Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety Extraordinary meeting Extraordinary ENVI Committee meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
ENVI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsPierfrancesco Maran
Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number 5, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number 6, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Adopted. Compromise number 7, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.
Compromise number 8, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Check.
No. No, compromise number 9, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.
Compromise number 10, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number twelve, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number thirteen, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Adopted. Compromise number fifteen, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.
Compromise number fourteen, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Final vote by roll call vote, the vote is open.
I close the vote and it's adopted, fifty-six in favor, eleven against, twelve abstention. We now proceed by the item number six, establish the temporary decarbonization fund, rapporteur Pascal Canfin. We start with the aggregated amendment thirty-nine, one hundred fifty-five, one hundred sixty-eight, one hundred eighty-one by raising our hands, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Compromise number one, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number two, who's in favor?
Rejected.
Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number three, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number five, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Adopted. Compromise number six, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.
Compromise number seven, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number eight, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number four, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number nine, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Adopted. Compromise number ten, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.
Final vote by roll call vote, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. And it's adopted. Fifty-nine in favor, sixteen against, six abstentions. We now move to the item number seven. We have to change.
It's establish the condition of the implementation of the Union support to the common fisheries policies. It's an opinion. The rapporteur is myself. We start with the compromise number one. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number two. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number three. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number three A by roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. And it's rejected. So we vote raising our hands amendment ninety-one. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Amendment 92, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Rejected. Amendment 94, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Rejected. So compromise number four, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.
Amendment 141, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Check. I open the vote.
I close the vote. And it's rejected. Amendment 144, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Rejected. Amendment 145, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected.
Amendment 150, 151, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. 164, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. 166, who's in favor? Who's against?
168, who's in favor? Who's against? Abstains? Rejected. Compromise number five, who's in favor?
Who abstain? Rejected.
Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Final vote by roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed.
And it's adopted, 59 in favor, 21 against, three abstentions. Now we have a suspension, a break till 7:30. Thank you.
So if we can go back to our job and the next item is the draft report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending as regards the invalidation of allowances in the MSR. I have to leave the point to the rapporteur that is still myself. So I change my hat, take the floor as a rapporteur on the Commission's targeted proposal regarding the MSR for the emission trading system. Following the ENVI coordinators' meeting on May 12th, I was appointed to lead this file on behalf of our committee. In fulfillment of this institutional mandate, I've chosen to present a draft report that does not modify the Commission's original text, that is mainly one sentence, so quite easy.
However, I want to be absolutely clear, this should not be interpreted as a substantive position or an endorsement of the proposal of the Commission as such.
It is a strictly a procedural step to allow our work to formally start. As our coordinators rightly emphasized, the MSR cannot be examined in vacuo. The MSR is linked to the broader architecture of our carbon market and the ETS system, particularly since it began operating in 2019. With the comprehensive review of the EU ETS expected next week, the coordinators and I considered it to be premature to adopt an isolated position on this dossier without first seeing the full picture. Indeed, changes to the overall functioning of the ETS will have an impact on the MSR and vice versa.
As a result, whilst we will proceed with a relatively fast procedure, the calendar of the MSR 1 proposal is linked to the calendar of the ETS review proposal. Should the ETS review be postponed once again, as you know it was supposed to be the 15th of July, now it's the 17th, if it will be another postponement, we may have to reconsider the calendar of the MSR 1 proposal. In conclusion, this draft report is not a closed negotiation position.
It is a starting point designed to give all the political groups and members of this committee the space to discuss their views. I therefore look forward to working constructively with all of you to deliver a robust framework once the full ETS package is on the table.
Thank you. So now we open the floor to the shadow. We start with the EPP, three minutes each shadow. Nils Hansen is the first.
Niels Flemming Hansen
Thank you chair and thank you for the work on this file. I look forward to a good and constructive negotiation on this important part of our climate policy. Some may see the change of the market stability reserve as a small technical adjustment, but we should remember that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, especially with the upcoming ETS revision that you also mentioned, also on the table. We have a huge responsibility to keep coherence between the two parallel processes and not treat them in isolation. For the EPP, we welcome the Commission's proposal to adapt the ETS for the future, but without undermining the very reason we built this complicated system in the first place.
It is our job to keep an overview of what these individual changes add up to, not just approve them one by one.
Finally, let's not lose sight of what this system finally generates. Just this month, the Commission announced that 2.5 billion has been allocated to 11 member states under the Modernisation Fund, an instrument specifically designed to support those member states who most need it in funding to reach our climate objectives. As we discuss these changes in the coming months, it will be critical to keep coming back to this point: what impact will they have on the system as a whole and on the results it actually delivers? Thank you very much.
Ondřej Knotek
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, colleagues. We all know this is only a small change within the functionality of ETS 1.
The big one is knocking on the door, but no matter on this, every even a small improvement or thing in a good direction is important and is welcome. Therefore, we welcome this amending decision to cease the invalidation of allowances in the stability reserve, and we believe it will be able to enter in functioning as soon as possible ahead of the big changes in larger scale to be negotiated later. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. I don't see any request from ECR, so we go to Renew, Emma Wiesner.
Emma Ytterell
Thank you so much, Chair. ETS is our most important, most effective climate policy tool. It provides the economic case for reducing emissions, and it works. And this proposal from the Commission on deleting the cancellation of extra allowances should be seen as a part of a larger package, a package we don't have the full picture of yet. And as we don't have the full proposal on the emission trading scheme and the market stability reserve, we need to take this very carefully and step by step, because every change that we do to the ETS and the MSR impacts the market.
It sends a signal to our industries and companies, industries that are watching us very carefully at the moment, because everything we do to change this very delicate balanced system will impact them and their business case and their investment.
So every change we do sends a signal of unpredictability to the market and this is at a time where industry needs clear signs that the ETS system stands robust. So that's why it's important that we get to see the ETS proposal before we start working on this file. We can't walk blindly into these discussions and negotiations. We have to have a clear picture of the full package first. That said, it's important to work efficiently on both of these proposals and when the ETS comes, we stand ready to do so, be sure of that.
But this doesn't mean, however, that we will accept whatever is presented. We need to see the package and the balance between the different instruments that's being presented. And I look forward to the work that lies ahead of us in the coming months. Thank you so much to the colleagues.
Michael Bloss
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much, Rapporteur. Thank you for your understanding of this file. We also do not see this as a small thing, but as a big one.
We saw a recent study from Öko-Institut that shows if you link all of the different ways you can or the ETS change or changes in the ETS is foreseen, that can result in a structural oversupply of allowances in the ETS and in the result create a ETS that is not working anymore. So we have to look at what is coming on the 17th of July from the Commission and we have to pause our activities until then and then reassess because the ETS only exists as one market. You cannot treat the MSR and the ETS proposal separately. They are part of one package. It's very clear that it's not because of the MSR is bigger that all allowances will also necessarily be released to the market.
But we all also know if there is a big ETS, there is also a lot of players that want to have this allowances from the market, so we have to be careful here. We do see the possibility to revise the MSR. That's that's not the question. But it doesn't mean you have to increase the size. You can also play with the thresholds or with the volumes.
Currently the MSR releases 100 million allowances, but in the late 2030s there will be only 200 to 250 million allowances of overall allocation. So that's clearly much too much. So maybe there are some things to work on and not on increasing the size. So we want to increase the firepower of the MSR, but firepower can also kill.
So let's be very careful with this and let's not kill the ETS with this. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. We don't have still a shadow from the Left. No, not here. So ESN, Anjaard, if somebody want to participate to catch the eye, let's mention it. You have the floor.
Vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender, Frau Berichterstatterin Androuët, Herr Carton, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Ich möchte zunächst ausdrücklich anerkennen: Der Entwurf von Frau Androuët geht in mehreren Punkten in die richtige Richtung.
Peter Liese
Yeah, thank you, Chair. It happens sometimes that people from the far right are not fully aware what we discuss.
That was also the case on the MSR at the Patriots' level when we discussed it at the coordinators'. We are in a bit of a strange situation. The Chair made a draft report without committing to the content of the draft report. Why this? Because a huge majority of the coordinators said we need a simplified procedure.
