Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
ENVI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsPierfrancesco Maran
Amendment number seven. Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? I'd say adopted.
Check, check. I open the vote. I close the vote. And it's adopted. Amendment number eight.
Who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? I say adopted like before. Amendment number nine, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Rejected. Amendment number ten, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Rejected. Amendment number eleven, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected.
Amendment number twelve, who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Amendment number thirteen, who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Number fourteen, who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Check, check. I close the vote. Now it's adopted, yeah. Amendment number fifteen, who is in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Number 16, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. Number 17, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Rejected. Number 18, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected.
Number 19, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Number 20, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Number 21, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. Number 22, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Number 23, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Check.
I close the vote. And it's adopted. Now it's the final vote.
No, sorry, no final vote. Okay. Now we have, earlier today, the Patriots contested the coordinators' decision of 14th of July, and specifically point 3.1 on the allocation of the rapporteurship of the different reports under the ETS package to the groups. This item will now be put to the vote in accordance with Rule 220 of the Rules of Procedure by roll-call vote. Members who are in favor of the coordinators' decision should vote green, and those who are against should vote red.
I open the vote. It's a roll-call vote. I close the vote. And it's adopted. So, thank you.
Now the voting session is closed, so if somebody has to leave, we have one minute before the minister will join us.
So we we come back and we have now the pleasure to welcome Mr. Darragh O'Brien, Irish Minister for Climate, Energy and Environment and also Minister for Transport. Minister O'Brien will present to us the priorities of of the Irish Presidency, particularly in the field of climate and environment. Interpretation from Irish is available for this agenda item. So when you're ready, you have the floor, Mr. O'Brien.
Darragh O'Brien
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh, a chairde go léir, a dhaoine uaisle. Dia dhaoibh go léir agus is pribhléid mhór agus onóir domsa inniu, thar ceann Uachtaránacht an Aontais Eorpaigh, a ghlacadh den ochtú huair i mbliana. Táimid ag súil go mór leis an gcuid oibre le chéile ar son ár n-ionadaithe tríd an Uachtaránacht. Ireland is very honored, friends, to take on the Presidency of the Council of the European Union for the eighth time.
And we assume that responsibility at a pivotal moment for the European Union against a backdrop of increasing uncertainty and unpredictability across the world. Ireland approaches this presidency with a strong sense of responsibility, determination, and enthusiasm. And it is a real privilege to work with you as chair of the Environment Council during this six-month period of the Irish presidency. I know my colleague Martin Heydon, who's responsibility for forestry and food safety, has already been in with your committee in June. Ireland's presidency, friends, will be guided by our overarching principle, Ní neart go cur le chéile, which is strength with unity.
This principle also captures the essence of the European project. By working closely with our fellow member states and the European institutions, Ireland's presidency will focus on taking action and delivering results as we advance an ambitious agenda for Europe. Across all areas of work, we will build on the significant progress that has been made under the Cypriot presidency.
At the same time, we will seek to establish a strong basis for continued progress in key policy areas during the presidencies of our trio partners, Lithuania and Greece. The Irish government, friends, is engaged extensively with partners and stakeholders in developing a presidency program that reflects a shared understanding of the challenges and the priorities facing Europe, whilst very importantly keeping our citizens at the heart of everything we do. Our planning has been shaped by the Union's strategic agenda for the period to 2029, which provides a very important framework for our work. Against this backdrop, Ireland's presidency will be centered on three key pillars, and they are competitiveness, values, and security. On competitiveness, we will work to promote the prosperity, resilience, and well-being of the Union and its citizens.
On values, we will seek to protect and strengthen the fundamental principles that underpin our Union. And on security, we will place the protection of our citizens, our economy, our society, and our environment at the very heart of our work. Our leaders have endorsed the One Europe, One Market roadmap. As presidency, we will give priority to the relevant files and work towards meeting the deadlines that are set out in that roadmap.
During our presidency, the Environment Council will work towards a whole-of-society approach to building a climate-neutral, sustainable and resource-efficient economy. We will seek to advance policies and measures that support economic and social progress while protecting and strengthening our natural environment for future generations. Greater policy integration will be absolutely essential to building resilience across biodiversity, climate and water. The Irish presidency program also underlines the EU's vital role in shaping a stronger and, very importantly, a more effective multilateral development system. This includes revitalizing progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals, implementing the Paris Climate Agreement, supporting principled humanitarian action and following up on the Seville commitment on finance for development, while recognizing the strong interconnection between these agendas.
Delivering on the SDGs requires collective action, and by working together, we increase our ability to achieve meaningful results. As reflected in the Irish presidency program, there is strength in unity, ní neart go cur le chéile. As we move forward towards 2030, there is an urgent need to accelerate and strengthen climate action.
And that really has been emphasized by the wildfires and droughts that we've seen across Europe this summer. We know that ambitious climate action is also essential to maintaining and enhancing Europe's competitiveness. The Irish presidency will work swiftly and constructively with member states and European institutions to advance our key objectives. We will give particular priority to the review of ETS and to the ongoing work on CO2 standards for cars and vans. Our objective will be to reach a general approach on both files this December, enabling inter-institutional negotiations to begin in early 2027.
And we will, friends, need your support and cooperation to achieve this. Building on the agreement reached last year on the EU-wide 2040 emissions reduction targets, we will begin discussions on the implementation package, including the post-2030 framework. We will also advance work on the European climate resilience and risk management integrated framework. These two strands work together and are very closely connected.
Together they will help secure Europe's future by reducing the resilience and protection of communities by strengthening, excuse me, the resilience and protection of communities who are already experiencing the serious and damaging effects of climate change. The Irish presidency is committed to accelerating the transition towards a circular economy by developing, implementing and advancing effective and pragmatic policies. In this context, we look forward to the Commission's publication of the Circular Economy Act later this year. The Act is an important element of the One Europe One Market roadmap. As presidency, we intend to facilitate an initial examination of the proposal so we can make substantial collective progress on this important legislation in 2027.
The protection and restoration of our marine and freshwater environments will also be a very important priority. And we do welcome the Commission's proposals for a European Ocean Act, as well as planned revisions to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive. A significant focus of our work will be strengthening the EU's international environmental leadership. We will coordinate preparations for Council conclusions ahead of both the UNFCCC COP31, UNCBD COP17.
Later in the year, we will also report on the outcomes of these meetings, alongside updates on other important international events. Again, working closely with Lithuania, we are coordinating EU preparations for the first COP to the BBNJ Agreement, commonly known as the High Seas Treaty. Taking place in January 2027, this meeting will represent a major milestone in the development of global ocean governance. We also welcome the Commission's annual progress report on efforts to advance simplification, implementation, and the enforcement agenda. Ireland takes on the presidency, friends, at a time when multilateralism, particularly in the areas of climate and the environment, continues to face very significant pressures.
As we saw at COP 17 on the Convention to Combat Desertification over the last couple of weeks, our experience in Mongolia is the latest signal that increasing geopolitical uncertainty is making international cooperation and progress more challenging. Against this backdrop, the Irish presidency will seek to reinforce the EU's leadership across international climate, biodiversity, and water fora and negotiations.
We will place a strong emphasis on planning and meaningful engagement with international partners throughout our presidency. And in particular, we recognize UNFCCC's COP 31 as a really important opportunity for the EU to strengthen its position on the global stage as a trusted, pragmatic and constructive leader on climate action. We will seek to rethink and strengthen the way the EU approaches COPs by developing a considered multi-annual approach to preparations, working closely with previous and future presidencies and the Commission. Our objective is very straightforward. It's to listen to our partners, to focus on implementation and to help to secure an outcome that keeps the 1.5 objective within reach.
Throughout this work, we will remain committed to the EU's core objectives of protecting human rights, advancing gender equality and safeguarding the rights of indigenous peoples in global climate action. The informal meeting of the environment and climate ministers took place in Dublin on the 23rd and 24th of July, and we had a productive and constructive discussion which will help shape and guide our work over the coming months. The first formal Environment Council meeting under the Irish presidency will take place in Luxembourg on the 12th of October. We will meet again in Brussels on the 11th of December to conclude the presidency's work and will welcome our Lithuanian colleagues as they prepare to assume responsibility for the Council presidency.
Several significant high-level events will take place during the Irish presidency. Alongside my colleagues, I look forward to the privilege of representing and leading the EU in preparations for and in participation in many of the important events, which were obviously last month's UN Convention to Combat Desertification, that was COP 17 in Mongolia, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity of COP 17 in Yerevan in Armenia, which is on the 19th to the 30th of October, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or COP 31 in Türkiye between the 9th and 20th of November, and the UN Water Conference in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates in December. At a national level, we will host a number of events linked to our presidency priorities, including the Global Bioeconomy Summit in Dublin on the 20th and 21st of October and the annual forum of the EU Mission on Climate Adaptation in Dublin on the 24th of November. Finally, friends, let me say that it is really a great honor for me to be here with you today. Strong and effective cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament is absolutely essential to the success of the European Union and, most importantly, to deliver for our citizens.
You have my commitment that we will do everything we can to ensure that cooperation remains strong and that we will deliver on the responsibilities that have been entrusted to us.
Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. We have now the, we leave the floor to the political group representatives. We have many of the coordinators that are present and that asked to have a speech. They will have two minutes each. We start with EPP, Peter Liese.
Peter Liese
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your clear speech and your commitment. It's a huge responsibility for the Irish presidency. Mainly we have three and a half months to solve many of the open questions in Europe, including in your responsibility. You know, I'm happy for your commitment on ETS. So as a rapporteur of the Parliament, I would try to accommodate also the ambitious timeline that the Council set so that we can finish the respective position by Christmas.
I have already done three stakeholder dialogues and three questions to you.
First of all, I think the Commission proposal is a good base for discussion. So it's the first signal is the ETS is alive and kicking. All those that wanted to stop it, they didn't get support by the Commission. We want adjustments, we want improvements, but the signal is also very clear. And I would ask you if you also think the Commission proposal is the base for our discussions.
The devil is in the detail. You know, many in the Parliament like the idea of conditionality for the free allowances, but the question is, shouldn't we do a bit more sophisticated approach? So maybe start more careful, but be more ambitious over time. That's something I'm working on and I would ask you to look at this.
And last but not least, for the CO2 cars and for the general approach of the three institutions, I think we need to improve the Green Deal. We need to go to more technological neutrality, but keep our ambition in the climate policy. Especially after this summer, we should have the targets always in mind, but be more open in the way to achieve it. So that would also be my question. Is that an approach for CO2 cars and the whole Green Deal that you could share?
Thank you.
Tiemo Wölken
Dear Minister O'Brien, thank you for being here with us and thank you for your remarks. You mentioned that it is your priority to facilitate EU's work on delivering in our common fight against the climate crisis, and I thank you for that. You mentioned the direct effects of this crisis when you referred to the disastrous wildfires all over Europe. And may I add, the end of July heatwave killed several thousand people in and all over Europe. So our continent is heating up scarily fast.
So we have to act. And I have to ask you, your country, Ireland, is currently projected to miss its 2030 climate targets. Your own EPA estimates a mere 22% reduction in the sector covered by the Effort Sharing Regulation compared to the target of 42%.
So as you will be chairing the ENVI Council, how do you expect to credibly push other member states to increase climate ambition, particularly on the new 2040 target, which you mentioned also explicitly as a topic you would like to focus on, when Ireland itself is, at least from what I understand, not on track to meet its commitments? And I would also add another question. So on a related note, a recent UN report, United Nations report, labeled Ireland as a cautionary tale when it comes to data centers and their energy use. Already today, data processing accounts for 21% of Irish electricity demand. With the even increasing pressure from the AI boom, what is your plan for shielding European consumers from the negative effects of data centers in terms of energy prices and water consumption, as well as air and noise pollution?
Thank you very much.
Monsieur le Ministre, Monsieur le Président, chers collègues. Je souhaite évoquer le sujet des normes en matière d'économie circulaire qui seront au cœur de l'agenda ces prochains mois. Fait notable, la Présidente Metsola a pris position contre, je cite, les contraintes rigides et contre-productives du règlement européen sur les emballages.
Anne-Sophie Frigout
C'est dire à quel point ce texte est le symbole des dérives bureaucratiques. Rendez-vous compte. La responsabilité élargie du producteur impose aujourd'hui à une petite entreprise qui souhaite vendre ses produits dans plusieurs États membres de désigner un représentant agréé et de se soumettre à des obligations déclaratives dans chacun de ces pays. Que de temps perdu pour plaire aux petits hommes gris. La Commission reconnaît elle-même que les redevances liées à ces normes environnementales s'élèvent environ 15 à 20 milliards d'euros par an.
Pour une petite entreprise qui commercialise de faibles volumes, ces obligations sont tout simplement ubuesques. Chaque jour, nous recevons des alertes d'entrepreneurs qui souhaitent développer des activités transfrontalières mais ne le font pas face à ce véritable fardeau administratif. C'est pourquoi, dans le cadre de l'omnibus environnement, nous avons proposé des amendements visant, a minima, à exempter ces entreprises de la désignation d'un représentant agréé. Mais il faut prendre le problème à bras-le-corps et assumer la suppression de normes environnementales superflues. Oui, nous devons protéger l'environnement et favoriser le développement de l'économie circulaire.
Mais jamais au détriment de ceux qui produisent et créent de la richesse en Europe. Dès lors, Monsieur le Ministre, comment le Conseil compte-t-il éviter que le prochain acte pour l'économie circulaire et la révision de la responsabilité élargie ne deviennent pas un énième mille-feuille administratif que nos entreprises ne supportent plus ? Je vous remercie.
Alexandr Vondra
Yes, thanks Chair. Thank you Mr. Minister for being with us today. I do have two questions, one more general and also based on these unprecedented heatwaves and droughts which touch Europe over this year. We have invested a lot in the mitigation, billions of euros. But the final global score, despite the fact that we have reduced the emissions substantially, the final global score due to the fact that US, Russia, China, India, the Gulf States are not doing the same, the final score is not very promising.
And thus my first question is whether you would agree that we should invest more in the adaptation than in the mitigation. Because it would have an immediate impact on our citizens while this mitigation effort would be seen in hundred years, which is the horizon which is beyond the politics.
And secondly, on the practical terms, you mentioned the ETS review, your ambition to finish that. So generally two questions: first, whether you are happy with the current prices of the ETS allowances, because it makes the price of energy three times more than in US or China. And also a practical question, whether you as the Irish presidency support the Commission proposal to cease the invalidation of the allowances in the MSR 1 without a limit. We are already in volatile phase of the ETS implementation where the price of the CO2 allowances can jump dramatically. Do you agree that the buffer protecting against price hikes should be robust and free from further interferences?
Thank you very much.
Pascal Canfin
Thank you, Minister. I have two questions already covered by Peter Liese on ETS and on cars, because that will be obviously the two very important negotiations you hope and you will have to conclude on the Council side. And I'm very happy to listen to Peter Liese's position on cars.
I hope it will be shared by many within the EPP. And so the third question is on adaptation. Not to say that we should replace mitigation policies by adaptation policy because of course the best way to adapt is still to limit climate impact, so to mitigate. But, but as a matter of fact, we cannot only focus on mitigation. And we have to take into account more adaptation policy.
And it's good that in October under your presidency, the first package on adaptation and resilience with a legal component will come from the Commission. And I don't think you explicitly mentioned it, or if you did explicitly mention it, very, very blurly, I would say. So what are your expectations on this adaptation resilience package? And the last point is about the COP 21, sorry, COP 30-something, and the phasing out of fossil fuel coalition. I would like to know what kind of political energy you would like to put on this coalition, which is to my view one of the only good news coming out of the multilateral international climate agenda.
So what would be your strategy on this?
Thank you.
Marie Toussaint
Thanks a lot. And thanks Mr. Minister for coming here and insisting so much on the need, the absolute emergency to fight climate change and to also bring support to people. And I'm talking to people also because I come from a region, la Gironde, which has been the hottest region of the world over the summer and also devastated by forest fires that have hurt a lot of people actually throughout Europe. We count almost 14,000 deaths because of climate change and we absolutely need to act. But in this context, I have several questions to raise to the Council because what we see is actually a slowing down of the climate action.
And as you remind us of the emergency to act, I would like to ask you as well three things. First of all, on the ETS, that was a working measure, we can love or not, but that was a working mechanism.
We right now have a proposal from the Commission that is lowering the amount of emission that we will reduce. The Council is weakening it even more, the Parliament as well, and it's leading us to a way where we could have ETS 1 cap reaches zero in 2048 instead of 2039. You see the emergency to act. So what do you plan to do to tackle, to compensate, I don't know, but to do something to get these emissions out? And also how do you plan, since Member States don't do it, but to ensure that ETS revenues are used for actual decarbonisation measures and not for, I don't know, something else.
The second question is that right now we have an economic burden of fossil fuels that is really high. And 200 NGOs have written the Commission, but maybe the Council have read it as well, to ask for a full quantifying of the impact of fossil fuels on the EU economy, but also speeding sector per sector the decarbonisation. So do you have a new plan? What's new? What could be put on the table to face with these huge challenges?
And the last thing, I was telling you that in my region forests are damaged. Really, it's a catastrophe. And you know, when we have this environmental omnibus that is speeding up impact assessment, and it also doesn't care about forests, about nature. We can also have, for instance, data center in protected areas, which is a real issue.
And I know that in Ireland data centers have cost also a lot to citizens. What we estimate the cost of the data center price effect is to be estimated between 715 million extra for electricity, so 263 euros more per household. So we really need to fight against this for nature and also for the people to pay less money. So I don't know if for instance you agree that the so-called preclusion clause, which is the clause on access to justice, should be withdrawn or not and what can we do to not weaken too much the environmental impact assessment. Thank you.
Lynn Boylan
Thank you and you're very welcome Minister. And I think the Irish presidency is coming at a very unique time because as you can see from other colleagues that across the EU, Britain and America, the public are waking up to the big problem of data centers and AI and particularly around their energy and water usage, but also how they are pushing up the cost of electricity for those struggling households and small businesses through expensive grid infrastructure, but also through the increasing fossil gas demand.
And Ireland, of course, is uniquely familiar with this problem because, as my colleague has said, data centers are already using over 22% of all of Ireland's electricity, a complete outlier within the EU, but they will also hit 30% by 2030. And Hannah Daly, the academic from the University College of Cork, has shown that every single new wind farm that has come onto the grid in Ireland has been taken up by the electricity demand of data centers, while Ireland continues to fail to meet its climate targets. Our grid is also being used up by data centers, to use the words of the grid operators, it's being swamped by data centers and putting at risk the connection of housing during a housing crisis in Ireland, something you yourself, Minister, wrote to the grid operators with your concern about housing in North County Dublin. So we also know that the Irish government published a report on data centers but removed all of the researchers' criticism of Ireland's data center policy, and the UN, as others have said, has also referenced that Ireland's experience should be a cautionary tale. So I suppose the question for you today, Minister, is how can Ireland be seen as an honest broker when it comes to regulating data centers?
We've already seen that the Commission certainly is not an honest broker, they're accepting the lobbyists' language when it comes to transparency on energy and water usage.
So how can we trust that the Irish government won't be influenced by the large tech industry that we have in Ireland, of our economic exposure to that tech industry? And how can we trust that you will guide these discussions in the interests of our climate targets, but particularly around households on the cost of electricity and how to bring down our demand on fossil fuel gas, which data centers continues to push up.
Marc Jongen
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister O'Brien. I'm going to speak in German. Werte Kollegen, Herr Minister, was in ganz Europa geschieht, trägt inzwischen einen technischen, aber auch sehr zynischen Namen: Managed Decline, verwalteter Niedergang. Kohle- und Torfregionen werden stillgelegt, so auch ja bei Ihnen in Irland.
Chemiewerke gehen vom Netz, Stahlkapazitäten werden gedrosselt, energieintensive Standorte verschwinden. Brüssel nennt das grüne Transformation. Vor Ort ist es aber eine politisch organisierte Deindustrialisierung. Und der versprochene Ersatz kommt nicht, sondern die neuen Industrien werden woanders, zum Beispiel in China, aufgebaut.
In Deutschland zeigt sich der ganze Zynismus dieser Politik. Allein in einem Jahr hat die Automobilindustrie 24.300 Arbeitsplätze verloren, der stärkste Rückgang aller großen Industriebranchen. Im gesamten verarbeitenden Gewerbe sind es 144.000 Stellen gewesen. Der Verband der Automobilindustrie warnt, dass es bei Fortsetzung des geltenden Regulierungsrahmens bis 2035 rund 225.000 Arbeitsplätze weniger als 2019 geben wird. Bei Volkswagen sind die Werke Emden, Zwickau, Hannover und Audi Neckarsulm ab den 2030er Jahren von der Schließung bedroht, und das, obwohl erst vor kurzem auf Elektro dort umgerüstet worden ist.
Bosch, Continental und Schaeffler streichen jeweils tausende Stellen. In der europäischen Chemie wurden allein 2023 Stilllegungen von über 17 Millionen Tonnen Kapazität angekündigt, fast sechsmal so viel wie 2022. Diese Liste könnte man noch sehr lange fortsetzen. Es ist eine einzige Katastrophe. Und Sie selbst haben gesagt, Herr Minister: "We can't have false inhibitors to growth".
