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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
ENVI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsIngeborg Ter Laak
Thank you. Thank you chair and thank you colleagues.
This file is about a very specific simplification measure. The Commission proposed to temporarily suspend the requirement for producers to appoint an authorized representative, an AR, under certain extended producer responsibility, the EPR, schemes. And in my draft report, I support the objective of reducing unnecessary administrative burdens, particularly for smaller businesses. However, simplification should be targeted, proportional, and should not come at the expense of enforcement or environmental protection.
That is why my report limits the suspension to micro and small enterprises. These companies face the greatest relative compliance burden, while larger companies generally have the resources and organizational capacity to comply with the existing rules. At the same time, I want to be very clear. We do not weaken producer's responsibility. All obligations related to collection, recycling, reporting, financing, traceability, and waste management remain fully in place.
We're only addressing one administrative requirement and the appointment of an AR, an authorized representative. A key element of my approach is maintaining strong enforcement at a level playing field. Therefore, unlike the Commission's proposal, the suspension applies only to producers established within the EU. Producers established outside the EU must continue to appoint an authorized representative, ensuring that authorities always have a responsible legal contact within the Union. I also believe these measures should remain strictly temporary.
The upcoming Circular Economy Act is expected to provide an opportunity for a broader and more comprehensive review of the EPR framework. Therefore, my report introduces a sunset clause. The suspension will automatically end once the Circular Economy Act applies, or at the latest at 2035. Following the extensive discussions with businesses, environmental stakeholders, and national authorities, I'm convinced that this approach strikes the right balance.
It provides meaningful relief for the smallest businesses, while safeguarding and enforcement, preserving environmental objectives, and ensuring fair competition between EU and non-EU producers. I look forward to your questions and comments, and I hope I can count on your support so that we can take this balanced and pragmatic approach forward in the negotiations. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Ingeborg. Now, after your first opinion that's been very clarifying, we need to hear the opinion of the shadow rapporteurs from the different political groups. So we give the floor to Madame Burkhardt from the Socialists, and you have two minutes for your explanation.
Delara Burkhardt
Thank you.
I will speak German. Sehr geehrte Frau Vorsitzende, liebe Frau von Lack, Frau Berichterstatterin, Sie haben es gesagt, die erweiterte Herstellerverantwortung ist unglaublich wichtig für die Finanzierung von Sammlung und Sortierung und Recycling von Abfällen in der EU.
Es ist aber in der Realität so, dass sie im grenzüberschreitenden Handel zu Problemen vor allen Dingen für kleine Unternehmen führt, die eben nur kleine Mengen ins EU-Ausland verkaufen und da eben eine aktive Hürde vom EU-Binnenmarkt zu sprechen ist. Auf den ersten Blick scheint der Vorschlag der Kommission deswegen ganz gut, dass man sagt, Suspendierung der Pflicht zur Benennung eines Bevollmächtigten im grenzüberschreitenden Handel klingt erst mal einleuchtend. Wenn man sich das aber dann genauer anschaut, und das ist ja unsere Aufgabe als Berichterstattende, zeigen sich mit dem Kommissionsvorschlag große Probleme für die Rechtsdurchsetzung von Pflichten der erweiterten Herstellerverantwortung durch die Behörden und damit akute Gefahr für unfairen Wettbewerb durch Trittbrettfahrer. Ich kann daher gut verstehen, warum im Rat der Vorschlag gerade auch auf Eis liegt. Auch die Industrie ist sehr gespalten und problematisch ist eben auch, dass wir hier wieder auf Basis von anekdotischer Evidenz arbeiten, weil die Kommission keine seriöse Folgenabschätzung vorgelegt hat.
Und ich glaube, so können wir auch nicht seriös Politik machen und ein empfindliches System wie die erweiterte Herstellerverantwortung eingreifen. Ich unterstütze da auch eben die Lösung, die wir langfristig gehen müssen über eine Harmonisierung. Mein Eindruck bleibt aber, dass die generelle Suspendierung der Pflicht zur Benennung eines Bevollmächtigten im grenzüberschreitenden Handel zu weit geht. Ich sehe es vor allen Dingen bei Kleinstunternehmen als akutes Problem und deswegen kann finde ich geht der Vorschlag der Berichterstatterin, die Suspendierung nur auf Kleinstunternehmen mit weniger als zehn Mitarbeitende und auf kleine Unternehmen mit weniger als 50 Mitarbeitende zu begrenzen, geht in die richtige Richtung.
Es betrifft dann aber immer noch einen recht großen Kreis von Unternehmen und hat immer noch Probleme der Trittbrettfahrerei. Und deswegen würde ich vorschlagen, die Suspendierung der Pflichten nur auf die Unternehmen zu begrenzen, die die geringsten Kapazitäten haben, und das sind die Kleinstunternehmen. Ich halte den Vorschlag der Berichterstatterin, dass Unternehmen aus Drittländern weiterhin einen Bevollmächtigten im Vertriebsland bestellen müssen, unabhängig von der Größe, für richtig und eine wichtige Ergänzung. Dass es Handlungsbedarf gibt, ist also unumstritten. Ich glaube aber, und das möchte ich an dieser Stelle noch mal ganz klar im Namen der S&D-Fraktion sagen, das Format des Omnibus mit der fehlenden Folgenabschätzung ist dafür nicht oder nur begrenzt geeignet.
Eine Überarbeitung und Harmonisierung der Systeme der erweiterten Herstellerverantwortung sollte stattdessen gut überlegt mit Folgenabschätzung im Rahmen des Circular Economy Acts erfolgen.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Now, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain has the floor for two minutes.
Merci Madame la Présidente. J'interviens à la place de Madame Frigout qui se félicite également du travail accompli pendant les négociations.
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
Cette proposition présentée dans le cadre de l'omnibus sur la législation environnementale est symptomatique d'un problème plus profond, celui de l'inflation réglementaire européenne et de ses conséquences directes sur la compétitivité de nos entreprises. L'obligation de désigner un mandataire dans chaque État membre où une entreprise commercialise ses produits est l'illustration parfaite de cette dérive bureaucratique. Comment expliquer à une petite entreprise française qu'elle doit financer un représentant direct distinct dans chaque pays voisin pour remplir ses obligations environnementales ? Cela représente des coûts injustifiés et disproportionnés qui freinent leur développement sur le marché. Nous soutenons donc le principe de cette suspension car elle constitue une mesure de bon sens.
