is of a fundamental importance and therefore the article should be kept in the text, in particular given that we're going through a geopolitical crisis. Think of fertilizers. When the Strait of Hormuz was blocked, fertilizers went up in price greatly. Now, in closing then, chairman, our group will always be here to defend common sense and the competitiveness of our industry. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
You know for Renu, for the other file for Steven Feil, Pascal Kaufman for two minutes.
Pascal Canfin
Yeah. Thank you. So I would like as well to thank the rapporteur who is the right person in the right place as well. So we will play that game continuously and happy to continue, of course. So, but just focusing on three issues in the few minutes I have.
The first one is what you said on predictability. I mean, we need to have this tool as a predictable tool. So if we have a mechanism like Article 27 in order that could allow the commission to unplug the tool, it will create instability and unpredictability at the roots. So that's why I am with you, in order to change the system. But at the same time, we need to have a mechanism to be able to deal with the urgent situation.
So we will think about it based on the various proposals. Second, the extension. You said yourself that you are not proposing CN code extensions. I think that we need to go further than what the commission did to extend the scope, not for the sake of extending the scope, but because, for one example, the commission's assessment is based on a carbon price, which is not realistic if you put yourself in four, five, six years' time, unless we crash a lot of climate policies, by the way, at the same time. So this is not your intention.
Speaker 7
This is not my intention. So we need to make the assessment of which are the CN codes that are more relevant to be covered with a carbon price, which is higher than the one taken as an assumption by the commission. And then it leads to more CNC code being covered. So that's why I table amendments to extend the scope to more CNCOTs. The second important element is the anti asset conversion measure.
Pascal Canfin
And here, it's about the default value. I must say that I'm convinced by those saying that we need to go beyond the commission proposal and to start with a default value based on the country mix. Otherwise, frankly speaking, let's talk one obvious example, which is China. We will always face circumvention, and CBAM will not be effective against climate dumping. But at the same time, and that's why this issue is complicated, we need to be able to reward companies really investing in green technologies and green energy mix, and there is no reason to penalize them with CBAM if they really invest.
Speaker 7
So that's why my amendments will try to strike a balance between these two objectives. Not easy, but I think the proposal of the commission is not robust enough to make sure that at least with China, we take it seriously, and we need to avoid circumvention by China. The third one is about an issue which is not so far, I would say, identified, which I think is a pity, is the competition we are creating with the extension of SIBAM to downstream products between online platforms located in the EU and online platforms like TEMU or SHIN from China. If you extend the scope of SIBAM, let's say, to washing machines or hair dryers. And then if you buy a washing machine from TEMU, you do not pay the Siban.
If you buy a washing machine from a European website, you pay the Siban because the European website has imported more than 50 tons for the whole year, but not Temu because you are the importer, then it's completely unfair. And it's not at all covered by the commission's proposal. So I think we need to make sure that there is a level playing field, exactly as we did for the reform of the customs, where we introduced this level playing field. So I suggest we copy-paste this reform, which was agreed a couple of weeks ago, into this CBAM regulation. Because the last thing we should do with this regulation is to give, again, another competitive advantage to TEMU or Amazon or others.
Pascal Canfin
Thank you. I stop there. And, of course, I will be more than happy to start the negotiation with the negotiating team.
Speaker 9
Thank you. For the Greens, for both eyes, Lena Schilling, you have three minutes.
Lena Schilling
Thank you so much. I will speak on behalf of Sarah Mathieu. She can't be here today, but I should also say she would probably say you both are the right men for the job, so very happy to work with you. Starting with CBEM and first in the scope. Like other groups, we will table amendments to expand CBEM to more downstream products, around 130 additional CN codes for iron and steel products.
This list is largely based on option three of the Commission's impact assessment. These sectors face the same risk of carbon leakage, yet are not sufficiently covered today. Including them could reduce CO2 emissions by up to 14% in 2030 compared to the Commission's current proposal. It is both a climate and industrial policy, and it's supported by a broad coalition of industry. Second, we support the deletion of Article 27A, products to be removed from CBAM under exceptional and foreseeable circumstances. So there, we can also agree.
Third, we support removing the reference to international carbon credits. What a big surprise to everyone. Under the EU emission trading system, EU companies cannot replace emissions allowances with such credits, and I think CBAM also has to mirror this logic. And finally, on CBAM, I will try to make it short. Like other groups, you must significantly strengthen the fight against circumvention and abusive practices.
If companies manipulate data in any way, we need stronger tools. I mean, that's quite simple. And there, we are very much looking forward to working with you on better approaches and ideas. Turning to the temporary decommunization funds. I think there, the key question is indeed pretty simple.
Will this instrument truly drive transformation, or will it just subsidize the status quo? First, on the conditionalities, I think that they are, of course, essential if we want real impact. The fund must support new decarbonization efforts and not cover projects that would have happened anyway. And their companies should be controlled by the EU, and we need to find also a mechanism for that. And then the second point, the fund should focus on exports only.
Also, that was mentioned by colleagues a few times now. The competitiveness of domestic production is already protected by the CBEM. This instrument should, therefore, target international markets where European industries face the greatest pressure, also, that my colleague just said. And then third, the fairness must be at the core. I think that's a pretty important point, also looking into the next negotiations in the climate conferences, half for the EU industry and half for international climate finance, especially for the least developed countries.
This makes this fund fair and balanced, and it would also help us to fulfill our NCQGs. We know how complicated the negotiations in the climate COP are, but also the last one where. And my final point, and then I'm done, is, of course, the transparency and that we need to have information on how these conditionalities are fulfilled and who is benefiting from them. That's it from us. Thank you so much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. If some of the colleagues wanna participate in the catch the eye, it's the moment to signal us. We go to the left, both, for both files. Lynn Boylan, you have three minutes.
Lynn Boylan
Thank you, chair. And, like others, I want to thank both rapporteurs for their draft reports. I'll start with my comments just on the carbon border adjustment mechanism because I think it is, as we all agree, an important climate tool creating a level playing pitch for EU industries. But in this sense, extending the CBAM downstream to more product groups, I think, is a positive step and one that can be taken further in future extensions to cover, for example, the chemicals industry. At the same time, I do think that CBAM is a new instrument, and we should also be careful not to overburden the system that is only sort of getting started.
And in this vein, I welcome the approach of the rapporteur, Mister Chaim, which mainly makes targeted improvements to the commission's proposal to remove inconsistencies. I also support the rapporteur's proposals around the misguided article 27 a. I also appreciate the additions on the need to support developing countries, with the application of CBAM, and this is the direction that I will go with my amendments. I am leading the Inter's opinion on CBAM. And in that committee, I think what we often see is opposition to CBAM from trade partners, as well as the challenges that they face in the implementation.
So I think that the CBAM needs to be accompanied by international cooperation around pricing, technical assistance, and climate finance to support the decarbonization of the least developed countries and those lower-middle income countries. It was, I think, the parliament's position, I wasn't here in the last mandate, but that a share of CBAM revenues is needed to support the decarbonization of developing countries. And while this ambition didn't make it into the final text, we've now seen it with the temporary decarbonization fund. We can see that once the political will is there, CBAM revenues can indeed be ring fenced and redirected towards a new fund. So what we get is yet another fund for polluting industries but with no social conditionality, and I think that has been criticized by the European Court of Auditors for having very little additional decarbonization benefit.
So I think the fund needs much stronger environmental and social conditionality, and at a minimum, all beneficiaries should be making progress towards a climate transition plan. Mister Kanafan's report proposes to extend eligibility for the fund to downstream actors in the farming sector, and I agree with the intention. I think to find more support for farmers who are struggling, particularly due to the rise in fertilizer prices caused by the oil and gas crisis. However, again, I think a bit more conditionality is needed there, too. And also to avoid administrative burden on farmers, I think we could look to requirements at a national level to reduce fertilizer use. But I look forward to engaging and having constructive discussions with both repertoires on these files, and I think there is an awful lot of common ground among us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anja Arndt
Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Today, it's yet again about CBAM, and this is the most contentious regulation in the EU. Originally, it was supposed to produce something fairly straightforward. Imports were to have a COT price attached to them so that companies would not have an unfair disadvantage because they're already paying a lot of money for this here domestically. Now what's come of it?
Well, 180 products are covered. Machinery, parts, washing machines, fridges are covered. It's not a niche area that this affects. It affects the whole industrial base, and therefore also all consumers. And at the outset, first of all, there's a COT price, then there's the emissions trading system, then there was pressure, CBAM was introduced, but our companies are clever, they're decamping.
And the answer now to that seems to be to extend CBAM even further. But surely, that's going to lead to more stress, more cost, more bureaucracy, more uncertainty. Now a fund is being set up to provide support to companies. And this, while for 40 years, there was mass manipulation, which has led us to a situation whereby, you know, CO2 was being presented as a killer of humans when it's simply an element which occurs in nature and is also necessary. Ladies and gentlemen, this is no longer a strategy. This is not acceptable, in terms of serious politics.
We, as the ESN, support doing away with the ETS, doing away with the CBAM, and letting industry and economy just get on with it.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Now we leave the floor to the budget rapporteur, den Edanuse Neudova. You have three minutes.