Falsche Wachstumsbremsen darf es nicht geben, und da stimmen wir Ihnen zu. Aber Herr Minister, ist das nicht ein gewaltiger Widerspruch zu Ihrer Politik?
Ist der Green Deal, den Ihre Ratspräsidentschaft, wie Sie es jetzt dargestellt haben, ja weiter beschleunigen will, ist das nicht die größte aller Wachstumsbremsen für Energiepreise, Investitionen und industrielle Arbeitsplätze? Sie haben jetzt wieder das 1,5-Grad-Ziel genannt, und Sie tun hier weiter so, als könne Europa das Weltklima ändern, dabei wissen wir, das wird nicht geschehen, selbst wenn wir unsere Industrieproduktion vollständig einstellen. Wäre es daher nicht dringend geboten, diesen Irrweg zu beenden, den Green Deal auszusetzen, das Verbrenner-Aus zu stoppen und Technologieoffenheit wiederherzustellen? Kluge Anpassung an den Klimawandel anstatt des hybris-haften Versuchs, das Weltklima von Europa aus steuern zu wollen. Europa braucht sicher keine Verwaltung des Niedergangs, sondern wir brauchen eine industrielle Renaissance.
Vielen Dank.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now the first round is over and you have the possibility to reply.
Darragh O'Brien
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you indeed, colleagues, for all of your contributions and questions that have been put, and I'll endeavor to answer as many of them as directly as I can, obviously acknowledging the fact that Ireland's role in the presidency is a neutral, honest broker role as well, and some personal views that I may have do not come into it in the sense that we've a large body of work to do together, and the Parliament's obviously critical to that.
Just maybe, Peter, just first to the questions that you put, and thank you for your contribution. As just to reiterate, we will aim for a Council general approach for the December ENVI Council meeting. And that's in line with the roadmap, and it is ambitious, but it is doable. And I think it's actually critical that we do that. That certainty is required.
Within many have spoken here about jobs and industrial development and about how we can create additional jobs. Uncertainty is one of the greatest risks to that and to both inward investment and indigenous investment too. So we need to try to bring this to conclusion as expeditiously and as efficiently as possible. And we'll be very open, and I am very open to listening to the differing views on that. We had quite substantial contributions as well earlier this morning at the Energy Council also.
But I do welcome your ambition on the Parliament side to move swiftly on this file. And I thank you for that. And unquestionably, it's a challenging task, but it is doable. It's not beyond our means or our ability to do that. The policy debate at the October Council will be a really important opportunity for a stocktake on those main issues in the proposals.
And hopefully that'll pave a way for negotiations on ETS.
I want to reiterate as I've said twice already that we're very much in honest broker mode on this file. So I'm not going to comment on specific elements within within ETS here today, just say the ETS 1 review needs to move forward and and needs to be concluded. We are listening very carefully to member states, to members here and taking their different views on board and will consider them also. Like I have met as well with a cross-section of industry across Europe as well and that certainty that is that is sought there to underpin future job growth is going to be critically important. So I'm hopeful that we can find a consensus on many issues, but of course there will some will be more contentious than others.
I'm stating the obvious there, but but that's what we're about here is about finding a way forward in this regard. I have to say that member states are engaging in a very constructive manner, have done already. We've received significant numbers of questions and input already. We've scheduled 10 working party meetings, eight over the course of of this month of September, two further in October and we'll be working on this as an absolute priority of that I can absolutely assure you.
Just in relation to the CO2 standards for cars and vans, look, it's a key building block for EU's climate policy. It's fundamental for ensuring a stable and predictable framework for decarbonisation and investment decisions for the automotive sector. And I am acutely aware that in parts of Europe the automotive sector is going through change and is feeling pressures there too, and that's not something that we're deaf to or ignorant to of that I can assure you. But this proposal aims to respond to those current challenges and the challenges the sector faces due to rapid technological developments and increasing global competition. And that competition is real and we must respond to that on our path to decarbonisation because decarbonisation and electrification does provide substantial opportunities for additional jobs, for advancement of new technologies, for obviously advancing our measures we need to take with regard to climate action in particular and reducing our emissions.
So they're not in conflict with each other. Indeed it will lead to and can lead to further economic growth as we continue on this path.
But within the Council, the presidency is working intensively towards forging a balanced compromise based on the progress made by our friends in Cyprus. And we aim for a general approach as well on the CO2 standards in December, which again will pave the way for further institutional negotiations. So I also count on the Parliament equally to make swift progress on the proposal. And it's important to reach that agreement on the proposal as soon as possible in the interests of both industries and consumers. Look, I think Timo and Alexander and others have mentioned, and rightly so, the drought and heatwaves and forest fires that we have seen right the way across Europe and the lives that have been lost and the damage that this has wrought right the way across Europe.
And we are the fastest warming continent on Earth and we're heating twice as fast as other continents. And this year we've seen an absolutely ferocious, severe fire season. So the Commission have committed to publishing an integrated framework on European climate resilience and risk management later this year. The purpose of that framework is to establish a more ambitious, comprehensive and coherent EU approach to climate resilience and preparedness, covering individual Member States and indeed the European Union as a whole.
So this should provide all Member States with a common European basis and understanding of future climate conditions. So it would also ensure availability of regular science-based risk assessments that consider a range of scenarios. So the framework would also support EU security and prosperity. It would boost its competitiveness and protect our health and well-being. So I'm certainly anticipating the publication of this package from the Commission and look forward to initiating the discussions on it in the in the working party later this year.
Just on the Circular Economy Act that's been mentioned, Sophie mentioned that as well. We all know it's a priority item under the One Europe One Roadmap, One Market Roadmap, excuse me, and the timelines that we've been told were envisage a presentation quarter three 26, aiming for agreement under the Greek presidency next year. For Ireland, the CEA is naturally identified as a flagship legislative priority for our presidency and we stand ready to to work on that, to have targeted discussions on the proposal as soon as it's published, building towards a ministerial discussion, hopefully at the December Environment Council. But we're obviously dependent on when that is is actually published. I'll be meeting myself Commissioner Roswall later this week.
So we're committed to doing our level best on that to advance it as as far as we can before it's handed over to the Lithuanian colleagues. Just in relation to climate change negotiations and multilateralism and specifically around COP, together with the Commission, we're well advanced in our preparations for Antalya in November. We'll strive for a tangible and ambitious outcome focusing on the implementation of the Paris Agreement. We've actually done a lot of work on this over the course of the last number of months post-Belém and actually looking at the European approach, looking at our at how we should approach the developing world and how we should engage with partners across the world as well, understanding the perspectives that they have. And we need as well to be very much, I believe, in listening mode too and understanding the different perspectives that are there in different countries.
But we're very much looking forward to that. We've done substantial work with the Commission and across ministerial colleagues also. And we do look forward to receiving the European Parliament resolution on COP31 priorities. But underpinning all of this is what we need to continue to do is reducing fossil fuel dependence and reducing our dependence on import of fossil fuel.
We're still with the largest ratio of dependency on imported fossil within the European Union. Now to speak to climate targets that's been mentioned by Timo earlier on, I think with regard to climate targets and maybe just to use the example of Ireland because you've actually raised it. I'm conscious as well I'm not here in my position as an Irish minister to talk about domestic issues. But I want to absolutely assure you that as a member of the European Union, a proud member of that, that we're absolutely committed to our climate targets. Different countries are in different trajectories.
What we've been able to do in the last number of years is decouple emissions growth and increases from economic growth and population growth indeed. So as 2030 is a target that based on the projections that the Environmental Protection Agency have published we won't hit, but we will move to substantial reductions in emissions. But there is life after 2030, in the early 2030s as well, and I see the energy transformation actually as being really critical in that with regard to advancement of renewable energy, which again I use an example Ireland has done well at. I do just want to, a couple of members have spoken with regard to data centers and new technologies. And again, people might forgive me for just using the Irish example.
If people who know Ireland, we're not a large industrial nation. We're not car manufacturers. We don't have a large industrial base.
And many of our countries across the European Union use energy for different things. ICT is at the forefront of driving the Irish economy forward with nearly 200,000 jobs in that space. But what we need to do is to manage energy demand across all large energy users across the European Union. And we have brought forward measures ourselves about for large energy users such as data, about 80% of new energy sources must be through renewables to power those centers. But I think from a European perspective also, it behooves us on behalf of our citizens to ensure that we are at the forefront of new technologies and that we don't close the door to new technologies either.
And I think we will have experience in that regard too. So it's important that we do that and that we are realistic and honest with people as well. The grids package is going to be very important in that regard too, to deal with the further measures that are required for our grid right the way across Europe in so far as grid resilience in particular and expansion of our grid and to push forward on electrification. So we're going to very much focus on that as a priority item within the presidency as well as the advancement of a tangible grids package that works for our countries and that works for our people, looking at accelerating interconnection, which is something that has been discussed I know here and across the different institutions of the European Union. And it is within our grasp to become the first electro-continent.
I firmly believe that. I think we should work towards that and we've got to manage future demand. We're going to manage future demand with a growing population and growing economies across our country and to get ahead of those demand projections is going to be critically important. I think I've clearly covered most of what has been asked unless I've left anything out.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, but if it's not covered we will have the second round to fix it. We will have two rounds only so we concentrate all the other requests on this round. We start with every member has one minute and 30 seconds, so please be on time. We start with András Kulja from EPP.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you very much, Chair. Köszönöm szépen, miniszter úr, hogy velünk van ma. Az ír elnökség programjából különösen fontosnak tartom, hogy figyelmet fordítanak Európa vízügyi rezilienciájára és alkalmazkodóképességére. Hazám, Magyarország mostanra az aszálynak egyik legjobban kitett országok közé tartozik Európában.
A klímaváltozással járó egyre gyakoribb és súlyosabb aszályokat már a mindennapjaink során tapasztaljuk. A vízhiány már nemcsak a mezőgazdaságot, a természeti élővilágot veszélyezteti, hanem a kritikus infrastruktúrákat és az energiabiztonságunkat is. Megtapasztaltuk a klímaváltozás következményeit, és azt is, milyen ára van annak, hogyha egy kormány 16 évig nem fordít figyelmet a vízgazdálkodásra, a talajvíz és a folyók állapotára. Idén a Duna rendkívül alacsony vízállása miatt a paksi erőmű termelését is csökkenteni kellett, a teljes leállást csak az új kormány gyors beavatkozásának köszönhetően kerültük el. De ez nem kizárólag magyar probléma.
A folyók, a vízrendszerek, a klímaváltozás hatásai nem állnak meg az országhatároknál. Az Európai Uniónak már van egy vízügyi reziliencia-stratégiája. A kérdésem ezért az, hogy hogyan kívánja az ír elnökség felgyorsítani ennek a gyakorlati végrehajtását? És említette a mesterséges intelligenciát és adatközpontokat, amelyek versenyképességi kérdést jelentenének, viszont hogyan lehet biztosítani, hogy a versenyképesség megőrzése mellett ezek ne veszélyeztessék Európa vízgazdálkodását? Köszönöm szépen.
Thomas Bajada
Fl-Ewropa tul dan is-sajf, pajjiżi kellhom jikkontrollaw l-użu tal-ilma, kif spjega András qabel, familji kellhom jiġu evakwati minn djarhom, persuni vulnerabbli għaddew minn kundizzjonijiet insapportabbli saħansitra anke l-għoli. Dan is-sajf uriena b'mod ċar x'għandha tagħmel l-Ewropa issa. L-isptarijiet tagħna jridu jibqgħu jaħdmu anke waqt sħana estrema, il-bliet tagħna jrid ikollhom aktar postijiet fejn in-nies jistgħu jsibu kenn mis-sħana, fresk u aċċess għall-ilma tax-xorb. Irridu ninvestu fl-infrastruttura essenzjali li tiflaħ għal temp dejjem aktar estrem, irridu nipproteġu l-komunitajiet tagħna qabel isir id-diżastru u mhux wara. U mhux qed nitkellmu biss fuq heatwaves u nirien, qed nitkellmu wkoll dwar il-ħajja tan-nies impattata ta' kuljum minn temperaturi estremi, maltempati qawwija, għargħar u nixfiet, li m'għadhomx kwistjonijiet rari imma saru aktar frekwenti.
B'hekk irridu nibdlu l-mod kif nippreparaw ruħna sabiex nindirizzaw il-problemi qabel jolqtuna u mhux wara li jkissruna. Ministru, smajtuk li qed tistenna l-pakkett dwar ir-reżiljenza klimatika u l-ġestjoni tar-riskju li se jitressaq mill-Kummissjoni Ewropea dalwaqt. U nitolbok tirrispondi b'mod aktar konkret: x'qed tistenna li għandu jwassal dan il-pakkett? U jekk intix se tara li timbotta 'l quddiem azzjoni aktar konkreta sabiex dan l-adattament klimatiku jkun parti integrali minn kif l-Unjoni Ewropea tiddeċiedi dwar fejn se tinvesti l-fondi tagħha, dwar kif tippjana u kif tibni l-infrastruttura tagħha. Grazzi.
Esther Herranz García
Muchísimas gracias, señor presidente. Señor ministro, sería interesante conocer cuál es de verdad la situación de un dosier legislativo como es el ómnibus de medio ambiente. Se lo digo porque ese paquete legislativo, que para este Parlamento supone uno de los grandes hitos que se están trabajando actualmente, parece ser que no tiene el mismo apoyo dentro del Consejo, algunas partes al menos de ese paquete ómnibus.
¿Nos podría dar alguna noticia al respecto? Y con respecto a las presupuesto comunitario y el próximo marco financiero plurianual, me gustaría saber qué hay de las políticas estructurales y cuál va a ser el aporte presupuestario a dichas políticas y sobre todo cómo ve usted el futuro financiero de la política agrícola común. Gracias.
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
Merci Monsieur le Président. Monsieur le Ministre, en parcourant votre programme de travail, je n'ai rien trouvé sur le nucléaire. Ou plutôt chacune de ses mentions porte sur le démantèlement de la centrale d'Ignalina en Lituanie ou sur la gestion des déchets. Rien sur son développement, son avenir et son potentiel dans la sûreté énergétique et la compétitivité des entreprises. On sait que votre pays débat actuellement de la place à accorder au nucléaire, notamment face à l'explosion de la consommation électrique des centres de données qui mobilisent plus de 20 % de l'électricité nationale.
Alors, on peut tout à fait concevoir l'opposition de votre pays à cette source d'énergie et vous n'êtes pas isolée en Europe. Mais est-ce que cette situation n'est pas de nature à changer votre position sur le nucléaire ? Et dans le cadre de votre présidence tournante et compte tenu de la relative neutralité dont vous devrez faire preuve à cette occasion, comment comptez-vous traiter cette question avec vos partenaires européens ?
Je vous remercie.
Sander Smit
Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Chair. Thanks a lot. Thanks, Your Excellency, for being here. In your since taking office in 2025, you pursued a practical course built around three principles: affordability, energy security, and resilience. Respectable course that is shared by many economists and scientists such as Professor Richard Tol from the University of Sussex and the Free University of Amsterdam.
You haven't really gone into the details of my coordinator's questions on mitigation versus adaptation, but it's a defensible line to focus on adaptation as the Commission's own macroeconomic assessment in 2023 on the preparation of the 2040 target came to the same conclusion.
I think targeted adaptation can reduce the projected economic damage of climate change by around 40%. But any further investment in increasingly stringent emissions obligations, so in mitigation as the EU alone, given especially the competitiveness situation we're in, would be very idle and deliver diminishing returns at an enormous cost. Professor Tol warned me that it could be three to ten times higher than the climate change negative effects on the European Union. So what's your reflection on that and will you also take that into consideration in the ETS overhaul we're working towards and also in the CO2 standards for cars? So thank you very much.
Grazie, Presidente.
Billy Kelleher
Gabh mo leithscéal, a Chathaoirligh, a chairde agus a aire. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar dtús as Gaeilge agus tar éis sin cuirfidh mé mo cheist as Béarla faoin gcruinniú COP sa Mhongóil le déanaí. Fearaim fáilte romhat chuig an gcoiste inniu, a aire, agus na daoine as an Roinn. Ceapaim go mbeidh sibh ag obair go dian as seo go dtí deireadh na bliana, sa chomhthéacs seo. Táim cinnte go ndéanfaidh tú sár-job ar son ár n-uachtaránachta agus tá lánobair againn le déanamh san Aontas seo chun ár dtimpeallacht a chosaint agus a chosaint, sa ghnóthas seo.
Minister, you're very welcome to our meeting today, and I want to thank you for your work to date as Ireland's Minister for Environment, Climate, Transport and Energy. Clearly a very busy portfolio, but having worked with you for nearly 20 years, I'm confident that you'll do a great job for Ireland and for the EU most importantly. I understand that the recent desertification COP in Mongolia was very challenging, but that the EU coordinated very well under Ireland's presidency. These COPs are vitally important to setting global agendas towards net zero and combating biodiversity loss. While not every global actor is committed to saving our planet, I know that Ireland and the EU are.
And as we face into an uncertain geopolitical space, Minister, can you please give us an outline of your plans for the upcoming COPs for both biodiversity and climate, and what will your priorities be? Will you have any red lines, and how do you plan to bring all EU onto the same page and to convince the rest of the world of the urgency of this moment? So sin é mo cheist, go raibh maith agat.
Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska
Dziękuję bardzo. Panie ministrze, witamy bardzo w Parlamencie Europejskim.
Myślę, że wiele podmiotów gospodarczych liczy na takie zdroworozsądkowe podejście prezydencji irlandzkiej i ochronę konkurencyjności europejskich firm i europejskich miejsc pracy. Ja mam dwa pytania. Komisja proponuje przedłużenie ochrony dla sektorów poprzez bezpłatne uprawnienia dla sektorów, które są narażone na carbon leakage oraz wolniejsze ich wygaszanie w sektorach objętych CBAM aż do całkowitego wyzerowania współczynnika CBAM w 38 roku. I mam pytanie, czy irlandzka prezydencja pochyli się, zagwarantuje, że dalsze ograniczenie bezpłatnych uprawnień będzie uzależnione od rzeczywistej ex post oceny skuteczności CBAM, a nie tylko odgórnie określonego kalendarza?
I też Komisja w lipcu zaproponowała korektę zasad ustalania benchmarków ETS na lata 2026-2030, ale nie wiadomo z jakich powodów wyłączyła jakby z tego materiały ogniotrwałe i płytki ceramiczne, uznając, że powinny przewidując dla nich jedynie zastosowanie ogólnych wskaźników takich samych jak dla paliw i ciepła. Czy nie uważa pan, że sektorowe benchmarki lepiej odzwierciedlają rzeczywistą specyfikę i że dla tych branż, które produkują materiały ogniotrwałe czy płytki ceramiczne, wskaźniki referencyjne obowiązywać tak jak dla wszystkich innych, czyli na od już od 2026 roku? Dziękuję bardzo.
Martin Günther
Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Minister, dass Sie heute hier sind und sich der Konversation mit uns stellen. Ich will es nur noch mal in Erinnerung bringen, in welchem Frame wir eigentlich gerade diskutieren. Die Luftverschmutzung führt heute schon allein zu 4,2 Millionen Toten weltweit, mehr als 175.000 sterben in Europa jährlich an Hitze. Allein im Jahr 2025 summierten sich die Folgekosten durch Extremwetterereignisse auf 126 Milliarden Euro in der EU. Und leider Milliarden fließen immer noch in die Subvention in fossile Energien.
Und es ist vollkommen klar, dass es nicht die Wohlhabenden sind, die die Zeche dafür zahlen werden.
Die Obsession für das Verbrennen von Fossilen, das Festhalten an Technologien des letzten Jahrhunderts, wie wir sie leider heute auch wieder von den Rechten hier hören mussten, ist aus der Zeit gefallen und höchst gefährlich. Herr Minister, ich bin sehr froh, dass Irland Gastgeber der zweiten Konferenz zum Ausstieg oder on Fossil Fuel Free Future ist, begrüße das sehr. Und meine Frage dahingehend, inwiefern wird Irland die Ratspräsidentschaft auch dafür nutzen, diesen Prozess, diesen wichtigen Prozess auch weiter in der EU zu verankern? Irland ist auch Unterstützer der sogenannten Coalition on Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Incentives Including Subsidies. Wie Sie vielleicht wissen, es gibt immer noch keine Transparenz darüber, wie viel Geld aus dem EU-Haushalt direkt in Subvention von Fossilen führt.
Insofern da die Frage, will wird Irland die EU-Präsidentschaft nutzen, auch in dem Aspekt weiterzukommen und mehr Transparenz im EU-Haushalt dafür zu schaffen, wie viel Subvention da immer noch an Fossile fließen?
Und ein ganz kleiner Aspekt, der mir persönlich sehr wichtig ist: Wird sich Irland als EU-Ratspräsidentschaft dafür einsetzen, dass das LIFE-Programm im nächsten mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen eigenständig bleibt? Danke.