And then the coordinator of the Patriots blocked the simplified procedure. So that was a bit strange. I'm sure that Ondřej Knotek was not aware. He has a constructive approach to this file, but others don't. And that's why we are in this procedure, that we have a draft report which is not really saying, "Please support my draft report."
It's just opening the procedure. So for EPP, it's very clear. We want to act fast. Every day, every month, allowances are cancelled. And that will reduce the options that we have in the course of the next years to invest these allowances where they are needed for the transition and also to protect industry against carbon leakage.
And that's why I was even ready to go for a urgency procedure, but I listened to colleagues. And the colleagues had good arguments.
Let's look at the presentation of the Commission proposal the 17th of July. And I think it will be the 17th. So, my information is it was not postponed for political reasons, just the President has another obligation next Wednesday, that's why because she wanted to chair the meeting it is next Friday. So, I don't, I am not aware about any plans to postpone it further. Which means we have the full picture next week and then we can assess immediately after the summer break.
And the EPP is in favor of the Commission proposal. So, that is very clear. We want of course to look at all the other elements, but we want to stop the cancellation of allowances as fast as possible because then we have more options to protect industry, to support innovation, to create revenues and all this. And that's why I think the Commission proposal is an important step and it should be adopted as soon as possible. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Actually it was not point of order, I just wanted to also contribute to the debate.
Yes, but okay.
Ondřej Knotek
When I already speak, maybe it's good that I can direct react on colleague Peter Liese. Just allow me to clarify because this is also webstreamed. So of course the indications of Patriots for Europe during coordinators meeting are considered and it's not that they are out of knowing what's going on. We are not in favor of having too much fast-track procedures because simply there are reasons why we have debates, timelines and so on. The thing is that what we proposed is to having accelerated plan.
And you might remember last year, I as a rapporteur for climate law received for example only eight days to do a draft report. Yes, so we could make it faster with accelerated plan including full democratical process. That was our idea, not the explanation of our colleague Peter Liese that we were not aware about what's going on. So I just wanted to clarify this. Otherwise, I agree we should be as fast as possible.
Thank you, Peter.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. I would encourage every group to be in more than one so we can have shadow and another speaker and not the double.
We don't have any other request from MEPs, so we leave the floor to the Commission. We have with us Mette Quinn, Head of Unit, Policy Coordination, International Carbon Markets. You have the floor.
Mette QUINN
Yes, thank you very much. I want to briefly say that the Market Stability Reserve was started in 2019, and since it has started, there has been 3.2 billion allowances held in the reserve that has been invalidated. So the MSR invalidation mechanism has worked as it should and worked very well. So in order to better equip the reserve for future market tightness from the 2030s, we have proposed to stop this invalidation process so we can keep allowances that are going to be taken in the MSR for future use. This proposal also delivers on what Member States were discussing on the 19th March in the European Council to stop the cancellation of allowances and boosting the firepower of the Market Stability Reserve.
It enhances the stability and the predictability of ETS prices without losing the important price signal. As we have announced, we are preparing to present the full ETS review here in July. The upcoming review will also consider the MSR. The MSR is also under review and here we will look at all the rules that are governing the MSR and see whether they are fit and whether they are appropriate in the context of a declining market that we will have post-2030 and into the 40s. Therefore, this proposal can be seen in the context of the full proposal, but it's also very much a self-standing proposal that just looks at the invalidation mechanism and stops it.
Because allowances are placed in the reserve when they are taken out from the oversupply over a period of 12 months, starting every year in September until August the next year.
So from the TNAC that we have announced at the end of May this year, we will start the invalidation on the 1st of September. This would be an invalidation of 190 million allowances over 12 months or close to 16 million allowances every year. Our impact assessment, as you will see with the coming ETS review, will look at the full assessment on how the market will evolve over the next decade. And this is why we have seen it's appropriate to stop the invalidation while we still have an oversupply in the market and it's possible to take allowances and put them in the reserve. So these were the comments I would like to make.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. So thank you to the all the colleagues. I remember that the deadline for amendment will be the 20 of July at 11:00. The vote in ENVI is supposed to be the 10 of September and the plenary should be the one of September. So next item is the nine the item number eight.
We are now moving to the consideration of the draft opinion as prepared by Mrs. Andouët on the Commission proposal for the Industrial Accelerator Act.
We will begin with the presentation of the draft opinion by the rapporteur. Afterward, shadow rapporteurs will be able to take the floor, followed by a catch-the-eye session and by an intervention of the Commission. Mrs. Androuët, you have the floor for five minutes.
Mathilde Androuët
Merci. Mesdames, Messieurs les parlementaires, chers collègues, avec l'Industrial Accelerator Act, nous avons une occasion importante de faire enfin de la politique industrielle européenne autre chose qu'un slogan. Depuis des années, l'Union européenne affirme vouloir réindustrialiser, produire plus proprement, défendre ses chaînes de valeur et protéger ses emplois. Très bien, dont acte. Alors il faut aller au bout de cette logique.
Le premier sujet, le plus important, c'est le Made in Europe. Dans le texte de la Commission de Monsieur Séjourné, le Made in Europe est beaucoup trop ouvert, incluant plusieurs dizaines de pays d'autres continents. Il est tellement ouvert qu'il est une préférence mondiale déguisée. Et ceci n'a échappé à aucun des professionnels que nous avons pu consulter sur le sujet. 80 pays ne peuvent rationnellement obtenir le label Made in Europe.
Car le résultat ne sera rien d'autre que cela : tout en prétendant défendre l'industrie européenne, on permettrait que ces produits fabriqués ailleurs soient traités comme des européens.
Pour nos concitoyens européens et pour les travailleurs de mon pays, de Dunkerque, de Fos-sur-Mer, de Sochaux, de Florange, de Saint-Nazaire, de Lyon ou de tant d'autres bassins industriels, c'est incompréhensible. Un produit européen, ce n'est pas un produit simplement assemblé à la fin dans l'Union européenne. Ce n'est pas un produit importé, transformé à la marge, puis déclaré européen par un montage juridique. Ce n'est pas un produit repeint aux couleurs de Bruxelles. Un produit européen, c'est un produit fabriqué en Europe par des travailleurs européens dans des usines européennes avec de la valeur ajoutée européenne, des composants européens et des savoir-faire maintenus sur notre sol.
Notre ligne est donc simple : le Made in Europe doit être vraiment européen. Ce n'est pas un recul, ce n'est pas un repli, ce n'est pas une fermeture, c'est de la cohérence. C'est de la souveraineté européenne. C'est même le minimum si nous voulons que l'argent public européen serve les travailleurs européens, les entreprises européennes et les territoires européens. Je veux d'ailleurs rappeler un point important : lors de la présentation du texte du commissaire Séjourné, plusieurs rapporteurs, dont Monsieur Grudler pour Renew et Monsieur Jouvet pour les socialistes, ont eux aussi défendu l'idée d'un Made in Europe réellement européen.
Cette ligne était également portée par l'ensemble des députés français et par de nombreuses délégations. J'ose donc espérer que les députés qui siègent dans les mêmes familles politiques suivront cette logique dans la suite des travaux.
C'est précisément cette logique que j'ai exposée dans mon rapport et que je vous détaille aujourd'hui. Je veux le dire clairement à certains collègues, notamment à la branche très libérale de cet hémicycle qui semble parfois vouloir défendre un Made in Europe ouvert au monde entier, quand on préfère tout le monde, on ne préfère personne. Et quand on refuse de limiter géographiquement le Made in Europe, il faut en assumer les conséquences. Cela revient à accepter que l'argent public européen finance les chaînes de production hors d'Europe, y compris dans des pays tiers qui n'ont pas nos standards. Cela revient à accepter que nos impôts soutiennent des concurrents qui ne respectent pas toujours nos normes sociales, environnementales ou énergétiques.