Danuše Nerudová
You, chair, dear colleagues. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his very good draft report. EU heavy industry faces a genuine transition gap, rising carbon costs at a moment when the capital-intensive investment needed to decarbonize cannot yet be recovered from the market. The temporary decarbonization fund is, in principle, the answer. At the same time, we should be realistic about the scale of the instrument.
The available resources will remain relatively limited compared with the challenges that the heavy industry is facing today. Jobs are clearly at risk in our regions, and citizens and families in the region will not have the necessary support because the Commission decided to discontinue the Just Transition Fund. From the budgetary perspective, I welcome the overall architecture of the proposal. Using part of CBEM revenues at the EU level creates a direct link between climate policy and industrial support. This is also why the treatment of any remaining revenue matters.
Resources left after the full disbursement of support and the payment of administrative costs should not simply disappear. They should remain dedicated to the decarbonization of energy-intensive industries. I also welcome the rapporteur's proposal to bring forward the operational start of the fund to 2027, including the optional first call linked to the production in 2026. At the same time, the commission should closely assess the implementation of the first calls to determine whether the available amounts are sufficient. If demand clearly exceeds the available budget, the commission should be ready to come forward with a proposal to extend the financial envelope, so that eligible operators receive adequate support.
In short, the fund can be a useful bridge instrument, but it must be timely, targeted, transparent, and workable for the European industry. Thank you.
Peter Liese
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the two rapporteurs and the two federal rapporteurs from the EPP. CBAM is an important tool. And, a US senator, mister White House, who is unfortunately not in the White House, but in opposition, said, CBAM is the last lifeboat of international climate policy. So we really need to save CBAM. But at the same time, it's also very clear that we need adjustments, and it was good that Ada and Yaroubas and others fought it for a careful start so that we can do this adjustment before CBAM really is extended to its full scope.
Speaker 26
We need to include more products, and I will also argue to extend the list a bit. I'm not convinced that the whole chemical sector should be in. I think it's too complex, but maybe some substances should be in. We should look at this in detail. On the other hand, hydrogen, we didn't import a single molecule of hydrogen.
Peter Liese
So the question is, should it really stay in CBAM? Let's talk about this. Full support for Mohammed and Adam, when they do not support article 27a. I'm strongly against this article because it would give the a complete wrong message to the stakeholders. CBAM shouldn't be stopped, the moment we just introduced it.
And last but not least, I really would like to echo what Mohammed said on Ukraine. I would ask the commission, Yula, why do you think it's all fine and we shouldn't use some derogation for Ukraine? I don't want Pandora's box, but Ukraine is a really specific case. And please explain a bit your attitude here. Thank you.
You. Ana Lisa Kovato.
Thank.
Annalisa Corrado
you. It's quite incredible to come back from Santa Marta where 50 countries got together wanting to put an end to climate change, and there was the scientific community there, and then come here to find out that CO2 is not harmful when the only countries in Europe that are succeeding have decarbonized the most. I think that these documents we're talking about today are indeed extremely important, particularly because the TS has worked, particularly that on energy production, it's drastically reduced CO2 emissions in Europe. And then the part of TS on industry is being fine-tuned and reviewed. It's dynamic, and it's complemented in a dynamic fashion here as well.
But it's very important that we've got CBAM and the fund that we're discussing. I'm Shadow Reporter for the Itrey opinion on both files. I fully support the work that's being carried out by Mohammed and Peter. The complexity is high. We need cooperation and negotiation, but we shouldn't lose sight of the objective.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now it's a moment of the commission for the replies. We have Maya Elena Scorpio, director for indirect taxation and tax administration, and Heiko Kunst, head of unit of ETS implementation policy support and ETS registry.
Maya Elena Scorpio
Ladies and gentlemen, the honorable members, thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the draft reports and the proposal for the revision of the CBEM regulation, and the proposal for the establishment of a temporary decarbonization fund. We would also like to thank you for the additional comments we have the chance to hear today. I will try to be conscious of the time and cover the points that refer specifically to the proposals that we are discussing today. And I start with the downstream extension that has been raised by many of you. We welcome the support for the reliance on the quantifiable and objective criteria that have been used in selecting the goods included in the extension.
Speaker 30
We did it in order to make sure that only those with the highest carbon leakage risk and with climate relevance, and taking into account technical feasibility, are included. We would like to consider that the approach taken ensures that we are proportional to the downstream carbon leakage phenomenon. This will not increase, indeed, also the administrative burden. We know that the report mentions further discussion on the list is going to take place, and then we look forward to the outcome of your discussions in order to consider the final position of this House in that respect. Regarding abusive practices, the legislative proposal contains targeted measures that we consider are necessary to react quickly.
Maya Elena Scorpio
We take note of the fact that it is desired to better define what abusive practices are and to ensure that sufficient safeguards and transparency are in place. It is mentioned in the report also the opportunity to include preconsumer scrap, but we would caution against this because we do not consider the current legislation in discussion to be the best piece of legislation to take into account what preconsumer scrap is. And having a definition in the CVAM regulation would have some knock-on effects on other pieces of legislation. Therefore, we would favor, following a logic that relies only on CN codes for defining the relevant goods and precursors for CBAN. Article 27 a has been mentioned several times.
I would just like to briefly recall that this is included because SIBAM is a first of a kind measure, and it has a high degree of uncertainty in terms of collateral effects that it may have once is now fully in place. We would then need a lever to make sure that these effects are taken into account, and there is an adjustment of the situation to take into account serious and unforeseen circumstances that could harm the internal market. We take note, however, of your concerns as regards the lack of a clear definition for serious and unforeseen circumstances concepts and also the mentioned lack of objective criteria. We have taken note of all the suggestions put forward by the rapporteur regarding this article. For what concerns electricity, we note that the proposed amendments are going in the direction of increasing the clarity of the scope of the nonapplication of CVAM specific close of electricity, which we welcome.
However, we caution against the changes to the memorandum of understanding, which should only start once the full transposition of the electricity by the candidate countries is done, not when it has yet to start. Forward concerns international carbon credits. It should be recalled that article 9.5 empowers the commission to set out rules for declaring a carbon price effectively paid, and an implementing act is going to be adopted in the following months. The proposal clarifies that we should also specify the conditions for deducting the carbon price effectively paid. In this context, we will ensure that this is done, that the conditions for applying the carbon price already paid is clear and takes into account the steps forward taken in accordance with article six of the Paris agreement.
So thanks again for the draft report to the relevant rapporteur. Here, I spoke only concerning the report on CBAM, and I now will leave the floor to my colleague from DG Klima to comment on the temporary decarbonization report. Thanks.
Heiko Kunst
Yeah. Thank you, and good afternoon also from my side. Yes. On the temporary decarbonization fund, first of all, we would like to thank the rapporteur for his draft report. And I think we broadly agree on the objective to address carbon leakage related to exports from European producers to third-country markets.
We see that due to the temporary nature of this fund, we aim to cover two years, that the new instrument should have the right balance between effectiveness and in addressing carbon leakage risks, and to administer simplicity. And that's the reason why our proposal mainly relies on existing processes we know from the EKS in terms of providing a free location to operators. We also appreciate the objective of the draft report to provide more and faster support to the beneficiaries. I think that is an objective we absolutely share. But we also see a couple of elements with risks.
Let me start with the increase your scope. We note you propose additional, I think, 42 or CN codes, and also to include downstream operators. This could have the disadvantage that the limited budget we have available would be shared by more beneficiaries, meaning that less is available to the individual beneficiary. But maybe more importantly, we see implications on the practicalities of the fund. So the applications, but also the disbursement process, would be more complicated as we would have to deal with entities which are not yet in the ETS.
And that would require time to establish new processes to provide training guidance to those operators, but also to develop tools how these operators can demonstrate that they are at carbon leakage risk. So in a nutshell, we have some doubts if the extension to downstream operators is a good tool to make this fund effective. Regarding the application and payment schedule, of course, having two calls for applications would mean that the time until the operators receive the support will be shorter. But we also need to be mindful of the financing side, where the sales and repurchase of the CIRBAM certificates will not be available before spring 2027. So we don't really see that the timelines are fully matching.
And last but not least, a very important element, and we see it in the draft report, but we also hear it from shadow operators, the idea to make the fund more targeted to exported volumes or to export shares of production. Of course, that would be more targeted, maybe more efficient. But of course, we see the risk of legal action against this new instrument. In particular, we have doubts regarding the WTO compatibility of something which is explicitly related only to exports. So let me conclude.
We welcome the general support in your report for our proposal. We have a lot of common objectives. And as I laid down, there are some elements where we see potentially practical implementation risk, but I think that is all something which would benefit from further discussions, and we would be happy to engage in those. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we go back to the rapporteur. We start with Mohamed Shahin for two minutes.
Mohammed Chahim
Thank you very much. It wasn't fully clear to me what the answer was on Ukraine. I think that you, if I'm not mistaken, said that you wanted to have to be more can you maybe say something? Because it wasn't clear to me. No.
You can't say anything.
Mohammed Chahim
Okay. Sorry. My apologies. Well, in my explanatory note, I did mention explicitly that we need to reassess what, whether the force majeure should not be applicable to Okun. Formally, you could say my explanatory notes are not part of the report, but I did mention it.
But let's continue that discussion later on. I want to say something on the CN codes. I did not feel that I had sufficient time to come up single handedly with a list at the stage when I was writing my report. I really think this is something we should do collectively. We should do it in a smart way, and it should have some type of, let's say, a mechanism and some adjacent products.