Elle apportera un peu d'oxygène en particulier à nos PME qui passent aujourd'hui davantage de temps à remplir les formalités qu'à produire ou à investir. À cet égard, les amendements proposés par la rapporteure vont dans le bon sens, mais nous proposons d'élargir encore le champ à l'ensemble des PME. Mais cette simplification ne doit pas se transformer en abandon des contrôles. Il ne s'agit pas d'affaiblir la traçabilité et les capacités de contrôle des autorités nationales, en particulier pour des États comme la France ayant déjà mis en place un système de REP structuré et exigeant. Nous saluons également le maintien de règles strictes pour les entreprises établies dans les pays tiers.
C'est un point essentiel. Trop souvent, l'Union européenne impose des obligations toujours plus lourdes à ses propres entreprises, tout en laissant prospérer une concurrence étrangère qui contourne les règles. Cette question est particulièrement sensible dans le secteur textile, à l'heure où la fast fashion inonde le marché européen. Enfin, cette mesure de simplification ne peut être que temporaire et ne saurait se substituer à une révision de fond du système de REP. Le futur acte sur l'économie circulaire devra s'attaquer aux incohérences juridiques accumulées au fil des textes et remédier à une législation environnementale devenue illisible, tout en gardant le cap sur la compétitivité de nos entreprises.
Je vous remercie.
Speaker 2
Merci beaucoup. Now we move to the ECR group and we have on remote Mr. Fiocchi.
Speaker 8
I want to thank the rapporteur, Mrs. Terheş, for his report, which in my view is moving in the right direction. The Commission presents this proposal as a simplification measure. However, it is not a simplification, but is more apparent than real. The problem the European business is faced today is not only the obligation to appoint an authorized representative. The real problem is the fragmentation of extended producer responsibility regime within the single market.
Companies operating across multiple member states must contend with different registration procedures, varying reporting obligations, non-harmonized contribution systems, and administrative requirements that are often inconsistent with one another. This is the true source of cost and bureaucratic burdens. Temporarily suspending a single obligation does not resolve the problem at its root. It defers the solution to a future revision under the Circular Economy Act.
European businesses need legal certainty and clear rules today, not temporary measures that leave the structural shortcomings of the system unresolved. The ECR Group supports genuine simplification, less bureaucracy, greater harmonization among Member States, and a more coherent regulatory framework for businesses operating in the single market. The ECR reserves the right to form its position during negotiations, also in light of the fact that Member States do not look favorably upon the removal of the obligation to appoint an authorized representative, which is the true link between businesses and the authorities of the Member States. Thank you very much and good work.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Fiocchi. Now we move to Renew and we have Anna Vasconcelos as speaker, two minutes.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Chair. In Europe, every time we dispose of something like a bottle, an old phone, an electronic toy, it is the company who produced these items who has to pay to collect and recycle them. And if that company wants to sell its products in several countries, it faces 27 different schemes.
This drives up costs for everyone, including the final consumer, and becomes a real barrier to single, to small and medium-sized businesses who, unlike big corporations, have less resources to absorb compliance costs. The circular economy act will take its time to be revised, so we welcome the Commission's proposal to cut red tape until simplification is effectively addressed in its revision, because Europe's competitiveness simply cannot wait. The suspension should be targeted and proportionate. It should focus on reducing administrative burdens where they are most significant, while maintaining appropriate safeguards to ensure traceability and effective enforcement of producer responsibility requirements.
We call for greater interoperability between national EPR systems, better exchange of information to facilitate cross-border compliance, as well as more harmonized and digital reporting procedures across the Union. We regret that the Council immediately shut down this effort and sincerely appreciate our rapporteur's effort in finding a solution that enables simplification without undermining accountability. I look forward to engaging in constructive negotiations in the weeks ahead. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Obrigada, Senhora Vasconcelos. Now we move to Greens, Ms. Jutta Paulus, two minutes.
Jutta Paulus
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Ingeborg, for your draft report, which indeed goes in the right direction, although I would say I interpret this a bit differently than the speakers which I heard before. Because the EPR is key to implement the polluter pays principle, and we should not leave our towns and municipalities alone with those masses of garbage which they have to take care of and which at the end of the day the citizens have to pay for if we don't keep the polluters accountable.
So authorized representatives are key to enforce the EPR systems because if you don't enforce the system then of course you...
Pardon?
If you don't enforce the system then it won't work.
Speaker 13
Excuse me, excuse me, madam, excuse me, madam, interpreters are asking you to speak slowly, please.
Even more slowly. It's all over town that Council ceased working on this proposal because Council is not fine with this suspension. So I would like to hear from the Commission whether this is true because of course you're always present when Council is talking about these issues.
Jutta Paulus
So it's circulating in the corridors, but I still need a confirmation. So as I said, I principally welcome the rapporteur's approach to at least limit the suspension to small and micro enterprises and also in a until the Circular Economy Act is there. But I don't see that narrowing down the scope without an impact assessment is really prudent, because we don't know what it effectively will do.
So I also ask the Commission, when will you stop bringing forward proposals without proper impact assessments where we as a Parliament don't have the means and the possibilities to really do good legislation if we don't have the data present? In case of the PPWR, everyone has anecdotal evidence that this is not properly implemented. And there I would like to ask the Commission, please do some research, please include in the Circular Economy Act proper thresholds, criteria, whatever, in order to make sure that we don't shoot with cannons on sparrows, but also that we don't leave huge loopholes in the legislation so that the big polluters have a field day. Thanks.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Madam Paulus. And now, as we don't have any speaker from the group of the Left, and before giving the floor to the Committee of the Regions, I remind you that the catch-the-eye is open. And now, yeah, we have the pleasure of welcoming Nadia Pellefigue, who is a rapporteur for the whole environmental omnibus package in the Committee of the Regions. Now, you, as our guest, you have the floor for two minutes as well.
Nadia PELLEFIGUE
Thank you, Madam Chair, dear colleagues. Thank you for inviting me.
Two minutes is short, so I'm going straight to the point. Let me be clear from the start: cutting red tape, yes, obviously; cutting environmental protection, absolutely not. Europe does need simpler rules, rules that work for cities, for regions, for people. But what is on the table today: six files, one debate, one package, no real impact assessment.
I'm afraid that's not simplification, but a shortcut. The main issue for us is this. If a rule becomes simpler here in Brussels, but harder to apply in our cities, we haven't simplified anything. We've just shifted the problem. On EPR, we have to be clear.