Cela revient en pratique à fragiliser nos emplois industriels européens et à importer de la pollution venue d'ailleurs. Deuxième pilier de notre position : les investissements étrangers. Nous ne disons pas qu'il faut fermer la porte à tout investissement étranger, ce serait absurde, mais nous disons qu'il faut arrêter d'être naïfs. Quand un investisseur étranger arrive dans un secteur stratégique européen, il ne doit pas venir uniquement pour accéder à notre marché, capter nos aides publiques, racheter nos technologies, contrôler une chaîne de valeur ou installer une usine de façade.
Il doit apporter une contribution réelle à l'Europe : des emplois industriels, de la formation, de la recherche et développement dans l'Union, du transfert de savoir-faire, de l'intégration dans les chaînes de valeur européennes et une présence productive durable sur nos territoires. C'est pourquoi nous voulons renforcer les conditions applicables aux investissements directs étrangers dans les secteurs stratégiques : automobile, batteries, acier, chimie, plasturgie, semi-conducteurs, principes actifs pharmaceutiques, dispositifs médicaux, recyclage, technologies nucléaires, technologies zéro net. Dans ces domaines, la naïveté n'est plus une option. Nous voulons que ces investissements soient approuvés, contrôlés, suivis et, si nécessaire, refusés lorsqu'ils fragilisent notre sécurité économique. Un investissement étranger doit renforcer l'Europe, pas contourner l'Europe.
Il doit créer de la valeur ici, pas simplement utiliser le marché européen comme plateforme commerciale. Troisième point : les marchés publics et les aides publiques. Les marchés publics représentent environ 15 % du PIB européen. C'est un levier considérable. Chaque pont, chaque route, chaque gare, chaque école, chaque hôpital, chaque bâtiment public peut devenir un outil de réindustrialisation.
Mais seulement si l'on fixe des règles claires. Quand une collectivité achète de l'acier, du ciment, du béton, de l'aluminium, des véhicules ou des matériaux pour construire les infrastructures, l'argent public doit d'abord soutenir les capacités de production implantées en Europe. Sinon, nous n'aurons le pire des deux mondes : des contribuables européens qui financent des importations pendant que les usines européennes ferment. Nous voulons donc des exigences d'origine UE et de bas carbone dans les marchés publics et des régimes d'aide.
Mais pas un bas carbone abstrait, pas un bas carbone de certificat, pas un bas carbone de papier. Nous voulons des critères liés à des sites réels, à des flux physiques réels, à des procédés industriels vérifiables. C'est particulièrement vrai pour l'acier, le ciment et le béton. On ne peut pas prétendre décarboner l'Europe en fermant une aciérie européenne soumise à des normes strictes, puis en important de l'acier produit ailleurs avec une énergie beaucoup plus carbonée. Ce n'est pas de l'écologie, c'est de l'hypocrisie climatique.
C'est pourquoi nous défendons aussi la lutte contre la pollution importée. Une baisse des émissions européennes n'a aucun sens si elle résulte uniquement de la fermeture de nos sites industriels et de leur remplacement par des importations plus polluantes. La planète n'y gagne rien, les travailleurs européens, eux, y perdent tout. Notre vision est celle d'une décarbonation productive : moderniser les sites européens, investir dans l'efficacité énergétique, le recyclage, la récupération de chaleur, l'innovation, l'électricité bas carbone et le nucléaire. Nous voulons réduire les émissions, mais en gardant les usines ici, chez nous.
Dans l'acier, cela veut dire soutenir l'acier bas carbone produit en Europe. Dans le ciment et le béton, cela veut dire créer des débouchés pour les producteurs européens engagés dans la transformation industrielle. Dans la chimie, cela veut dire reconnaître un secteur indispensable aux batteries, aux médicaments, à l'agriculture, aux matériaux, à la défense et aux technologies propres.
Dans l'automobile, cela veut dire défendre toute la chaîne : constructeurs, équipementiers, fonderies, batteries, composants électriques, acier électrique et sous-traitants. Je veux aussi préciser que ce rapport n'a pas été construit en chambre. Nous avons échangé avec de nombreuses entreprises, fédérations professionnelles et acteurs industriels concernés dans l'acier, le ciment, le béton, la chimie, l'automobile, le recyclage, les matériaux, les technologies bas carbone et les chaînes de valeur stratégiques. Nous n'avons pas repris toutes les demandes qui nous ont été transmises car notre rôle n'est pas d'écrire le texte d'une entreprise ou d'un secteur. Notre rôle est de bâtir une ligne cohérente, défendre l'industrie européenne, les travailleurs européens et la souveraineté productive de l'Europe.
Notre position est donc claire : oui à l'Industrial Accelerator Act, mais pas à une réindustrialisation de façade. Oui au Made in Europe, mais seulement s'il est réellement européen. Oui à la décarbonation, mais pas à la désindustrialisation. Oui aux investissements étrangers, mais seulement s'ils servent nos territoires. Oui aux marchés publics, mais pour soutenir d'abord ceux qui produisent ici.
Oui à l'écologie, non à la pollution importée. Ce texte peut devenir un vrai outil de souveraineté industrielle. Mais s'il reste trop ouvert, trop flou, trop naïf, il ne sera qu'un slogan de plus. Et les slogans ne sauvent ni les usines, ni les emplois, ni le climat. Enfin, Monsieur le Président, même si le temps est déjà terminé, je souhaite remercier le secrétariat ENVI, ITRE, ainsi que l'ensemble des équipes techniques et des traducteurs pour leur travail dans des délais particulièrement contraints, malgré le nombre important d'amendements déposés.
Leur travail permet aujourd'hui à notre commission d'avoir une discussion de fond sur un texte essentiel pour l'avenir industriel de l'Europe. Je vous remercie.
Jessica Polfjärd
Thank you, Chair. And I will speak on behalf of Radan Kanev, who apologizes for not being here, but he likes to present his priorities and I would like to list four of them. So, number one: aligning the permit granting procedure with the general line of the speeding up environmental assessment regulation. Number two: building a strong link between energy-intensive industries and clean tech providers with incentives criteria on economic viability and low-carbon conditionalities. Number three: aligning standardization deadlines on low-carbon construction products with the deadlines of the EAA regulation.
And number four: have a critical view on enabling conditions as far as ENVI is concerned.
And on the made in EU versus made in with EU, he believes that the negotiators should be informed of the list of countries that trigger reciprocity. So that would be the priorities from Mr. Canfin. Thank you.
Christophe Clergeau
Merci Monsieur le Président. Nous avons effectivement une opportunité extraordinaire de reconstruire une industrie européenne puissante et nous le ferons si nous le faisons sur la base d'une industrie verte qui sera l'industrie de l'avenir, une industrie de la transition qui créera des emplois durables en Europe et qui concourra aussi aux objectifs de lutte contre le changement climatique et de protection de l'environnement. Pour y arriver, il faudra revoir le scope de ce texte et notamment y intégrer les industries clés de la mobilité, par exemple la construction navale, l'industrie du rail, mais aussi des éléments clés de l'aviation. Et en tant que commission ENVI, nous devons demander à ce que l'économie circulaire qui fera l'objet d'un texte spécifique soit aussi incluse. La difficulté à laquelle nous allons être confrontés est comment travailler sur la base du draft de Madame Andrews.
Parce qu'en l'écoutant, je me demandais si elle avait pris sa carte au Parti socialiste ou chez les Verts. Évidemment, tout est que mystification dans ce qu'elle a indiqué.
Un discours pour faire joli quand la réalité de ses amendements sont assez éloignés sur beaucoup de points. Vous dites que vous êtes pour la préférence européenne. À chaque fois, vous êtes obligée d'utiliser le terme, mais chaque fois que vous pouvez, vous renvoyez à la dimension nationale, aux outils nationaux. Vous affaiblissez la dimension européenne pour privilégier des approches restreintes à chaque pays. Vous n'avez toujours pas compris que face à la Chine ou aux USA, notre seule chance est d'être unis et de construire des chaînes de valeur réellement européennes.