So this is not me saying we should not extend the scope. This is me saying, let's do it together. Let's do it in a collective way, and let's not have 750 amendments on the scope. Let's make one collective amendment that we can agree upon that we can use in the trial logs. It's a very important comment.
And when it comes to all these mentions of common sense and let's be logical, we are in a very difficult situation in Europe. We are very dependent on fossil fuels. They are creating price peaks for everyone in Europe, whether you're a consumer, whether you're a producer, and especially also for our households. The sooner we move away from that dependency, the more we decide on our own future. Yesterday, Pascal called it the freedom deal.
I think it's very important that, for us, you know, working on this is working towards our independence, is working towards our freedom. The more we decarbonize, the more reasons we have to have strong mechanisms that create a level playing field for our producers, and that's CBAM. So common sense means let's work with our industry to decarbonize, and let's have measures in place that take away unfair competitiveness for third countries that do not have the carbon pricing mechanism in place that we do. Thank you very much.
Pascal Canfin
To make it very short, I would like to thank the shadows. I think there are real. There is clear convergence. We will discuss in details some elements here and there, like conditionalities and some, but I think that the spirit of having acquired a pro European wine majority is already possible on that file as well as on the files from Mohammed, which is exactly what, politically speaking, as a reporter, I will be after. So thank you again for this discussion.
And by the way, I put my voice converging to Mohammed's and Peter Leeser's on Ukraine. I think it was a bit disappointing not to have any answer from the commission, but, of course, we will look at that very carefully in our negotiations.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. The deadline for amendments is tomorrow at 5PM. The vote in MV, it will be July 6, and the voting plenary should be in September. So now we will move to the exchange of views on the draft opinion on the commission proposal for a revised Trans European Network for Energy TEN-E regulation. First, I will give the floor to the envy rapporteur to present a draft opinion.
So Missus Lukasieska, you have the floor for five minutes. Maybe we wait a moment for people leaving the room. I think now you can start. Thank you.
Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska
Now, thank you very much, Chairman. I'd like to stress that while drafting this opinion on the TNT, I have three things in mind. First of all, we should stick to the course of decarbonizing the European Union. But the planning and of a robust infrastructure, this goal is impossible to implement. Our economies are so different that we cannot use a single technology for the purpose.
Hence, technologies and new neutrality are based on Article 194, Para two of the treaty. This will ensure taking into account the specificity of every country and the choice of the energy mix. The development of the infrastructure must result from the real systemic needs and not from technological ideas. Now it needs to be stressed that the European infrastructural policy needs to stick to the geopolitical reality. We must build a system, an energy system, which is robust and independent from the third countries.
This system has to be able to function in the global crisis and also climate crisis situation, also in the presence of hybrid threats. So we need to stick to homegrown energy sources. This is the renewable energies on the one hand, and also large, easily available sources such as nuclear energy, and also renewable fuels and synthetic fuels. Now the technological neutrality in nuclear energy. Now, in the preamble, we need to put in the references made to the small modular reactors and also advanced nuclear energy technologies.
As I feel that nuclear energy will play an important role in stabilizing the baseload system and also integrating the renewable energy sources, a debate on the subject is required. Now, the resilience of the system. I'm proposing that we need to look into the safety and security of our energy system by listing the threats and putting the hybrid environmental and political threats and risks. This has to mean that we are able to provide everyone with the necessary energy, but the system needs to be able to operate in a crisis situation. Now hydrogen and clean molecules, suggesting to clarify such ideas as clean molecule and clean molecules integration infrastructure, in order to make sure that this also applies to biomethane, methane, and low emission fuels.
Now we adopted a package on hydrogen, and we need to focus on its implementation. In this context, I would be suggesting the creation of the union mechanism based on hydrogen based on the guarantee vehicles. These actions will create the necessary demand. Otherwise, we won't be able to attract private capital. Now I would like to strengthen the role of the transmission operators whenever infrastructure and then work on infrastructure planning is being carried out, because those operators need to work hand in hand with the European Commission on the central scenario of actions and identifying structural needs.
Let's not forget that for the past two decades, those operators have been responsible for the planning activities, and the European Union has made a major step forward in terms of infrastructure development. Now I feel that sometimes we fail to recognize the diversity of member states' transmission systems, and this may lead to faulty investment decisions. Now, gas infrastructure. We need to make sure that we have a systemic assessment of the transformation of the gas infrastructure towards the low-emission gases. Now repulsing.
This repurposing, obviously, is needed whenever it's technically needed, whenever the supply security is required. I'll be very happy to answer any questions you might have. And I remain convinced that we will be able to work out a very balanced compromise.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we leave the floor to the shareholder report for 2 minutes. We start with Ana Lisa Corrado on behalf of Bruno Tobak.
Annalisa Corrado
Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes. I'm sharing these comments on behalf of Bruno, and the TNE is the backbone of the EU Energy Union. With this proposal, the European Commission finally puts forward a genuine European planning approach that gives investor certainty, helps lower costs for consumers, and brings our countries closer together through a stronger and more integrated energy union.
This is progress. But we are afraid that the rapporteur's draft opinion would take us backward. It would leave untouched a planning system that is no longer fit for the energy union Europe needs. If we want to unblock interconnection projects and build a truly strategic vision for Europe's energy future, then we must move forward with the Commission's proposal. Beside this, we will give no-wire solution and flexibility the importance they deserve, requesting these investments to be considered at the same level as physical grid development deployment.
We need both at the same time and in accelerated fashion. Electricity will be the heart of this transformation. Hydrogen and other alternatives remain important, but the greatest opportunity lies in electricity. That is why we will table amendments to ensure that PCIs reflect today's market and technological reality. Finally, we need a system that is more transparent for citizens, for investors, and for system operators.
This is why we will also propose amendments to make the process stronger, the data more reliable, and Europe's energy planning fit for the future. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now for Patriot and Marilou Sebastien on behalf of Matilda André.
Chairman,
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
With this, review of the Trans European energy structures, we are dealing with an essential issue, energy sovereignty for our countries, the prices paid by our households, and the sovereignty of our industry. Yes. We need modern infrastructure, more solid infrastructure networks, more storage, and useful interconnections, but this infrastructure should not become a pretext to impose a uniform energy policy on member states. The European texts are clear on this. Each member state reserves the right to choose its own energy range.
This principle must be fully respected without any sort of technocratic hiding. We want efficiency, not ideology. European projects must be assessed based on their real usefulness, security of supply, drop in prices, stability of the network, industrial competitiveness, not on whether they conform to a single view of energy transition. We must admit to all decarbon energy: nuclear, hydroelectric, dams, pump stations, geothermal, low carbon hydrogen. These technologies are not obstacles to the transition.
They are the pillars to building a reliable, affordable, and sovereign energy. We refuse that interconnections become an automatic solidarity mechanism where consumers in one country would pay for the energy, choices risky energy choices in another. Cross border cooperation must be voluntary, balanced, based on real benefits and fair compensation. Finally, energy infrastructure must not be done on the land. We need to protect agricultural lands, tourism, local communities.
Priority should be on modernizing existing networks to avoid the already artificial infrastructure. Our priority in the Patriots is decarbon energy that is affordable to the service of the people, company, and member states, not to the service of an energy European energy centralization, which is ever more expensive.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. For with the VCR? No? No. So for renew, Michael Wiedzikka on behalf of Anava Vasconcelos.
Michal Wiezik
Yes. Thank you very much for the floor. Indeed, I'll be speaking on behalf of our shadow Ana Vasconcelos. We debate the revision of the 10e regulation at the moment of renewed pressure on European energy markets. Since February, gas prices went up by 70%, and the EU is paying roughly 500,000,000 more per day for fossil fuel imports.
Speaker 36
This gives an already crucial file a renewed urgency to deliver lasting results. This is about speed and coordination. Cross border infrastructure built fast enough to keep bills affordable, supply secure, and our industry competitive, with the ultimate aim of completing the energy union. The numbers are clear. Electrification is just about 21%, with 32% target by 2030.
Renewables are scaling rapidly. Demand from transport, heating, industry, and data centers is rising fast. Grids are not keeping pace. Without serious grid expansion and modernization, we risk bottlenecks, higher prices, and weaker security. Interconnectors are the backbone of a resilient European system, but infrastructure alone is not enough.
We need flexibility, storage, and planning over 10 and 20 year horizons. In NV, three priorities should come through clearly. First, digitalization and innovation. Second, climate resilience. And third, adequate, predictable financing, EU and private.
Speaker 38
Let's preserve the scope of 10E and keep it focused on what it is meant to deliver. This all said, Hana is looking forward to constructive cooperation with the Rapporteur and the shadows. Thank you very much.
Marie Toussaint
Thank you for the greens. Marie Toussaint.
Thanks a lot for giving me the floor. So I'm the green shadow on this opinion. And just to tell you that I had the honor to be the green rapporteur of this opinion during the last reform of the Dénis. We were gonna work this time with a new team, which will be interesting, with new arguments and new approaches, which is good. But the first thing I want to say, except from thanking Michel Wissig for reminding of the climate obligations and cost of life and energy prices just right now.