Any change to extended producer responsibility rules must preserve the polluter pays principle, ensure traceability and avoid shifting investment burdens onto local authorities or SMEs. Someone always pays. When the polluter doesn't pay, it's often local and regional authorities. Local and regional authorities are not shock absorbers.
They're the ones applying EU environmental law every single day. And as Vice-President of the Occitanie region, I see this reality directly. My region counts nearly 6 million people, almost 4,200 municipalities, own three ports, sits on the boards of 10 airports and hosts the global headquarters of Airbus. And agriculture is our main economic pillar.
We have to reconcile economic development with the fight against climate change, and we have the ambition to become the first energy-positive region in Europe by 2050. So, yes, let's simplify, but let's do it right, without lowering standards and without making cities and regions pay the bill.
I want to thank you for your point of view, and it's very close to the citizens, more than us. Now, we move to the intervention of the Commission. We have Madame Carolina Da Cunha, Deputy Head of Unit of Circular Economy and Secondary Raw Materials from the DG ENV.
You have five minutes.
Carolina DA CUNHA
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the speakers, the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs who took the floor today. It's a very important input for us because we are also working on the Circular Economy Act, as several of you have raised today, and this is also very informative in that context.
So just very briefly, very grateful for your positions on this suspension proposal. I would like to recall, following also what has been said by the rapporteur, that indeed the obligation to nominate an authorized representative does not affect the other EPR obligations that producers have to fulfill, so they remain in place, such as that producers will have to continue to comply with registration into systems of extended producer responsibility, they have to pay the fees, they have to report, etc., so as rightly pointed out, all these remain in place.
We also do not change the rules for producers from third countries. The simplification proposals were structured in a way that leaves this possibility to oblige producers from third countries to have to nominate an authorized representative for member states. So they still retain this possibility to make this mandatory, which goes in a direction that was also stipulated here in the room. I would like to recall that the obligation to nominate an authorized representative in each member state has been identified by the Commission, by the stakeholders that we spoke to, as an upfront cost. And that can represent a substantial entry barrier for the single market, in particular for small and medium enterprises and micro-enterprises.
So that was why, was the reason why we have put forward this, this proposal with a view to provide for an immediate administrative burden to producers. Now, the assessment is ongoing in parallel for a more comprehensive reform of EPR, Extended Producer Responsibility, under the upcoming Circular Economy Act. And as I said, this debate is also very informative in that context.
Part of our assessment under the Circular Economy Act focuses on the establishment of a single entry point or platform of sorts for the registration of producers. And this would aim to address information availability, exchange of information about products placed on the market, fees paid and so on. And that would also additionally strengthen measures to facilitate enforcement. So, that is one aspect that we are looking into in the Circular Economy Act.
But we are also aware, and I think you will all agree, that this Circular Economy Act is going to be quite a big proposal, so it will take a while to negotiate it with the institutions. Therefore, this immediate administrative burden relief would only materialize in two, three years possibly. So we believed that it would be better to suspend the authorized representative nomination obligation already now while we are conducting a more comprehensive reform under the Circular Economy Act.
We also believe that to ensure a swift progress, it will be important to avoid an excessive number of amendments, that refers to the omnibus, and most importantly not to go beyond the scope of the proposal. The suspension was constructed in such a way that we do not amend the Waste Framework Directive or the regulations that pertain to authorized representatives. The suspension was constructed to basically stop them applying for a period of time. So, that would facilitate the negotiations in our view and allow for a quicker intervention.
Now on all the comments and proposals, there were quite a few of them, but I'll try to refer very briefly to some of them. We hear your call for ensuring that the suspension is only in place until there is this potential new rules on EPR under the Circular Economy Act come into application. And that is a very right call. That was our intention in the first place. So we are going in the same direction there.
We propose a date of January 2035. We calculated backwards how long this could take. But obviously if we have a clearer and more precise link between the two, that would be better. We take note of the positions that call for a modification of the scope of this suspension to apply to only small and micro enterprises or to small and medium enterprises. So indeed this was discussed in the Council.
And the Council, majority of Member States, questions this limitation that was brought up as one solution.
They argued that the effect of this limitation would be small because 90% of producers of certain waste stream are small and medium enterprises anyway. So that number is already quite important. And then they also raised that question of the risk of free riding. So this exists irrespective of the size of a company and that would create potentially additional oversight burden.
And finally, if we had such a distinction between companies that have to appoint an authorized representative or that don't have to appoint an authorized representative, that would also lead to a sort of a fragmentation of the single market and yeah, potentially companies trying to be SMEs rather than big companies to avoid this obligation. So all these would need to be considered carefully, but I hear also there were voices going that direction. Yeah, there was a question on what is going on in the Council on this proposal. Indeed, I can confirm that the Council has discussed this several times and there was an intention to move forward, propose some amendments, but also in light of the upcoming Circular Economy Act, in the end, we see that the Council is probably not going to take this further. But again, we will have to see.
The Council is going to meet soon on this and we will hear from them the final position. So that is all from our side, with big thanks again to you. We take, we took a very careful note of all your comments and we are impatiently awaiting the final decision of the Parliament, of this committee on this suspension proposal.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Now our rapporteur, Madame Terheggen, after these comments and these opinions from the different groups, the Committee of the Regions and the Commission, you have the floor for the last comments about.
Ingeborg Ter Laak
Thank you, Chair, and many thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and also to the Committee of the Regions. Thank you very much for your perspective and of course the answers we got from the Commission.
I think with everybody's inputs the dilemmas are clear and it's balancing you know because you want to do well for the environment but you also want to cut red tape for the companies and be competitive within Europe. I think as the Commission said we're very eager as Parliament to see the new Circular Economy Act and to have this more comprehensive framework on all the circular economy parts because now it's all shattered and divided and I think that makes it difficult to really oversee what will happen if you suspend one part of it and keep the other ones in place. And I think that's also why it's so difficult. We don't have an impact assessment on this specific omnibus part of the omnibus and I think it's also difficult to take one part out and to see what the impact will be.
So with the report we drafted so far, we try to balance between all these dilemmas and I hope for a broad support within the parliament to gain this compromise. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Only to remind the colleagues that the deadline for amendments on this report is on July the 1st at 11:00 AM and we are supposed to keep on with the parliamentary acts and vote in committee in October and in plenary in November.
Now we move to the next point of our agenda and it's a Commission Regulation amending Annex XVII to Regulation on the European on the on the on the on the on the chemicals REACH as regards lead in certain fishing tackle. We proceed to the consideration of an objection to a draft Commission Regulation on lead in certain fishing tackle. I give the floor to Mr. Fiocchi once again, I suppose online, no? Mr. Fiocchi for four minutes to present the objection. Mr. Fiocchi, are you there?