Ensuite, vous défendez une vision passéiste de l'industrie en opposant systématiquement réindustrialisation et climat ou environnement. Vous refusez de reconnaître que les industries de demain seront les industries vertes et que les salariés ne viendront pas travailler dans des usines où il fera 40 degrés et où les conditions de travail mettront en danger leur santé. Enfin, votre obsession anti-écologique vous amène à combattre systématiquement dans vos amendements les énergies renouvelables et votre obsession première, les éoliennes, alors qu'il s'agit de l'énergie la moins chère, celle qui nous rend libres et pour lesquelles dans beaucoup de domaines nous pouvons créer des emplois durables et de qualité en Europe. Un des termes que vous avez utilisé est parfaitement frappant. Vous avez parlé d'électricité bas-carbone et nucléaire.
Expliquez-nous ce qu'est l'électricité bas-carbone.
Évidemment, c'est tout sauf le renouvelable. Vous rouvrez la porte au gaz et à d'autres technologies qui n'ont rien de durable et qui n'ont rien de souverain. Donc dans ces débats en ENVI, il faudra revenir sur les questions ENVI, tous les sujets de conditionnalité environnementale et pas seulement climatique, et aussi apporter une démystification, faire le jour sur celles et ceux qui veulent réellement construire l'industrie de demain et ceux qui sont enfermés dans le passé et le repli national.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. For ECR, Stefano Cavedagna? Not there. So, Renew, Alion? No.
Greens, Nordqvist.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes. Yes, thank you, Chair. Yeah, let me make a few, few points here. First and foremost, I mean, I will make the point as I did also when we discussed the Clean Industrial Deal, the Wind Power Package and so forth, is that we need coherence in our industry policy. And we need it to be about circularity, so we keep our resources in Europe, keep using them over and over again.
And I'm a bit sad to see what I've seen here is, is this lack of integration of the circularity, and then we have the Circular Economy Act coming at some point in the fall as a bit of add-on instead of being an integrated and basic part of this. So first and foremost, we need circularity and circular business model that we need to scale up throughout Europe to be integrated in the scope of this regulation, alongside of course a decarbonization of energy-intensive industries. I mean, any measures as well to promote EU-made production should integrate circular business model. It's a good way of doing European if we keep our own raw materials in use over and over again. I think also that it's important that the definition of low-carbon products need to be quite strict, so we stay focused on phasing out materials and product deriving from fossil fuels as well, so we actually are strong in this policy.
And then my, my last point is a bit in line with, with the opinion I've just been rapporteur for in this, in this committee on, on the grid package, where we also saw this slippery slope of, of speeding up permitting and, and, and looking away from, from environmental assessments.
And we need to be quite firm in what we're doing here, because actually I would say a lot of a lot of the problems here is actually of poor implementation of already made policy. So let's keep track and let's stay focused that we also need a clean environment. We also need a thriving nature in the future, and we also need that for for for our industries. So any acceleration areas must respect, of course, Natura 2000, nature protected areas. Yeah, and then as well that any sector that that that we look into should of course be the ones already defined under the Net-Zero Industry Act to be just a bit of coherent in our industry policy.
Thank you.
Per Clausen
Thank you very much, and I will speak in Danish. Jeg kommer fra en gammel industriby i det nordlige Danmark.
Der har vi de sidste 10, 15, 20 år oplevet, hvordan vi har skabt tusindvis af nye gode arbejdspladser med overenskomstaftalebaseret og så videre, netop på grund af den grønne omstilling og i kraft af den grønne omstilling. Og set i det lys, så synes jeg, at det er rigtig, rigtig skuffende, at vi i stedet for at se et forslag til lovgivning, som kunne sætte kursen mod en bæredygtig europæisk industri baseret på vedvarende energi, cirkulær økonomi, er vi kommet, kommer der et forslag, hvor de ambitioner, der kunne være på det område, er stærkt reduceret. Vi står i stedet for med et forslag, som risikerer at forværre både klima- og biodiversitetskrisen. Der vil indføres undtagelser fra helt central miljølovgivning, lovgivning, som beskytter vores habitater, vores fugle og vores vandmiljø. Og samtidig præsenteres vi for definitioner af lavemission, som nok gør sandsynligheden for greenwashing større end sandsynligheden for en reel grøn omstilling.
Og hvis vi ser på det forslag til udtalelse, der nu ligger til ENVI-udvalget, så svigter vi i hvert fald, hvis vi ikke laver radikalt om på det, så svigter vi den opgave, som vi har i det her udvalg. Der fastholder man problematiske undtagelser, som gør det lettere at tilsidesætte hensyn til havmiljøet og beskytte naturområder med hensyn til industriprojekter.
Og jeg vil sige, at i stedet for at gøre miljøgodkendelserne og de regler, der er dertil, problemet og udfordringen, så skulle man fokusere meget mere på at sikre, at vi havde ressourcer til at lave en ordentlig og fornuftig og hurtig og effektiv sagsbehandling, sådan at der skete forenklinger i sagsbehandlingen, ikke forringelse af beskyttelsen af miljø og natur. Og for at sige det, som det er, så er det sådan, at når Europas vandmiljø er forgiftet, vores jord forurener, vores ressourcer opbrugt, så har vi ikke bare ødelagt grundlaget for en konkurrencedygtig europæisk industri, vi har ødelagt selve grundlaget for vores eksistens. Og der vil jeg bare sige, med henvisning til hvad jeg selv har oplevet der, hvor jeg kommer fra, grøn omstilling er fundamentet i at skabe en konkurrencedygtig europæisk industri, og det skal vi holde fast i.
Anja Arndt
Vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender, ich werde auf Deutsch sprechen. Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender, Frau Berichterstatterin Androuët, Herr Kenten und liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Ich möchte zunächst ausdrücklich anerkennen, der Entwurf von Frau Androuët geht in mehreren Punkten in die richtige Richtung.
Besonders wichtig ist, dass sie die industrielle Souveränität Europas, den Schutz vor Carbon Leakage, die Verringerung gefährlicher Abhängigkeiten von Drittstaaten und die Rolle von kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen deutlich stärker in den Vordergrund stellt. Das ist eine echte Verbesserung gegenüber dem Kommissionsvorschlag. Ein zentraler Punkt fehlt uns als ESN jedoch weiterhin. Die europäische Industrie braucht nicht zuerst neue CO2-Kriterien, sondern bezahlbare Energie. Die energieintensiven Industrien stehen für rund 8 Millionen Arbeitsplätze und 550 Milliarden Euro Wertschöpfung in Europa.
Gleichzeitig zahlen EU-Unternehmen laut dem Draghi-Bericht zwei- bis dreimal höhere Strompreise als ihre Wettbewerber in den USA und vier- bis fünfmal höhere Gaspreise. Unter diesen Bedingungen helfen beschleunigte Verfahren nur begrenzt, wenn die Produktion am Ende trotzdem zu teuer bleibt. Wer Industrie in Europa halten will, muss Energiepreise, Abgaben, ETS-Kosten und Bürokratie senken, nicht nur Dekarbonisierungsprojekte verwalten. Frau Berichterstatterin Androuët, Herr Kenten, genau hier liegt aus unserer Sicht der Kern.
Kann ein Industrial Accelerator Act überhaupt wirken, wenn er zwar Verfahren beschleunigt, aber die eigentliche Kostenbasis der europäischen Industrie unangetastet lässt? Solange Energiepreise, Abgaben, ETS-Kosten und regulatorische Lasten deutlich höher sind als bei unseren Wettbewerbern, beschleunigen wir dann nicht vor allem die Entscheidung vieler Unternehmen, ihre Produktion außerhalb Europas aufzubauen? Ich danke.
Pierfrancesco Maran
I don't see any request for catch-the-eye, so we leave the floor to the Commission. We have John Kenton, Head of Unit, Directorate-General GROW, Unit 1.1 on energy-intensive industries and critical raw materials. You have the floor for five minutes.
John KENTON
Thank you very much. Good evening everyone and thank you to the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for the work, for the contribution and for the exchanges today. I would like to say a few words to recall the overall purpose of the Industrial Accelerator Act, which is aiming at improving the functioning of the single market by increasing the scale of resilient and decarbonized industrial manufacturing projects in the EU. So our intention is simple. We want to create the conditions for boosting industrial activities in the EU, create the conditions for a clear business case to invest here in decarbonization while creating added value in the EU territory.