Marta Temido
Obrigada, Chair. Senhor Ministro, desejo-lhe a si e à presidência irlandesa as maiores felicidades para o próximo semestre. Queria fazer-lhe uma questão relacionada com uma outra dimensão que hoje aqui ainda não foi discutida e que se prende com o impacto no ambiente dos microrganismos geneticamente modificados. Trata-se de uma área onde está neste momento em desenvolvimento uma alteração à diretiva dos organismos geneticamente modificados para a adaptar a estas especificidades. E nós sabemos que a proposta, a proposta da Comissão, tem uma dimensão de preocupação com a promoção do mercado europeu de biotecnologias.
E compreendemos bem esta necessidade, mas preocupa-nos o equilíbrio entre esta necessidade e a proteção, naturalmente da saúde, mas também do ambiente. Daí esta esta questão relativamente à posição da presidência e às expectativas da presidência sobre a possibilidade de conclusão desta desta revisão.
Este é um tema técnico, científico, mas é também um tema que pode prestar-se à partidarização e à politização. E isso não ajudará em nada o progresso que pode advir da utilização de biofertilizantes ou de biocombustíveis ou de novos medicamentos. Por isso lhe deixava esta pergunta. Muito obrigada.
Anna Zalewska
Dziękuję bardzo. Panie ministrze, widzimy się po raz drugi na komisji ITRE. Niestety większość pytań pozostała bez odpowiedzi, ale chcę teraz zadać inaczej pytanie. I chcę skorzystać z pana doświadczenia. Mianowicie w ubiegłym roku mieliście, nie, w tym roku mieliście no sporo protestów.
Wprowadziliście dodatkowy oprócz ETS podatek węglowy. Okazało się, że wasi obywatele tego nie akceptują, że nie są w stanie no dobrze żyć, a o tym chce pan mówić i taki jest pana cel i pana misja. Musieliście z tego wszystkiego no zrezygnować albo złagodzić.
Po drugie, również z ust rządu Irlandii płyną jednoznaczne informacje, że nie osiągniecie celów do 2030 i proszę się nie martwić, Unia Europejska też nie osiągnie, choć próbuje zaklinać rzeczywistość. Dlaczego o tym mówię? Dlatego, że to doświadczenie no pragmatyzmu Irlandczyków, którzy liczą pieniądze i którzy są realistami i chcą, żeby ich pieniądze szły na to, co jest konieczne i prawdziwe, a nie jest tylko ideologiczną i polityczną decyzją. Chcę zapytać o poważny poważną rozmowę na temat ETS-u, czy będziecie mieć taką odwagę? Dlatego, że dobrze pan wie, że ta reforma wcale nie jest reformą.
To takie pozorowane i udawane między innymi jeżeli chodzi o warunkowość przyznawania darmowych uprawnień. Więc tym razem ja pana proszę, żeby pan wykorzystał swoje irlandzkie doświadczenie, żeby pokazać siłę i determinację przy dyskusjach przy ETS-ie.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much, and thank you Minister for addressing us here today. So the electrification action plan is out.
As you know, it aims to double EU's electrification rate from 23% today to 46% in 2040. The Commission estimates that reaching this target would reduce our fossil fuel imports by not less than 260 billion euros every year. Electrification is simply a key to strengthening Europe's energy independence and obviously also our competitiveness. But electrification alone is not a decarbonization strategy. There is no point in electrifying Europe if the electricity still comes from fossil fuels.
That is why it has to be paired with ambitious renewable energy and energy efficiency targets, including nuclear as one of the colleagues was also aiming at, if we are to turn electrification into real energy independence. And importantly, the 46% target is only indicative. It gets decided in the post-2030 energy union package on our watch.
So will the presidency work to make this electrification target a reality by supporting ambitious renewables and energy efficiency targets in the post-2030 framework? And I would also encourage not only the minister but also colleagues here in this room to read the report that we were presented with this morning regarding our competitiveness situation on all green transition towards China. It is devastating that China is now introducing all the regulations that we have, including ETS. So please look into this report before you make up your final decisions on the ETS. Thank you.
Volker Schnurrbusch
Yeah, thanks, Chair, and thank you, Minister O'Brien, for being here and facing the committee. In your opening remarks, you mentioned competitiveness as one of the main objectives of the Irish presidency, and it comes not so surprisingly that I also see a contradiction to your other aim of climate neutrality.
We all know that the energy intensive industry like steel, copper, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and automotive, they are struggling with ETS right now and are not longer able to produce on a level playing field with non-EU competitors. So thankfully enough you also mentioned a review of ETS and I would like to ask you to elaborate on that, what concrete changes do you want to make in the current ETS frame? And this also goes to the question of the emission standards for autos and trucks which also affect our competitiveness in the European market. Thank you.
Cynthia Ní Mhurchú
Thank you for the venue, Ciarán Nimmo. Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh, I will speak in Irish, our national language in Ireland. Céad fáilte oraibh agus tréaslaím libh as do chuid oibre go dtí seo agus guím gach rath ort leis an obair atá romhat. I mbliana, mar atá ráite ag go leor feisirí sa seomra seo, chonaic muid an méid uatha atá tagtha ar thionchar na n-athruithe aeráide. Agus tugann roinnt meastachán le fios go bhféadfadh costas thart ar 180 billiún euro a bheith ar thubaistí ró-ard agus ar thionchar na n-athruithe aeráide fud fad na hEorpa sa bhliain seo faoi sé.
Sin thart ar 1% den GDP nó OTI an Aontais. In Éirinn ar ndóigh, chuir an t-athrú aeráide isteach go mór ar an earnáil talmhaíochta agus chuir sé sin costas breise ar na feirmeoirí agus iad ag déanamh iarrachta déileáil leis an athrú aeráide. Ní tharlóidh an t-athrú aeráide mar is eol dúinn ar fad agus tá na hiarmhairtí troma eacnamaíochta le braistint anois. Mo cheist go hachomair a Aire, conas a chinnteoidh tú go gcuirfear an simpliú de réir a chéile i bhfeidhm do ghnólachtaí atá ag fulaingt faoin ualach seo ag an am céanna go bhfuil athléimneacht in aghaidh an athrú aeráide bunúsach agus bunriachtanach don imirce. Go raibh maith agat a Aire.
Daniel Buda
Mulțumesc, domnule președinte. Mărturisesc că mi-am schimbat intervenția după ce m-am auzit vorbindu-se aici foarte mult de ținte. Și vreau să vă spun ce s-a întâmplat ieri, domnule ministru, venind pe drum din țara mea, am fost sunat de către un investitor din regiunea mea, care activa în domeniul mobilei de 45 de ani, are 600 de angajați și mi-a spus să-i caut un investitor sau pe cineva care să-i cumpere terenul pentru că pur și simplu nu mai rezistă pe piață și este nevoit să-și închidă afacerea. Aștept să vă terminați discuțiile.
Și l-am întrebat de ce face acest lucru, pentru că îl știam de multă vreme acolo, repet, are 600 de angajați într-o regiune unde nu sunt foarte multe locuri de muncă. Și mi-a spus că pur și simplu nu poate să facă față prețurilor de cost, deoarece energia electrică, dumneavoastră sunteți ministru al energiei, a crescut cu peste 400% și în același timp nu face față concurenței din țările terțe, dându-mi un exemplu cu un scaun importat din Ucraina care ajunge la 15 euro în România, iar el îl poate produce doar cu 32 de euro și mi-a indicat de asemenea și alte state. Stimați colegi, sigur că este foarte important să avem aici discuții legate de tot felul de ținte, dar oare noi înțelegem care este capacitatea de a suporta economia noastră aceste ținte pe care le stabilim aici în Parlament sau la nivelul Comisiei și a Consiliului? Ne dăm seama că aceste ținte până la urmă pot să sugrume economiile din statele membre? Care este răspunsul pentru cei 600 de oameni care sunt în regiunea mea și care peste 30 de zile sau 60 de zile își vor pierde locurile de muncă și familiile lor ce vor face?
De aceea cred că este foarte important, domnule ministru, să găsim soluții înainte de a găsi ținte. Mulțumesc.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Our questions are over, so it's your time for a large reply, please.
Darragh O'Brien
Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh, a lán ceisteanna ansin, déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall iad a fhreagairt. A lot of questions there, I'll do my best to to answer them if I may. And I know I think in the last round I neglected to answer the point that was put across with regard to, I think it was from Sandra and from Alexander about mitigation and adaptation. And I think that is something I think all of us would agree it's not one versus the other. I think and I mentioned earlier on, let's say with our multilateral diplomacy with regard to climate negotiations as well, we've got to understand different perspectives in different countries as well.
But from a European perspective, obviously mitigation is critical, but adaptation in certain communities is also where we haven't been able to mitigate against climate change, that adaptation needs to happen. So I don't see them as as in conflict, but obviously planning for, and it was mentioned earlier on by our colleague from Malta as well, in relation to let's say our buildings, our built environment with the continued heating of our continent as well, where areas of cities and full cities and countries indeed and areas of countries now could potentially become unlivable because of the heat, that we need to look at adapting in those areas whilst we continue to mitigate too.
And this is a large part of discussions through particularly COP negotiations that that that we have too. So what I would say is I don't believe it is one versus the other, and I don't believe you do either. That's not what you were saying, but it's it's something that we've got to be aware of. I think it's deployment of resources that is really the critical thing. It's a setting of of of large commitments with regard to financial resources to help to mitigate or to adapt, but it's how easy it is for communities, for countries indeed, to be able to access that funding to do the work on the ground that is so badly needed.
I think they're the areas that that we that we need to look at. And I think Alexander had also asked that question earlier on. Just in relation to water resilience, and I'll be as quick as I can, I think Anders had mentioned, you know, in relation to to water resilience, and you're right, I'm acutely aware of the situation in Hungary and neighboring countries there. I've referred to that actually earlier on today at the at the other council meeting, at the IRTE meeting too, and specifically referenced the Danube and the region region there with regard to water. So we're committed, and the council is committed to the implementation of the EU water resilience strategy that was adopted last year.
Look, the drought this year in particular, that continues by the way, highlights the absolute urgency for the implementation of that strategy.
I think it's like in many areas across climate we actually know what we need to do. It's about accelerating the implementation of them. So things like water reuse, a water smart economy, there is as well that balance between water use for industry, you know, and how we can ensure that there's water supply for communities too and that should not be in conflict either. Restoring the water cycle from source to sea are just some of the actions that we will be implementing. But I can assure you that it it is a matter that we're acutely aware of, you know, of what our European what citizens in the European Union are suffering with and indeed even in Ireland we've seen many people might think it's a place that rains regularly, it not this summer.
And we've seen communities as well not to the same degree, so I'm not belittling that in any way shape or form and I think it's a very important point that you've raised. Look, I think what Thomas raised raised here earlier on and Othmar earlier on who's gone, Alexandra just about the climate resilience and risk management framework that for later this year and the purpose of that framework is to establish much more ambitious, much more comprehensive and coherent EU approach to climate resilience and preparedness.
And I mentioned that indeed in my opening remarks. But I am more than happy to talk to the Commission and other member states and to bring that message forward that you put forward so eloquently here this afternoon. Esther had mentioned about the Omnibus, the environment Omnibus that is, and on the regulation on speeding up environmental assessments. The Irish presidency is committed to obtaining a negotiating mandate in the early months of our presidency so that the Council would be in a position to engage in negotiations on the whole package in line with the Parliament calendar. So generally member states have treated this simplification package as a real priority to deliver on the mandate of concluding negotiations by the end of this year.
And that's what we endeavor to do. Marie had mentioned in relation to nuclear and just Ireland's position. Again, I'm here in my role in the presidency, but just to endeavor to answer the question, we've always respected the right in Ireland of other countries to choose their own electricity mix, including nuclear power, providing once the safety standards are met. We haven't developed nuclear generation ourselves.
We do import nuclear energy via interconnectors to Britain and will soon be doing so with our first interconnector to continental Europe to France. So we're adopting a technology-neutral approach, but there are discussions happening in our own country. But what I would say, and this has been mentioned too, that the advancement of renewables, I think others had mentioned it too, that again to use Ireland as an example, we've actually doubled our onshore wind capacity in just a 10-year period and have increased solar by over 1,000% in that period of time, where up to half of our electricity is now generated by renewables. So it's not necessarily one or the other. Clean energy through nuclear, as I said, we have a technology-neutral approach, but we respect absolutely the right of Member States to develop energy mixes that they feel are appropriate to them, and discussions are happening there.
Just on the Esther mention in relation to the MFF, the figures you see in the negotiating box remain under negotiation. They reflect the search for a very delicate balance, and it's clear from negotiations, including the European Council, there's currently no consensus amongst Member States on the volume of that budget. So discussions on the volume should be viewed in the light of the ongoing work on the revenue side, as well as the reality that Member States are facing very substantial fiscal pressures and that there is a very real constraint on the level of volume which the Council can agree to, but that's something that's still under discussion.
So those horizontal discussions of financial aspects of the MFF are ongoing at the General Affairs Council and we expect a revised negotiating box in October. So I can't prejudge that at this stage. I think mo chara Billy Kelleher, tá sé níl sé anseo anois, but chuir sé ceist faoi COP 31 agus go raibh míle maith agat Billy as do chuid focal cineálta. Thanks Billy for his his kind words in relation to the work that's that's underway. Look we're very serious about our preparations for for COP.
I think the Commission have been reflected as well on on COP 30 and we've much more member state engagement I believe and a better approach. We're we're well prepared for that and we continue to work on it. Indeed the Cypriot presidency set aside very specific time for meetings on COP and at our first informal we had ministerial discussion on it. I believe it is incumbent on us in Europe to look at approaches previously to see how we can improve also but it is also an opportunity from a multilateralism perspective for us to engage with the developing world, the global south in particular in a in a constructive way and we must listen to to our friends right the way across the globe and ensure that we are we are listening.
So a lot of work has been done in that regard. Underpinned by all of that, colleagues, I've mentioned as well, I think Martin earlier on just in relation to the phase-out fossil. We are one of over 80 countries that are committed to phasing out fossil. We will be hosting, co-hosting with Tuvalu next year the second conference in that regard. I think from the roadmap out of COP last year, the roadmap produced by the Brazilian presidency was actually helpful, if not the final decisions at COP, but post that, that still means that there are a substantial number of countries, many European countries as well, that are committed to the phase-out of fossil, whilst respecting different energy mixes in different countries and different pressures that countries will be under from or maybe be under from their industrial and economic base.
But it's something that we are firmly committed to. COP 17 in Armenia obviously, that has been mentioned as well by Billy Kelleher. The summit will take place in Yerevan. The Irish presidency are working hard to prepare a position of the Union and member states at the UN Biodiversity Conference and the Council will adopt conclusions at its meeting in October, just next month.
I think Elisabetta just on the CBAM, that file is led by my colleague the Minister for Finance Simon Harris. Nevertheless, I think it's obvious that there are clear links to the ETS file. It seeks to maintain the competitiveness of the EU industry while safeguarding environmental integrity of the ETS during the phase-out of free allowances and we're looking forward to starting negotiations with the European Parliament after your plenary vote in September on the basis of the mandate that we have to negotiate at that stage. So the compromise will have to be fraud-proof, it'll have to be predictable for industry, compatible with the rules of international trade, whilst really importantly preserving the climate integrity of CBAM. Martin mentioned LIFE and I'm aware of the different views on the LIFE programme right now and I think everyone agrees on the need to continue funding and to fund environmental programmes.
So I think that discussion will be part of the wider MFF discussions. Just in relation to Martha mentioned GMOs and genetically modified organisms, I will bring that matter with sit under the Minister for Agriculture, Martin Heydon, and I will certainly bring that back directly to him and get him to respond directly to you. Macallaí is mo chara, Cynthia Ní Mhurchú, chuir tú ceist faoi athrú aeráide anois é sin an cheist agus an obair is tábhachtaí sa domhan na laethanta seo. Caithfimid gach rud atá orainn a dhéanamh chun athrú aeráide a stopadh agus dul chun cinn a dhéanamh ar son ár ndaoine fud fad na hEorpa. Chomh maith leis sin, caithfimid infheistiú is mó ná riamh a chur sa grids agus sa bhfuinneamh inathnuaite freisin.
Táimid ag déanamh é sin, tá an plean ann, tá sé amach os comhair an phobail. Caithfimid mar rialtas agus mar uachtaránacht na rudaí atá istigh sa phlean agus na tacaíocht atáimid ábalta a dhéanamh ar son ár ndaoine iad a chur i bhfeidhm agus iad a dhéanamh níos tapaí ar son ár ndaoine. So tá an dóchas agam faoi sin, tá sé deacair cinnte, ach tá an dóchas agam go mbeimid ábalta, you know, rudaí dearfacha a dhéanamh tríd an Eoraip agus an rud is tábhachtaí i mo thuairimse ná fuinneamh inathnuaite, fuinneamh gaoithe, fuinneamh gréine.
So, bí cinnte go mbeimid ag obair go dian faoi sin. Agus go raibh míle maith agaibh arís as ucht na gceisteanna. Daniel, now, in relation to costs and just in relation to energy affordability. I think regardless of where you are in Europe, that energy affordability is an issue for many households and for many businesses. We understand that very clearly in my own country, and I understand that from talking to colleagues right the way across Europe.
In the main, in the main, that is due to the volatility in relation to global supplies and our continued over-reliance on fossil. I think the electrification and decarbonization will secure our future. But it's important that we manage that in the short term and try to protect our small businesses and our households in particular against rising energy costs. And it's something certainly that I am acutely aware of. And I can assure you as well that I will work with colleagues in that regard.
We're working on that back in Ireland. It's not easy. There's some who would say that there's simple solutions to this. There are not. We've got to be honest with people, and we will be, and I know you will be as well, and you continue to do so.
So I thank you for raising it because it's a very important matter. And in conclusion, Chairman, just to say that at the outset of my opening remarks, I had mentioned very clearly that in everything we do, the citizen has to be at the center. And in every policy we bring forward, in every measure we bring forward, we've got to stress test that against what benefits it is for our people and the people that we represent in this European Parliament and you as members represent. So I'm very much looking forward to working with you all on these critically important files that we have. It is doable within the timeframe.
It's doable within it. It's going to be challenging, but I think we've a job to do that we're elected to do and we need to get on and do it. So I thank you for your engagement heretofore.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. I think all the colleagues appreciated your approach and your clear answer. We look forward to work together during this semester of presidency and wish you a good day, a good stay in Brussels. And now we can move to the next item. We keep one minute of pause before starting.
So, we are back. The next item, the number eight, is a exchange of view with the Commission of the implementation of the Nature Restoration Law with a focus on nature restoration plans.
I would welcome Eric Mamer, Director General of the Directorate for Environment, who will intervene on behalf of the Commission. Mr. Mamer, you have eight minutes to introduce the topic and I hope with some good news because as far as I understood, not many member states have implemented still something. So you have the floor.
Eric MAMER
Thank you very much, dear Chair Amaro, dear honorable members. We meet indeed on an important date. After two years of preparation, today is the deadline fixed by the co-legislators for member states to submit their draft national restoration plans. I stress the word draft because they will be followed by the Commission's assessment and further refinement by the member states, which will bring us to fully-fledged final national restoration plans late 2027.
So far, the Commission today, the Commission has received a good handful of drafts and we know that several more are almost ready and we are in touch, of course, with all Member States on their preparations. In the past months, the Commission and the European Environment Agency, the EEA, have been actively supporting Member States in many ways, with guidelines, expert groups, bilateral meetings, dedicated workshops, helpdesk, digital tools, etc., and I have personally visited many Member States to discuss the preparations for the implementation of the ENR. Member States have launched public consultations and engaged with different stakeholder groups and communities, recognizing that they are essential to ensure that the ENRP is locally adapted, widely supported and truly implemented on the ground. Obviously, as the deadline to submit the draft plans expired only today, it is definitely too early to share comprehensive feedback on the draft plans, but allow me to highlight a few interesting points emerging from all our contacts with Member States until now, including my visits. Let me highlight some of the challenges and opportunities.
Concrete concerns vary, of course, depending on local circumstances and stakeholder groups, but a few recurrent issues can be noted. Extensive inter-institutional coordination and discussions with authorities within the Member States at national, regional and local level, in particular in federal states, was often cited as a factor in the time needed for the preparations.
Ensuring effective involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, farmers, or landowners' organizations, is a second point mentioned in some countries. Mobilizing sufficient administrative capacity for the preparation of national restoration plans is a third issue that was mentioned in some Member States. And of course, the issue of financing, an important issue, was raised more than once. This is, of course, another challenge. I will come back to that later.
But apart from these challenges, I also heard many positive views about the opportunities Member States see materializing in their preparation process. Member States are working across sectors and departments to ensure that restoration covers several ecosystems and is mainstreamed across sectoral policies. This is key to success and a benefit for collective ownership of the plans. Second, despite some concerns as I have mentioned, stakeholder involvement has been organized in a very structured way in many Member States and has drawn a high level of engagement. The third positive example is that support schemes and public-private partnerships have been put in place to engage farmers, foresters, land managers, sea users, and other businesses into restoration investments.
Let me give you a few examples. Denmark has established a 5.76 billion euro Green Land Fund and local partnerships involving farmers, municipalities and nature organizations. Germany is providing 1.75 billion euros to support the voluntary transition towards productive use of rewetted peatlands. Ireland deploys a 1.5 billion euro Agri-Climate Rural Environment Scheme, ACRES, and supports a peatland standard to mobilize public and private finance for peatland restoration. These approaches show how public support can help manage transition costs while mobilizing private investment.