Speaker 41
But I would like, first of all, to thank the commission for the work that was done, because I think a lot was drawn out of our discussions during the last mandate, and we have moved a lot in the direction that was given by the NV Committee during the last mandate, especially on governance, on stronger central planning, and on the need to accelerate the transition towards green transition. The proposal explicitly on courage is also looking at non-wire solutions before building new infrastructures, which means also spending money, which is very good news and, I think, quite smart. And is also stronger on the climate approach since the PCI and PMI listed in the network development plans must now align with the 2030 climate goals, which is also something that is smart both in climate approach but also in the money approach that we need to have. In that regard, I would remind the colleague that the member states have the right to choose their energetic mix, but they also have the right to be smart, and they have one duty, which is to protect their citizens from climate change, which should never be forgotten.
Now maybe a few points that we'll bring forward during the examination of the amendments. But for us, the Greens, governance has always been a key priority. We have an issue with transparency. We have an issue with, well, the gas incumbents taking the money that they get through the fact that they model themselves the scenario. And, I mean, this is something that cannot work really well.
Marie Toussaint
We are happy with the governance, as I said, but still, we remain concerned that the TSOs and SOE and ENO, successor of EXOG, still retain a central role in the infrastructure needs identification, which, again, raises an issue when the money has to be spent, and a concern that was already flagged by our climate board, but also by ACER, so we should be careful about that. We want to and we will defend the fact to have more transparency and independent oversight over the network system analysis and also over the public money that will be given, of course. Just one point to end up with governance, but separating electricity and hydrogen PCIs into two delegated acts is absolutely essential, and we will also work in that direction. As you have understood, we want to increase the role of ES ABCC, sorry, to ensure full alignment with the climate targets. And we are also quite worried of the current tendency in the EU to, well, facilitate provisions on permitting and overriding public interest, that needs to be looked at carefully.
We cannot say everything is overriding public interest or nothing is anymore. So we'll need to have a look, a closer look at that. And then on sectoral priorities, TENE must be about electrification and renewable energy. Again, non-wire solutions first. But we should prioritize domestic renewable hydrogen and not fossil-based alternatives, which will be costly in the end, and that I think we cannot afford in the citizens either.
We are also concerned that fossil gas projects remain in the TEN-E with Melita and Dismet. There is no argument, especially with the murder of Dafnekawana Galicia, for those to stay there. This is just looking at the past, and not looking at the future. And I want to be clear also with our report there, nuclear energy has no place in this regulation. Thank you.
Lynn Boylan
Thank you, chair, and thank you to the rapporteur for her draft report. I think the illegal war in Iran and the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz has brought into focus the need to escalate our deployment of renewable energies. And the update of the 10e regulation can help us to do that, bring this greener, more affordable energy. So I do welcome the commission's decision to remove responsibility for the central planning scenarios from the ENTSOs. The ENTSO for gas, which is now transforming into the ENTSO for hydrogen, has consistently put forward scenarios that overestimated the gas demand and were inconsistent with our climate goals.
The TSOs are the main promoters of energy projects and so should not be leading the process that assesses the need for further energy projects. And while the governance changes are positive, I think the changes to permitting are more concerning for our group. I think assigning public interest status to infrastructure for hydrogen, CO2 transfer, transport, and even renewable electricity needs to be done on a case-by-case basis that will ensure both the protection of our environment, but also avoid creating stranded assets. And then turning to the rapporteur's draft report, I have to say I regret to see the focus on nuclear energy infrastructure and technology neutrality is concerning. Technology neutrality applies to market rules, not to infrastructure prioritization.
And the tenee has always made deliberate policy-driven choices to align infrastructure with climate and system needs, such as excluding fossil fuel gas expansion in the last review. And the 10e is about networks infrastructure, not generation choices. And I think changing the 10e to focus on nuclear risks, crowding out genuinely cross-border priorities for renewable energy networks. So I'll be tabling amendments that prioritize nature protection in the planning process that will prioritize renewable energy and the avoidance of fossil fuel lock-in. But I do look forward to working constructively with all the colleagues on this file.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you, Chair. Thanks to all colleagues and speaking maybe a little bit from the position as being shadow reporter in Itre, but now I'll speak more from the perspective of ENVI. I'd like to, first of all, thank very much the commission. We're coming with this report, be with the proposal, which really covers very urgent needs of today. And I'd like to stress three points, which I had as a key from this point, and it's one of the is technology neutrality.
Although my colleagues said it's not relevant, I do believe it's highly relevant because every member state should choose according to possibilities, geographical locations, weather. And at the same time, it should have possibility to choose energy mix and whether electrons or molecules. And then based on this preference for the most efficient energy grids, which must remain at the member states level. Second issue, which relates very closely to this, is planning because we believe or I believe that planning should be based on reality and technical expertise and regional knowledge. So it means more as it is now, and not stronger role to the European Commission or ACER unless it's clearly justified because in some cases, obviously, coordination is necessary.
And last but not least, is financing. Concerning financing, I believe that PCI project should remain highest, should receive highest national importance as far, which we fully agree with, which is in the proposal as far as they are getting on the list on the basis of national preference. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now the floor to the commission. We have Joachim Barker, deputy head of unit of DG N, infrastructure and regional cooperation. You have the floor.
Joachim Balke
Good afternoon, everybody. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. Thanks very much, members, honorable members, and in particular, of course, to the rapporteur Ms. Wukhachevska, and everybody who spoke, for their important work on this file.
Speaker 46
From our point of view as the commission, we do consider that the GRIPs package represents a cornerstone of our collective effort to build a secure, sustainable, and consumer-centric energy system, which has to remain affordable, and we believe that pushing the infrastructure necessary in that regard is key. First of all, I think we would like to, I would like to thank the rapporteur for supporting the main objectives of the grid package, and ensure, in particular, security of supply, but also resilience of the energy system, which we believe is a challenge that has become much more prominent and that we need to address specifically as we have proposed with our 10e revision. We also believe, as the draft opinion underlines, that these objectives have become even more important in the current geopolitical context that we all have to face. We do believe in that context that it's important to enable, in particular, the cost-efficient integration of homegrown energy, including renewables in the system, and that our infrastructure plays a key role in this regard. Now, a few more specific comments, if you allow me.
First of all, as regards the planning process, we have indeed proposed, in the 10 year revision, to revise the current approach to infrastructure planning. We have proposed a new approach to cross-border infrastructure planning, which has also indeed looked at the role of the different actors in the current system, and we think this needs some rebalancing. We have therefore indeed sought to go further with a truly European planning system as some of you have stressed. We believe this is necessary because the current governance framework clearly has shortcomings and does not allow us to plug all the gaps in our infrastructure and, in particular, in our electricity infrastructure as, we think has been clearly demonstrated not only through our impact assessment, but also underlined in the Draghi report and also previous own initiative reports of the parliament. So we do think we need to go beyond the status quo in the planning of infrastructure at European level with, it is true, a somewhat reinforced role for the commission.
But importantly, this is a role where we think we need to coordinate more strongly, in particular the scenario building, which is the first step in this planning process. All of that in close cooperation, obviously, with the member states in the TEN-G Group. Secondly, and linked to this, on the issue of technology neutrality. Now we would indeed consider that as we're talking here about infrastructure planning and deployment, by definition, we are talking about something which is technology neutral, because it is important to stress that what we are not doing with the 10E, neither with the past nor with the future 10E, is either to dictate specific energy mixes to member states, nor, in fact, do we intend to promote specific generation technologies through the 10E framework. What we rather want to do and propose to strengthen is to promote the infrastructure, which will help make the best of the complementarity of the different energy mixes and the member states.
This is why indeed we think it is important to continue to focus the 10E instrument on cross-border energy infrastructure rather than generation technologies or, in fact, the connection of specific technologies to the grid, for which we believe there are other and more appropriate instruments. Thirdly, as regards the scope of the 10 E framework, I would recall that in the last revision, which is, in fact, not that long ago and some of you have been there in 2022, it was decided by the colegislator to remove fossil fuel infrastructure from the 10 E framework, recognizing the progress made in developing, in particular, resilient and secure national gas infrastructure. And we would not propose to go backwards, by reopening the door for fossil fuel infrastructure back in the 10 year legislation. Then, fourthly, on perhaps a few words on hydrogen, which we indeed also consider to be very important, the development of the hydrogen infrastructure. However, perhaps two nuances here.
Firstly, as regards, and some of you have mentioned it, the question in how far infrastructure projects should be accorded the status of having overriding public interest, one of the key concepts in terms of accelerating permitting procedures. We think indeed that here, a sort of balanced approach is needed. This is why we have proposed to make the presumption of overriding public interest mandatory for electricity grids, where we think this is justified on the substance and has a key role in accelerating those projects. We do, on the other hand, think that for both hydrogen and carbon dioxide projects, it would indeed go a step too far to presume this overriding public interest in all cases. It is still an option for member states to do so on a case-by-case basis, which we think is the most appropriate way forward.
And one more comment on hydrogen. We also fully recognize the need to further work on the financing framework for hydrogen, including the de-risking of hydrogen infrastructure projects, which remains a significant challenge. We do, however, think it is premature at this point in time to commit to a legal proposal in this regard. And in particular, we can, of course, not preempt through the 10G framework or create any future financial obligations in this respect. By way of conclusion, I would like to emphasize that we think it is important to maintain the clear focus of 10E on cross-border infrastructure while, indeed, as some of you have mentioned, also somewhat enlarging the scope of our notion of what this entails, in particular as regards digitalization and what we've called non-wire projects.