So we take good note of the draft opinion and of the exchanges today.
We note, for instance, the increased ambition when it comes to the industrialization objective. For the Commission, the industrialization objective is an important element of the proposal because it's a way of showing that we have the ambition of achieving prosperity with a strong industrial base in the EU, that it is possible to achieve prosperity with a strong contribution to the GDP of the European economy from industry, and we can do this in parallel to decarbonization, in parallel to achieving our climate ambition. So this is one key objective for us. And in order to contribute to this objective, we have three main priorities. The first priority is really to improve the enabling conditions.
So we want to highlight in particular the importance of streamlined permitting measures, permitting procedures. The intention is not to reduce environmental ambition, but actually to accelerate and streamline the procedures, notably by generalizing the use of digital tools, by making sure that for project promoters, for one project, there is one procedure, one digital procedure that is available to them, so that we can help also the work of the public authorities in charge of dealing with these procedures. A second aspect in this context is the reference to industrial manufacturing acceleration areas. What does it mean?
It means industrial hubs. We want to create hubs and industrial symbiosis across the EU territory, across Member States, across the single market, in order to boost regional prosperity and to make sure that we can continue to develop industrial activities, industrial projects for greenfield investment, but also for brownfield investment when it comes to the existing industrial sites that need to be transformed and that need to continue to invest. The second dimension of the proposal, and we've heard already a lot about this today, is about promoting lead markets. Just a couple of words on my side on two dimensions. Lead markets is about low carbon.
It's about defining low carbon in a way that incentivizes investment in decarbonization in the EU by heavy energy-intensive industries, meaning that we need to find definitions, and we'll do so in existing instruments, that is sufficiently ambitious to trigger additional investment and at the same time realistic so that demand can be covered by supply and by new investment between now and 2029 or 2030.
The second key dimension is to make sure that for specific supply chains in specific strategic sectors, we can also promote made in Europe or the concept of Union origin with a logic that is about strengthening our industrial base against the backdrop of growing global competition and increasing dependencies from non-EU suppliers in strategic sectors. So the focus is on strategic sectors and we want to do so in with two elements in mind: first, fighting circumvention, we don't want our rules to be circumvented by market behaviors, and the second thing is that we want to ensure that there is reciprocity so that we have the possibility to close the EU market when a third country has failed to provide national treatment related to Union products or entities under our existing international agreements. So it is an essential aspect, we have this possibility and we have actually the obligation to consider closing these markets in whole or in part when the third country does not provide national treatment to Union entities or products. The second reason that we could use in the context of the Commission proposal is to avoid dependencies or other development that may threaten the security of supply in the Union of the products in question.
So we have opportunities then to be restrictive and to make sure that we promote European industrial supply chains. The third dimension is that we want to promote good quality, high quality investment in the EU that create jobs, quality jobs, innovation and value added creation along the supply chains and technological progress for specific sectors in specific circumstances, basically in situations where we see that we have technologies of the future that are needed for our clean transition, that are needed for our future competitiveness and where Europe is lagging behind and need to catch up. So again, it's not about closing the EU market, it's about ensuring that we can promote quality investment in the European economy. And my last word before I am, or maybe just a couple of words on this, in order to deliver on that, the Commission's proposal includes a number of basic conditions to be respected. What is important for us is that this is done within mind single market functioning.
So we want to make sure that we can approach this with a single market dimension, including through contributions and a role for the European Commission in this context, so that there is no race to the bottom between our member states and these conditions can be applied effectively across the EU territory. So before I conclude, one last word. Simplicity and low administrative burdens, they remain essential aspects of the work of the Commission and of this Parliament, I presume, but also in the context of this proposal. So we are looking at ways of ensuring that we find synergies with existing instruments, existing procedures, such as when it comes to the definition of or the use of Union custom codes or the use of existing public procurement procedures, because we want to make sure that we achieve ambition and the policy objectives of this proposal, but by reducing as much as possible the administrative burden on companies and on authorities. Thank you very much.
The Commission stays stands ready to contribute to this essential debate in the coming weeks and months. Thank you.
Mathilde Androuët
Merci beaucoup. Alors si je fais le tour de l'en un résumé de l'ensemble des interventions que j'ai pu avoir des différents groupes, la question est de savoir c'est avez-vous vraiment lu mon rapport ? Mais je retiendrai aussi que certains mots positifs comme ceux de un terme qui m'est qui m'a sonné de manière fort heureuse de la part de la Commission, à savoir le terme ambition. Je pense que ce texte amendé par mes équipes et moi-même porte cette ambition, cette ambition européenne, cette volonté de maintenir nos emplois, nos usines ouvertes et d'avoir une grande compétitive compétitivité industrielle.
J'attendais un peu plus de positionnement politique de la part du PPE en effet qui demande juste un mode d'emploi des règles de réciprocité du Made in Europe. Je suis désolé même si les règles sont parfaitement dans le dans les dans les normes juridiques attendues, le fait d'imaginer qu'il puisse y avoir 80 pays qui revendiquent le label Made in Europe ne fera pas des produits qui viennent de ces pays des pays des produits européens. Et ça ça sera un positionnement clair qu'il faudra nous donner lors des négociations. Quant au S&D, au début je dois prendre ma carte au sein de leur parti pour finalement devenir une sorte de nationaliste caché derrière certains concepts qui ne figurent pas dans le rapport que j'ai amendé. Donc j'aimerais savoir quelle a été leur lecture, est-ce que la lecture a été faite avec des lunettes les lunettes de l'idéologie un peu crasse ou est-ce qu'elles ont été faites avec le seul la seule chose, le seul guide que nous devons avoir à savoir la défense de l'industrie européenne.
Alors là aussi l'ensemble des groupes de gauche qui je pense parlent plus du texte de Monsieur Séjourné que du mien à savoir leur inquiétude que je partage sur la le côté caractère l'économie circulaire, le recyclage, je l'ai intégré dans notre dans mon rapport.
Et oui, je suis très soucieuse en effet du fait que l'énergie soit au maximum décarbonée et et pour le coup peu onéreuse pour l'ensemble de nos acteurs européens. Donc cette souveraineté européenne, oui, je l'assume, je la défends et je sais que c'est une inquiétude sur les coûts et c'est une inquiétude qui a été partagée et donnée par la Commission, sauf que là il s'agit d'argent public européen, de marchés publics européens. Et oui, il est nécessaire face aux produits asiatiques et disons-le clairement chinois qui envahissent notre marché, qu'il faut vraiment s'occuper de protéger et de mettre ce qu'il faut mettre sur la table pour protéger nos emplois et rester compétitifs dans cette jungle qu'est devenu le monde tel que vous nous l'avez construit depuis plusieurs années au sein de l'Union européenne.
Pierfrancesco Maran
The deadline for amendments is the 15th of July at 5:00 PM. The vote in ENVI should be the 1st of October, while the vote in the lead committee will be the 1st of December. We don't have any other business. The next meeting will take place the 14th of July in Brussels and the 1st and 2nd of September, always in Brussels. Now we will have a small break.
At 8:30, we will start with the joint committee ENVI and AGRI.
Good afternoon, good evening. We go back. Please, colleagues. Please take a seat. We are starting our joint committee ENVI and AGRI.
Please, I know we are all very happy that it's July, but... So, we start with the adoption of the agenda. If there are no objection, the draft agenda can be adopted without modification. Interpretation is available in 21 languages. As usual, the meeting file is available electronically via the e-meeting application, and the meeting will be webstreamed.
After the summer recess, our joint committee will organize a public hearing on simplifying EU rules on food and feed safety, which will take place on the afternoon of the 2nd of September. Please note it in your calendar. We have the minutes of the 5th of May. If there are no objection, the minutes can be adopted without modification. So now we can move to the joint ENVI-AGRI meeting to discuss the draft report under the food and feed safety omnibus simplification package by the co-rapporteurs for those files, Mr. Michele Picaro and Mr. Herbert Dorfmann.