And finally, for many Member States, the NRP is seen as an opportunity to foster highly needed nature-based solutions to address top priorities such as climate adaptation, agricultural land degradation and to increase resilience. And indeed, nature restoration is about risk management and resilience.
Ecosystem degradation is a recognized risk for the economy, as more than 70% of EU companies are highly dependent on at least one ecosystem service. And this summer has been a stark reminder of these risks for our agriculture, for our forests, rivers, and water bodies, and indeed as well our cities, I don't think I need to insist on this. Without these improvements, therefore, we risk major societal disruptions, economic losses, and loss of human lives, as widely reported by the media over the summer. This being said, we are fully aware that implementing the Nature Restoration Regulation and building the first NRPs is a first-of-a-kind endeavor. This is why several flexibilities were built into the legal text to allow to tailor the plan to wide divergences between Member States and regions of Europe.
For example, the Nature Restoration Regulation leaves Member States to determine the appropriate satisfactory levels in their specific context in terms of forests, agriculture, or urban indicators. There is also flexibility, for example, for Member States to reduce peatland rewetting targets in order to balance them with other public interests, quote-unquote.
We are also working with national authorities towards the smooth implementation of the urban greening targets. There is, there again, considerable flexibility built into the NRR to help this process, such as exemptions on the possibility for Member States to define their own urban ecosystem areas. More generally, Member States can capitalize on existing policies and measures of relevance for the restoration objectives. I would also like to highlight that NRPs are not set in stone. The regulation itself provides opportunities to revise the plans where appropriate.
And of course, we will continue to listen closely to the views expressed by this Parliament, by Member States and by stakeholders as the plans are assessed and implemented. The Commission's observations, let me insist, the Commission's observations on the draft NRPs will be publicly available and, this is very important, final responsibility for the national plans lies with the Member States. The plans are not approved by the Commission. Dear Chair, honorable members, let me conclude with some words on financing the nature restoration plans.
A Member State's NRP should play an important role as a financial planning tool by identifying a pipeline of measures, including those that may require additional resources. It can provide a basis for future funding decisions from public and private sources. Importantly, NRPs should directly inform future programming in the next MFF and align future investments and reforms with restoration, resilience, and biodiversity objectives, in view of the proposed 35% spending target on climate and environment. As you know, in the Commission's MFF proposal, national restoration plans are explicitly legally anchored in the national and regional partnership plans. And I can only encourage this House to support this proposal.
In the meantime, many EU funds have been and can be used for restoration, such as the CAP, EMFAF, the Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, InvestEU, Resilience and Recovery Fund, and the LIFE program. Commissioner Roswall has encouraged Member States to use them fully.
Now, EU financing is a key ingredient for NRP success, but it is clear it will not be sufficient to meet all needs. Draft plans should identify the intended financing mix, including national, and I have given some examples, European Union, private, and blended sources of finance. Schemes such as result-based approaches, payments for ecosystem services, carbon farming, or nature credits are essential for complementing public funding. The Commission is investing in their development. Let me conclude by renewing my determination to continue the good cooperation between DG Environment and your committee also on this important issue, and I look forward to your comments and questions.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. We have many requests from speakers and we have still other items on the agenda, so I recommend everybody to respect the speaking time that is two minutes for the first round.
We start with EPP, Stefan Köhler.
Stefan Köhler
Ja, thank you chair, I would like to talk in German. Sehr geehrter Herr Mime, vielen Dank für die Bereitschaft zu diesem wichtigen Austausch heute, den ja auch die EVP beantragt hat. Und in meinem Mitgliedstaat Deutschland und auch darüber hinaus ist der Unmut bei den Waldbesitzern und Waldbewirtschaftern groß. Die Kritik an der Wiederherstellungsverordnung ist angesichts der Einreichung der nationalen Wiederherstellungspläne erneut aufgeflammt. Und so wie Sie es gesagt haben, dass alle Stakeholder berücksichtigt worden sind, das kann ich eigentlich so nicht bestätigen, weil die Fristen einfach viel zu kurz gesetzt sind.
Die Kritikpunkte sind bekannt: starre Vorgaben mit wenig Praxisbezug, enorme Geldsummen ohne klare Finanzierungshilfe, eine Abwälzung der Verantwortung auf die Land- und Forstwirte und so weiter. Da wir heute über die Implementierung sprechen, habe ich dazu einige Fragen. Wie beabsichtigt die Europäische Kommission sicherzustellen, dass die veränderten klimatischen Bedingungen, Sie haben das erwähnt, in der Wiederherstellungsverordnung berücksichtigt werden und den klimaresistenten Waldumbau nicht erschweren? Wir brauchen neue Baumarten, wir brauchen eine aktive Bewirtschaftung, um intakte Wälder mit Biodiversität zu halten. Plant die Kommission mehr Flexibilität bei den Ziel- und Referenzzuständen zu ermöglichen, wenn wissenschaftlich absehbar ist, dass sich die natürlichen Vegetations- und Lebensraumtypen aufgrund des Klimawandels langfristig verändern werden?
Und wie stellt die Kommission sicher, dass die Mitgliedstaaten für die Umsetzung der Wiederherstellungsverordnung ausreichende und langfristig verlässliche Finanzmittel zur Verfügung bekommen, bevor umfangreiche verbindliche Wiederherstellungsmaßnahmen festgelegt werden? Ist die Kommission angesichts der außergewöhnlichen Dürre-, Waldbrand- und Waldschadenssituation bereit, eine zeitlich begrenzte Anpassung bzw. Verlängerung der Umsetzungsfristen zu prüfen, um die Wiederherstellungsverordnung an die veränderten klimatischen Rahmenbedingungen anzupassen? Und es ist vorgesehen, dass die Mitgliedstaaten selbst Maßnahmen für die Wiederherstellung formulieren. Wird dieser Gestaltungsspielraum durch die anschließende Bewertung von Maßnahmen, Methodik und Zielpfaden durch die Kommission nicht erheblich eingeschränkt? Und wie soll gewährleistet werden, dass die Mitgliedstaaten tatsächlich über ausreichende Flexibilität bei der Umsetzung verfügen?
Mindestens 15 Länder kommen der Frist nicht nach, das zeigt eigentlich, wie kompliziert der Sachverhalt ist. Vielen Dank.
César Luena
Muy bien, gracias, presidente, gracias al director. Nos ha dado bastante información, pero a mí me gustaría que nos dijera cuántos planes, yo creo que no se lo he escuchado, cuántos exactamente, qué Estados miembros no han cumplido, porque han tenido muchísimo tiempo. Ahora escucho al Partido Popular Europeo que sigue pidiendo más tiempo, pero fue en la negociación todo lo que se concedió: tiempo, tiempo y tiempo.
Por tanto, ¿qué Estados miembros no han cumplido? España remitió ayer su borrador, no ha sido fácil, todas las comunidades gobernadas por el PP han intentado boicotear que se hiciera el plan, pero bueno, el plan está aquí. ¿Cómo garantiza la Comisión la evaluación rigurosa, coherente en los próximos seis meses y que se cumpla además de acuerdo a la ambición de la ley? ¿Cómo van a trabajar los planes estos seis meses? Me gustaría saber, señor Mamer.
Y vamos al asunto central: la financiación. Artículo 21.7 de la ley que dice que antes del 19 de agosto del año pasado debía haber una evaluación de recursos disponibles, necesidades de financiación y brecha existente. Pues ha pasado un año, ¿han visto ustedes el informe? Pues yo tampoco. Le enviamos una carta los colegas Paulus, Viesic, Everdin, yo mismo, a la presidenta von der Leyen, nos ha respondido hace unas semanas y dice que la financiación va a depender de las medidas incluidas, atención, en los planes nacionales.
Bueno, como los planes van llegando, señor Mamer, director general, ¿cuándo vamos a tener el informe? Dígame una, ha hablado usted ahora de información, de financiación, perdón, nos ha dado información sobre ello. Pero ¿cuándo vamos a tener el informe? ¿En octubre, noviembre? ¿Cuándo?
Tendrá usted alguna planificación sobre ello, porque claro, se están cerrando las prioridades del próximo presupuesto europeo y no hay evaluación sobre la financiación de la restauración.
Tenga cuidado, no vayamos a llegar los últimos, que se están repartiendo el dinero. Necesitan saber una planificación sobre la restauración. Por tanto, termino presidente, cuando vemos, lo acabamos de escuchar al Partido Popular Europeo, que se asocia en estas cosas con la extrema derecha para seguir atacando a la Ley de Restauración de la Naturaleza, necesitamos más compromiso, más información por parte de la Comisión Europea. Gracias.
Alexandr Vondra
Well, thank you very much. I think it's no secret that, you know, there were many skeptics and star skeptics, including our own group, about this particular legislation. And what I heard from EPP, you know, it even survives the skepticism as in the EPP. During the negotiation, I was a little bit dissident because I was supporting this, but I was always convinced that it makes a sense if it's done pragmatically, with financial boost, and with the respect to the private ownership. And here is exactly the problem, and that's the financing.
According to the regulation, the Commission was required to provide the report on financing by August 2025. This was regrettably delayed, and it was supposed to include elements such as an overview of financial resources available in the EU, an assessment of funding needs to implement Articles 4 to 13, analysis of the funding gap and proposal for adequate measures. In stated minutes of the second expert group meeting in April of the last year, an updated impact assessment estimate the investment needs to implement 11 to 13 billions euro per year compared to the initial impact assessment of 6 to 8. And that's just for Article 4 only. So here is my question.
First, what are the real financial needs for the implementation of the law, including monitoring of pollinators, free-flowing rivers, etc.? We need to see the updated impact assessment without a delay. And further question: Member States are required to present their national plan in accordance with the law by today.
How can national authorities be held responsible for the implementation if there is no money generated by the EU? So ECR calls the Commission to suspend this until updated impact assessment and financial support have been provided.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you, Chair. And let me start by saying that I admire DG Eric Mamer's optimism when he was presenting the state of play at the moment, because only a handful of Member States have submitted their plans. So that gets us at the question: is the glass half full or is it half empty? For the Commission, it's clearly half full, and I'm willing to follow him in this line. Nowadays, I think it's good that we can see that the process is in place.
We've seen that the whole process for the adoption of this piece of legislation was controversial, so let's say that is a positive thing. Nevertheless, I do have a few questions. First of all, you mentioned the importance of climate adaptation and the role of nature and nature restoration.
Maybe you can elaborate slightly more on that. Is this also going to be an important part of the adaptation plan that the Commission will propose in one or two months? Secondly, financing. Financing, of course, is a huge problem at national level, European level. Next MFF is a problem.
I'm very grateful for my EPP colleague that he's asking for sufficient funding for the European Commission on this, because maybe we can work together on this and make sure that the nature and biodiversity budget are being expanded in the next MFF. Finally, a question. I hear a lot of rumors that within Member States there's quite some opposition against the nature restoration plans, and that might make it more problematic in the end to get these national plans in a final stage. Maybe you can say something about that as well. Thank you.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I mean, we just have to be clear that without effective and ambitious measures to protect and restore nature, we will fail to adapt for the climate change, but also to adapt to the deadly extreme weather we have witnessed in Europe this last summer, and which is a new normal. So all the voices calling for weakening or postponing the nature restoration law is an attack on actually creating shades in the cities, to create water for us all, to create a forestry management that actually can limit the impacts of future fires. That's the facts we are facing, and that's why implementation is so important. And Commission is talking about a handful, and I don't know what a handful is, because I can have 27 plans in my hand if they are very short and precise, or I can have two if they actually go in depth. So what are the numbers we are looking into?
And what are the Commission doing to ensure that there is an urgency for the member states not living up to delivering their plans on time? Because any delay, I mean, will cost us at the end if we don't deliver on time. Second is the financing, as other people have mentioned, because as well we need the plans in order to know what is the finance needed. Because right now we are negotiating MFF, and maybe the 35% green spending target is far from enough if we need to do these plans.
Maybe we have to talk as well with with EPP on on what do we do to actually ensure a much stronger green spending target, funding for Life and so forth that we need. So what are the plans when it comes to the financing part overview from the Commission in view that we're still missing out plans from from member states? And then my last point is is on on the quality of the plans. Because I mean, one thing is to get the plans, but if it's gonna be a long list of derogations and and minimum implementation, what is the plan from the Commission to actually swift get back to the member states so we actually gonna see nature restoration plans that will work for the problem we're facing right now. Thank you.
Martin Günther
Ja, vielen Dank Herr Vorsitzender. Die Verabschiedung der Naturwiederherstellungsverordnung im Jahr 2024 war alles andere als einfach, wie sich sicherlich auch die Kommission erinnert. Die Europäische Volkspartei setzte die Verordnung auf so eine sogenannte Kill-Liste und ihr Vorsitzender Manfred Weber forderte die Kommission auf, den Vorschlag doch gleich ganz zurückzuziehen. Weber und Co führten eine Desinformationskampagne gegen die Verordnung und taten alles, um sie zu verhindern.
Glücklicherweise hat sich die Verordnung dennoch durchgesetzt. Nun stellt sich allerdings die Frage, ob sich die politische Blockade, die wir bereits 2023 und 24 gesehen haben, einfach nur in die Umsetzungsphase in den Mitgliedstaaten verlagert hat. Besonders besorgniserregend sind die Entwicklungen in Deutschland. Bereits im Juli 2025 forderten 35 deutsche Organisationen die Bundesregierung und die Länder auf, die Verordnung zügig und ambitioniert umzusetzen und ihre Finanzierung auf eine solide Grundlage zu stellen. Die anhaltende Blockadepolitik bezeichneten sie als verantwortungslos.
Jüngst mussten WWF und Nabu ihre Warnung vor dieser Blockadehaltung von Teilen der Bundesregierung und mehrerer Bundesländer erneuern. Der Nabu kritisiert den Mangel an Ambitionen. Es geht also nicht nur darum, ob Deutschland ein Naturwiederherstellungsplan auf dem Papier vorlegt. Entscheidend ist, ob die geforderte Wiederherstellung tatsächlich umgesetzt wird, mit ausreichendem Ehrgeiz, einer soliden Finanzierung und konkreten Maßnahmen. Wie steht die Kommission zu nicht fristgerecht erfolgten Einreichung des nationalen Wiederherstellungsplans?
Das würde mich dann doch schon mal interessieren. Andeutungsweise haben Sie das ja schon angedeutet.
Artikel 17 verpflichtet die Kommission zur Prüfung, ob der deutsche Plan geeignet ist, die verbindlichen Ziele der Verordnung zu erfüllen. Kann die Kommission angesichts der Bedenken von WWF und NABU und vielen anderen, dass sie keinen Plan genehmigen wird, der lediglich bestehende Maßnahmen auflistet, bestehende Maßnahmen auflistet, sondern ausreichend zusätzliche Maßnahmen für die Ziele bis 2030 verlangt? Artikel 15 verpflichtet die Mitgliedstaaten zudem, ihren Finanzierungsbedarf sowie Subventionen zu ermitteln, die die Ziele der Verordnung beeinträchtigen. Wird die Kommission dies gründlich prüfen und von Deutschland verlangen, Finanzierungslücken zu schließen? Entschuldigung.
Volker Schnurrbusch
Thank you, chair. On this topic, I want to speak also in German. Diese Verordnung zeigt erneut, wie Brüssel nationale Zuständigkeiten aushöhlt. Die Pläne heißen zwar national, doch Ziele, Fristen, Flächenvorgaben und Berichtspflichten wurden auf EU-Ebene beschlossen. Die Mitgliedstaaten dürfen dann nur noch verteilen, wie die Kosten und die Konflikte um die Nutzung trägt.
Der deutsche Bauernverband warnt zu Recht vor einer Spirale des Ordnungsrechts.
Was heute als freiwillige Maßnahme angekündigt wird, kann morgen zu neuen Schutzgebieten, zu neuen Auflagen für die Bewirtschaftung und zu dauerhaften Einschränkungen der Nutzung führen. Genau diesen Vertrauensbruch haben Landwirte bereits bei der Umsetzung von Natura 2000 erleben müssen. Die deutsche Regierung hat bisher noch keinen Plan eingereicht. Warum wohl nicht? Er liegt in Berlin und wurde vom Bundeskabinett noch nicht verabschiedet.
Er umfasst über 1000 Seiten, ohne die betroffenen Flächen, die Gesamtkosten oder die Entschädigungen der Eigentümer zu benennen. Es ist also aus unserer Sicht überhaupt kein Plan. Besonders problematisch sind die Wiedervernässung produktiver Moorböden und zusätzliche Einschränkungen für Grünland. Spätere Mahd und reduzierte Düngung verschlechtern Erträge und Futterqualität mit direkten Folgen für Milchvieh-, Rinder- und Schafhalter. Für freiwillige Biodiversitätsmaßnahmen auf nur 5 bis 10 % der landwirtschaftlich genutzten Flächen veranschlagt der Deutsche Bauernverband Einbußen von 1 bis 2 Milliarden Euro jährlich.
Die eben genannte Summe von 1,75 Milliarden Euro, die Deutschland beisteuern möchte, wird also nicht mal für Waldbesitzer oder andere Betroffene in Deutschland ausreichen.
Das Ergebnis ist aus unserer Sicht also mangelhaft. Brüssel hat etwas gefordert, Berlin hat zugestimmt und die Landwirte und die Grundeigentümer tragen nun die wirtschaftlichen Folgen. Naturschutz kann jedoch nur mit ihnen gelingen, freiwillig, vollständig finanziert und ohne neue Eingriffe in Eigentum und Bewirtschaftung. Danke.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. So, as you see, we are a little late, so I can kindly ask Mr. Mamer if he can reply in six minutes instead of six, eight, like we said. And I inform the colleagues that the next round is one minute and not one minute and 30 each.
Eric MAMER
Thank you, Chair. Well, there were many, many points raised, so I will do my best, obviously. I'm going to group things. Clearly, one of the main themes is financing. Now, let's be clear.
The capacity to determine the level of financing we require, we will collectively require to implement the NR, depends on what is in the plans.
This is for us something which is completely self-apparent. And therefore we are going to analyze the plans, see what they entail, and based on that we will be able to collectively determine what is the financing need that needs to come from the different sources. And let me let me make one thing absolutely clear. There is a role for this house then in ensuring that we can secure the necessary financing for this. The Commission in its proposal has clearly said that 35% of the budget should go to climate and environment nature, but more than that, it has said in pillar one of the MFF proposal, the national and regional partnership plans have to take into account nature restoration plans.
And the CAP proposal, for example, of the Commission has very, very clear articles that relate to the protection and restoration of the environment, which is entirely in line with what is in the nature restoration regulation.
So please, let's work together to make sure that we can have a constructive discussion on the financing that is required in the context of the MFF. On the side of that, as I said, Member States have to mobilize national resources themselves, and we have to work together in order to develop public-private financing. This is on the financing, on the financing side. On climate adaptation, I want to be extremely clear, in particular when it comes to forests, because this is something that I hear time and time again. The NRR obviously recognizes and acknowledges the need for forests to adapt to climate change.
And indeed, it is one of the objectives of the NRR to make sure that our forests are resilient to climate change and support biodiversity. The two go together. If there are no longer any forests, there will be no longer any biodiversity. There is no contradiction. The NRR, when you read it carefully, expresses many ways in which Member States and foresters can actually put together plans to ensure that their forests are adapted to climate change, resilient to climate change.
We know that forests, mixed forests, are usually more resilient to climate change. We accept the fact that we have to look where it makes sense at the introduction of new species of trees in areas that need to adapt to climate change. And this is a gradual process that needs to take into account experimentation which is taking place and which will continue to take place in Member States. We are going to be flexible because this is a first-of-a-kind initiative. We understand all the uncertainties that there are, and we want, and we believe that Member States also want, to see results at the end of the day.
On the issue of the time for consultations, well, two years have taken place since the process has been launched. So there have been extensive opportunities for consultation.
And in my contacts with Member States, and I have visited many of the Member States, these consultations have largely taken place and will now continue to take place based on the draft plans as they are published. On the timing of the presentation of plans. Yes, so for the moment we have received the plans from Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Luxembourg and Bulgaria, from what I understand. We have roughly double the number that are almost ready from what I understand as well, and work is progressing on the others. Quite frankly, this is a first of a kind endeavor, as I said.
It's not about whether you respect strictly a deadline that is set, that is set, but whether the Member States are making the efforts to make sure that they come up with good draft plans which are a good basis for analysis and discussion. We are quite confident that in almost all cases this is what is taking place. And on the issue of blocking a plan, or blocking the submission of a plan until there is clarity on the side of the Commission on the financing, I would plead to do the opposite. Submit your plan. Make sure that this plan actually identifies the investment needs so that we collectively are in a position to negotiate the financing that is needed in the current, in the context of the MFF negotiations.
I think that is the best way to ensure the final result. On the point about Brussels imposing things on Member States. Let me restate what I said in my opening statement.
Contrary to what I have heard, the Commission does not approve the Member State plans. We will make comments. Member States will tell us how they take into account our comments. That does not mean that they have to take them into account. The plans are their responsibility.