Honorable members, thanks very much for your attention. We believe this is a very important proposal, and we look very forward to continue to work with you on this proposal. Thanks very much.
Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska
Now, thank you, Chairman. Can I also say thank you very much to all shadows and for all the speakers for pointing out the needs that are out there? But there seems to be a general agreement emerging that there's a need for decarbonization, flexibility, resilience, independence, safety and security, and neutrality. This is what is expected from us by our citizens. We need to always remember the geopolitical situation and our independence from the supplies from the third countries, and all that is that we do not relive the problems from the past.
Now I believe that we are on our way to drafting the best possible opinion. I look forward to further cooperation, hoping that we will have a very balanced product by the end.
Pierfrancesco Maran
So the deadline for amendment is May 7 at 11AM. The vote in envy will be the June 23, in Italy, the September 10, and the planner is supposed to be in the month of October. The opinion shall deal solely with those matters that fall within the areas of competence of the opinion-giving committee. Amendment falling outside the areas of competence of that opinion-giving committee shall not be admissible. Now we skip to the next opinion, with an exchange of view on the draft opinion on the commission proposal establishing the regional development fund, ERDF, and the Equation Fund, as well as the implementation condition for union support for regional development in the year 2028 to 2034.
We will first hear from the R and D operator, Mrs. Jana Nagiova, who is joining remotely, no, she's here to present her draft opinion. Mrs. Nagiova, you have.
the floor for five minutes.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you, Chair, dear colleagues. So my objective I'm happy to be here to have the possibility to present draft opinion of the RDF for 2028, 2034. My objective is to ensure that while we maintain the high ambition of our union, also environmental, we provide our regions with a framework that is practical, predictable, and fair. So I'd like to have three major points because, as we all know, this regulation, a proposal for regulation, is extremely limited in its scope, and it looks as it was, at the very last moment, taken away from the an RPP, which is unfortunately clearly visible. Anyway, let's work with what we have on the table.
So first of all, what is important from my perspective is balancing ambition with workability. So it means that I believe that cohesion policy must be a driver for a prosperous Europe. I'm convinced that our investment in nature, biodiversity, and climate resilience will only deliver results if they are backed with clear and measurable indicators. So should we move away from tick boxing, ex for box ticking exercise, and ensure that environmental benefits we claim are tangible and durable. So this requires us to anchor these environmental requirements directly into the basic act rather than relying on nonbinding guidance that creates legal uncertainty and audit risk for member states.
What I do have in my mind is the NSH, do not significant harm, because this is, this is what we see or I see as a highly, highly critical point. Currently, the proposal leaves the definition of DNSH criteria primarily to future commission guidance. And this is something which we see as very, very risky because the NSH is no longer just a policy guideline. It becomes a precondition for withdrawing eligibility, which determines with which projects are and can be financed. Because this rule now directly has impact on whether member states can absorb funds, structure of bankable project, and leverage private capital.
It's fundamentally a legislative matter. It's not it should not be left only as a guidance. And by anchoring this core DNSH principles and criteria in annex to basic act, we provide it will provide legal certainty and equal treatment that member states and beneficiaries urgently need, while preventing commission from unilaterally adjusting eligibility rules without proper legislative oversight. Another point is social fairness and subsidiarity. I'd like to emphasize that the green transition must be socially balanced, and environmental investments should be paired with the measures that secure affordable energy, essential services, and quality employment, particularly in our industrial and disadvantaged regions.
Furthermore, we should uphold the principle of subsidiarity, which means local and regional authorities know their specific territories the best. Therefore, we must grant them flexibility to design place-based effective approaches provided they remain aligned with our reaching union environmental laws. So in short, my proposed amendment aims to transform this framework into a tool which is not only greener, but also more transparent, predictable, and responsive to diverse realities of our regions. And I invite you all to support this balanced approach so that our cohesion fund can effectively serve both the planet and prosperous European citizens. Thank you all, and look forward to your questions and contributions.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, Missus Nagyava. Now we will go, we give the floor to the shadow. We start with EPP, Esteban Garcia.
Thank you very much.
Esther Herranz García
Of the EPP Saudi reporter, Mister Daniel Buddha, who could not be present today due to the political situation in Romania. This file must be viewed in a broader context, namely the reform of the future MFF, which plus cohesion policy together with other policies and subjected it both to a single fund and to a single national regional partnership plan. For the first time, Cohesion is competing with other policies for the same financial resources. Therefore, we must increase the efficiency of every euro invested. Natural bus solutions are on average 50% more cost effective and provide 28% greater added value than great infrastructure.
Elena Sancho Murillo
In addition to the economic benefits, these solutions enhance territorial and social cohesion by creating public service and infrastructure, such as urban parks or green roofs, which strengthen communities while helping to combat the urban heat island effect. At the same time, it's essential to find an appropriate balance so that ambitious green objectives do not lead to a loss of competitiveness or to the relocation of production to third countries, to the detriment of less developed regions in Europe. We must combat the population growth, especially in rural areas and those with structural constraints, which are essential for the environment, climate, and food security. The sustainable development of rural areas represents a major opportunity for the circular economy, by economy and renewable energy, while also providing multiple benefits through agroecological infrastructure, high-value mosaic agroforestry landscapes, carbon farming, reducing the incidence of fires through livestock farming, alongside increasing soil fertility and reducing dependence on fertilizers. But last but not least, integrated territorial investment strategies must include a strong component of smart villages and community-led local development to deliver solutions tailored to specific local changes.
Esther Herranz García
In conclusion, a genuine sustainable transition cannot exist without a strong, fair coercion adapted to the territorial realities of the union, one that leaves no person behind. Thanks so much on behalf of Mr. Ruda.
Speaker 53
Thank you very much, chair, and thanks to the rapporteur for presenting the draft. The SND Group believes firmly that EFRE funds should maintain their essence, economic, social, and territorial cohesion, to contribute to the reduction of disparities between regions, supporting a greener, more connected Europe and a more social Europe as well. We're extremely concerned about the direction proposed by the commission in the framework of the new budget. Under the pretext of modernization, simplification, and efficiency, we see a real risk of renationalization of the cohesion policy and a weakening of funding for social cohesion, climate action, and regional convergence. Moving fundamental priorities and decision making from regions, cities, and local actors to the future national plans would do away with the essence itself of the cohesion policy, multilevel governance, collaboration, and a territorial focus.
Speaker 55
From the point of view of envy, we insist that the climate and the environment aspect shouldn't be weakened. Fund should be used to support the green transition and renewable energies. The objective of climate neutrality for 2050 should continue to be reflected fully in these ERDF funds. In summary, the proposal should back up the current model of cohesion policy. The value lies in its territorial focus and collaboration, focusing on long-term convergence.
Speaker 54
Europe needs greater solidarity and investment, not more centralization or less environmental ambition. We do hope to work constructively with our colleagues to ensure that the ENVI opinion reflects a cohesion policy that is solid, sustainable, and truly European. Thank you very much.
Thank.
Antonella Sberna
You, chair. I'd like to start by thanking the rapporteur for all of the work she's done over the past few weeks, recognizing the commitment that is under this new programming period, which will lead to a more integrated approach and results, even though there are a number of challenges when it comes to the implementation of all of this. Now we'll work together on this, of course, as we've done in the past. We've already had talks about this, but we want to make this a courageous proposal, and we need to state what it is that we want European funds to go to over the next few years. So this is an important opportunity, and I believe that our committee can do some excellent work on this.
Speaker 56
Now, just a couple of quick points. First of all, we should broaden our view not just towards the East, but also to the South. We have very vulnerable borders also to the south. And the text should recognize this and should also draw attention and resources to the South where there is also a lot of geopolitical tension. The second point I'd make is that we should use the European Rural Development Fund to meet the real needs that people have, housing, mobility, neighborhoods that are simply not working properly.
So structural funds need to be applied in an urban context, not just as part of a green transition, which is mentioned, but also as a lever to improve one's everyday life. Then on interreg, I really think we should protect what works. So therefore, clear and stable rules, adequate pre-financing, not just technical details really, but a true precondition for projects to get off the ground, to get started, and therefore having clearer and more certain programming for those who are applying for funds. Now these are some of the proposals that I would like to submit for your attention. We can also do that in a more formal way, but hopefully, we can find shared support from other colleagues on those points.
I hope we all have some good work ahead of us, and I hope to really get to work on this for the benefit of our citizens.
Mikhail Wittig
Thank you very much for the floor. I'll be speaking Slovak. For Umrade.
Speaker 60
First of all, thank you to the rapporteur for the opinion. As she has mentioned herself, the legislative framework put forward by the commission reduces the proposed regulation to just a few pages, literally. And, of course, there is worry emerging that some aspects might actually be skipped or omitted. And despite this fact, the commission is giving us assurances that despite this reduction, there are measures aimed at environment and climate protection, that they are still a vital part and priority of these funds also in the upcoming programming period.
Speaker 36
Trust, but I have to somehow check and make sure. And that's why as a shadow rapporteur for renew, I will gladly focus on making sure that this is evident from the text. It is also clear that the union funds are intended to contribute to the objectives of existing national nature restoration plans or the objectives of the urban wastewater treatment directive, and to also help regions and urban areas adapt to climate change and increase their water resilience. These are all very important chapters, which cannot be put aside. The sectoral regulations of other nature, which lay down the conditions of union supports, for example, in fisheries or of the European Ocean Pact, explicitly exclude activities for which support cannot be drawn or will not be provided.