Moreover, I would like to warmly welcome AGRI first vice-chair Daniel Buda and AGRI members for joining us in our room this evening in Strasbourg. The two draft reports on the amending regulation and on the amendment directive in the food and food omnibus will now be debated this evening. The rapporteurs will take the floor to present the draft report, followed by the shadows. This will be followed by a catch-the-eye. Mr. Buda, I give you the floor to begin this exchange of views.
Daniel Buda
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would like to use my language. Vă mulțumesc, domnule președinte Amarant, pentru această reuniune comună. Într-adevăr, salutăm propunerile Comisiei de simplificare a legislației privind siguranța alimentelor și a hranei pentru animale. Cu toate acestea, ele vizează numeroase modificări în diferite domenii ale legislației existente.
Toate aceste implicații semnificative sunt semnificative pentru fermierii europeni. Discuția din această seară cu privire la cele două proiecte de raport elaborate de colegii noștri Picaro și Dorfmann este, prin urmare, deosebit de importantă pentru sectorul agricol și pentru continuarea activității noastre legislative.
Prin urmare, propun, stimate domnule președinte, să începem fără alte formalități. Iar acum să dăm cuvântul, please.
Pierfrancesco Maran
I agree with you, dear colleagues, so we leave the floor to the co-rapporteurs for four minutes each. We start with Michele Picaro.
Michele Picaro
Grazie, Presidente. Ringrazio in primo luogo la grande collaborazione e lo spirito con il quale insieme ad Herbert Dorfmann avviamo questo percorso. Come correlatore, il mio obiettivo nel corso di questo lavoro è stato quello di fare in modo che il pacchetto Omnibus Food and Feed rappresenti un vero esercizio di semplificazione per l'agricoltura europea. In questo contesto, una priorità è stata rendere il sistema di autorizzazione più efficiente. L'attuale sistema dei rinnovi è di fatto bloccato, ritardando l'accesso all'innovazione e indebolendo la competitività dell'agricoltura europea.
Per questo la relazione propone di interrompere le procedure di rinnovo in corso, salvo nuove evidenze scientifiche che richiedano una rivalutazione, e introduce un termine massimo di diciotto mesi per la valutazione delle domande, garantendo certezza giuridica e mantenendo un elevato livello di tutela.
Abbiamo inoltre lavorato per ridurre gli oneri amministrativi. La relazione sostiene la libera circolazione delle sementi trattate con prodotti fitosanitari autorizzati in almeno uno Stato membro, evitando duplicazioni procedurali, riducendo i costi per le imprese e preservando la competitività del settore sementiero europeo, senza compromettere la tutela della salute e dell'ambiente. Un altro elemento centrale è il riconoscimento reciproco automatico delle autorizzazioni. Oggi le autorizzazioni d'emergenza vengono valutate separatamente anche quando gli agricoltori affrontano le stesse emergenze fitosanitarie. La relazione propone quindi il riconoscimento automatico all'interno della stessa zona climatica e l'estensione delle autorizzazioni agli Stati membri che si trovano in condizioni analoghe, riducendo gli oneri amministrativi e consentendo risposte più rapide alle emergenze.
Inoltre, introduce linee guida armonizzate per la validazione dei metodi analitici dei laboratori ufficiali, assicurando il risultato in tutta l'Unione.
Abbiamo poi rafforzato l'accesso alle soluzioni sostenibili per la protezione delle colture. La relazione amplia la definizione di sostanze di biocontrollo includendo i metalli pesanti presenti naturalmente come il rame, introducendo così una definizione specifica di produzione vivaistica ed estende la possibilità di autorizzazioni provvisorie a tutte le sostanze attive innovative. Per quanto riguarda la direttiva, il lavoro si è concentrato sull'accesso alle tecnologie innovative. L'agricoltura di precisione e i droni consentono di ridurre l'utilizzo dei prodotti fitosanitari, limitare la deriva e migliorare le prestazioni ambientali. La relazione introduce quindi una disciplina specifica per queste tecnologie, con valutazioni del rischio proporzionato e un quadro autorizzativo dedicato, anche a livello europeo o di zona.
Infine, richiamo l'attenzione su alcuni principi che dovranno guidare i prossimi negoziati. Il principio di reciprocità deve rimanere un pilastro fondamentale, anche alla luce delle attuali e auspicabili accordi commerciali che l'Europa è chiamata a concludere.
È infatti essenziale evitare che gli agricoltori europei siano penalizzati dalla concorrenza di prodotti realizzati secondo standard inferiori a quelli dell'Unione Europea. Allo stesso tempo è necessario distinguere chiaramente tra alimenti e mangimi e riesaminare le tolleranze all'importazione per le sostanze attive non più approvate nell'Unione, rafforzando quindi l'equità, la fiducia dei consumatori e la coerenza del mercato interno. Colleghe e colleghi, confido che questo lavoro condiviso anche con il nostro shadow rapporteur in AGRI, onorevole Carlo Fidanza, possa contribuire a creare un sistema regolatorio più efficace per garantire ai nostri agricoltori gli strumenti necessari per continuare a produrre alimenti sicuri, sostenibili e di alta qualità. Grazie.
Herbert Dorfmann
Grazie Chair. Ja, ich möchte auch zu Beginn meinem Ko-Berichterstatter Michele Piccone sehr herzlich danken für die sehr kollegiale Zusammenarbeit, die wir in den letzten Wochen und Monaten hatten, um zu diesem Bericht zu kommen. Ich denke, als grundsätzliche Überlegung, wir haben in Europa im Pflanzenschutz eine große Herausforderung.
Und die besteht darin, dass die Herausforderungen im Pflanzenschutz insgesamt leider nicht abnehmen, sondern mehr werden. Immer neue Schädlinge tauchen in Europa auf. Das hat teilweise natürlich mit dem Klimawandel zu tun. Wir haben inzwischen Regionen in Europa, wo fast tropenartige Witterungsverhältnisse sind oder Klimasituationen sind mit natürlich ganz neuen Herausforderungen. Und natürlich spielt da auch der internationale globale Handel mit hinein, der immer wieder dazu führt, dass wir leider Krankheitserreger auch einschleppen.
Gleichzeitig aber, und das hat der Kollege gesagt, gelingt es uns kaum, neue Pflanzenschutzmittel oder neue Wirkstoffe in Europa zuzulassen und damit neue Produkte zuzulassen. Immer öfter fallen aber aus verschiedensten Gründen, gerechtfertigt oder ungerechtfertigt, alte Produkte weg. Und die Produkte, die dann noch verfügbar sind für die Bäuerinnen und Bauern, werden immer weniger. Deswegen, ich glaube, Hauptziel dieser Verordnung muss es sein, den Weg für Innovation zu eröffnen, denn nur wenn Innovation möglich wird, dann kann das Alte auch wegfallen. Deswegen möchte ich jetzt nicht alles wieder noch mal erwähnen, was der Kollege Piccone bereits gesagt hat.
Uns geht es um Bürokratieabbau, um Vereinfachung.
Und ich greife da auch noch einmal einen Punkt auf, der schon gesagt worden ist, die gegenseitige Anerkennung bei der Produktanerkennung der Mitgliedstaaten. Wenn ein Mitgliedstaat in einer ähnlichen Klimasituation ist als sein Nachbar oder in einer ähnlichen, in der gleichen Klimazone ist, ein Produkt zugelassen hat und wenn dieser Mitgliedstaat den Behörden anderer Mitgliedstaaten vertraut, dann gibt es eigentlich keinen Sinn, dass alle Mitgliedstaaten die gleiche Arbeit für sich selbst machen. Es ist eigentlich mehr als logisch, dass dann die Mitgliedstaaten gegenseitig sich Produkte anerkennen, was sie heute nicht tun und was sie natürlich nicht tun wollen. Und uns hier auf europäischer Ebene werfen sie dann vor, Bürokratie zu schaffen, aber sie hätten selbst sehr viel Möglichkeit, auch Bürokratie abzuschaffen und zu vereinfachen, wenn sie sich gegenseitig ein bisschen mehr vertrauen würden. Wir haben bisher gesehen, dass hier ein fakultatives System nicht greift.