We will be looking, of course, in the context of the target dates that have been set, 2030, 2040, 2050, how the measures are put in place and whether the objectives of the regulation are are fulfilled. I'm looking to see whether I have missed any any major point. I have I am not aware of a strong opposition within any Member State to the presentation of the plans. In certain countries, the institutional context is such that indeed the consultations between the different levels of of authorities in the Member State mean that consultations can be more protracted than in others. But work, as far as I am aware, is ongoing everywhere.
In some other Member States, there are indeed administrative constraints and the Commission has been helping as much as it could.
I will leave it here, Chair.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we go back to our colleague. We start with Peter Liese, one minute please.
Peter Liese
Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender, vielen Dank, Herr Generaldirektor, und danke an die anderen pro-europäischen Fraktionen, dass sie dem EVP-Antrag zugestimmt haben, dieses Thema hier im Ausschuss zu diskutieren. Die AfD, die ESN macht da zwar immer die Backen, bläst die Backen auf, aber als die Entscheidung hier getroffen wurde bei den Koordinatoren, war weder Frau Arndt da, noch hat sie sich vertreten lassen. Also man kann nach außen viel reden, wenn man dann nicht da ist, wenn es um die Sachentscheidungen geht, dann hilft das nicht viel. Zur Sache: Die Wiederherstellung der Natur ist ein gutes Ziel. Aber wir haben sehr viele Fragen, die müssen beantwortet werden, und die Betroffenen haben sehr viele Fragen, und deswegen plädiere ich für eine sehr pragmatische Umsetzung.
Herr Generaldirektor, Sie haben richtigerweise die Initiative der Bundesregierung erwähnt.
Ich denke auch, es ist wichtig, einen Fokus auf die Wiedervernässung von Mooren zu machen, aber ohne Zwang. Und die Bundesregierung stellt das Geld ja zur Verfügung denen, die es wollen. Und wir müssen eben aufpassen, dass sich da auch kein Zwang einschleicht. Mein wichtigster Punkt aber jetzt zum Schluss ist das Thema anderthalb Minuten hat der Chair gesagt am Anfang. So, one and a half you said in the beginning.
The forest owners. They are challenged by climate change. And the far right should accept that we have climate change. But the Commission should also accept that we do not, we cannot depend on old trees when we have new climate. So the Commission should commit new species that didn't exist 100 years ago should be used by the forest owners and they should be supported and not blocked by nature restoration law.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much. And it sometimes feels slightly strange having witnessed what happened during this summer and then the speed of action that we are actually moving with here in our wonderful European Union. And I also find it very difficult to listen to comments earlier on regarding that we have to work faster with our resilience. Obviously, yes.
But this is also working with our resilience. This is part of taking the resilience into account when you do these things. So now you leave and you don't want to discuss and that is fine. But it doesn't take us anywhere. So please, my question to you would be, please let us in on the facts on how many plans have been received and how does the financing actually look?
Is there financing behind the plans or is there lacking of finance behind the actual plans? Let's move, let's get some information so that we can take action regarding to the information. Thank you.
Sander Smit
Grazie, presidente. Ik spreek al in het Dutch. Ik houd het kort. De natuurherstelwet heeft het Nederlandse platteland op zijn kop gezet en zet het verder op slot. Ik heb drie vragen.
Ten eerste: vrijwilligheid. En met name over het Nederlandse natuurherstelplan dat is ingediend. Een peilbesluit neemt de grondeigenaar niet. Telt vernatting op die manier mee onder artikel 11, lid 4, wil ik van de Commissie weten, en telt de Commissie dat als vrijwillig? Ten tweede: de kosten.
In het Nederlandse ontwerp staat geen bedrag. Kan een ontwerp dat een verplicht onderdeel doorschuift, voldoen aan artikel 17 lid 2 sub a? Ten derde, en dit is wel het belangrijkste: openbaarheid, transparantie. Een lidstaat kan zijn ingezonden dataset rapportage in Reportnet afschermen voor het publiek, en dat is hier ook met de Nederlandse dataset is dat gebeurd. Wat doet de Commissie in dat geval, gelet op artikel 14 lid 20 dat een open en een reële voorbereiding met reële inspraak verlangt?
Dus hoe ziet de Commissie dat, en ik wil graag de stukken daaronder hebben, en is de Commissie bereid deze te openbaren? Aan geheimzinnigheid hieromtrent hebben we helemaal niets in een democratie.
Esther Herranz García
Sí, gracias, no esperaba tan pronto. He escuchado decir a la Comisión que después de dos años de abiertos a consultas y que han visitado muchos países, que confían en que los planes estén bien hechos.
Pues mire, yo más que confiar quisiera que me dijera la Comisión Europea cómo controlan que estos planes de verdad incluyan a la participación no solo de ONGs o de las entidades locales, sino también de agricultores, de gestores de tierras, de silvicultores, de pescadores, es decir, de todos los implicados. Si la Comisión Europea cuenta con algún sistema para asegurarse de que las aportaciones del sector primario, que es fundamental en la economía rural, han sido de verdad tenidas en cuenta. Y lo segundo, con respecto a la financiación, yo sigo pensando que no lo tienen nada claro y que el recurso es meter la mano en el dinero escaso, cada vez más escaso, de la PAC.
Lynn Boylan
Thank you, Chair, and I notice that despite Ireland having the presidency of the current EU Council, that it wasn't listed as one of the countries that has submitted its nature restoration plan, so I hope that that's either an error or that it'll be rectified by the Irish government as soon as possible. But I have looked at Ireland's draft plan and I notice there's not much detail on non-deterioration. And we know that preventing deterioration of habitats is more effective and affordable than nature restoration, and NRPs would be stronger if they are accompanied by measures to prevent damage from agricultural runoff, illicit turf cutting, monoculture forestry, and fossil fuel pollution.
So are member states prioritizing non-deterioration and if not will the Commission be encouraging this more as the plans develop? I know that Ireland has said that it plans to address non-deterioration by the Birds and Habitats Directive, but given that the Commission is doing a stress test to deregulate these directives, how are the interactions with the nature restoration plans being considered in the stress test of the Birds and Habitats Directive?
Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska
Dziękuję bardzo, proszę państwa, od początku roku w Unii Europejskiej spłonęło ponad 600 tysięcy hektarów lasów, utracono około 3 tysięcy hektarów chronionych torfowisk oraz efekty dziesięcioleci finansowanej ze środków publicznych renaturyzacji. Ja nie mam wątpliwości, że najlepiej wiedzą jak odbudować środowisko, jak odbudować lasy są kraje członkowskie, ale mam pytanie do Komisji, czy krajowe plany renaturyzacji trafiające obecnie do Komisji są zaprojektowane tak, aby przeciwdziałać pożarom, co siłą rzeczy wiąże się z przebudową lasów.
Proszę państwa, jak chcecie osiągnąć poziom ambicji, które narzuca, zakłada Komisja, jeżeli obszary poddane renaturyzacji zostają w wyniku pożarów tracone szybciej niż można je odtworzyć? I kto będzie finansował tą odbudowę, skoro sprawozdanie Komisji dotyczące finansowania na podstawie artykułu 21 ustęp 7 wciąż nie zostało opublikowane, a wniosek dotyczący wspólnych ram finansowych nie przewiduje dedykowanego instrumentu? Dziękuję bardzo.
Billy Kelleher
Thank you very much. Just to say that we talk about national and regional partnership plans, we talk about the nature restoration plan, but I mean the most important word in all of that is partnership. We have to ensure that funding is put in place to make sure that number one, it's voluntary, number two, it's supported financially, and number three, that it doesn't impact on the common agricultural policy budget, which is there to ensure that we have food production and security of supply of food in the European Union.
I supported nature restoration, still stand by it, but we have to insist that programs are put in place to fund landowners, to fund those that manage the land, to make sure that they are part of this proposal to protect our biodiversity, to enhance the habitats of Europe and to build climate resilience into our land management as well. Otherwise we'll have a simple situation where we'll have confrontation, standoffs, and that is of no benefit to anybody as we've seen this summer with regard to the forest fires, but longer term into the future that people can buy into a long-term plan of sustainability and climate resilience. So funding is a key component in that and dialogue and debate to make sure it is a genuine partnership.
Zala Černilec Tomašič
Hvala. Približno 37 odstotkov ozemlja Slovenije je vključenega v Naturo 2000, kar je največji delež v Evropski uniji. Skoraj 60 odstotkov Slovenije pokrivajo gozdovi, v varstvo pa vlagamo že desetletja. Zato se postavlja pomembno vprašanje pravičnosti in sorazmernosti. Države, ki so že ohranile velik delež svojih ekosistemov, ne bi smele nositi enakih dodatnih bremen kot države, ki danes izhajajo iz bistveno drugačnega položaja.
In predvsem so upravičeno zaskrbljeni zaradi te uredbe naši kmetje. In zato imam dve konkretni vprašanji Komisiji.
Prvo, kako bo Komisija zagotovila, da bodo nacionalni načrti upoštevali različna izhodišča držav članic in predvsem, ali lahko Komisija zagotovi, da novih obveznosti obnove narave ne bodo plačevali naši kmetje oziroma da se zanje ne bodo zmanjševala obstoječa sredstva skupne kmetijske politike. Hvala.
Katri Kulmuni
Mr. Chair, arvoisa puheenjohtaja, I will be using Finnish. Ennallistaminen itse saan on toki tärkeä, mutta epäilen asetuksen olevan liian kategorinen, eikä siihen myöskään valitettavasti ole riittävää rahoitusta. Suomi sai ennallistamisasetuksesta erittäin korkeat tavoitteet, vaikka olemme yksi Euroopan harvimmin asutuista maista. Ennallistamisasetussuunnitelman arvioitu hintalappu on noin miljardi euroa vuodessa Suomessa joka ikinen vuosi tästä eteenpäin. Valitettavasti kotimaani tekee yli kymmenen miljardia alijäämää joka vuosi, joten en pidä puolen miljardin euron lisäystä suojeluennallistamismäärärahoihin kovinkaan realistisena.
Millaista rahoitusta komissio on ajatellut ennallistamisasetukselle EU-tasolla, koska valitettavan moni kansallisvaltio on oman budjettitaloutensa osalta aivan yhtä tiukassa asemassa kuin Suomikin ja ilman rahaa ennallistamista ei tule.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Last speaker Daniel Buda.
That's it. So we go back to the Commission, to Mr. Mamar.
Eric MAMER
Thank you so much. Once again, many, many points. So I will try to to answer as many of them as as possible. To Mr. Liese on on rewetting of of peatland. Now, I think we all agree, and I'm glad that you that you mentioned it, how important restoring peatlands is, not only for biodiversity, but also for climate change mitigation, water resilience, etc., etc.
Now, the NR is very explicit in ensuring that we have phased-in targets when it comes to the rewetting of of peatlands. And moreover, that this has to be based on agreements with the concerned stakeholders in order to incentivize them to contribute to this to this process. That is an extremely important important point. On the second point related to species, now this new species.
As I said, the NLR is a flexible instrument that recognizes that we have to act based on changing circumstances. Now, the starting point is to work with tree species that as far as possible are already part of the local environment because those are tree species that support already the local biodiversity. But we recognize, and the NLR does so, that it may be necessary to introduce species from other parts of Europe or potentially other types of species if this is shown to be the most effective way to ensure that forests are climate change resilient. Again, we do not want to be obliging member states to keep forests in a state which is not resilient. We want them to build resilient forests where this is necessary.
So I think I can reassure you on the fact that there is here a willingness to work constructively for the future of forests, not for the past of forests. On the number, the countries that have submitted the plans, I believe I said so in answer to Mrs. Boss, let me repeat this. We have received for the moment the plans from Spain, from the Netherlands, from Portugal, from Luxembourg, from Bulgaria. This is when I entered this room. Let me remind you that the 1st of September is still ongoing, so I hope that we will have other plans today or very, very soon.
We are working as best we can, but of course you cannot ask us to have already analyzed the plans which have not yet come in or which have just come in. So yes, we will look at the plans and analyze the investment needs that are identified in these plans in order to have with you good discussions on the EU financing that is required along other sources of financing. To MEP Sanders, again let me emphasize, peatland restoration is based on voluntary agreements with peatland stakeholders. And on the point that you have raised on us acting in secrecy, not at all. As I said in my introductory statement, we will be publishing our comments on the national plans.
To Mrs. Heranz on Member States' actions and how we control them. The implementation of EU legislation is a Member State responsibility. This applies to the NLR as well. Of course, we are in close contact with the Member States. This is why I have been traveling and will continue to travel to many Member States in order to emphasize the need for Member States to organize public consultations in a systematic manner.
I also meet civil society organizations to hear what they have to say, and I relay that information back to the Member State authorities.
However, this is a regulation that has to be implemented in by the Member States and they have obligations in that in that context. To MEP Boylan, my understanding is that the that Ireland is working on its on its plan and we expect it to be arriving quite soon and we definitely agree that non-deterioration is a priority. In fact, it is enshrined in the NRR and therefore plans should look at how non-deterioration actions can contribute to the preservation of our landscapes. I would like to emphasize as well in an answer to MEP Łukacijewska, I hope I pronounced that well, apologies if I didn't, that there are no targets set in 2027 for 2027 in the in the NRR. The outlook is to 2030, 2040 and 2050.
To MEP Kelleher, I would like to emphasize that the the financing of nature restoration measures for farmers in the Commission's CAP proposal is based on incentives.
Now of course, I would ask you to discuss this more in detail with my colleague Elizabeth Werner, but the whole philosophy is to ensure that farmers participate because they indeed have an interest in this and see a value for them in actually contributing to the preservation and restoration of our natural habitats and that the CAP and of course in conjunction with the nature restoration regulation and the plans under this SNR will work together to achieve this. To MEP Tomasic on the issue of recognizing that there are different starting points, absolutely. That is exactly the philosophy which is behind the fact that Member States present individual plans and that ultimately they are responsible for adopting their national plan. We will be making comments on what we believe is the value of the measures and the effectiveness and efficiency of the measures, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the Member State. And I would like to come back to one point which is important, which was raised by Mr. Gerbrandy on the link between climate adaptation plans and of course the NR.
You're absolutely right that we need to ensure that whatever will be in the proposal from the Commission on climate adaptation and climate resilience is of course entirely consistent with what we are doing under the NR. I have tried to cover everything as quickly but as thoroughly as I could. Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you so much, and now we switch...
Pierfrancesco Maran
For the next point of the agenda, we have invited Janez Lenarčič, Commissioner for Crisis Management, to update our committee on the management of wildfires in Europe. Commissioner, first thank you for accepting our invitation on such an important topic and at such a short notice. This summer's wildfires have been among the most devastating in recent history in several parts of Europe, destroying hundreds of thousands of hectares and triggering massive evacuations. Today, we have an important opportunity to discuss how the EU responded on the ground and, above all, what concrete lessons we must learn to be better prepared for the future. I want to highlight it's not the first time this committee and the Commissioner are discussing on this topic.
It's the third time in 2022, that demonstrates how much we care about evolving our policies on this point. The European response has demonstrated the importance of instruments such as the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, which allows Member States to mobilize assistance and resources when a country is overwhelmed by a major disaster.
We have also seen the importance of solidarity after a disaster. In July, this Parliament approved the mobilization of 144 million from the EU Solidarity Fund for Spain, Romania and Cyprus following major natural disasters in 2025, including wildfires, floods and heatwaves. These are essential instruments. When disaster strikes, Europe must be there. But solidarity after a disaster cannot be the only response.
Prevention must guide our policy choices and shape our priorities. The climate emergency is no longer an exceptional phenomenon. It is a structural reality. Our response must therefore also be structural, not limited to emergency response, but focused on prevention, preparedness and resilience. As wildfire becomes more frequent and intense, we need to invest more before an emergency occurs, in sustainable forest and land management, landscape maintenance, monitoring and early warning systems and more resilient ecosystems.
This also means pursuing responsive climate policies, because reducing climate risk is an essential part of preventing the conditions that make extreme wildfire more likely and severe.
There is also a strong economic case for prevention. New studies indicate that every euro invested in prevention and preparedness can generate from four to seven euros in saving in response and recovery costs. As we discuss the future of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism and the next financial framework, we should therefore be ready to strengthen common EU funding for prevention, preparedness, climate resilience and common response to climate change. So, dear Commissioner, welcome once again and the floor is yours.
Hadja Lahbib
Thank you, Mr. Chair, dear Moran, honorable members, it's a real pleasure to be with you. It is clear that this summer has tested us. Almost 700,000 hectares have already burned across the EU, more land than the yearly average of the past two decades. And the season is not over yet. Firefighters and pilots lost their lives doing their duty.
This wildfire season has been exceptional for mainly three reasons. First, the fires started earlier. The Netherlands and Czechia were already battling flames at the end of April.
This makes the wildfire season much more longer. Second, the wildfire map is moving north. Wildfires are no longer a southern problem. We are seeing them as far north as Germany, Scotland, Belgium, or even Greenland. And third, these fires have threatened major cities.
Near Madrid, near Bordeaux, forcing around 300,000 people from their homes. In France alone, it was the largest evacuation since the Second World War. This confirms what we already now knew. No country, no matter how rich or how powerful, can fight nature alone. Climate change is no longer knocking on Europe's door.
It is already inside.
So we joined forces and we showed what Europe is made of: solidarity in action. Europe answered every call for help, everyone. Nearly 800 firefighters from 14 European countries were prepositioned inside six high-risk states, more than three times the number in 2022. When one country is on fire, all of Europe answers. Our civil protection mechanism was activated 10 times for wildfires inside Europe and two times beyond Europe.
Our emergency center coordinated 40 aircrafts and 18 ground teams, boots on the ground, planes in the air, neighbors helping neighbors. I saw firsthand what that actually means. EU firefighters wearing different uniforms, speaking different languages, but all fighting the same fight, leaving their own homes to protect someone else's homes. And this solidarity didn't stop at our border, it crossed oceans. This summer we supported Venezuela, Colombia, and now Nepal.
So let me take this occasion to express once more my admiration and my gratitude to every firefighter, every volunteer, every duty officer who worked nights, weekends and holidays this summer. Thank you. Yesterday President von der Leyen came to our coordination center to express her appreciation in person and it means a lot. This summer has been yet another reminder of why we are working closely with Member States to strengthen prevention, reinforce our response and invest in our shared preparedness. And today more than yesterday, I'm convinced that with our preparedness union strategy, we are on the right track.
What I saw on the ground in the heat of the moment was a whole-of-society approach: soldiers, farmers, entrepreneurs, citizens fighting together in France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands. They all had one thing in common. They were not asking "what's in it for me?" They were asking "how can I help?" The mindset is changing.
But we need even more anticipation. Fighting fires after they start is no longer enough.
We have to act before the spark. Clearing dry brush, managing forests, warning people early, and investing in equipment built for this new climate. Not just firefighters, but city planners, farmers, businesses, every household near the tree line. Preparedness has to be built in from the start. That's why we propose a Council recommendation on managing wildfire risk and a communication to guide our work on preparedness.
And we need everyone on board. The EU, Member States, regions, local authorities, all acting as a Team Europe. One well-coordinated orchestra working together to protect our people and our land. Honorable members, Europe is the fastest-warming continent on the planet. And this is a reality that we have to address.
This summer infernos are only the beginning. They are being fed by exceptionally hot and dry conditions.
We have seen four heatwaves since May. Temperature passed 40 Celsius degrees across Western but also Central Europe. It is a very dangerous cocktail. Heat, wind and bone dry ground, nature has become a powder keg. And the damage has gone beyond the flames to farms, roads, hospitals, schools and power grids.
Our Copernicus satellites have produced over 400 maps to guide teams on the ground. 15 wildfire experts have rotated through our coordination center this summer, backed by our Aristotle partnership with scientists. Our rescue fleet of 18 planes and 5 helicopters, including our first aircraft fully paid for by the EU, stood ready across 11 member states, and four more planes were on standby through our civil protection pool.
These firefighting planes are Europe's wings of solidarity. But this wildfire season is a stark reminder of why we need rescEU and why we need more of it as well. The next EU budget will be crucial for securing the additional assets foreseen under the initial 2019 rescEU strategy. Four additional helicopters on top of the aircrafts already being procured. It's time to deliver on that.
Every year we call it the worst fire season on record. That should tell us something. That really should tell us something. The risks are changing fast, and we need an approach built to keep up with it. That is the question we need to answer in the UCPM and budget negotiations ahead.
Yes, preparedness costs money, but not being prepared costs a lot more in lives, homes, and so much more.
We cannot keep learning that lesson year after year. Before I finish, let me give you an update on our preparedness permanent rescue fleet. Production of our 12 rescue firefighting planes is on track, with the first delivery expected in early 2028. And at the same time, we are procuring the five helicopters. The first one based in Romania has already flown its first mission fighting fires in Serbia.
Honorable members, this summer has shown what Europe can do when we stand together. It has also shown the challenges ahead of us. We have a strong foundation, a system that delivers. Now we must make it stronger. And I am confident we will do exactly that, because the only answer to today's disaster is to join forces and stand together.
That is the European way. I thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, Commissioner.
We have many colleagues that want speak about this topic, so I propose that we can postpone to the next session the item 10 and 11 to have more time for this debate where many colleagues want speak. If there are no objection on this point, we start with the first round from every political group. We start with the EPP, Pascal Arimont. The first round is two minutes each. I kindly ask to respect the time.
