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
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
ENVI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsPierfrancesco Maran
Adopted. Compromise number seven, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise number eight, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Check?
No. No, compromise number nine, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise number 10, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number 11, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number 12, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number 13, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise number 15, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise number 14, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Final vote by roll call vote, the vote is open.
I close the vote. And it's adopted, 56 in favor, 11 against, 12 abstention. We now proceed by the item number six, establish the temporary decarbonization fund, rapporteur Pascal Canfin. We start with the aggregated amendment 39, 155, 168, 181 by raising our hands. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise number one, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number two, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise number three, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise number five, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number six, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number seven, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number eight, 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 five, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained?
Adopted. Compromise number six, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted.
Compromise number seven, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? 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 abstained? Adopted. Compromise number nine, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained?
Adopted. Compromise number ten, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted.
Final vote by roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed and it's adopted, 59 in favor, 16 against, 6 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 3A 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 91, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected.
Amendment 92, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected. Amendment 94, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected. So compromise number four, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstained? Adopted. Amendment 141, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained?
Check. I open the vote. I close the vote and it's rejected. Amendment 144, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstained? Rejected. Amendment 145, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained?
Rejected. Amendment 150, 151, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected.
164, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected. 166, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Rejected. 168, who's in favor? Who's against?
Abstained? Rejected. Compromise number five, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstained?
Adopted. Final vote by roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed and it's adopted, 59 in favor, 21 against, 3 abstentions. Now we have a suspension, a break till 7:30. Thank you.
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 the Council amending as regards the invalidation of allowance 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 procedural step to allow our work to formally start. As our coordinators have rightly emphasized, the MSR cannot be examined in vacuum. 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 investments. So every change we do sends a signal of unpredictability to the market, and this is at the 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. I we don't have a still a shadow from the Left. No shadow at all. Not in here. So ESN, Anniard, if somebody want to participate to catch the eyes, 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 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 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.
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.
Ondřej Knotek
Actually it was not point of order, I just wanted to also contribute to the debate, so may I Mr. Chairman?
Ondřej Knotek
When I already speak maybe it's good that I can directly 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 here with us Mette Quinn, Head of Unit Policy Coordination, International Carbon Markets. You have the floor.
Mette QUINN
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 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 all the colleagues. I remember that the deadline for amendments will be the 20th of July at 11:00. The vote in ENVI is supposed to be the 10th of September and the plenary should be the one of September. So next item is the item number 8.
We are now moving to the consideration of the draft opinion as prepared by Mrs. Andrieu 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. Andrieu, 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. Quatre-vingts 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 permettra 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 naïf. 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, batterie, acier, chimie, plasturgie, semi-conducteurs, principes actifs pharmaceutiques, dispositifs médicaux, recyclage, technologie nucléaire, technologie 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.
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, 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 Androuët parce qu'en l'écoutant je me demandais si elle avait pris sa carte au Parti socialiste ou chez les Verts. Évidemment tout n'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 quarante 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 Alliance, no? Greens, Ville Niinistö.
Rasmus Nordqvist
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 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, the 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 last point is a bit in line with the opinion I've just been rapporteur for in this committee on the grid package, where we also saw this slippery slope of speeding up permitting and looking away from environmental assessments. And we need to be quite firm in what we're doing here, because actually, I would say 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 our industries. So any acceleration areas must respect, of course, Natura 2000, nature-protected areas. Yeah, and then as well that any sector 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
Mange tak, og jeg vil tale på dansk. 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 overenskomster, aftalebaseret 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 der kommet 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 lavemissioner, 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 afmiljøet og beskyttede 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 Kenton 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 acht 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 Kenton, 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 rapporteur for the work and 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. 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 symbioses 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 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 developments that might 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 creates 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 assume, 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'est 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 désolée, même si les règles sont parfaitement dans le, 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 cachée 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 parlaient 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 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 devenue 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.