Und ich bin der Meinung, wir sind der Meinung, man muss das obligatorisch machen in Zukunft. Ich glaube auch, dass es längere Übergangsfristen braucht.
Ich glaube auch, dass der Kommissionsvorschlag, den ich in sehr vielen Punkten als sehr guten Vorschlag erachte, dass die dort vorgesehene Vorzugsschiene für Biowirkstoffe, dass die richtig ist. Dieses Haus hat sich mehrmals und auch wir in unseren Ausschüssen, also zumindest im Agri-Ausschuss, haben erst gerade einen Initiativbericht abgestimmt, wo wir uns klar für diese Vorzugsschiene bei der Anerkennung von Biowirkstoffen ausgesprochen haben. Und ich glaube, dass dieser Ansatz, den die Kommission hier gewählt hat, ein Fast-Track-Verfahren einzuführen für diese Biowirkstoffe, dass das eine richtige Vorgehensweise ist. Ich teile die Auffassung oder die Meinung des Kollegen Picula, wenn es um Drohnen geht. Das ist eine Arbeitserleichterung und auch eine Verbesserung, Qualitätsverbesserung, besonders in schwierigen Lagen, in besonderen Steillagen, wo der Einsatz von Maschinen, Traktoren und so weiter nicht nur gefährlich, sondern manchmal auch sehr, sehr schwierig ist.
Also insgesamt hoffen wir mit diesem, mit diesem Vorschlag einen Beitrag zu leisten, um das System in Europa insgesamt effizienter zu machen. Und ich freue mich jetzt sehr auf die Aussprache mit den Kolleginnen und Kollegen.
Daniel Buda
Mulțumim foarte mult celor doi raportori, coraportori. Iar acum mergem mai departe la raportorii din umbră. Fiecare raportor din umbră va avea cuvântul pentru două minute și jumătate. Iar doamna Anja Hazekamp și domnul Ivan David, pentru că sunt raportori și în Agri și în ENVI, vor avea trei minute.
Dar ceilalți coraportori au cuvântul pentru două minute și jumătate. Pentru S&D înțeleg că domnul Vasile Dîncu vorbește în locul domnului Cîrciu.
Vasile Dîncu
Da, mulțumesc, domnule președinte. În calitate de raportor din umbră, domnul Gheorghe Cîrciu îi mulțumește raportorului pentru proiectul prezentat. Apreciem faptul că pune accent pe simplificare, deoarece este și obiectivul nostru principal, să sprijinim fermierii în mod concret și să-i eliberăm de sarcinile administrative inutile care le îngreunează activitatea. Salutăm de asemenea propunerea ca semințele tratate să nu fie încadrate în categoria produselor de protecție a plantelor. În multe zone geografice fermierii se confruntă cu dăunători care pot compromite o mare parte din diferite culturi, iar tratarea semințelor reprezintă o măsură esențială pentru protejarea producției.
Din acest motiv vom depune amendamente care să susțină tehnic această abordare. Totodată, domnul Cîrciu susține autorizațiile pe perioadă nedeterminată pentru produsele de substanțe convenționale, urmând ca acestea să poată fi reevaluate ori de câte ori apar noi date științifice relevante.
În același timp considerăm necesară elaborarea unui ghid EFSA privind similaritatea structurală a substanțelor, care să stabilească în mod clar criteriile ce trebuie îndeplinite pentru încadrarea acestora în categoria substanțelor cu risc scăzut conform anexei doi. Sprijinim de asemenea și propunerea privind recunoașterea reciprocă a autorizațiilor, un aspect care reprezintă o prioritate și pentru noi, deoarece contribuie direct la simplificarea și eficientizarea cadrului legislativ. Iar în ceea ce privește directiva privind utilizarea dronelor, împărtășim poziția raportorului și susținem implementarea acestei măsuri într-un termen de doi ani, astfel încât fermierii să poată beneficia cât mai curând de avantajele agriculturii de precizie și ale inteligenței artificiale, utilizând produsele de protecție a plantelor doar acolo unde este cu adevărat necesar. Mulțumesc, domnule președinte.
Jessica Polfjärd
So, thank you chair and thank you to the both co-rapporteurs, Mr. Dorfmann and Mr. Pecaro. The food and feed omnibus is an important step towards a more modern, innovative and less burdensome regulatory framework for European agriculture. And I will start with the directives before I turn to the regulations, if that is okay. We welcome the direction taken by the co-rapporteurs.
The proposed changes recognize drones for what they are: precision application tools. This is a more proportionate approach that will help farmers adopt new technologies more quickly, improve the precision of plant protection application, and reduce pesticide use, while maintaining a high level of safety. We also welcome the greater flexibility for Member States and the shorter timelines, ensuring that innovation is not held back by unnecessary delays. There are some points where we believe that the proposal also could be improved. The Commission proposes that the delegated act should identify different types of drones that can be used in agriculture.
We are concerned that this could quickly turn into a positive list that risks becoming outdated as technology develops. Instead of referring to types of drones, we would encourage a framework based on technical and risk-based criteria. These criteria should be regularly updated to reflect the latest technological developments, ensuring that the legislation keeps pace with innovation. We also believe Member States should have the flexibility to depart from the common technical criteria where this is justified by regional conditions or specific application needs. Finally, we fully support the co-rapporteurs' proposal to reduce the timeline for the delegated acts from years to one.
Turning to the regulation, we also welcome the draft report of the co-rapporteurs. And Europe needs a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose. Thank you.
Biljana Borzan
Thank you very much, Chair. When the Commission presented this omnibus proposal, I was already, I already had serious concerns. But after reading the draft report, I'm even more worried. Instead of correcting the proposal's weaknesses, it goes even further in weakening the safeguards that have made Europe's food among the safest in the world. One of the greatest achievements of European food policy has been that we act before people get harmed.
We regularly reassess pesticide active substances because science evolved. We learn more about cancer risks, endocrine disruption, neurodevelopmental effects in children, and impacts on biodiversity.
Our legislation has always recognized that yesterday's science cannot be basis for tomorrow's protection. The report goes even further by extending unlimited approvals to national product authorizations, broadening derogations for hazardous substances based on socio-economic arguments, lengthening grace periods after non-renewal and further limiting Member States' ability to respond when new scientific evidence emerges. These are not technical simplifications. They represent a fundamental change in the philosophy of EU pesticide legislation. Simplification should never mean weakening scientific scrutiny.
If EFSA and national authorities face delays, then the answer is to provide them with adequate resources and staff, not to reduce the frequency of scientific assessments or make them optional. Europe has some of the safest food in the world because we have consistently applied the precautionary principle.
Our responsibility is first and foremost to protect public health, especially the health of children, who are the most vulnerable to pesticide exposure. I hope that, during the amendment process, we can restore that principle and ensure that simplification serves citizens and not at the expense of their safety. Thank you.
Daniel Buda
Stimați colegi, v-aș ruga să vă manifestați prin abținerea aplauzelor pentru că s-ar putea să aplaudăm noi ceilalți din sală care nu suntem de acord cu dumneavoastră și nu ați vrea să facem un concurs pentru că s-ar putea să fiți în minoritate, într-o mare minoritate, în ghilimele, da? Exact, stimați colegi, să ne respectăm dacă se poate. Următorul vorbitor, Mireia Borrás Pabón.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Sí, muchas gracias, presidente. Y muchas gracias también, yeah, I'm going to speak in Spanish, yeah.
Muchas gracias, presidente, y gracias también a los ponentes Picaró y Dorfmann. Todos sabemos, yo creo, en esta sala, el tsunami de plagas y enfermedades que llevan sufriendo nuestros agricultores mientras Bruselas tardaba una media de siete años en aprobar una sola sustancia activa. Siete años de papeleo mientras el campo se moría asfixiado y sin herramientas porque Bruselas había decidido quitárselas. Por eso agradezco enormemente el trabajo de los ponentes, porque reducir ese plazo a dieciocho meses, ampliar de siete a quince años el periodo de las candidatas a sustitución y avanzar hacia el reconocimiento mutuo automático entre los Estados miembros, pues no era para nada un capricho del sector, era puro sentido común aplicado por fin a la agricultura europea. Pero debo denunciar aquí de nuevo, y como lo hemos hecho desde mi grupo en cada comisión, que el principal problema sigue intacto, y es que Europa se ha impuesto el marco regulatorio más exigente del mundo y, acto seguido, ha lanzado a sus agricultores a competir con un brazo atado a la espalda frente a importaciones que no cumplen esos mismos estándares.