Pascal Arimont
Ja, sehr geehrter Präsident, Madame la Commissaire, chère Hadja. Ich werde leider aus einem praktischen Beispiel erzählen müssen, wie Europa bei Waldbränden funktioniert. Vor zwei Wochen brannte vor meinen Augen ein Stück meiner Heimat ab, das belgische Hochmoor des Hohen Venns. 3500 Hektar brannten nieder. Vor genau einer Woche stand ich mit der Kommissarin Lahbib auf den verbrannten Wurzeln, um uns das Ausmaß anzuschauen und auch Lehren daraus zu ziehen, ob europäische Solidarität funktioniert hat oder nicht.
Rund 500 Hilfskräfte haben dieses Feuer gelöscht. Darunter waren unzählige Kräfte aus dem benachbarten Ausland. Darunter waren auch zwei Löschflugzeuge aus Schweden. Darunter waren Helikopter aus Norwegen, Deutschland und den Niederlanden. Und Belgien hat diesen Zivilschutzmechanismus dort eingeschaltet.
Die Hilfe kam sehr schnell. Auch die Person, die das koordiniert hat vom ERCC, war eine große Hilfe. Wir haben uns das vor Ort anschauen können.
Wir haben uns das vor Ort anschauen können und ich möchte folgende folgende Schlussfolgerungen ziehen und das kann man auch als allgemeine Schlussfolgerung für alle Waldbrände in Europa sehen. Zum ersten müssen wir diesen Schutzmechanismus weiter ausbauen, ihn verstärken. Wir müssen als zweitens die Flotte größer machen, vielleicht auch mal daran denken, dass wir diese Löschflugzeuge nicht anderswo kaufen, sondern vielleicht in Europa selbst herstellen, um da auch eine gewisse Autonomie zu erhalten, damit das auch vielleicht schneller geht. Drittens ein Aspekt, der uns allen aufgefallen ist in den letzten Wochen war die Anzahl an Freiwilligen, die dabei geholfen haben, diese Brände zu löschen und die Solidarität, die dort entstanden ist, ist großartig, aber wir sollten diese Freiwilligkeit in unsere Krisenpläne mit einbauen und auch nicht vergessen, diese Freiwilligen, nachdem es gebrannt hat, denn die waren es, die quasi verhindert haben, dass der Brand noch größer wurde, diese Kosten zu erstatten. Und ein dritt- oder vierter Punkt und dann höre ich auf.
Das Feuer löschen Feuerwehrleute. Und die Feuerwehrleute sind entweder hauptberuflich da oder auf freiwilliger Basis und die freiwilligen Feuerwehrleute verdienen es, dass ihre Freiwilligkeit nicht durch Sozialgesetzgebung verhindert wird.
Wir müssen daran was tun. Es ist mir zehnmal gesagt worden letzte Woche, und das ist etwas, was ganz dringend ist und was wir angehen sollten. Die verdienen nicht nur unseren Dank, sondern auch unsere Hilfe. Vielen Dank.
Leire Pajín
Thank you, Chair, dear Commissioner. Una vez más y un año más venimos aquí después del verano a analizar la respuesta de la Unión Europea ante los cada vez más devastadores y terribles incendios que sufrimos. Y lo haremos también durante todo el año, como hicimos en intercambios diferentes con usted a lo largo del año pasado. Venimos a lamentar la cantidad del territorio, de pueblos, de casas arrasadas y también de vidas humanas. Catorce fallecidos en mi país, en el incendio más mortífero de Europa, en Los Galardos, y también miles y miles de hectáreas que han batido ya récord.
Quiero que mis primeras palabras sean para las víctimas, ellas deben ser siempre, deben estar en el centro de nuestros debates y a ellas nos tenemos que referir.
Pero creo que este es un buen momento para aprender, como usted bien ha dicho, de las lecciones, de aquello que funciona y de aquello que no funciona. Porque hemos visto una vez más que lo que funciona son los planes de prevención que deben ponerse en marcha antes de que comience la campaña de incendios y que deben asumir aquellas administraciones que tienen responsabilidad, fomentando una cultura de la preparación de la ciudadanía y también formando a la ciudadanía. Pero sobre todo lo que funciona es también escuchar las reivindicaciones de los bomberos forestales, que deben estar bien pagados y bien dotados con todos los medios necesarios y no escatimar en los recursos ni desmantelar los servicios públicos. Lo que funciona es la coordinación cuando existe entre las administraciones a todos los niveles. Y lo que funciona es la integración de los planes de políticas de la lucha contra el cambio climático con la gestión forestal y la prevención de incendios.
Lo que no funciona en ningún caso es negar el cambio climático y la realidad. Lo que no funciona es desmantelar los servicios de emergencia y de preparación. Lo que no funciona en ningún caso es debilitar las políticas que protegen el control forestal y la biodiversidad. Por eso lo que queremos exigir una vez más aquí, y con esto acabo, es que seamos valientes. Tenemos una oportunidad en la mejora del mecanismo de protección civil para fomentar y mejorar los recursos, la prevención y la anticipación antes que la respuesta.
De ese lado nos va a tener, señora comisaria.
Barbara Bonte
Thank you, chair. Mevrouw de commissaris, ja, deze zomer ging in België 3000 hectare van de Hoge Venen in vlammen op. En zoals steeds lag het verdict klaar: klimaatverandering. Nu, mevrouw de commissaris, het klimaat bestuurt geen maaimachines, want alles wijst erop dat deze brand ontstond tijdens maaiwerken die de Waalse overheid zelf heeft laten uitvoeren in kurkdroge natuur op een moment van extreem brandgevaar. En dat alles, en de ironie kan nauwelijks groter, om de biodiversiteit te beschermen.
U verzint het niet. En eerst werd gewezen naar landbouwers, maar wie stond er uiteindelijk naast de brandweer om het vuur te bestrijden? Precies die landbouwers met hun tractoren, met hun vrachtwagens, met hun tankwagens. En misschien moet Europa eens wat vaker naar hen luisteren. Want vandaag wordt de klimaatverandering steeds het perfecte alibi voor bestuurlijk falen.
De EU heft belastingen op CO2, legt landbouwers steeds meer beperkingen op en spendeert miljarden aan zogenaamd natuurherstel. Maar ondertussen schiet het praktisch natuurbeheer tekort.
Meer regels, meer klimaatplannen, meer bureaucratie, maar blijkbaar niet meer gezond verstand. En uiteraard kan de droogte het risico op natuurbranden vergroten, maar droogte zet geen maaimachine in een natuurgebied aan het werk. En daarvoor zijn beslissingen nodig. En voor die beslissingen dragen beleidsmakers verantwoordelijkheid. Dus stop met elke ramp automatisch als argument voor nog meer klimaatbeleid te gebruiken.
Natuur bescherm je niet met klimaatdogma's. Natuur bescherm je met kennis van het terrein, met degelijk beheer, met verantwoordelijkheid en vooral met veel gezond verstand.
Grégory Allione
Madame la Commissaire Šuica, je m'associe forcément aux propos de Pascal et de Leïla avec qui nous partageons un certain nombre de points de vue. Vous l'avez remarqué cet été, effectivement, c'est toute l'Europe qui a brûlé. Et face à ces catastrophes, vous l'avez évoqué Madame la Commissaire, la solidarité européenne est indispensable. Mais cette solidarité européenne ne suffira plus, il faut donc la renforcer, il faut innover, il faut anticiper. Le premier enjeu, Pascal Arimont l'a dit, au niveau européen, ce sont 3,5 millions de sapeurs-pompiers volontaires.
En France, ce sont 200 000 sapeurs-pompiers volontaires. À cet élément citoyen, ils ont montré qu'ils pouvaient s'engager. À cet élément citoyen, est-ce que nous allons être capables de transformer cet élan citoyen en force opérationnelle ?
Il a évoqué le sujet social que nous évoquons régulièrement dans cette commission. Alors madame la commissaire, pourquoi ne pas réfléchir à un véritable cadre européen de l'engagement citoyen pour renforcer notre résilience sur de nombreux points, protection et défense civile ? Le deuxième enjeu c'est l'aménagement du territoire. Le monde agricole est une partie de la solution. Cet été ils se sont mobilisés, que ce soit dans le cadre du pastoralisme, l'entretien des espaces verts, les coupures agricoles, la mobilisation des agriculteurs lors de ces crises a été fondamentale.
Ça a été vrai en France, en Europe, mais aussi vous l'avez remarqué en Belgique. Et donc on vous le demande, est-ce qu'il y aura dans la prochaine PAC un élément permettant de mieux reconnaître, rémunérer, accompagner ces services rendus à la résilience de nos territoires ? Dans ce cadre-là madame la commissaire, accélérons la mise en place du cadre intégré pour la résilience climatique et la gestion des risques. Il faut que nous soyons ambitieux et que nous tirions enseignement des événements climatiques de cet été. Le troisième enjeu c'est notre souveraineté industrielle.
Vous m'entendez régulièrement prendre la parole sur ce domaine-là. Nous ne pouvons pas dépendre d'éléments ou d'avions qui seraient fabriqués outre-Atlantique notamment. Il y a des productions, il y a des solutions en Europe, il y a des projets qui existent.
Il y a des hélicoptères qui sont fabriqués en Europe. Il y a des projets tels que le Frégate 100, l'ATR 72 qui peut être modifié de deux façons, le kit de l'A400M. Et ces solutions-là, il faut véritablement avoir une stratégie industrielle et soutenir RescEU, certes, la R&D, les fonds européens et la commande publique. Madame la Commissaire, il faut réfléchir à un véritable Erasmus de la protection civile pour finir sur le modèle de l'exercice que vous allez déployer prochainement dans les Alpes en 2027. En fait, la résilience se construit dans les territoires.
L'Europe doit leur donner justement les moyens d'agir et rapprocher ces territoires de nos décisions. Je vous remercie.
Tilly Metz
Thank you. For the Greens, Tilly Metz.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for being with us today. So this summer, indeed, wildfires reached places where we are not used to seeing them, including to the border of Belgium and my own country, Luxembourg. Now, indeed, thanks to the effortless work of firefighters and volunteers, the flames are out, but it's now our responsibility to decide what kind of forest we want to build and to rebuild.
The Commission's guidelines on closer-to-nature forestry, also referred to in the communication on integrated wildfire risk management, provide us with an important direction. If we want really to build back better, we need to restore forests that are more diverse and more resilient to future fires and climate impacts. The monoculture, the monoculture that we saw, I was also in the southwest of France, dans les Landes, of highly inflammable species that burn so quickly in places such as, as I said, in the Landes, are highly problematic. Diversity within forest, including of species and ages of trees, are better for wildlife, whilst reducing also the risk of catastrophic fires and building resilience against other threats such as pests. And then I hear from the discussion that we had before in this committee, the nature restoration law, that some countries just do not submit a plan.
I find that really scandalous. We know what to do, and prevention and climate adaptation have to work together.
EU policies and funding must then help to reduce the risk before disasters happen, for example, by not funding monoculture plantations and not simply pay for repairing the damage afterward. For instance, also through forest monitoring. A stronger EU framework would have given us better coordination and better information on forest health and wildfire risk. But, as you remember, the forest monitoring law was voted down by the EPP and the far right. So I believe we can't seriously talk about how to reduce risk of extreme weather, as well as how to build resilience, while disregarding the very tools we need to understand how our forests are changing.
So, Commissioner, my question is, how will the Commission ensure that the recovery of the forest affected by this summer's fires is genuinely about building resilience for the future and that EU funding supports this objective? Sorry, I was a bit too long.
Emma Fourreau
Thank you. For the Left, Emma Fourreau.
Madame la Commissaire, notre forêt brûle et vous l'aspergez de kérosène. L'année 2024 bat de nouveaux de tristes records avec des mégafeux d'ampleur inédite et déjà plus de 632 000 hectares partis en fumée. Partout en Europe, ce sont des morts du fait des flammes ou de leurs fumées toxiques, des centaines de milliers de personnes déplacées, des villages entiers rasés par les flammes, des terres détruites, des animaux prisonniers du feu.
Force est de constater que les États membres n'étaient pas prêts. Pire, ils se sont volontairement sabordés ces dernières années. En France, le gouvernement de Gabriel Attal avait annulé la commande de deux Canadairs supplémentaires. Emmanuel Macron a largement amputé le budget de la défense des forêts contre les incendies, sans parler des services départementaux d'incendie et de secours dont les pompiers qui manifestaient en 2019 pour leurs conditions de travail se sont fait recevoir à coups de matraque et de gaz lacrymogène. Ils seront de nouveau dans la rue du 26 au 28 septembre car la situation n'a fait qu'empirer en sept ans.
Nous serons à leurs côtés. Alors la réponse européenne coordonnée que vous proposez pourrait être une solution via la mutualisation des moyens, mais elle ne permettra pas de faire face à des incendies partout simultanément sur le territoire européen. Et c'est pourtant bien ce qui va se produire les prochains étés. Lutter contre les incendies, ce n'est pas simplement éteindre les flammes quand elles sont là. C'est aussi arrêter de souffler sur les braises à longueur d'année.
Pour protéger nos forêts, nous avons donc besoin d'actions ciblées : diversification des essences d'arbres, gestion du cycle de l'eau, renaturation des milieux, limitation de l'étalement urbain. Mais nous avons besoin plus largement d'anticipation et d'actions écologiques fortes. Et c'est précisément tout ce que vous avez refusé de faire. Non seulement vous ne prenez aucune mesure ambitieuse pour atteindre l'objectif de neutralité carbone, mais en plus vous détruisez la faible législation existante. Pendant ce temps-là, sur les premiers mois de 2026, TotalEnergies faisait un bénéfice record de 11,4 milliards de dollars.
Le trafic aérien battait des records absolus de fréquentation en juillet et en août et les bénéfices des compagnies pétrolières augmentaient de près de 20 %. De quoi vous faire changer d'avis politique ? Toujours pas.
Vous nous préparez pour la rentrée encore plus de dérégulation environnementale. La forêt ne brûle pas par hasard ou par malchance. Elle brûle du fait des dizaines d'années d'inconscience écologique et d'alimentation du profit économique pour une poignée d'entreprises au détriment de l'environnement. Mais même lorsqu'elle brûle sous vos yeux, vous continuez à l'arroser de carburant, car vous ne faites rien pour combattre le dérèglement climatique et ses effets, au contraire, vous l'accélérez. Il est grand temps de bifurquer, d'engager enfin la planification écologique, et c'est ce que nous ferons dès l'année prochaine en France et en solidarité avec toute l'Europe avec la France insoumise et Jean-Luc Mélenchon au pouvoir.
Je vous remercie.
Marc Jongen
Thank you. For ESN, Marc Jongen.
Danke, Herr Vorsitzender, Frau Kommissarin. Zunächst gilt auch unser Dank den Feuerwehrleuten und nationalen Einsatzkräften, die in diesem Sommer Menschenleben gerettet und Ortschaften geschützt haben. Aber wenn wir über die Ursachen sprechen, sollten wir mit einer bequemen politischen Verkürzung aufräumen. Nicht jeder Waldbrand ist ein Beweis für eine angeblich immer weiter eskalierende Klimakrise. Sie haben selbst erklärt, Frau Kommissarin, dass bis zu 96 % der Brandentstehungen menschengemacht sind.
Allein in Frankreich, Griechenland und Portugal wurden bis Ende Juli rund 560 Personen im Zusammenhang mit ausgelösten Waldbränden festgenommen.
Hinzu kommen Fahrlässigkeit, mangelnde Wald- und Landschaftspflege und große Mengen an brennbarem Unterholz. Gerade Frankreich und Spanien zeigen, wie komplex die Ursachen sind. Ein sehr niederschlagsreicher Winter ließ die Vegetation stark wachsen, im Sommer trocknete sie dann aus, und dann genügt eine Zündquelle, um den Waldbrand auszulösen. Gleichzeitig zeigen internationale Satellitendaten keinen simplen Trend, wonach weltweit immer mehr Fläche verbrennt. Trotzdem wird nahezu jedes Feuer politisch genutzt, um erneut CO2-Politik und den Green Deal zu rechtfertigen.
Dasselbe gilt für die Preparedness Union und den europäischen Krisenmechanismus. Der Crisis Coordination Hub und der weitere Ausbau der UCPM drohen zum Einfallstor für eine schleichende EU-Zentralisierung von Katastrophenschutzkompetenzen zu werden. Waldbrände sind kein Grund, um immer neue exekutive Steuerungsrechte nach Brüssel zu verlagern. Praktische Hilfe zwischen Mitgliedstaaten und das bestehende ERCC sind etwas anderes als eine dauerhafte zentrale Krisensteuerung, zumal diese Institution dann selbstständig Ausnahmezustände und Krisenzustände ausrufen könnte europaweit.
Wir brauchen keinen Krisenzentralismus, sondern Ursachenaufklärung, Prävention, aktive Waldpflege, Stichwort Biodiversität, konsequente Strafverfolgung bei Brandstiftung und leistungsfähige nationale Feuerwehren. Deshalb zwei Fragen an die Kommission: Welche konkreten Daten erhebt die Kommission zu vorsätzlich gelegten Waldbränden und zu deren Motiven? Und wie grenzt die Kommission den Crisis Coordination Hub gegenüber nationalen Krisenstäben und dem bestehenden ERCC ab? Danke.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. So now we leave the floor to the Commissioner El Haïté for a first round of answers.
Hadja Lahbib
Je vais répondre en français et en anglais. Tout d'abord, vous savez, on a vécu beaucoup de drames cet été. Et ce qui m'a le plus choquée, c'est de rencontrer les personnes évacuées, de voir les volontaires à l'œuvre, de voir des pompiers travailler au-delà du possible qu'un être humain peut fournir, mettre leur santé en danger, et de voir aussi cet énorme élan de solidarité.
C'était assez incroyable. Et c'est vraiment ça qui doit nous inspirer et qui devrait aujourd'hui, qui doit absolument guider nos débats. Nous inspirer des citoyens, de la façon dont spontanément ils se mettent à s'aider les uns les autres, à déployer tous les moyens possibles, que ce soit les agriculteurs avec effectivement leurs propres moyens. On a encore en tête les images de leurs tanks d'eau qui viennent aider les pompiers à éteindre les feux. Et aussi des citoyens qui ont peur aujourd'hui, qui ont peur, que ce soit à Madrid, que ce soit dans le sud de la France, que l'été arrive et qui redoutent en fait les vacances, là où on les attendait avec impatience, parce qu'elles sont synonymes aujourd'hui de catastrophes naturelles.
Alors s'il vous plaît, essayons de dépasser les couleurs politiques, les partis pris, et travaillons ensemble. Oui, il va falloir reconstruire et ne pas répéter les mêmes erreurs. Et pour ça, il faut comprendre d'abord ce qui s'est passé. Peu importe que l'on reconnaisse ou pas le changement climatique, de toute façon, ce sont aussi les agriculteurs, Madame Bond, qui paient le prix. Ils en paient le prix pleinement et si vous dites qu'il n'y a pas de sécheresse, eux en tout cas ils le voient dans leurs collectes, ça je peux vous le dire, dans leurs récoltes.
Elle est là quotidiennement. Et on va aussi en subir les conséquences à la caisse quand il faudra acheter nos fruits et légumes cet hiver. Alors Monsieur Pascal Arimont est parti, mais il était avec moi, je lui ai proposé de me suivre lorsque je me suis rendue dans les Hautes Fagnes. Et il y a quelque chose d'important à souligner, c'est que oui, le feu arrive très au nord, en Belgique, aux Pays-Bas où la saison a commencé le 30 avril dernier. Mais cette fois, on a vu des pays aussi qui pour la première fois ont activé très vite le mécanisme de solidarité européenne et qui n'ont pas attendu d'être dépassés complètement par les événements pour enfin activer et demander de l'aide.
C'est ce qui nous a permis aussi de limiter les catastrophes. Et donc oui, il nous faut plus de volontaires. J'ai parcouru la France du nord au sud et du sud au nord cet été. J'ai vu aussi les appels désespérés pour avoir plus de volontaires, pour avoir des pompiers. Mais comment former des pompiers sur le tas ?
Comment avoir des feux des volontaires alors que le feu est là et qu'il faut savoir évidemment comment y répondre ? Pour ça, vous le savez, un des projets qui me tient le plus à cœur, c'est d'avoir ce Erasmus+ qui intègre, et c'est déjà le cas, on a déjà commencé, toutes les notions de protection civile, d'état de préparation, de prévention et de gestion des crises dès le plus jeune âge. On voudrait aussi l'inclure dans les cours dès l'école, dès les primaires. C'est à l'œuvre, on travaille avec le commissaire Schinas et nous avons aussi le European Solidarity Corps qui est là, qui peut aussi s'orienter, et c'est déjà le cas, c'est en cours, vers l'état de préparation. Et enfin, pour la première fois cet été, au mois de juin, nous avons rassemblé des jeunes pompiers volontaires à Varsovie.
Ils étaient une vingtaine. Ce n'est pas assez. Je voudrais que l'été prochain ils soient 27. Alors il y a aussi un rendez-vous très important, j'en profite pour le lancer avec vous, le 26 octobre prochain, mais disons en automne prochain en fait, nous fêterons le 25e anniversaire du mécanisme de solidarité de l'Union européenne, UCPM, qu'on a lancé le au mois d'octobre 2001. Donc 2026 ce sera 25 ans.