Speaker 8
I will talk lower. Can you hear me better? Okay. Chair, Commission, and dear colleagues, I have tabled this objection because I believe Parliament has a duty to ensure the restrictions adopted under REACH are based on solid evidence, respect the principle of proportionality, and genuinely achieve their intended objective. Let me start by saying that this debate is not about, it is not about defending lead.
Lead is a hazardous substance. It is not about questioning the importance of protecting wildlife or reducing pollution. These are objectives that we all share. The question before us is much simpler: has the Commission demonstrated that this proposal is the right measure, supported by the right evidence, and proportionate to the problem that it seeks to address? I do not believe it has.
The Commission tells us that this restriction will protect millions of birds and prevent thousands of tons of lead emissions. These are important claims, but when we look at the underlying assessment, we find significant uncertainties regarding environmental releases, exposure estimates and the lack of comprehensive Union-wide data. Good intentions cannot substitute for robust evidence. When we legislate for millions of citizens and thousands of businesses, we must be certain that the facts support the measure being proposed.
The Commission also argues that alternatives are available. Yet ECHA's own socio-economic committee, SEAC, identified important uncertainties regarding the availability, the affordability and technical suitability of alternatives for several fishing applications. Indeed, the proposal itself contains derogations, exemptions and lengthy transition periods. If the alternatives were truly available and viable in every case, such extensive exceptions would not be necessary. I believe you agree with me.
We are also told that Denmark has successfully restricted lead fishing tackle for years, but one national example cannot automatically justify an EU-wide restriction. REACH requires evidence that a measure is appropriate across the diverse fishing practices, environmental conditions and economic realities of all the Member States, not just one. The Commission further argues that anglers will be able to continue using existing tackle because the restriction applies only to placing products to the market, but this misses the point.
The real question is whether the burdens imposed on manufacturers, retailers, and SMEs are justified by clearly demonstrated benefits. The proposal introduces information requirements, retailer obligations, and compliance costs, yet the necessity and effectiveness of these measures have not been convincingly established. Perhaps most importantly, even ECHA's Risk Assessment Committee, RAC, identified no environmental justification for restricting sinkers above 50 grams and warned that excessive restriction could encourage on-casting and unregulated production. In other words, part of this proposal risks undermining their own objectives.
Environmental protection is strongest when it is built on sound science, credible evidence, and proportionate regulation. If we lower the standard, we weaken not only this proposal, but confidence in the REACH system itself. This objection does not reject the objective. It asks the Commission to come back with a better proposal, one supported by stronger evidence, a clearer demonstration of available alternatives, and a more proportionate approach. This is why I invite all my colleagues to support the objection.
Thank you very much.
And now several groups have asked for the floor in this point, in this objection. From EPP, sí, Madame Rippa, you have the floor for two minutes.
Thank you, I will speak in German. Blei ist ein hochgiftiger Stoff, dessen schädliche Auswirkungen auf Mensch und Umwelt seit langem wissenschaftlich belegt sind. Wenn Blei in die Umwelt gelangt, bleibt es dort über Jahrzehnte und gefährdet insbesondere Gewässer und die Tierwelt.
Speaker 22
Blei aus Angelzubehör kann tödlich sein für Fische und vor allem auch für Wildvögel, wie zum Beispiel Schwäne. Der Vorschlag der Kommission zur Beschränkung von Blei in bestimmten Angelausrüstungen und Angelgewichten beruht auf einem sorgfältigen und wissenschaftlich fundierten Vorgehen. Er folgt der Einschätzung der Europäischen Chemikalienagentur ECHA und wurde vom Ausschuss für Risikobeurteilung sowie vom Ausschuss für sozioökonomische Analysen positiv bewertet. Beide Expertengremien halten eine Regulierung für gerechtfertigt. Auch die Mitgliedstaaten haben der Maßnahme zugestimmt.
Hinzu kommt, dass zahlreiche Alternativen zu bleihaltigen Produkten existieren.
Fischernetze und die kommerzielle Fischerei sind von dem Vorschlag übrigens weitgehend nicht betroffen. Noch etwas. Vorhandene Produkte können weiter verwendet werden. Angler müssen also vorhandenes Angelgerät nicht austauschen. Auch handelt es sich keineswegs um ein sofortiges Verbot.
Der Vorschlag sieht einen schrittweisen Ausstieg aus bleihaltigem Angelgerät und angemessene Übergangszeiten vor. Der Vorschlag sieht auch keinen Warnhinweis auf Produkten selbst vor. Die Händler müssen lediglich am Verkaufsort Informationen bereitstellen, nämlich dass bleihaltiges Angelgerät giftig ist, dass es Alternativen gibt und welche neuen rechtlichen Anforderungen gelten. Der Informationsaufwand hält sich damit in einem sehr überschaubaren Rahmen.
Wir nehmen die Bedenken der Angelgerätbranche natürlich ernst. Diese betreffen jedoch vor allem Fragen der praktischen Umsetzung und der Marktüberwachung, nicht das grundsätzliche Ziel, den Einsatz von Blei zu reduzieren. Solche Fragen sollten wir in einer weiteren Umsetzung aufmerksam begleiten und gegebenenfalls nachsteuern. Sie sind jedoch kein ausreichender Grund, den gesamten Vorschlag abzulehnen. Der Vorschlag der Kommission ist wissenschaftlich fundiert, ausgewogen und verhältnismäßig.
Er verbindet wirksamen Umweltschutz mit Rechtssicherheit und angemessenen Übergangsfristen für Angler und Unternehmen. Er ist deswegen nicht abzulehnen. Besten Dank.
Speaker 24
Thank you very much. Now, Madame Fritzon, on behalf of Socialists and Democrats.
Heléne Fritzon
Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'm speaking on behalf of my colleague Christel Schaldemose from Denmark. Unfortunately, she could not be present here today. Yes, lead has no place in our lakes, rivers, or coastal waters. It is toxic.
It harms wildlife, aquatic ecosystems, and human health. That is why European action is needed.
The science is clear, and the Commission proposal is based on the established REACH process, including the assessment by RAC and SEAC. This objection presents information requirements, transition periods, and targeted exemptions as a problem. We see the opposite. They show that the proposal is balanced and workable. Consumers are informed, specific technical cases are addressed, and alternatives already exist for many uses.
From our perspective, the proposal could even have been more ambitious.