Esto que ustedes quieren llamar aquí libre comercio, pero que en realidad es competencia desleal financiada por nosotros mismos.
Hoy acabamos de escuchar a una diputada socialista muy preocupada por ciertas sustancias activas, ¿no?, que podrían entrar en nuestro continente o podrían utilizarse en nuestro continente. Lo cierto es que ha votado a favor de Mercosur la mayor parte de la bancada socialista, que le ha aplaudido sin reparos, donde se utilizan la mayor parte de esas sustancias que ustedes aquí prohíben a los nuestros, pero que no les importa importar abriendo las puertas de par en par de su continente para que esos niños que ha mencionado la diputada socialista y todas esas familias consuman esos productos que no han pasado ninguno de los controles sanitarios tan exigentes que ustedes sí que les exigen a los nuestros. Así que aquí está para nosotros la gran asignatura pendiente y en la que vamos a trabajar en nuestras enmiendas intensamente, y es son también los límites máximos de residuos. Si a algún agricultor europeo se le prohíbe utilizar una sustancia, esa misma sustancia no puede colarse de ninguna manera por la puerta de atrás en forma de importación. Así que celebramos que este paquete abra la puerta a impedir que los pesticidas más peligrosos prohibidos aquí por salud y medio ambiente vuelvan a entrar por la puerta de atrás, por Rotterdam o Algeciras, en un contenedor.
Pero no nos conformamos con que sea caso por caso. Queremos que sea la norma, no la excepción. Y ya termino con la parte de los drones. Llevamos desde 2009 con una prohibición general de pulverización aérea diseñada para aviones y helicópteros aplicada durante 15 años a una tecnología, los drones, que entonces prácticamente ni existía. El informe propone reducir de cuatro años a un año el plazo para el acto delegado que autorice su uso y acortar también la transposición.
Y ya termino, presidente. Nos parece perfecto, especialmente porque para España en zonas de viñedo en pendiente, arrozales, terrenos de difícil acceso, pues es precisamente donde el dron puede sustituir con ventaja competitiva al tratamiento manual. Y esto, pues para nuestros agricultores es de tremenda utilidad. Y cada año que ha habido de retraso en esta cuestión ha sido un año de productividad perdida para nuestros agricultores. Muchas gracias.
Anne-Sophie Frigout
Ok. Yes. Merci, Monsieur le Président. Messieurs les co-rapporteurs, je vous adresse mes félicitations pour ce rapport qui va dans la bonne direction. Avec votre proposition et celle de la Commission, nous pouvons tous constater qu'au sein des institutions européennes, vous souhaitez revenir sur les erreurs du Green Deal si néfastes pour notre agriculture.
Ce rapport chagrinera sans doute les quelques technos surdiplômés à l'école de la décroissance qui avaient fixé sur un coin de table une réduction de 50 % de l'utilisation de produits phytosanitaires d'ici 2030 et un objectif irréaliste de 25 % de surface bio en Europe. Ces idéologues ont imaginé un nouveau jardin d'Éden où la nature est bienfaisante, sans maladie, sans parasite, sans accident climatique, ont fantasmé une écologie de citadin et ont surtout oublié que notre monde a connu plus souvent la faim que l'abondance de ces dernières années. Finalement, la Commission n'a fait que sous-traiter notre souveraineté alimentaire à des fermes de milliers d'hectares, à des milliers de kilomètres et à des milliers d'années de nos normes. Ce texte apparaît comme une bouffée d'air frais pour nos agriculteurs car il rétablit une évidence : produire en Europe et consommer local. Néanmoins, nous resterons particulièrement vigilants sur plusieurs points.
D'abord sur le terme d'autorisation illimitée pour certaines substances. Instrumentalisé par les lobbies et les partis décroissantistes, il met en péril la bonne réception de cet omnibus. Il est surtout faux : après des réexamens périodiques, la Commission, considérant qu'une substance doit subir une procédure de renouvellement, pourra toujours fixer une date d'expiration. Les limites maximales de résidus représenteront également un sujet très sensible pour nous. Nous voulons de véritables solutions pour protéger nos agriculteurs.
Nous préférons donc inverser la logique : faire de l'abaissement des LMR sur toutes les substances interdites la règle, tout en prévoyant des exceptions souples et opérationnelles. À cela s'ajoute la création d'une catégorie spécifique de substances destinées aux cultures stratégiques ou exotiques qui seraient exclues de cet abaissement.
Enfin, les drones et le numérique. Ce texte en l'état ne va pratiquement rien changer sur l'usage de ces technologies. Encore une fois, pendant que les autres grandes puissances innovent, l'Europe va demander à son administration de consacrer quatre ans pour établir une liste de drones dont la Commission pourra ensuite autoriser les États membres à les approuver par dérogation. Comme pour le numérique et l'IA, ce n'est pas du tout à la hauteur de l'enjeu de modernisation technologique dont nous avons besoin pour rester compétitifs et donc souverains. Je vous remercie.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would start with the following, that I'm afraid we've all seen in our lives, we've all been confronted in our lives with severe illness, from family, friends, whatever. And unfortunately, people can get very seriously ill. And some recover, some do not.
And confronted with severe illness, it makes one realize how important health is. And even stronger put, almost always the conclusion after severe illness is that good health in the end matters most. It is what is most dearest to all of us. And that is why we as politicians, we put so much effort in health-related issues. We fight for new medicines.
We fight for access to medicines, the availability of it. We fight for healthy food for people, a clean environment, clean air, because people become healthy with that. And now we're discussing pesticides. And one thing we know about pesticides, people can get seriously ill from them. In the past, but even nowadays.
Neurological diseases, cancer, and many others.
And given the fact that we as politicians believe that health is so important to us and our voters, I imagine that we should be very careful with policies that might endanger the health of people. And yes, I'm a strong supporter of simplification, and we should really simplify the system, the current system is not working and that's the reason why I'm a very strong supporter of the biocontrol proposals from the Commission. But simplification itself is not the only cause. The other one is that we want to avoid damage to public health. And I'm very glad to hear from the rapporteurs that they're both saying that we should have policies that do not lead to higher risks to human health and to nature, biodiversity.
But without any assessment of what we're doing, we don't know if that is the responsible way to move forward. The Dutch parliament, they asked for this scientific assessment. And they concluded that the proposals from the Commission are not guaranteeing safety for human health and they're not even making things simpler. So my question to the two rapporteurs is, what is your take on that? How can you say here that you're in favor of keeping the quality and protection of public health, but you're not willing to look at any scientific assessment and you're just pushing through, you even go further than the Commission already did.
And a final question and then I stop, chair, is that you even propose to allow derogations for all banned substances where there would be an agro-economic effect.
Could you define that? Because that is so broad that you really open up everything in order for this economic effect. Thank you.
Benoit Cassart
Oui, merci Monsieur le Président, chers collègues. Je souhaite tout d'abord saluer la proposition de la Commission européenne. Elle répond à une attente forte de nos agriculteurs : accélérer la mise sur le marché de produits de biocontrôle et lever les blocages qui ralentissent aujourd'hui l'approbation de substances actives. Les difficultés rencontrées par l'EFSA et le manque d'expertise disponible dans certains États membres justifient pleinement les solutions proposées. Nous devons rendre notre système d'autorisation plus rapide, plus prévisible et plus efficace sans compromettre nos standards environnementaux et de santé humaine.
Je tiens à remercier les co-rapporteurs pour leur projet de rapport qui contient plusieurs propositions intéressantes, notamment en vue de renforcer l'autorisation des biocontrôles et de favoriser l'utilisation des...
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.