Faisons-en un événement. Je vais aller contacter tous les États membres et j'espère qu'ils saisiront cette occasion pour préparer mieux leurs populations. J'ai aussi rencontré cet été beaucoup d'évacués et la plupart m'ont avoué qu'ils n'avaient pas du tout leur kit de survie. Ils ne savaient pas quoi prendre quand ils n'ont eu qu'une demi-heure pour beaucoup d'entre eux pour choisir ce qu'ils devaient prendre avant de quitter une maison qui peut-être ne reverraient jamais. Vous le savez, parmi eux d'ailleurs il y avait un certain George Clooney qui était dans le sud de la France.
Peut-être qu'on peut le prendre aussi comme ambassadeur et construire sur sa notoriété pour dire voilà, on peut être aussi riche qu'on veut, on peut avoir les moyens qu'on veut, devant le feu, devant les catastrophes naturelles, nous sommes tous égaux et il faut s'aider. Il faut déployer les bonnes politiques.
Alors je vais essayer de répondre aussi de façon très concrète aux questions que vous m'avez posées, entre autres concernant Grégory Allione, l'autonomie et la souveraineté industrielle. Vous savez que c'est quelque chose qui me tient à cœur aussi, même si nous attendons avec impatience les Canadairs, les avions bombardiers qui doivent nous être fournis. Je me rendrai bientôt là-bas moi-même au Canada pour voir où ça en est pour combattre le feu. Bien sûr, il faut qu'on ait nos propres moyens, bien sûr, il faut développer nos propres capacités aériennes, en sachant d'ailleurs que par exemple pour les Fagnes où je me suis rendu, ben un Canadair n'aurait pas été utile parce qu'un Canadair, ben il faut de l'espace, il faut pouvoir écopé de l'eau proche d'une mer, c'était pas le cas, c'était pas la géographie qui pouvait correspondre à ces besoins et d'ailleurs la Belgique ne l'a pas demandé. Ça allait tout à fait en France et c'est pourquoi d'ailleurs nous avons déployé au plus haut de la crise, si je me souviens bien, à peu près huit avions et cinq hélicoptères en France.
Et je tiens à le dire et à le répéter, nous avons été capables de répondre à toutes les demandes faites par les États membres, toutes.
Non, nous n'avons pas... bien sûr, nos moyens ont été mis sous pression, mais jamais nous n'avons dû dire : "Nous ne sommes pas capables, nous n'avons pas les moyens, nous sommes occupés avec l'Espagne ou nous sommes occupés avec la Grèce". Non, on a pu répondre à tout. C'est ça aussi qu'il faut renforcer, c'est la preuve qu'un mécanisme européen, c'est ça qu'il faut développer parce qu'on ne peut pas avoir des capacités énormes dans un coin de l'Europe et puis les garder pour soi. Il faut mettre en commun et c'est vers ça qu'il faut aller. C'est pour ça que nous avons demandé, vous le savez, un budget assez ambitieux, trois fois le budget que nous avons à l'heure actuelle, 11,7 milliards.
Le comité, le président a décidé ici qu'il nous fallait plutôt 12,9 milliards. Fine, si on peut avoir plus, évidemment nous serons ravis. Mais il faut agir sur tous les niveaux. Des avions, des camions, ça ne suffit pas. Il faut absolument avoir une approche globale, une approche holistique.
Et c'est pour ça que nous avions eu une communication intégrée pour lutter contre les feux de forêt en mars dernier et que nous avons aussi eu un échange avec les États membres, des conseils, des recommandations pour les aider à aborder ce qu'on appelle maintenant non plus la saison de l'été mais plutôt la saison des feux. Some of you have asked me what can we do with to allocate the right funding for the restoration of the nature. I would like to underline the fact that around 4.5 billion actually is allocated for investment in wildfire risk management at national, regional and local levels for the period 2021 and 2027. And currently 12 projects worth 6.9 million are being funded through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism grants to improve national preparedness and build resilience against wildfires. And in May, as I said, the EU released a new guide on good practices for raising risk awareness and for effective communication on wildfires.
As the majority of you know, the majority of the fires are provoked by human activity. And it was the case in Gironde and probably the case in the High Fens.
It's still under investigation. And so we are scaling up preventive measures and when it comes to the agriculture policy, the CAP finances investment also to restore production potential of farms affected by natural disaster or adverse climatic events. So it is not my funds, it is the CAP funds, but it's already there. And for instance, the nature restoration regulation, in addition to contributing to wildfire prevention by enhancing forest resilience, also provides a framework to identify where restoration is needed, select measures that suit to local conditions and integrate them into national restoration plans. So we see, you see, we have a comprehensive approach, a holistic one, which is really the strategy that we need to deploy for a good prevention of this kind of risks.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we go to the second round, one minute and 30 seconds for each. We have many colleagues, as we said. We start with Esther Sanz García.
Esther Herranz García
Muchas gracias, presidente. Señora comisaria, desde un punto de vista medioambiental está muy bien la sensibilización de la población, sobre todo si es joven y en las escuelas, le felicito por ello, y también la solidaridad interna entre los Estados miembros para ayudarse con medios y con todos los instrumentos que tengan a su alcance, pero le voy a pedir que amplíe el foco. Verá, resulta que aparte de los cambios climáticos con situaciones extremas como estamos viviendo, resulta que tenemos unos recursos en algunos Estados miembros que en la lucha contra incendios, en la extinción, pero también en la prevención, son menores que hace diez años. Por ejemplo en España, ¿sabe? Y resulta que llevamos varios años sin presupuestos generales del Estado y entonces no aumentan, al contrario, disminuyen los medios.
Mire, estamos abandonando los usos tradicionales del campo con la agricultura y la ganadería que cada vez son más menguantes. Tenemos una insuficiente gestión forestal porque hay una legislación europea que es restrictiva y coercitiva y a través de dificultades administrativas impide a territorios declarados Red Natura 2000 hacer cosas que se han hecho siempre, como los cortafuegos, las limpiezas, las gestiones, las veredas. Y además, mire, somos tan absurdos que estamos, ahora nos acabamos de dar cuenta que tenemos un montón de especies ornamentales en las áreas mixtas entre urbanas y medio natural que resulta que propagan el fuego en vez de frenarlo. Ni siquiera hemos prestado atención a eso. Luego, por tanto, tenemos muchos deberes por hacer.
Y yo creo que podríamos empezar por revisar la legislación europea en esta materia. Gracias.
Christophe Clergeau
Merci Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire. Je dois dire, je suis outré par les propos tenus par l'extrême droite dans cette réunion. Une fois de plus, c'est le déni climatique qui s'installe. J'ai entendu les feux de forêt n'ont pas grand-chose à voir avec la sécheresse ou le changement climatique. C'est Madame Bonté qui disait ça et vous, Madame Brassier-Clain, du parti de Jordan Bardella et de Marine Le Pen, vous n'avez pas dit le contraire, vous n'avez même pas exprimé le moindre désaccord.
Et pourquoi c'est scandaleux ? Parce que bien sûr les feux de forêt ne sont pas d'origine climatique.
Mais tous les pompiers, tous les gens qui étaient sur place, tous les experts ont vu que l'accélération des feux, leur amplification, leur violence, leur mortalité, elle était liée au changement climatique et à la canicule qui avait créé ces conditions totalement dévastatrices. Alors évidemment, si on pense qu'il n'y a pas de lien avec le changement climatique, il ne faut pas se préparer à plus d'incendies, plus de canicules et plus de difficultés. Dans ce cas-là, il ne faut pas de Canadair si tout peut être réglé par de la prévention. Eh bien cela, c'est absolument criminel. Il va falloir que ça s'arrête, que vous rendiez des comptes.
Ça fait des années que vous bloquez les textes, que vous bloquez des initiatives, que vous nous dites qu'il ne faut rien faire. Et pendant ce temps-là, ce sont les habitants qui paient la facture et les pompiers qui meurent du fait de vos mensonges et de votre capacité à neutraliser le débat public et à bloquer les décisions positives. Alors au contraire, il faut agir, il faut produire des Canadair en Europe avec une filière industrielle, il faut investir dans la recherche et innovation pour adapter la lutte et il va falloir un plan européen d'investissement pour avoir des équipements à la hauteur pour que les pompiers ne meurent pas dans les feux parce qu'aujourd'hui, ce qu'on voit dans tous les départements et les pays, c'est qu'on n'a pas le bon niveau d'investissement. Merci beaucoup.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Muchas gracias, presidente, y gracias, comisaria. Europa vuelve a sufrir sus grandes incendios debido al cambio climático y a la situación de los montes y de las zonas rurales. Pero hay que dar, esta situación requiere un giro en la política forestal.
Un monte sobreprotegido está abandonado y tarde o temprano es pasto de las llamas. Por tanto, hay que ponerse en marcha y promover una gestión activa y no pasiva de los montes. Hay que simplificar las normas que dificultan las autorizaciones a las instituciones para restaurar el monte, respuesta más rápida. Y hay que volver a antaño e introducir en los montes silvicultores, agricultores sostenibles y pastoreo conducido, porque esta es la vida económica de las zonas rurales y al mismo tiempo cuidan los montes para evitar el exceso de combustible. Europa y este Parlamento tiene un grupo de protección civil y está haciendo esfuerzo en la investigación: satélites, nuevas tecnologías.
Hay un centro de investigación de la Comisión Europea en Sevilla y sería un sitio ideal para añadir una unidad especializada de análisis, seguimiento y comportamiento de los grandes incendios forestales en Europa. En mi país, este verano, quince víctimas mortales, Los Gallardos ha sido terrible. Y para ello, para las zonas calcinadas, hay que poner rápidamente el fondo de solidaridad, pero también queremos agradecer el refuerzo del rescEU.
Ha sido fundamental en atacar los incendios, agradeciendo a los bomberos forestales su trabajo. Y como desgraciadamente en mi país los Next Generation no se han utilizado, solo en un 1% en la prevención, 1%. Por tanto, necesitamos tener más recursos, recursos adicionales o una nueva oportunidad del Next Generation para ello y más aviones al respecto modernizados. Muchas gracias.
Anne-Sophie Frigout
Thank you. Now for Patricia Chagnon-Clevers.
Madame la Commissaire, les incendies ont traversé l'Europe cet été, je regrette que vous n'ayez pas pris conscience de l'une des causes criantes de la propagation incontrôlée de ces incendies : la destruction de notre agriculture. Les études sont pourtant éloquentes. La déprise agricole laisse place à des friches végétales et forestières très inflammables sur des terres qui, lorsqu'elles étaient cultivées, créaient des pare-feux naturels. La destruction de l'élevage et du pastoralisme, notamment par les accords de libre-échange, cause de plus en plus l'embroussaillement des pâtures autrefois entretenues par les bergers et leurs troupeaux. Même chose pour la filière vin qui est au bord du gouffre, frappée notamment par une chute drastique de la consommation.
Et face à cette crise existentielle, la seule réponse de la Commission est l'arrachage des vignes. Mais arracher sans donner de nouvel avenir à ces terres, c'est laisser derrière nous des friches hautement inflammables.
Le Languedoc en a déjà payé le prix : après des plans massifs d'arrachage, la prolifération des friches s'est accompagnée d'incendies ravageurs en 2025. Les tenants de la décroissance qui idéalisent une nature laissée à elle-même doivent comprendre que l'effondrement de l'activité agricole, c'est-à-dire la nature sans l'homme, ce sont de gigantesques friches qui s'étendent, des incendies qui se propagent et des forêts qui brûlent, et avec elles toute une biodiversité. Je pense que cet été nous a une nouvelle fois démontré que nous ne devons plus emprunter ce chemin.
Andrea Wechsler
Sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin Lahbib, vielleicht wird dieser Sommer als ein Sommer der Lawinen in Erinnerung bleiben: die gewaltige Eis- und Gerölllawine im Himalaya und die Feuerwalze, die sich durch Teile Europas gefressen hat.
Ich war selbst in diesem Sommer in Deutschland, Frankreich und Italien in Waldbrandgebieten, und wenn man dort die verbrannten Landschaften sieht und mit den Menschen spricht, versteht man sehr unmittelbar: Bevölkerungsschutz ist keine abstrakte europäische Aufgabe. Es geht um Häuser, Existenzen und Menschenleben. Und mein Dank geht an dieser Stelle an alle Menschen und Einsatzkräfte, die sich diesen Themen gewidmet haben. Und gerade hier zeigt Europa, was es kann. Fast 800 Feuerwehrleute aus 14 Ländern, Fahrzeuge, Luftfahrzeuge wurden in diesem Sommer vorsorglich in besonders gefährdeten Regionen eingesetzt, und Sie haben es selber gesagt: Die rescEU-Flotte ist im Aufbau.
Das ist europäische Solidarität, wie sie funktioniert. Aber wenn sie funktioniert und wenn Europa schützt, dann müssen die Menschen das doch auch sehen können. Und warum ist nicht jedes EU-finanzierte Einsatzfahrzeug und jede europäische Einheit klar und unübersehbar europäisch mit einer Europaflagge gekennzeichnet? Und damit meine ich nicht nur ein kleines Emblem. Denn Europa muss nicht nur schützen, die Menschen müssen auch sehen, dass Europa schützt.
Danke schön.
Ana Vasconcelos
Thank you. Let me start by saying you don't need to deny climate change to be critical of what the EU has done to prevent and adapt to it. It is a much more productive discussion if we discuss proper solutions to address the reality that all of us are seeing. So let's move forward from that stage of the debate.
Now, as you said, Commissioner, the wildfire season started exceptionally early this year and it affected non-traditional wildfire countries. So the first question I have for you is how the adjustments that the EU plans to make to address this new, what seems to be our new baseline, will affect the Southern European infrastructure for both prevention and response to wildfires. The second question I have for you is more broader, is broader and is about preparedness, most of all civic preparedness, the preparedness of our populations. Portugal has, aside from wildfires, suffered from floods, storms, even a blackout. And it's patent how unprepared populations are and what a difference it can make in saving people's lives, not just their own, but the people around them, if they're properly prepared, if they have emergency kits, if they know what to do and more importantly, what not to do.
I know that you value this and this is, you're very ambitious in this regard. And I also know that you've been facing a mindset challenge, which is the fear that Member States have of alarming populations with a preparedness agenda. Do you see a pathway for progress to work with Member States and improve the preparedness of populations?
Thank you very much.
Letizia Moratti
Grazie, Commissario. L'Europa si sta scaldando più rapidamente della media globale e la crescente intensità degli incendi estivi dimostra la necessità di rafforzare le politiche di adattamento climatico. Intende rafforzare la strategia europea di riforestazione per ripristinare le risorse verde distrutte dagli incendi, anche sostenendo l'obiettivo di piantare un miliardo di alberi nelle città per mitigare gli effetti del cambiamento climatico e ridurre il rischio di catastrofi? Fondamentale inoltre è la gestione efficace delle risorse idriche, spesso ostacolata da vincoli burocratici e normativi.
All'articolo 2 paragrafo 3 per superare la norma che oggi considera rifiuti quasi tutti i materiali rimossi dai fiumi ed estendere deroghe a legno, vegetazione e detriti derivanti dalla manutenzione ordinaria e preventiva degli alvei e delle opere idrauliche per prevenire inondazioni e ottimizzare l'utilizzo dell'acqua anche ai fini degli incendi. Intende la Commissione procedere in questa direzione con un pacchetto semplificazione per la preparazione alle crisi per interventi tempestivi di prevenzione della siccità, riduzione del rischio incendi e rafforzamento della resilienza idrica e territoriale? Grazie.
Thomas Bajada
Thank you. For S&D, Thomas Bajada.
I don't need to repeat what this summer has showed us from wildfires to critical infrastructure under stress and after this summer science shows us very well that storms will be even stronger after the warm waters that we are experiencing in the Mediterranean. So Commissioner, I'm looking forward for the climate resilience and risk management framework that you are expected to present in the coming weeks as this will be a great opportunity to deliver tangible actions that we can take. And my question is if there will be a genuine joint governance structure between your services and DG CLIMA and if so will the 10.7 billion euro for preparedness that you yourself are calling for in the next European budget reach prevention actions towards better land management which in itself can help prevent wildfires, will it be used to ensure greater access to water, early warning systems, urban spaces that help us cope our communities with extreme heat and concrete protection for the most vulnerable communities because if we really want to become a resilient society we cannot continue paying after disaster has already struck.
Because if we really want to become a resilient society, we cannot continue paying after disaster has already struck and after bodies have been collected. We need to invest before. Thank you, Commissioner.
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
Thank you. For Patriots, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain.
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Merci, Madame la Commissaire. Je souhaite tout d'abord répondre brièvement à Monsieur Clergeau. Vos accusations sont insupportables. Je ne me suis pas exprimée.
Est-ce que vous allez m'accuser d'allumer le feu ? Et nous soutenons, je précise que nous soutenons le mécanisme de protection civile. Et maintenant je passe à mon intervention. Je veux tout d'abord saluer le courage et le professionnalisme des pompiers tout au long de cet été ravageur. Les plans de crise se succèdent tout comme les critiques sur le manque de moyens : zones dépourvues de pare-feu, manque d'avions, d'hélicoptères et absence de stratégie de gestion unifiée dans certains pays.
Puisqu'on sait que les épisodes d'incendie vont devenir de plus en plus fréquents, il faut s'inspirer de pays avancés en la matière. L'Australie est un bon exemple.
Elle a mis sur pied un système d'alerte qui évalue le système de risque en amont et qui indique à la population comment réagir lorsque le feu est en cours. Le pays n'attend donc pas que la catastrophe se produise pour diffuser des alertes au public par tous les canaux possibles, la signalisation, les bulletins météo, les applications des services d'urgence et les médias. L'Australie, c'est aussi le pays qui pratique les brûlages dirigés de façon beaucoup plus systématique qu'en Europe afin de réduire la charge de combustible. Mais pour mieux lutter contre les incendies, encore faut-il que nous soyons capables en Europe de créer un certain nombre d'exemptions environnementales, par exemple pour faciliter l'accès des pompiers. Et je voudrais finir en déplorant le nombre impressionnant d'incendies involontaires et volontaires, donc criminels.
En France, plus de 400 incendiaires ont été interpellés cet été, dont une part importante de mineurs. Cela appelle donc une réponse pénale implacable et une grande sensibilisation. Je vous remercie.
Gracias, presidente. Señorías, primero agradecer a todos los bomberos, brigadistas, agentes forestales, militares y voluntarios que este verano se han jugado la vida frente a las llamas. Ellos merecen medios, respeto y verdad.
Nora Junco García
El cambio climático no lo prende una cerilla, no enciende una barbacoa ni prende deliberadamente un monte. Pueden empeorar las condiciones, sí, pero no puede convertirse en la coartada perfecta de una incompetencia. En España más del 80% de los incendios tiene un origen humano y mientras los gobiernos culpan al clima, en España la inversión pública en prevención ha caído más de un 50% entre 2009 y 2022. Hoy tenemos un gobierno incapaz de aprobar unos presupuestos generales desde 2023, es decir, tres años gobernando con las mismas cuentas prorrogadas mientras nuestros montes acumulan combustible. Acumulamos reglamentos, acumulamos restricciones, autorizaciones, evaluaciones que dificultan limpiar los montes, abrir cortafuegos, retirar biomasa o realizar quemas controladas o permitir que el ganado haga lo que siempre ha hecho, que es pastorear, mantener vivo el bosque y un territorio limpio.
Necesitamos penas más duras para que los incendiarios y las sanciones verdaderamente disuasorias para las imprudencias graves. Quien provoca un incendio debe responder con todas sus consecuencias. Los incendios se apagan en verano, pero se evitan en invierno, con gestión forestal, cortafuegos, pastoreo, vigilancia y profesionales durante todo el año.
¿Se compromete esta Comisión a revisar toda la normativa europea que puede retrasar o dificultar los desbroces, cortafuegos, quemas prescritas, retirada de biomasa y el pastoreo preventivo estableciendo procedimientos rápidos para las zonas de alto riesgo? ¿Va a condicionar los fondos europeos destinados a los Estados miembros a planes verificables de prevención durante todo el año con objetivos y ejecución presupuestaria y resultados públicos? Y finalmente, ¿impulsará un marco europeo que refuerce las penas por incendios intencionados y por imprudencias graves? Gracias.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Dank u, meneer de voorzitter, en veel dank ook voor commissaris Lahbib voor uw enorme inzet en uw woorden vandaag. En ik ben het volkomen met u eens dat we veel meer moeten doen dan we tot op heden gedaan hebben. Ook het kopen van wat extra Canadairs of Chinooks is onvoldoende. En dat doet mij denken aan de watersnoodramp in 1953 in Nederland. Wij zijn toen niet met wat extra zandzakken ons gaan weren tegen het water.
Nee, we zijn het fundamenteel gaan aanpakken met Nederlandse Deltawerken. En dat is precies wat we nu in Europa nodig hebben om ons te verweren tegen klimaatverandering. Europese Deltawerken tegen branden, maar ook tegen droogte, tegen wolkbreuken, tegen eigenlijk alles wat met klimaatverandering te maken heeft. En dat betekent wel dat we ook een heel stevig klimaatbeleid moeten hebben, wat helaas hier door rechts continu opzij wordt geschoven.