Speaker 59
And that's for the right reasons, because they are counterproductive to the set objectives. To me, I kind of like this kind of approach in this proposal, and I will, therefore, act on that in the negotiations. Of course, speaking on behalf of Renew, we support the principle of do no significant harm, which according to our principles and the way we approach this should be part of any legislation adopted in this area. So I will try to find some common ground and a functional compromise. That's it on my behalf.
Lena Schilling
Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for your contributions. First, I really much agree with the approach that you just mentioned in the do not significant harm, but I will come back to that. I think we have to take European cohesion seriously more than ever, addressing the challenges in our various regions together, facing threats of more severe catastrophic weather events due to climate change. We are discussing them day by day in this house every time they happen. We are discussing poverty and stagnating economic situations in the region, so we cannot leave the European Development Fund in any way empty.
And there, we need to be strong. We need to stand up in the parliament for the citizens we are saying we are defending, for the citizens that are voting for us. Europe agreed and committed itself to reach climate neutrality by 2050. With that in regard, we do need all the support to foster a sustainable transition to a carbon neutral economy and jobs in the industrial transition regions. Elsewise, we won't make our binding EU climate targets.
In that hindsight, it's not understandable why this draft and poor opinion contains not more content on supporting a just and fair transition for lagging regions. I mean, especially in the regions, we need to bring something on the ground to support the people, because talking about the climate crisis is not abstract. This is happening in the everyday lives of people living in the most affected regions. And therefore, I really want us to mention, on the one side, biodiversity and the challenges, but on the other, also climate. And especially worrying, as I was mentioning also in the beginning in the draft report, is for me the attack on the do not significant harm principle.
We need clearer Europe-wide definitions, and that cannot be that member states choose for themselves when it's doing no significant harm or when not. Therefore, we need a clear rule. And I think there also we need clear investments, because we need also in this protection to have money and budget in place. That's always the point. And the last point I still want to make, in the former ERDF, we had an inclusion of lists of projects which could not be funded by the ERDF or the CF, defines that with this cohesion instrument, no fossil fuel infrastructure, airports, or the enlargement of landfill waste dumps can be supported.
And I really think we should have such a list in our proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 62
Thank you. Thank you, Tim, and thank you to the rapporteur for this draft opinion. Obviously, we all want less bureaucracy. We want speedier funds for our regions, but there's a certain limit we can't exceed. We can't confuse simplification with the dismantling of environmental protection.
And today, behind all of the reassuring words such as flexibility and proportionality, we feel we're hiding the risk of emptying out the meaning of years of battles to protect the environment. We want to ensure that our citizens are not financing projects that destroy the planet, and that's our guiding line. We want a strategic investment for the less developed regions, but the environment should not pay the price. A region that is disadvantaged has always had environmental damage. So we want to avoid a dual damage because for those regions, those most disadvantaged regions, if they are condemned to remain behind even in environmental transformation, this we read, but those that are trying to slow this down say that the environmental rules are excessive.
For us, they're not excessive. They're fundamental to safeguard our territories from building speculation. And then there's the issue of subsidiarity, which, yes, has a value, a general value, but it can't be an excuse where each state decides how much they want to pollute. So to conclude, I want to say that for us, it is key to support further effort to support trans ecological transition. And this can be done with targeted investment, not by auctioning off environmental safeguards.
We and the left will work on those aspects by presenting amendments to ensure that the cohesion policy does not become a blank check to derogate from our climate goals. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Now the floor to the commission, Mister Matti Tasso, team leader, DG Rego, you need to be one. I don't have any requests for KGI. No? So you have the floor.
Matti Tasso
Thank you, chair. And honorable members, thanks a lot for the draft opinion and for this debate, which is indeed very timely ahead of starting the discussions on this draft regulation with the parliament. First and foremost, I think it's very important to underline that, indeed, we are facing a major reform of the MFF. This is what the commission proposed, and we propose to pool all the shared management funds together under a single regulation, and the national and regional partnership plans. And in this sense, the proposal for the ERDF Covision Fund and the Interreg regulation is complementing the regulation governing the national regional partnership plans.
So the two regulations should be read in conjunction and together, and this is why you may find the current proposal on the ERDF Cohesion Fund a lot slimmer than what we had in the current programming period. The approach of the commission is not to regulate instruments, but rather cater for the common objectives and to create the financial framework to achieve those objectives. With this single fund approach and the single programming approach under the national regional partnership plans, the member states will actually have more flexibility to address the specific needs of their regions and also address environmental challenges. We move away from what's proved to be very rigid, the thematic concentration and compulsory earmarking requirements, again, leaving more flexibility for member states to have a tailored approach. Still, there are many things which continue to exist, so there is a strong sense of continuation.
What we are proposing, and here, I would like to highlight just a few elements addressing some of the points raised during the interventions. First of all, partnership and multi-level governance remains key in this framework, and regional partners will be strongly involved both in the design and the implementation of the national regional partnership plans. Under these plans, the member states can empower every territory to respond more effectively to new geopolitical, economic, and security challenges, and to empower them to implement their strategies. This reinforces the place based approach and the bottom up approach that we promoted under cohesion policy for a long time. The high-level objective of cohesion is very apparent for the whole national regional partnership plan.
The ERDF and the Cohesion Fund regulation just further specifies the possibilities to support these advantage areas, urban and rural areas, and outermost regions, not forgetting, of course, the interact that I'm going to cover in a second. According to the commission proposal, there is a long set of objectives that the NRP plan has to contribute to, and this also includes the environmental objectives, nature biodiversity, climate adaptation, and climate mitigation contributing to the climate neutrality objective by 2050. This is very strongly embedded in the proposal. And when it comes to the NRP plans to be designed by the member states, the commission will carry out a very careful assessment that the measures proposed are all contributing to this high level objective. When it comes to urban areas, especially the ERDF regulation provides for integrated territorial urban strategies, this is a continuation of the current territorial implementation tools.
And building on the success of this bottom up approach, we very much promote that under the ERDF, member states continue, you know, pursuing these approaches. This can take the form of specific measures, but even specific chapters in the NRP plan. Many of you raised the principle of do no significant harm to the environment, which already existed under the current programming periods to 2027. What we recognize is we had a fragmented approach with rules scattered across many different regulations. Now the approach is common to the whole MFF and embedded in the financial regulation.
So this is not new. This is not something which is implemented by this regulation, but again, it is rooted in the financial regulation. And the DNSH is not going to go further than what is in the environmental. It doesn't create double standards. It doesn't create additional obligations.
The guidance, which is to which the commission committed to issue that for member states, we'll just further clarify and streamline the process how the NSH assessment will need to be carried out. The just transition as an approach is not discontinued. You are right to say that it is not apparent in this regulation on the table, the RDF and coalition fund regulation. However, the just transition fund does exist and is pursued in the framework of the national regional partnership plans. Memberships have the full flexibility to continue with the trade territorial just transition plans and to address regions in industrial transition to help them in their path to climate neutrality.
Not a lot was said about Interreg, which is a major part of this regulation. Interreg continues, and this regulation provides for continuity, spelling out all the rules of what we had previously and under the current period, building on the success of cross border cooperation. And this regulation clearly sets out how these measures will have to be programmed and how the partners across the regions and borders will have to be involved, in this process. With this, I would conclude, and I look very much forward to continuing the discussion and debate with you on this draft regulation. Thank you.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you, chair. First of all, thanks colleagues for your I was listening carefully, and I was listening carefully also to the commission. And I have to say that I'm involved in the regional policy for more than 20 years. And the approach which commission took with NRPP and with ERDF, which we are discussing now, was the biggest dissatisfaction, or how you say, for me over the last many years. An approach two in one because the commission is true.
We should read both in one. I mean, an RPP together with ERDF. Otherwise, we don't know what it is about. Makes it even more complicated instead of simplicity. But, okay.
I think we still will have a long discussion with the commission. I hope so. We're all together. And I have to say that I do agree with most of what I have heard here, and what I do not agree is only probably that I didn't understand properly what you meant. So that's all.
And I look forward to your amendments. And, I look forward to discussion about the NSH specifically because it was moved up to a completely different level. Okay? It was with us for many years, but it's really a shift, and we need to clarify this point very strongly. So whether you like it or not, all of you here, I will do my best to try to find a really compromise wording through the old spectrum.
And I hope you will like it at the end of the day, and I hope I will see most of you, ideally, in the shadows. So let's continue. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. We do hope everybody will like it at the end of the day. The deadline for amends is May 12 at 11AM. The voting MB will be the 07/14/26. The voting reg is in April, and the voting plan should be there in the second November 2026.
The chair shall deal solely with those matters that fall within the areas of competence of the opinion-giving committee. Amendments falling outside the areas of competence of that opinion-giving committee shall not be. Admissible. Now we have a post-deal May.
Test. Test.
Esther Herranz García
Dear colleagues, please take care. Colleagues, we can retake our agendas with the joint committee, MB Agri Committee. And as you have received the agenda, and if there are no objections, the draft agenda can be adopted without any modifications. We don't have anyone. So I had to say to you that the interpretation status is in 21 languages.