We see it as a necessary first step, and in some areas it could go further if we are serious about protecting health and nature. Blocking this proposal will not give us better regulation. It will give us no regulation and more delay, more lead in Europe's waters, and more uncertainty for citizens, businesses, and authorities. For these reasons, the S&D group will vote against the objection. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And now we don't have any speaker from the from Patriots. On behalf of Renew, Mr. Hojsík is not here. And from on behalf of Greens, Madame Paulus.
Jutta Paulus
Thank you very much, Chair. And actually, it's a bit ridiculous. We're talking about a restriction which would prevent the release into the environment of almost 50,000 tons of lead. Of course, we as Greens very much welcome the restriction.
It's more than justified, and we're clearly against the objection by Mr. Fiocchi, where I would say he read the Commission's proposal a bit creatively, because RAC and SEAC, both committees of the Environmental Chemicals Agency, were very much in favor of this restriction, and they said it would be proportionate. And he also claims that the Commission failed to establish that feasible alternatives exist for all categories. Well, SEAC wrote there are alternative techniques or equipment, except for one little uncertainty, which is small split shot, which is exempted.
And he says that SEAC was unable to conclude whether certain restrictions were justified, but actually SEAC concluded exactly the opposite, that it lacked the information whether a derogation would be justified. So of course we will reject the objection. And I think it's a bit funny that the anglers are on the other side here.
So by opposing this restriction, Mr. Fiocchi is not even on the side of the citizens which want to follow their hobby, because the anglers say, we would have liked to have for the restriction to go even further, because they know very well any lead that is lost in the environment will end up ultimately in birds and in fish, and they would like to eat their fish and not be poisoned by their fish. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Madame Paulus. And now Mr. Everding on behalf of the Left.
Sebastian Everding
Thank you, Chair, I will continue in German. Meistens bin ich ja immer relativ weit hinten in der Reihenfolge und ich sage es sehr, sehr selten, aber ich kann mich allen Vorrednerinnen uneingeschränkt anschließen. Ich bedanke mich auch für die bereits gesagten Sachen, die ich gar nicht wiederholen will, weil alles eigentlich bereits gesagt wurde über die katastrophalen Auswirkungen auf Tierwelt, auf die Umwelt von Blei.
Deswegen, der Vorschlag der Kommission ist absolut ausgewogen, ist absolut unterstützenswert. Wer für diese Objection ist, wer sich dagegen ausspricht, Blei in der Natur zu reduzieren, zu verbieten, der trägt massiv dazu bei, die Belastung unserer Umwelt und das Leid der Wildtiere zu steigern. Wir würden aber auch gerne noch einen Schritt weitergehen und deswegen fordern wir die Kommission auf, rasch weitere Maßnahmen vorzulegen. Und wir brauchen die Beschränkung nicht nur für das Inverkehrbringen, sondern auch für die Verwendung von bleihaltigem Angelzubehör. Und wir würden auch einen Vorschlag erwarten zum vollständigen Ausstieg von Blei, was in Munition noch sehr häufig verwendet wird.
Und wir kennen einfach seit Jahren die Folgen von Blei für Tiere, Umwelt und Gesundheit. Es wird immer viel diskutiert und wir müssen jetzt endlich handeln.
Und ich erkenne dafür eine Mehrheit, was sehr, sehr schön ist. Und deswegen lasst uns bitte alle gemeinsam Tiere und Umwelt schützen und da einen großen Schritt vorwärtsgehen. Vielen Dank.
Thank you very much. Now, as part of the ECR, the ECR, we have Mr. Andriukaitis. You have two minutes.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Dėkoju, kalbėsiu lietuviškai. Jeigu galima, tai aš tikrai norėčiau pritarti visiems prieš tai kalbėjusiems kolegoms ir noriu patikinti, kad švino toksiškumo atžvilgiu dar 2014-2019 metais Komisijoje teko atlikti begalę moksliškai pagrįstų tyrimų ir tiek tyrimų, kurie ir nustatė jo toksišką poveikį tiek žmogaus sveikatai, tiek gyvajai gamtai, tiek įvairiems gyvūnams. Noriu pasakyti, kad mes jau tada nagrinėjome, kaip būtų galima laipsniškai išeliminuoti švino naudojimą labai tokiose sudėtingose matose, kur švinas vitražo ar kitur vitraže ar kitur švinas naudojamas vitražų įrėminimui, žodžiu, labai didžiulės studijos.
Todėl tie, kurie komentuoja, kad nepakanka mokslinių tyrimų, turėtų tiesiog atsiversti tuos mokslinius straipsnius ir puslapius, kuriuose be galo daug argumentų pateikta dėl švino toksiškumo. Todėl pritariu iš tiesų Komisijos žingsniams ir tikrai tiems subalansuotiems sprendimams. Noriu net ir patikinti tuos, kurie norėtų lyg tai gero siekdami palengvinti žvejybos sektorių, noriu palinkėti, kad jie patys suprastų, kad jie turi saugoti ir žvejus, ir žuvį, ir ypač svarbu vaikus saugoti.
Ir dėl to toksiškumas, kurio apskritai, kuris yra be galo giliai galintis paveikti žmogaus įvairias sistemas, jis išties reikalauja būtent tokių sprendimų, kuriuos Komisija pritarė. Todėl siūlau nepritarti siūlymui, kaip sakyti, užkirsti kelią šioms priemonėms. Ačiū.
Thank you very much. Now we give the floor to the Commission for five minutes, Ms. Andrea Vantaggi.
Andrea VANTAGGI
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much all the speakers here today. I am very happy to hear that no one is questioning the fact that lead is a toxic substance because yes, I can confirm lead is toxic, not only for the environment and the lake and the waters that were mentioned by some of the speakers, but also for human and in particular for children and for pregnant women. And this is why under REACH today we are already restricting lead in mixtures and also in most of consumer products. I have heard a lot of doubts on the evidence supporting our restriction and on its proportionality.
So I would like to recall that ECHA, the European Chemical Agency, conducted a very in-depth and evidence-based assessment before actually concluding that fishing tackle, lead in fishing tackle poses a risk to humans and a risk to the environment. And therefore, this risk, they cannot be adequately controlled and the only measure ahead is to ban the sale and the placing on the market of these products. I have heard also a lot of criticism when it comes to the impacts of these restrictions.