We hebben koelere, groenere steden nodig, ander duurzamere landbouw. We moeten naar onze energievoorziening en scheepvaart kijken die in gevaar komen ook door deze rampen. En mevrouw Lahbib, ik zou u willen oproepen om dit niet alleen te doen, maar Europese Deltawerken hebben een gezamenlijke strategische aanpak vanuit de Commissie nodig. Dus met uw collega's Hoekstra, Roswall, Hansen, inclusief mevrouw von der Leyen om die Europese Deltawerken tegen klimaatverandering echt vorm te gaan geven. Dank u.
Lena Schilling
Thank you very much, dear Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for being here. I have to say this debate makes me insanely angry. 630 hectares were burned down in the EU just this summer. 18 hectares are the size of one average farm of the EU.
That means over 35,000 farms were burned down. You want to speak about agriculture, let's speak about agriculture. A average farmer had to sell three times more cows because there was just not enough grass to feed them anymore. This is the climate crisis, the droughts, the heatwaves, the dying people, and we should and have to address that.
Today I'm not just speaking as a member of the European Parliament. Today I'm speaking for a generation that deserves a future, for a generation that we favorably not hear and not listen to anymore because we think, na ja, but let's just talk about competitiveness. I will tell you something, there is no competitiveness on a dead planet. And let's make it a bit more concrete. I also want to thank the firefighters that are now trying to get down the fires that we actually set with not taking the political measures we should have been taking years before, and that's not your fault.
I think that what we have to do now is stand up together. The Commission needs to have a council, an extraordinary council on dealing with the consequences of climate crisis right now. This is the beginning and we know it. I'm here in a room full of experts that know it better. And I think the key thing is, today we're still seeing the inaction of Member States and of the political leaders.
And I will not remain silent and I think a lot of us not. There is no time for delay anymore. We need heat waves action plans, we need mitigation, we need money, we need the infrastructure and we need it now.
Ana Miranda Paz
Thank you. For the Left, Anja Hazekamp.
Gracias, presidente, y gracias, comisaria. Estamos delante de una nueva generación de incendios a la que hay que realizar no solo prevención continua, impedir que se rebajen fondos para la prevención y para la resiliencia como ha pasado en mi país, en Galicia. Y para eso tenemos que tener una conciencia situacional, un análisis del territorio como zona de riesgo, considerando factores como el cambio climático y el abandono del rural. Vivimos en núcleos de población que hasta ahora nunca habían tenido riesgo potencial ante los incendios y ahora sí lo tienen. Los vecinos salvando a los vecinos, como decía usted, comisaria.
Necesitamos una planificación preventiva dinámica con estrategias para crear un paisaje resiliente, no basado en el monocultivo, a través de la gestión forestal sostenible y la creación de áreas estratégicas de gestión. Pero también lo que necesitamos es la autoprotección, medidas claves para la preparación de la población, incluyendo la información sobre los planes de emergencia, porque no existen. ¿Para cuándo un plan europeo con medidas de prevención, de autoprotección, un plan europeo y que también integre todos los territorios competentes?
Y también la formación para el mantenimiento seguro de las viviendas y el adiestramiento para una respuesta efectiva. No es posible que alcaldes como el de A Mezquita en Ourense, el año pasado yo se lo conté a usted, comisaria, cuando le regalé la fotografía de la exposición que tuvimos en el Parlamento Europeo, tuvieron que salir con sus propias manos a apagar el fuego con todos sus vecinos. Muchas gracias.
András Tivadar Kulja
Thank you, Chair. Köszönöm szépen, biztos asszony, ezt a fontos eszmecserét. Ahogy említette, az erdőtüzek már egész Európát érintik. Magyarországon pedig ezen a nyáron megtapasztaltuk, hogyan erősítik egymást a klímaváltozással összefüggő kockázatok. Ennek fontos tanulsága, hogy az erdő- és vegetációtüzek többé nem tekinthetjük ezeket csupán Dél-Európa problémájának.
A klímaváltozás teljes egészében átrajzolja Európa kockázati térképét. Közép- és Kelet-Európának is fel kell készülnie azokra az összetett környezeti válságokra, amikor a hőség, az aszály, a vízhiány, a tüzek és az egészségügyi kockázatok egyszerre jelentkeznek. Ugyanis a tüzek hatása nem áll meg a lángoknál. Az erdőtüzek füstje és a finom részecskék országhatárokon átterjednek, különösen veszélyeztetve a gyermekek és az idősek krónikus betegek egészségét.
Nem beszélve a tűzoltókról és akik a tüzeket próbálják limitálni. Ráadásul az EU az EFFIS és a Copernicus Emergency Management Service révén már jelentős megfigyelési kapacitásokkal rendelkezik. Ezért a kérdésem, hogy hogyan kívánja a Bizottság ezeket a rendszereket úgy továbbfejleszteni, hogy Közép- és Kelet-Európa, köztük Magyarország változó tűzkockázati rizikóinak megfelelően ezek a területek is megfelelő figyelmet kapjanak, helyileg meghatározott, pontos, gyors előrejelzésekkel a hatóságok és a lakosság számára. Köszönöm szépen.
Thank you. I will speak in Greek. Θέλω ιδιαίτερα να αναφερθώ για τη χώρα μου την Κύπρο. Μετά τις καταστροφικές πυρκαγιές του 2021 στη Λεμεσό και την Πάφο με ανθρώπινες απώλειες και εκατοντάδες κατεστραμμένα σπίτια, οι Κύπριοι περιμένουν από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση συγκεκριμένη και έμπρακτη στήριξη. Ποιο είναι το ειδικό σχέδιο της Επιτροπής για την Κύπρο;
Επιπλέον, σε ό,τι αφορά την αεροπορική βάση πυρόσβεσης, ποια είναι η αποτίμηση του πρώτου έτους και πώς σκοπεύετε να την ενισχύσετε με περισσότερα μόνιμα ευρωπαϊκά μέσα και κοινές ασκήσεις; Σας ευχαριστώ.
Maria Noichl
Thank you. For S&D, Maria Noichl.
Ganz herzlichen Dank, ja, wir haben jetzt heute viel gehört. Es waren viele gute Beiträge dabei, es waren auch weniger gute Beiträge dabei. Ich glaube, das Wichtige ist, wir haben zwei verschiedene Hände. Wir haben einerseits Hände, um zu löschen und auch noch mal Dank an alle, die gelöscht haben, alle, die parat standen, sei es im Ehrenamt oder im Hauptamt. Aber wir haben eine andere Hand auch, um präventiv tätig zu werden, weil beim Löschen dürfen wir uns nicht aufhalten nur.
Und die präventiv tätig zu werden, da muss ich wirklich sagen, da bekommt Europa keine gute Note. Weil wir denken immer noch in verschiedenen Säulen. Wir glauben immer noch, wir könnten eine Agrarpolitik machen, die mit dem Klimawandel nichts zu tun hat. So geben wir das meiste Geld jetzt im Plan, so ist der Plan, das meiste Geld soll wieder nach Fläche vergeben werden, ganz egal, was die Landwirte machen, Hauptsache sie kriegen Geld, weil sie Fläche haben. Es ist nicht der Gedanke, was wird gefördert, wollen wir punktgenau fördern, wollen wir ein Ergebnis fördern.
Um das geht's gar nicht. Es geht um Förderung. Dann haben wir einen anderen Teil, das ist der Bereich, wenn es um die Klimapolitik oder besser gesagt um die Wiederherstellungsverordnung geht.
Die Kollegen und Kolleginnen, die vorher die Wiederherstellungsverordnung in die Tonne treten wollten, die jammern dann, wenn es Waldbrände gibt. Aber nur wenn die Ökosysteme in Ordnung sind, können wir die Waldbrände, wir werden sie nicht verhindern können, aber wir können sie runterdrücken, wir können schauen, dass sie weniger stark sind. Nur dann, wenn wir gute Ökosysteme haben, haben wir eine Möglichkeit, dass überhaupt Wasser in der Fläche wieder versickert, dass wir zum Beispiel Überschwemmungen abwehren. Das bedeutet, die gleichen Menschen, die hier herinnen gegen die Wiederherstellungsverordnung agieren, die sagen dann, wir brauchen mehr Löschfahrzeuge, und da bin ich nicht dabei. Wir brauchen mehr Prävention, und das ist für Sie, und Sie wissen, dass ich Sie persönlich sehr schätze, Frau Kommissarin, Sie müssen darauf arbeiten und Sie müssen darauf hinzielen, dass endlich eine Vernetzung hier im Hause stattfindet.
Wir können nicht in der Landwirtschaftspolitik Geld ausgeben, das in der Klimapolitik fehlt.
Raúl de la Hoz Quintano
Muchas gracias, presidente, comisaria. En primer lugar, para felicitarle porque este verano el mecanismo de protección civil de la Unión ha funcionado, ha sido útil y sus intervenciones han sido absolutamente necesarias. Desde España, cuando hemos necesitado del sistema, el sistema ha funcionado y han sido varias veces.
La Comisión ha coordinado adecuadamente los medios, ha movilizado el rescEU y ha activado adecuadamente el Copernicus. Sin embargo, este verano hemos comprobado cómo el sistema, desgraciadamente, está limitado y no puede dar toda la respuesta que necesitamos a un problema que se demuestra año a año con incendios cada vez más grandes y más numerosos. Los medios, definitivamente, resultan insuficientes para atajar los incendios. Para mejorarlo no se trata de modificar el sistema, ni mucho menos lo estamos solicitando, ni tampoco de crear nuevos mecanismos, nuevas herramientas. Se trata de incrementar los medios materiales, no solo los de la Comisión Europea, también los de los distintos Estados y además mejorar los mecanismos de cooperación.
Por eso le hacemos tres preguntas muy concretas. La primera referida a los medios materiales. Usted ha dicho antes en su intervención que está previsto que se entreguen nuevas unidades de hidroaviones en el 2028. Tenemos dos veranos hasta que se haga entrega de esos nuevos medios materiales. ¿Hay posibilidad de anticiparlo o de acudir a otros proveedores?
En segundo lugar, ¿de qué manera se pueden incrementar o hacer más firmes los compromisos de cooperación de los distintos Estados, de los distintos gobiernos con el sistema? Y una última pregunta, señora comisaria, ¿de qué manera es posible intentar vincular los fondos agrícolas, forestales y de prevención con el desarrollo de políticas de prevención y protección forestal?
Nada más y muchas gracias.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much, and thank you so much, Commissioner, for your tireless work and passion in this area, highly needed. Because this is only the beginning. And I really want to thank, now she has left us, the young woman speaking up for the next generations. This is where this is going to be really felt, what is actually happening. So we must not lose interest in climate change.
We must not lose interest in stopping emissions. We must not lose interest in nature restoration, as Tilly was eluding to. And you are sitting there to handle the crisis. I do hope that you in the Commission talk together and that you share also what you have seen and experienced and what is, when we look into the future, what will this look like if we do not take actions in the other areas at our hands. I really hope also that you encourage to exchange results cross-pan-borders, who did well, who did less well, how can we learn from each other in the years to come.
And then finally, that you also calculate how much equipment will we need in the future, because this is emissions that we saw 20 years ago that we have the result of today. So we are dealing with something that is, can, you know, spiral out of control. So I hope you are also calculating that. And then one final comment. You know, populism might work on social media, but it has never fight any fires.
Thank you.
Hadja Lahbib
Thank you. So many, many questions and I leave you the floor, dear Commissioner, for your... Comme on a déjà explosé le timing, mais je vais rester, rassurez-vous, et je vais essayer de faire un wrap-up avec toutes les questions que vous avez posées, à commencer par une qui est revenue de façon transversale. Et je vais vous rassurer, bien sûr, je travaille avec les autres commissaires. En fait, je crois que j'ai le portefeuille le plus transversal qui soit.
Que ce soit le commissaire Hansen responsable de l'agriculture, que ce soit la commissaire Roswall, résilience, on a présenté d'ailleurs ensemble le Wildfire Integrated Communication.
Elle vient aussi parce que quelqu'un a posé la question de la résilience aussi des rivières, la gestion des montagnes, des cours d'eau, elle est occupée. Nous travaillons ensemble bien sûr et le commissaire Hoekstra va présenter un Climate Adaptation Plan à l'automne et nous y travaillons ensemble et il va prendre bien sûr en compte mes observations parce qu'il s'agit de reconstruire plus intelligemment et de s'adapter que ce soit au niveau de l'agriculture, que ce soit au niveau des constructions urbaines ou de la gestion de nos forêts aussi. Il va falloir qu'on réfléchisse tous ensemble, y compris évidemment avec par exemple le commissaire responsable de la compétitivité ou encore de la relance industrielle pour avoir des capacités Made in Europe. Et ça lui tient à cœur, croyez-moi. Donc vous dire que nous travaillons ensemble de façon holistique et aussi que répondre aux crises, je suis commissaire, je suis la première commissaire d'ailleurs de cette commission de l'histoire de la commission de l'anticipation des crises.
Je suis pas là seulement pour gérer les crises. Et donc j'ai à cœur de prendre toutes les décisions qui vont nous permettre dans les mois qui viennent parce que ce n'est pas terminé. Nous sommes toujours par exemple actifs à l'heure où on se parle en Serbie et en Belgique où le feu n'est toujours pas fixé.
Le feu est contenu certes mais les tourbes, les tourbières brûlent encore et brûleront encore sans doute pendant des mois. Alors chaque crise est l'occasion de tirer des leçons. Et croyez-moi à chaque fois si je me rends sur place c'est pour écouter les pompiers, les fermiers, les agriculteurs, les citoyens, les préfets, les maires, toutes les autorités, rassembler les données. J'y vais avec mes troupes, on prend note et on fait un rapport ensuite. Et à l'heure où on se parle encore il y a des observations, nous continuons à échanger les données.
D'ailleurs certains pays ont demandé qu'on leur envoie des experts pour qu'ils connaissent l'origine des feux. En Belgique puisque nous sommes en Belgique par exemple l'origine n'est pas tout à fait connue encore, elle doit être déterminée même si on a des pistes sérieuses. Mais oui il pourrait que ce soit une activité qui soit le résultat en fait de mauvaises décisions ou de décisions en tout cas qui ont été prises à un moment sensible. Vous dire aussi que notre système fonctionne à travers l'Europe et en réalité à travers le monde.
Notre système de mapping donc Copernicus, service satellitaire Copernicus. Évidemment, parce que quelqu'un a posé la question : que faire pour aider la Hongrie ? Nous sommes là pour la Hongrie, nous sommes là pour le centre de l'Europe. Nous savons aussi qu'il y a eu des problèmes qui se sont posés à cause du niveau des rivières qui ont eu un impact sur des centrales électriques et des power plants, des centrales pour qu'on a dû mettre, qu'on a dû ralentir. Alors voilà, on peut discuter jusqu'à la fin du monde.
Est-ce que c'est le réchauffement climatique ? Est-ce que c'est El Niño ? Est-ce que c'est un autre phénomène ? Il y a eu des incendies tout au cours de l'histoire de l'humanité. Mais n'empêche, on a eu quand même à peu près trois degrés au-dessus de la température moyenne en cette saison.
Nous avons fait face à quatre vagues de chaleur qui ont coûté en vie. Et on est encore en train d'analyser à l'heure où on se parle aussi le coût non seulement économique mais en vie.
Vous savez que dans beaucoup de pays on a eu un taux de mortalité extrêmement élevé, anormalement élevé. Et il va falloir qu'on fasse face à ça et donc nous adaptons aussi notre réponse. Est-ce que demain dans notre rescEU capacity, donc dans notre stock stratégique, est-ce qu'il nous faudra peut-être des climatiseurs pour permettre de refroidir des appartements, des habitations qui ne sont absolument pas pensées aujourd'hui, en tout cas pas dans le nord de l'Europe, pas dans les pays comme la Belgique, comme les Pays-Bas, pour faire face à des vagues de chaleur ? Donc voilà, c'est, croyez-moi, nous avons une approche globale. Nous travaillons avec les citoyens.
Beaucoup d'entre vous aussi m'ont posé la question de comment créer plus de prise de conscience du côté des citoyens. Nous avons par exemple eu des panels citoyens. Nous avons rassemblé des citoyens qui viennent des vingt-sept pays de l'Union européenne pour leur présenter notre stratégie d'anticipation et de gestion des crises et leur demander leur feedback. Nous allons continuer. Nous avons créé un réseau en ligne d'échange des expertises, des connaissances au niveau des pompiers, au niveau des volontaires, mais aussi au niveau des citoyens et on va continuer.
Après, il faut être honnête, nous avons ici une compétence qui est subsidiaire.
Nous agissons comme autorité subsidiaire. Nous ne pouvons pas aller plus loin là où les États membres sont toujours souverains dans les décisions qu'ils prennent et les premiers à répondre en situation de crise et à prendre la décision d'activer ou pas d'ailleurs. Beaucoup d'entre vous me contactent parfois en situation de crise dans leur pays pour me dire : "Mais venez, venez avec les capacités européennes, activez le mécanisme". Mais nous ne pouvons pas l'activer à la place des États membres. C'est aux États membres d'activer le mécanisme et de demander aussi, de faire la requête et à nous d'y répondre.
Donc là aussi nous avons besoin d'être plus proactifs, d'avoir des États membres qui parfois mettent un petit peu de côté leur ego ou peut-être le qu'en-dira-t-on. Travailler aussi auprès des journalistes. Vous savez, beaucoup, certains d'entre vous m'ont posé la question : "Mais pourquoi l'Europe n'est pas plus visible ?" J'ai donné une trentaine d'interviews entre le 22 juillet et le 22 juillet, j'ai invité toute la presse internationale à visiter notre centre de crise. À ce moment-là, il y avait quand même un intérêt, mais je peux vous dire que l'intérêt est venu avec les crises malheureusement.
Et les informations aussi qui sont données par la presse sont extrêmement anxiogènes.
C'est aussi une information qui m'est revenue des citoyens qui ont été déplacés. Bon, c'est pas des informations pratiques, ça sème un petit peu l'anxiété. Donc il faut travailler aussi avec les journalistes, avec la communication. Quand je dis que c'est une whole-of-society approach, c'est véritablement le cas. Il faut avoir tout le monde à bord, y compris d'ailleurs les médias, y compris des députés comme vous qui peuvent faire pression aussi sur leurs États membres pour nous permettre d'agir plus vite.
Nous, on va développer les capacités. On a prévu 60 actions très concrètes dans notre stratégie d'anticipation donc des crises. Ça va de la gestion des forêts, de la gestion aussi de l'agriculture demain, des centres urbains, de la reconstruction. Je me suis rendu sur des sites qui ont bénéficié des fonds de solidarité pour voir si la nature avait été intégrée à leur reconstruction. Et évidemment c'est le cas parce que les fonds le prévoient, mais avec des limites.
Nous ne pouvons pas être derrière les États membres et leur dire : ne reconstruisez pas de la même manière.
En Belgique par exemple, j'ai visité aussi des sites après les inondations de 2021 où on a reconstruit différemment en prenant en compte la circulation naturelle des cours d'eau et leur permettre de sortir de leur lit, aux rivières de sortir de leur lit sans créer des catastrophes. Nous avons aussi prévu un hub parce que vous avez demandé d'aller plus loin. Nous demandons la création sur le centre de crise qui n'est jamais composé que de trois personnes le jour et deux personnes la nuit, hein, pour gérer à la fois les évacuations humanitaires de Gaza, d'Ukraine, mais aussi les appels qui viennent d'États membres. Je ne sais pas si vous vous rendez compte, mais vraiment c'est un centre qui produit un résultat incroyable avec vraiment des capacités restreintes. Donc on a demandé la création d'un hub qui puisse traiter ce qu'on appelle les effets en cascade d'une seule et même crise.
Cet été par exemple, le niveau des rivières bas a créé des ralentissements au niveau énergétique, au niveau des transports, au niveau des hôpitaux aussi. Donc c'est quelque chose qu'il faut anticiper à l'avenir.
Si nous n'avons pas la possibilité d'avoir des contacts à la fois avec le ministère de l'économie, le ministère des transports, le ministère de la santé, eh ben nous n'allons pas pouvoir gérer et anticiper toutes ces crises. Donc il y a eu beaucoup de questions. Je ne sais pas si je réponds à tout, mais voilà, ça vous donne en tout cas la quintessence de ce que nous faisons de façon holistique. Avec tous les commissaires, nous avons des réunions de façon transversale et je suis là à quasi toutes les réunions. Donc vous pouvez compter sur moi et j'espère que je pourrai compter sur vous pour défendre un budget adéquat parce qu'il s'agit pas seulement de capacités aériennes ou de camions comme je l'ai dit, il s'agit vraiment de répondre à tous les niveaux pour nous permettre d'anticiper les crises avant qu'elles n'adviennent.
Merci.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Merci, commissaire. We know we can count on you and I am sure that unfortunately we will have to go back on this issue. And let me also make a special thank to the translator because we ran a little late and they worked more than expected. We go back with the committee tomorrow morning at 9:00 with SANT. Good evening, everybody.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.