Speakers are invited to speak in their mother tongue if there is one of the languages for which interpretation is available. If not, you can choose one of the express it. It's also strongly recommended to avoid reading out a speech in order to make the work of the interpreters as easy as possible. And the electronic meeting final will stream as usual. The meeting file is available electronically via the e-meeting application, and the meeting will be with streaming.
And now we take the main point of no. We have to proceed to the adoption of minutes of 23 September and April of last year. And if there are no objections, the minutes can be adopted without modifications. And now, finally, we go to the main point of today's agenda. We are talking about the file on food and feed safety requirements.
Esther Herranz García
Just like to make note of taking advantage of this debate that this omnibus package that we're debating today is particularly important for a sector that has undergone increasing costs of many consumables, including phytosanitary products and feed. We'd like to thank Commissioner Hansen who committed to simplifying the rules on protection and marketing of these products, which are of concern to us. I'd also like to highlight in particular two important aspects called for by the sector for some time: the use of drones for fumigation with active substances as precision techniques in agriculture, something that has been requested and then what's going to be worked on in this file. And something else I believe to be key is the situation of active substances, orphan substances, which after the patent period are off the market because there's no interest in renewing permits. So these two, well, this issue, this food and feed issue, is very important for us, and it's relevant for the entire sector.
Esther Herranz García
Can move to the opening remarks by the chair, Madam Bercianova.
Speaker 72
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Esther. Thank you for the floor, and thank you also for helping us to organize this joint meeting. Welcome.
Veronika Vrecionová
I would like to welcome here also our colleague members of Envi Committee and, of course, also of Agri Committee. We welcome the commission's proposal to simplify the food and feed safety legislation. However, they entail many changes to various areas of existing legislation, all of which have significant implications. Today's commission's explanations are therefore necessary and welcome as our two committees are about to perform their legislative work. So I would like to welcome here Madame Barry.
And you have now the floor for ten minutes. Please, madam, the floor is yours.
Barry
Thank you very much. Chairs, honorable members, thank you very much for the opportunity to present this food and feed simplification package, which the Commission adopted in December. As you all know, I think our food and feed safety rules are among the strongest in the world, and we want to keep them that way. But as you said in the introduction, if we want Europe to stay competitive, to lead on sustainability, and to keep pace with scientific and technological change, the rules need to be faster, simpler, and more innovation-friendly. And they need to do this while at the same time keeping a high level of protection.
Speaker 75
And the package that I'm gonna present to you today responds directly to this need. It translates the actions announced in the vision for agriculture and food into specific evidence-based changes across the food and feed safety rule book. It sets out faster and clearer procedures. It focuses on the issues that will help farmers and food and feed businesses be more competitive and resilient, and this is more important than ever given the geopolitical shocks and the global competition we're facing. The package contributes directly to our commitment to reduce administrative burdens by at least 25-35% for SMEs by the end of the mandate of this commission.
Barry
It also contributes to the 37,500,000,000 cost reduction target. And altogether, we estimate that the savings for businesses from this package could be as much as €420,000,000 a year. And these savings come from reduced administrative burden and lower compliance costs, a more supportive environment for innovation, quicker market access, and potential new market opportunities for certain products. The simplification will be especially helpful for small and medium-sized businesses, allowing them to save €227,000,000. National administrations will also benefit.
They're expected to save €661000000 every year, thanks to more streamlined and efficient procedures. I would like already to thank this house for having processed one part of the package already, the proposal to extend the data protection for active substances and biocidal products that are still under evaluation. So my presentation today is going to focus on the other parts of the package, and we think that adoption is urgent for these parts too. So let me present some of the targeted amendments, and explain why we proposed them. I'll start with the plant protection products.
I've got five points on that, and then I'll talk about some other aspects of the package. So the first point is biocontrol. Now on this, we are responding to the wishes of this house and its own initiative report from last November. So we've proposed a package of measures to speed up the market access for biocontrol pesticides. This will give farmers a more comprehensive, sustainable toolbox for protecting their crops.
And it includes a proposal for additional resources for the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, so that they can speed up assessments of biocontrol active substances. Secondly, on the renewals, we've also proposed how to streamline how active substances are reviewed. Currently, all approvals of active substances are limited in time. And what we have noted is that the vast majority of resources in the member states are bound up in these procedures for renewal, and practically all of those procedures are significantly delayed. There is an average delay of 190 out of 200 which are pending of five years, and some of the delays are between five and ten years.
The system is really not working at the moment. Applicants for approval of new active substances often need to wait several years before a member state accepts their submission. This clearly handles the transition to more sustainable crop protection. And in order to boost member states' capacity to assess the applications, the commission has proposed for approvals of active substances to become unlimited. However, the exception is, of course, more hazardous substances and substances for which the risk assessment points to the need for a reevaluation after a certain period of time.
Now I know that this part of the commission's proposal has triggered some strong reactions. I want to emphasize that the aim is solely to make the renewal procedures more targeted and efficient, so that the system works in a more intelligent way, and we focus on the substances where it really matters. This is not a revolution. It's an evolution to a system that should work better. And I want to emphasize again, the current stringent approval criteria will not change.
And moreover, the proposal contains a number of safeguards to make sure that the current level of protection of health and the environment is maintained. For example, in cooperation with the member states, the commission will be obliged to regularly identify active substances for a full or more targeted renewal procedure. Secondly, product authorizations at member state level will remain limited in time in the commission's proposal, and the existing possibilities for ad hoc review of approvals will stay. Now, whilst biocontrol is the future, the need for conventional chemicals will remain for the time being. Thirdly, on derogations and grace periods, the package addresses this by clarifying derogation possibilities for the approval of active substances that don't meet all the criteria if there are no alternatives and they are essential for plant health.
Member states will also have more flexibility to extend grace periods for existing stocks of plant protection products that contain active substances that can no longer be approved. And this ensures that farmers have time to switch to approved alternatives, and member states do not use emergency authorizations. Again, we are responding to requests that have been made in this house. Fourthly, drones, which you mentioned in the introduction. We also propose that EU countries should be able to allow certain types of drones to spray plant protection products from the air, as this can be more efficient and sustainable for land-based spraying in some circumstances. But, again, this is subject to conditions and guarantees.
And the last point on the plant protection products relates to the maximum residue limits. Now this house has repeatedly called for an alignment of production standards for imported and domestically produced food and feed. In division for agriculture and food, the commission committed to the principle that the most hazardous pesticides banned in the EU for health and environmental reasons should not be allowed in imported products. To put this into practice, the vision explains that the commission will launch an impact assessment to consider the impacts on the EU's competitive position and the international implications. It also says in the vision that, if appropriate, we'll propose amendments to the legal framework.
Now as part of the preparatory work for this impact assessment, the Joint Research Center launched a study on November 25, and this study will look at the potential impacts on trade flows for the EU of refusing import tolerances for the most hazardous pesticides banned here. We're expecting to get the first preliminary data in the summer of this year, and the findings from that study will allow us to start discussions on the next steps. But the commission considers it's important that we're ready to take a first step on this now, given the political importance attached to it. So in the meantime, in the omnibus, we've proposed to create the possibility on a case-by-case basis of maximum residue limits of pesticides that have been set on what we call good agricultural practices in third countries, also known as import tolerances, or on codex limits that may be set at the technical zero, so there would be no maximum residue limit for the most hazardous substances, provided that this is considered justified in the light of a specific impact assessment. So that would be on a case-by-case basis.
Now I'd like to move to some other aspects of the package. The first is feed additives. We want to reduce unnecessary burden and complexity without, again, compromising our policy goals. So we've proposed to replace the systematic ten-year renewal obligation for authorizations with a more flexible review mechanism based on assessments by EFSA, the food safety authority, and this will not apply to higher-risk antimicrobial substances. The procedures for reviewing and modifying these authorizations will be stronger and clearer, and we've also proposed to use the potential of digital labelling for nonsafety information concerning feed additives.
The next point I want to come to is fermentation. This is becoming more important both in the agri-food sector and in the wider bioeconomy. So the commission has therefore proposed to clarify the status of food and feed produced by fermentation with the use of genetically modified microorganisms. Moving now to the notification of hygiene measures. We propose here to simplify the procedures for how member states notify national measures related to hygiene to the Commission and other member states.
We want to have one centralized procedure instead of two procedures, which will simplify the way hygiene rules are adapted to local needs. Next, moving to modernizing our rules on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease. This will allow for control and mitigation measures to be adapted in the future as our scientific knowledge evolves, and also mean that we can align better with international standards, which mean less disproportionate measures and trade restrictions. We're suggesting a more flexible proportionate risk-based approach, but, of course, always based on EFSA assessments, which will maintain a high level of public and animal health protection. Now last, but by no means least, the official controls regulation, we're proposing to allow partial clearance of plants and plant product consignments, which are subject to controls at the border control posts.
This will reduce the spoilage of perishable products and financial losses for operators, and it will also bring, we want to bring in more flexibility in the area of methods, accreditation, and laboratory standards to bring down costs. Chairs, honorable members, we have high standards for our health, our environment, and our food here in Europe, for good reason. None of these simplifications would lower the standards. We want to make our rules work better for everyone, and support our food producers, our farmers, and maintain our competitive edge. The commission, of course, stands ready to support you as you examine these proposals, and thank you for your attention.