Let me reassure you that the socio-economic impacts have been assessed by SEAC, the ECHA's Socio-Economic Assessment Committee. And SEAC concluded and confirmed that the cost of the restriction are proportionate to these benefits. Benefits that were estimated and I would like to recall it was already mentioned were estimated at 48,300 tons of lead over a 20-year period. So when you look at the evidence of unacceptable risk to human health and the environment, of course we presented a proposal to restrict lead in fishing tackle.
And even when the proportionality of our proposal was confirmed by ECHA, we went a step further. And we improved our socio-economic assessment, and we improved the cost-effectiveness of our proposal, and we also ran extensive discussions with Member States in the REACH Committee, again with this objective of ensuring this right balance between minimizing lead emissions and limiting socio-economic impacts. And all this effort, of course, led to a positive vote by Member States in the REACH Committee on the 29th of April of this year. So when it comes on impacts and proportionality, allow me to recall that the restriction covers the placing on the market and the use of lead fishing weights and lures of one kilogram or less.
When it comes to the proportionality, allow me to recall that this restriction is not restricting the use of lead tackle in recreational purposes. We have left that possibility to Member States to regulate it at national level so that basically they can tailor the measures that they are going to take to their enforcement strategies. Allow me to recall also that the proposal excludes most of the fishing tackle used in commercial fishing because they pose a limited risk to the environment. Our proposal also excludes uses where suitable alternatives are not available.
And last, the proposal allows the continued use of fishing tackle already on the market because we want to avoid costly recalls. I have also heard a lot of concerns on these targeted derogations, but allow me to confirm that these targeted derogations are not weakening our restriction. This should be considered as a strength because these derogations are increasing the cost-effectiveness of our restriction in line with the principle of proportionality that was also mentioned here and to which the Commission is particularly attached. I have also heard criticism around the assessment of alternatives.
I can confirm that ECHA confirmed that there are technically feasible alternatives for those fishing sinkers, lures, fishing weights that are being restricted. When it comes to the obligation to provide information at the point of sale about the toxicity of lead and the new rules on lead fishing tackle, these are protecting the fishers and these are coming at a very limited cost. SEAC concluded that the cost of such measures would be small and would not significantly affect the overall cost of the restriction. Because when we look at the overall cost of the restriction, we can see that this is not only proportionate, but it's also very affordable for individual fishers because these were estimated at an average of only 30 euros per fisher per year.
And if we take into account the additional derogations and exclusions that we have in our proposal, the actual cost per fisher is expected to be even lower than that. Allow me to conclude, please. This proposal is proportionate. This proposal is effective.
It will prevent the release of 48,300 tons of lead over a 20-year period at a cost of less than 30 euros per fisher and per year. It will be applied gradually, without costly recalls and with minimal impact on individual fishers and fishing business, while still ensuring that lead tackle will be progressively phased out, because this is all, this is what we all want here. Allow me to recall that lead in fishing tackle may be small on the hook, but it's huge in our ecosystems. So I will therefore ask you to support this balanced proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And now Mr. Fiocchi was supposed to have a last intervention but he is disconnected. So I only remind you that the vote will be take ah will be take tomorrow and if adopted we will be voting on the plenary on July. So we can we move to the next point. To the next point is the number eight.
I remind you that it has been cancelled as the agreement we have taken at the beginning of this meeting. And now we have a gap until five. So we retake our work at five in twenty-five minutes. And we will keep on with the item number nine.
Colleagues, we resume our meeting this afternoon and we keep on with the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2026 in Turkey. So now I give the floor to the co-sponsor of the resolution, starting with the EPP representative. Mr. Peter Liese is going to have the floor on behalf of Lidia Pereira and every co-sponsor has two minutes for the first intervention.
Peter Liese
Okay, thank you, Chair.
Sorry that Lidia can't be with us, so I took over from her. So, Lidia apologized that she can't be in the meeting, but she's looking forward for a good cooperation with all the other co-sponsors. We have a draft that is of course an early stage draft. It's not a rapporteur here, but co-sponsors, so it's just a framework for the discussions. But it starts already with point one, a very important point.
You know, it's hot today in Brussels and in many other places in Europe. But that is of course not climate change.
But if you look at the ten last years, all those ten years have been among the top ten hottest years on record. And that is climate change. So you cannot link one week or two weeks, but you can link ten days. So there is obviously climate change happening and many people are suffering from that.
The draft resolution states that unfortunately many parties to the UNFCCC have missed the deadline for the 35 targets. So did we, but at least European Union came late, unfortunately not as ambitious as the Parliament wanted it. The draft resolution anyhow welcomes the Montreal decision from Belém. It regrets the US government withdrawal.
So these are basic things and we are looking forward to further discussions. For Lidia, it will be very important to make the link to cleantech. Because climate is a threat, but we have also to recognize that many companies are investing in clean technology. And when we do not support the climate agenda anymore, they will also have stranded investment. And that's also a strong economic case for continuing an ambitious climate policy.
Thank you.
Heléne Fritzon
Thank you, thank you, Chair. Yes, and thank you, Peter Liese. I will also look forward to the common discussions. Yes, global cooperation, climate action is more important than ever. And we can see that multilateralism is being attacked and called into question by those that want to weaken our climate ambitions.
But they have not succeeded. So multilateralism remains strong. It is continuing to drive transition forward. And we can see that we need new initiatives. We can remember the Santa Marta conference on the transition away from the fossil fuels.
And we also see that some countries take a step back. But at the same time, the local level steps in with the municipalities and regions adopting ambitious climate targets, focusing on concrete solutions on the ground.
Despite that, we have not yet delivered. We are not on track to live up to 1.5 degrees. And today we could see in the news from France that they already have temperatures up to 41 degrees Celsius. And 12 years ago, this was presented as an image of 2050. But now we have 2026 and we can see that we are already there.
So we need to continue and we need to do two things. We need to strengthen our capacity to manage climate risks. This is why COP31 discussions on adaptation are so important. But we also need to keep focusing on reducing emissions. The fossil lobby will try to again block and weaken this.
And we see that the current crisis is showing us how harmful our fossil dependency is. We must phase out fossil fuels and invest in renewable energy.
And the European Union has taken the lead on mitigation and we will need to continue to play this important role. So that's why these issues must be we must put them again on the top of the agenda. In a time also when we see that the far right is trying to attack climate legislation, the EU needs to stay on course and deliver both at home and at COP 31.
So looking forward, we also need to focus on solutions. I want to take the opportunity to welcome the announcement of the COP 31 presidency to include on the agenda on the point of electrification targets, both these issues, the one about reduction of food waste and the other about energy efficiency of buildings. So yes, I look forward to continued work on the resolution and to being a part of the delegation to COP 31. Thank you.
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
Thank you very much. Now we move to Patriots, Madame Bresser-Klein.
Merci Madame la Présidente.
Tous les ans nous élaborons notre résolution et à chaque fois l'entente est parfaite entre tous les groupes de gauche, de centre et de droite. Neutralité climatique avec 90% d'émissions en moins d'ici 2040, finance climatique, sortie des énergies fossiles, méthane. Nous nous persuadons donc que nous pouvons remplacer l'inaction des autres. Or, quel est l'équivalent du pacte vert dans le monde ? On nous parle souvent de la Chine, de ses investissements dans le renouvelable et de son objectif de neutralité climatique en 2060.
Mais la Chine a simplement compris plus rapidement les potentialités commerciales du développement de technologies bas carbone et le besoin d'améliorer son image internationale par un positionnement écologique. Et quand on compare les différents mix énergétiques, renouvelables et fossiles ne font souvent que s'additionner. Comment prétendre à la réindustrialisation du continent et à un regain de souveraineté si nous persistons à viser la neutralité carbone ? Nous avons choisi la voie répressive par les taxes et les normes au lieu de mettre en place des incitations et une véritable politique industrielle.
On nous parle sans arrêt de transition juste et équitable, mais nos peuples n'en voient que l'aspect punitif, surtout quand leurs gouvernements financent la transition écologique du monde à coups de dizaines de milliards, plus de 30 milliards en 2024. Et il faudrait doubler, voire tripler ces fonds internationaux d'ici 2030 dans un contexte de retrait des États-Unis qui étaient les premiers bailleurs de fonds sous Joe Biden.
L'UE peut montrer l'exemple, mais sans perdre de vue la protection de ses intérêts, surtout dans un tel contexte de compétition mondiale avec des pays du Sud de plus en plus réticents à sacrifier leur croissance économique. À la fin, les COP suivent toujours le même scénario : de fortes ambitions, des engagements spectaculaires et tout finit en accord a minima face au réel, à savoir le multilatéralisme, la faisabilité technologique et le mix énergétique mondial. Il ne fait aucun doute que la COP 31 sera un échec. Je vous remercie.
Thank you very much. We don't have any speaker for ECR, but we have Madame Fiis replacing Madame Wiesner.
Sigrid Friis
Thank you very much for the floor, and on behalf of Renew, replacing Emma Wiesner, and myself also looking forward to the COP 31.
I would like to start by saying that the co-presidency's intention to set a global electrification target of 35% by 2035 is a great and very much needed signal at the global level. But it also raises a very important question for the EU, and it should be a wake-up call for us. If we want to lead on green transition, and if we do not want to fall behind other global players, then we need the Commission to come forward with an EU electrification target as soon as possible.
Because we all know that electrification is one of the most concrete ways we can reduce fossil fuel dependence, we can lower emissions and we can strengthen European competitiveness. On fossil fuels, the discussions in Santa Marta in Colombia really highlighted a reality that has become impossible to ignore. Once again, we are facing the consequences of fossil fuel dependence with high and volatile energy prices affecting households, consumers, businesses, and the lesson, it should be clear. To avoid repeating these crises, we need a planned and accelerated phase-out of fossil fuels. We need an EU action plan for the phase-out of fossil fuels and internationally the EU should engage in a first movers coalition with like-minded partners to secure stronger political commitments on fossil fuel phase-out.
This should also include the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies. We need to address investment protection mechanisms such as ISDS, which risk locking countries into fossil energy investments and making the transition more difficult and more expensive. At the same time, climate action cannot slow down now. Just look at the weather over the past days, we're all struggling, I can see you also struggling up there with the extreme heat, and climate change is not a distant threat, it's already affecting our daily lives. With the US government dismantling climate and environmental policies and actively spreading climate disinformation, the EU has an even greater responsibility to step up.
We need stronger global action, but we also need a robust post-2030 climate framework within our Union. And finally, we need to restore the faith in the COP process. Symbolic statements cannot replace actual progress. The EU should coordinate much more closely with like-minded partners and climate frontrunners to make sure that future COPs deliver real results and restore faith in climate action globally. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Now on behalf of the Greens, we have Mr. Teijohof replacing Mr. Holmgren.
Kai Tegethoff
Yes, dear Chair, dear colleagues, thank you.
On behalf of Pär Holmgren as co-sponsor, I'm reading these notes. As Europe faces yet another summer of record-breaking heat, we are reminded that the climate crisis is not a distant threat, but a reality already affecting people across our continent. COP31 will therefore be a crucial moment to move from commitments to implementation and ensure that the EU continues to show leadership in climate ambition. The Parliament must remain firm in its commitment to climate action.
The adoption of the EU's 2040 climate target was an important milestone, but the EU must ensure that Member States' national energy and climate plans include sufficient measures to achieve the EU's 2030 targets. At the same time, the EU must call on all parties globally, especially major emitters, to step up their efforts if we are to keep the Paris Agreement within reach. The Parliament must also remain strong in supporting the transition away from fossil fuels. We welcome the growing momentum towards transitioning away from fossil fuels, including the conference held in Colombia earlier this year. The conference must now deliver concrete progress on the transition away from fossil fuels for all parties.
COP31 must deliver concrete progress on the implementation of the just transition mechanism. EU must also continue to lead by example and ensure predictable and adequate financial support for climate action, for adaptation and resilience, and particularly in the most vulnerable countries, and continue also to push in negotiations for the global climate finance gap to be addressed. We look forward to working with the negotiating teams to achieve a strong, ambitious, and forward-looking resolution for COP31. Thank you.
Lynn Boylan
Thank you very much. Now on behalf of the Left, Madame Boylan.
Thank you, Chair. And I think as others have said, we're sitting here in record temperatures and facing into a super El Niño year, and it's only June. The 31st round of global climate negotiations, I think, are more urgent than ever. And I think it is an opportunity to one, reflect on the progress that we have made, but also, unfortunately, on what is yet to be achieved. And I think if we even if we implement all of the planned emissions reductions, we're still on track for a 2.5 degree warmer world.
And we're sitting here now at the moment looking around at a 1.5 degree world, so we can only imagine the destruction that 2.5 degrees will bring. So the EU and its member states, I think it's important to acknowledge, have the resources, they have the policy space, and they have the historical responsibility to continue pushing for ambitious agreements at COP31. And we must do so now more than ever as others, such as in the US, are leaving that leadership vacuum.