Esther Herranz García
Thank you very much, Miss Ruri. Now we move to the next step. It's the time for the co-rapporteurs. We have Michel Picarro, Herbert Doffman. Mr.
Picarro will take the floor first, but he will be replaced by Eleonorebole in Salvini.
Eleonore Saldini
Thank you very much indeed, madam chair, and thank you to the commission. I'm replacing my colleague, Michele Picarro, as has just been announced, who is on behalf of the ECR Group, in charge in the ENVI committee. We'd like to thank the commission for its proposal, which seeks to streamline the framework of rules that apply to food and feed in the EU. It's an important step towards a more efficient, consistent system, which works to the benefit of the whole agri-food chain, in particular given the crisis we're going through. So we do believe that we have common objectives, which are simplification and speeding up of authorizations, in particular for phytosanitary products and for biological controls.
And we need to improve the average time it takes for assessments, and we need a strengthened area-based system, and we also need a better approach to scientific peer review so that farmers have swifter access and more effective measures. Furthermore, and I think this is the commission's intention, we would like to harmonize at the EU level the whole system with a stronger role being given to EFSA and using more efficient and effective mutual recognition mechanisms. So we avoid there being fragmentation between member states by standardizing technical files and aligning assessment criteria. Now, one of the more central points, and the commission has stated this itself, is reciprocity. We cannot have products entering the EU which do not correspond to the rules that we ourselves apply.
We want both quality and food security. So impact assessments are welcome in relation to import tolerance, but we can't have any compromise when it comes to the very high standards that we uphold in our models, and which we apply to our farmers and companies. Now, when it comes to competitiveness and production, I think it's of fundamental importance that we avoid removing molecules unless there are technically and economically sustainable alternatives. And we need to apply the principle of the effective alternative before any withdrawal takes place. Now, we also need a clear definition of biostimulants, so we can make a distinction between physiological and nutritional benefits.
And when it comes to agronomic assessment, we are in favor of a review of the derogation system to look at active substances where there are no alternatives, and a more consistent approach to the real agronomic needs. And now the commission touched upon this itself. Although we share the objective that is being pursued, we do believe that we need to strengthen the authorization system and be rigorous from a scientific point of view, have good procedures in place, and have clear deadlines so that we don't have uncertainty for the operators. Now, when it comes to recognition between member states, we see it as of fundamental importance to reduce administrative red tape, avoid duplication, and make the best of assessments that have already been carried out at European level. And this, while respecting climate and agronomic specificities of individual regions and countries.
Speaker 78
These are points which are points of departure and preconditions for our colleague Picaro, and of course together with other colleagues, he'll want to arrive at a good report, but this is what we need as a bare minimum to make sure that we have safe food and food sovereignty.
Esther Herranz García
Saldini. Now we move to the core reporter in the agri committee, mister Dortmund. You have three minutes.
Speaker 76
Thank you, Chair, and thanks to Madam for the presentation. Yeah. I think Felix is from a colleague in.
Herbert Dorfmann
I think my colleague in Salvini already has said a great deal, and I would support what has been said. Therefore, I and my group take the view that the commission's proposal, in many of its elements, is the right one, and we support it therefore. Now, when it comes to plant protection, the problem we face currently is twofold. First of all, farmers over the past few years have seen active substances withdrawn from the market. They've lost those because there is no authorization for them anymore.
And on the other hand, we're not in a position to open ourselves up to innovation, which means that if new products are developed elsewhere in the world, it takes us up to 6 or 7 years before we can allow them onto our markets. And that de facto means that if a product is ready, has been produced and if the manufacturer applies to EFSA or the EU and if EFSA then has to assess this before it can be authorized in the EU, then, you know, at the very earliest, our farmers would receive it somewhere in the 2030s if it is applied for today, and that's slightly bonkers. We need to improve on that. And many of the proposals you're making certainly take us in the right direction. I nonetheless have a couple of comments to make.
It's true that reauthorization of products, that the reauthorization of active substances at least, is not something that should occur again, with the exception of those where you need to be very careful. But we have scores of substances in the reauthorization process, but if for the 200 substances we don't find a solution, then EFSA will be snowed under, and for years to come, EFSA will not have the leeway it needs. Now Commissioner Hansen, in his mission for agriculture, quite rightly made the point that if we don't have a proper alternative, active substances should not be allowed to expire, but that means that you need economic criteria in the assessment. But this is not something that can be done at the commission level. It won't work.
And we believe that that's something we need to take a closer look at. When it comes to the authorization of products at member state level, I do think we need to find more straightforward solutions, which are based on reciprocity. There's no point in every member state doing this on its own. And the 27 member states doing this independently when their neighbors are doing exactly the same. That makes no sense.
MRLs, yes, mirror clauses are important, but we shouldn't always believe that we're the best in the world, the best in the show. I'm happy to wait for this study and to see what the results are. We'll also take a closer look at the impact assessment, of course, and we'll see where we have more exacting MRLs and where others in the world have more exacting MRLs. It's not safe to assume that we're always the best. Now, I'm co-rapporteur with Mr.
Picaro on the other file as well. The use of drones for applying palm protection products, where it makes sense, is something I'm in favor of. Steep areas or areas where it's, you know, difficult to get to using other machinery. You know, in other areas, it might not make as much sense, but we very much welcome that too. I'll work very closely together with my colleague, Mister Picaro, and I'm pretty sure that by June, our two committees will be able to submit a report. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you, Herbert. And, now I would like to give the floor to our shadows. You have two minutes each. And first, will be Jessica Poufjard, EVP Novet.
Jessica Polfjärd
Thank you, Chair. And, I would like to speak on behalf of myself during the directives, and then I would speak on behalf of Ms. Schneider, during the part concerning the regulation. So I will do that in two parts. And I will start with the directive, and we welcome the commission proposal to modernize agriculture by enabling the member states to authorize the use of drones for the application of pesticides.
It is not reasonable to maintain the current framework where drones are treated the same way as aircraft, such as planes or helicopters. This outdated approach limits our ability to modernize agriculture, hinders innovation and competitiveness in Europe, and limits our ability to reduce the use of pesticides. As drones can enable more precise application of plant protection products, which is beneficial both for farmers and for the environment. While individual exemptions are possible today, the procedures are complex and administratively burdensome. However, we do not believe that the proposal goes far enough to fully enable this development.
We question the need for a so-called positive list of authorized drone types, as it risks becoming a bottleneck and barrier to innovation. This concern is reinforced by the proposed timeline of four years to establish such a list, which is clearly too long given the pace of technological development. We think that one year should be sufficient, especially as the technology is already available today. Moreover, a more proportionate approach would be the base that the framework is on clear technical and risk-based criteria, for example, related to drift and application conditions rather than predefined drone types. In that context, it would make sense to allow drones used in agriculture and forestry to be exempted from the ban where the risks are comparable to land-based applications.
At the same time, it is important that the framework is not too rigid. There should be room for research, testing, and development as well as flexibility for member states to act when needed. This is something we would like to examine further, as the process moves forward. And regarding the removal of duplicative documentation requirements for farmers and the repeal of outdated directives on food contact materials, we do not have any substantial comments at this stage. And now I will be Kristine Schneider, and I will go to the regulation.
And, I will also comment on this on behalf of Mrs. Schneider. And we welcome the commission's proposal and its ambition to reduce administrative burden, simplify procedures, and speed up approval processes, as well as to improve harmonization across member states when it comes to plant protection products. We see clear value in moving towards a more harmonized and efficient system, including the one-zone approach, as it would improve access to effective and sustainable plant protection products as well as provide more stable approval frameworks for active substances. Today, it takes far too long for new products to reach the market due to the current system, which is characterized by a heavy administrative burden and limited expertise, making the approval and renewal processes excessively slow.
This has consequences both for the EU's capacity for innovation and for the ability of new, more environmentally friendly and effective products to reach the market. Not least, it affects the availability of products for our farmers who need support to strengthen food supply while also coping with climate change. Today, nearly 200 active substances are still awaiting reapproval. At the same time, it is essential that this simplification is accompanied by safeguards. If we move towards a system based on unlimited approvals, it must be ensured that new scientific evidence can be considered, and that there are clear mechanisms for reassessment where necessary.
We also believe that clear and predictable rules are key both for member states and for applicants to maintain trust in the system, while supporting innovation and access for our farmers. Just to finalize, in short, a few vital points should be highlighted, and Kristine would like to make two remarks. First, moving towards unlimited approval of active substances can also contribute to more stable approvals of plant protection products at the national level. And second, we see a clear need to simplify mutual recognition and make it more effective in practice, including by strengthening its legal certainty so that approvals are not unnecessarily delayed or fragmented across the Union. I'm sorry for Christina.
She's too long.
Veronika Vrecionová
It's okay. Thank you, Jessica, and thanks. Thank you, Christina. And now I have on the mileage, Jorge Garcia, SND Agri, but I'm not sure it is there. I don't see.
Okay. In this case, Beliana Borzan, SND Envy.
Thank you, madam chair. We Europeans like to believe our food standards are second to none. Today, we are being asked to quietly lower them. This is not a simplification. This is deregulation, and it goes against the core principles of EU food policy, the precautionary principle, high protection of human health, and decisions based on independent.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.