We must continue to do so in the areas where we already do well, which is like mitigation. And I think the electrification ambitions of the COP 31 presidency are aligned with those of the upcoming electrification action plan. And the EU, I think, believe can be a constructive partner there to progress this work. But we also need to be partners in the areas which we're not so good at, such as stepping up for climate finance for mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage, such as addressing the rights of indigenous peoples, environmental defenders, and climate refugees, and also ending the conflicts of interest with the fossil fuel lobby.
And the European Parliament's stance on COP31 must insist on these points to push the Commission and Member States to approach the COP with ambitious positions. So I will be tabling amendments on these issues, along with amendments on the gendered aspects of the climate crisis as well, the wildlife declaration, and the need for sector-specific mitigation efforts from the digital sphere. And I do look forward to working with my fellow shadow rapporteurs on this important statement setting out the Parliament's priorities for the next round of COP negotiations.
Thank you very much. Now we move to the catch-the-eye, Mr. Peter Liese.
Peter Liese
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Now I speak on my own behalf.
We are in difficult times in international politics, but also in climate politics. Trump stepped out of the Paris Agreement. But the good, the good message is nobody followed. Not we are alone, but Trump is alone. He left, but others didn't follow.
That is also due to Mercosur. The European Union, the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen herself put in the Mercosur and all other agreements that without Paris Agreement you cannot do trade agreements with the European Union. And that is an important step for international climate policy and we should strengthen these efforts.
Also the introduction of CBAM has motivated many countries to do their own ETS, like Turkey. I spoke with the Turkish negotiator a few weeks ago and he said we do it because of CBAM. So we should not weaken CBAM, but we should strengthen the Commission.
They have a task force on international carbon markets and I think that is the way to go forward so that others follow us. We are ahead of an important review of the ETS and I am among those that say that ETS needs to be more flexible. There is no contradiction with our climate target. When you really look at the details, we are really on track in the ETS 1 sector and we can adjust for the 2040 and for the 2050 target and give more breathing space to industry. The big problem is the other sectors, heating and road transport, where we are not on a good track and that's one of the reasons why I am in favor of ETS 2.
But we need to bring money back to people and to the business. So that's the weakness of ETS 2 and ETS 1, that people don't see where the money goes.
And we need to be, yeah, more targeted when it comes to the, to the revenues. Far last but not least, we need to enable industry and citizens to really achieve the climate targets and to do the transition. For example, to speed up permitting on all the technology that we need. And that's why I have one doubt with one headline in the, in the draft resolution. If we put the triple planetary crisis everywhere.
I don't think it's wise. Sometimes we have to prioritize.
I would like to prioritize climate, and not one bird can avoid a wind farm to be built. Last but not least, it's a hot day, and we may have a bad conscience when we switch on the air condition. But technology helped us. 30 years ago, the solar panels, the PV, was very expensive. We managed to bring the costs down.
And wherever in Europe we have solar PV, we can put on the air condition without a bad conscience.
So technology helped us out for this problem and I hope technology will help us out also for many other problems. Thank you.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
And now Mr. Andriukaitis.
Labai ačiū, gerbiama pirmininke. Matau, kad jūs tikrai stengiatės, kaip sakyti, kovot su tuo karščiu, kuris, kuris yra dabar ir net, net įveikė kondicionavimo sistemą. Bet mano rankose iš tiesų labai įdomus internete plintantis palyginimas. TV France 1 2014-ais prognozavo, prognozavo karščio bangas, kurios atsitiks 2050-aisiais.
Ir štai tada sakė, kad 50-ais bus 41 laipsnis, 43, 38, 36. Ir kokia iš, kokia netikėta žinia, kad šiandien tai yra.
Aš džiaugiuosi, kad tas interneto sulyginimas yra labai svarbus tiems žmonėms, kurie bando nesuvokti, kas yra klimato kaitos poveikis. Kaip gydytojas pasakysiu labai aiškiai: mes prarasime šiemet daug gyvybių dėl karščio bangų. Insultai, infarktai, tromboembolijos nusineš žmonių gyvybes iki 50 ir daugiau tūkstančių kasmet dėl šitų karščio dramų. Mes prarandame žmonių, kurie galėtų gyvent. Toliau mes puikiai suprantame, koks yra sudėtingas santykis su epidemijom, pandemijom, su klimato nelaimėm ir taip toliau.
Visa tai turi būti kaip niekad iškelta į akivaizdą dabarties klimato kaitos poveikio. Aš pritariu Peter Liese išvardintom visom priemonėm, tačiau norėčiau dar kartą akcentuoti, kad ypatingai būtų svarbu iškelti ir sveikatos apsaugos, žmonių sveikatos bendrų pastangų, preventyviai apsaugoti žmones nuo to, kas gresia klimato kaitos akivaizdoje, ypač vyresnę kartą. Nekalbu apie tai, kad virusų ir kvėpavimo takų ligos neabejotinai vis daugiau susiję su klimato kaita. Ir čia tas vadinamas One Health approach yra neišpasakytai svarbus elementas.
Ir aš linkėčiau mūsų koautorėms rezoliucijos taip pat atkreipti dėmesį į tai, kad sveikatos problematika čia turėtų būti labai aiškiai išdėstyta, nes tai taip pat apsaugo ir trečiųjų šalių žmones, jų paskatina jų sąmoningumą ir supratimą, kad mes visi esame ištikti labai didelės krizės. Todėl iš tiesų sveikindamas ir žiedinę ekonomiką, ir biotechnologijų pažangą, ir švariųjų technologijų skatinimą, ir maisto nešvaistymo problemas, skatindamas tai, kam kaip komisaras paskyriau daug valandų, tikrai noriu pasakyti, kad rezoliucijos autoriai galėtų būti dar ambicingesni. Ačiū.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Andriukaitis, and thank you for your comment about the hot. But it may be because of the climate change, or it could be due that I am already a lady of certain age. And now I have to explain you that unfortunately we have, well, we have invited to the Commission to be here and make their comments, but Mr. Thegolis and Madame Keiseler have been invited and confirmed, but finally they have attend this meeting.
So, the Secretariat is going to check and then to make a complaint because of this absence, unacceptable absence to this meeting today. I remind you as well that the deadline for amendments is in three days, the 25th of June of this week, and then will be voted in ENVI next October and in plenary in October too.
And now we have finished for today and we resume our works tomorrow at 8:30 with a meeting with DEVE and PECH with ENVI tomorrow in this same room. So have a nice afternoon, enjoy your time, I see you tomorrow.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.