Committee on Industry, Research and Energy 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.
ITRE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsChristophe Grudler
Ça va être assez unique dans l'histoire du Parlement et ça va être intéressant à mener. Je voudrais peut-être profiter de cette conclusion pour rassurer sur ce que représente concrètement l'accélérateur industriel parce que parfois il y a des malentendus sur l'ampleur réelle du dispositif. Ce n'est pas un accord global de commerce. C'est vraiment quelques marchés pilotes, quelques marchés pilotes décarbonés qui sont stratégiques évidemment pour notre avenir. Je vais prendre juste l'exemple du ciment.
Seuls 5 % du ciment acheté par les marchés publics devraient satisfaire les obligations Union origine et bas carbone.
Et les marchés publics, ça représente que 30 % de la demande globale. Donc en fait, à l'arrivée, avec notre draft, quand on va agir sur le domaine du ciment, ça va concerner 1,5 % du marché, pas plus que ça. Donc je pense qu'il faut toujours avoir cette chose-là. C'est pas une révolution dans le pan entier de l'économie européenne, c'est un ajustement stratégique pour être sûr que nous ayons un dispositif ciblé, calibré, qui touche une partie limitée d'un marché lui-même limité. La deuxième chose que je voulais peut-être corriger, c'est qu'une préférence européenne, ce n'est pas une obligation européenne.
Parfois on entend ça, dire : "Ah bah certains secteurs, l'Europe ne pourra pas répondre, donc faut pas les mettre." Bah si l'Europe peut pas répondre, il n'y a aucun problème. On peut acheter international. Il y a des dérogations. Si les Européens ne peuvent pas fournir, l'autre bout du monde peut prendre.
Si les prix européens sont trop chers, on achète hors de l'Europe. Donc il y a vraiment cette idée-là qu'il faut maintenir. Nous ne sommes pas là pour mettre les collectivités en difficulté. Nous leur donnons simplement la possibilité de choisir européen quand c'est possible. C'est cela l'esprit du texte.
En conclusion, donner à nos acheteurs publics les moyens d'orienter la demande vers la production européenne quand cette production existe et à un coût raisonnable, ni plus ni moins.
Et je suis convaincu que sur cette base, nous pouvons aboutir à un texte ambitieux largement partagé par ce Parlement. Merci.
Pierre Jouvet
Thank you very much and now Mr. Chauve.
Merci. Chers collègues, merci pour vos retours et vos commentaires. Nous aurons le temps évidemment de reprendre dans les amendements et dans le débat, mais moi je voudrais pour terminer cette première série de discussions vous dire une chose simple. N'ayons pas peur. N'ayons pas peur que l'Europe redevienne libre.
N'ayons pas peur que l'Europe arrête de se soumettre. N'ayons pas peur que l'Europe arrête d'aller négocier en catimini des accords commerciaux qui mettent ses industries, ses agriculteurs et ses citoyens à genoux. Arrêtons d'avoir peur. Reconsidérons ce qui est notre capacité. Reprenons et revoyons que ces dernières décennies nous avons eu des magnifiques avancées industrielles qui par manque d'accompagnement de la part des grands décideurs européens sont allées s'exporter à l'autre bout du monde.
N'ayons pas peur de dire que oui, l'argent public, c'est-à-dire l'argent de nos impôts, des impôts des citoyens, doit d'abord et avant tout financer les industries de notre continent et pas les industries à l'autre bout du monde. C'est ça l'objectif.
Personne ne sera exclu. Et sur le scope géographique, quand nous parlons d'opt-in, ce n'est pas une volonté d'exclusion, je le redis. C'est une volonté que les autres se définissent enfin par rapport à nous et plus l'inverse. Que nous puissions accueillir sur nos marchés des pays tiers qui eux nous accueillent de la même manière avec les mêmes possibilités sur notre marché. Moi je ne veux plus voir comme c'est le cas à Athènes des bus qui font le réseau de bus urbain financé par l'Europe, fabriqué en Chine, produit en Chine, qui créent des emplois en Chine.
L'argent public des Européens doit servir aux Européens, l'industrie européenne doit permettre de servir les citoyens européens, c'est ça qui fera la puissance de l'Europe à travers ce texte.
Klemen Grošelj
Thank you very much. I would like to recall that the deadline for amendment has been postponed to 17th October at 14:00, which gave us a little bit more times. Thanks, yes thank you very much to colleagues and the Commission representatives for your contributions. I hope we can have a good outcome for this intensive file, there has been great collaboration. With that I would like to close the discussion and also the session.
Borys Budka
Dear colleagues, so please... Dear colleagues, so please leave the room and we will start immediately our ITRE committee session because we've got three items and we are, I think, 10 minutes below the schedule. So please, who must leave, do it now, and the rest, please take your seats.
Dear colleagues, we'll start item 2, no amendments to agenda, so no remarks, so we adopted agenda. And now in item 4, of course web streaming is available and 23 languages interpretation. And in item 4, so mobile satellite services selection and authorization of systems using the harmonized 2 GHz frequency band, and I will not talk about the rules, you know everything, that is very clear, first rapporteur, shadows, and if time permits we'll catch the eye procedure. So first I will give the floor to our rapporteur, Mrs. Angelika Winzig, and to present her amendments, so the floor is yours, 2 minutes.
Thank you, Chair. Today I would like to briefly present amendments on mobile satellite services.
Angelika Winzig
At its core, this file is about the future use of the 2 GHz spectrum for satellite communications in Europe. And this is becoming increasingly important as satellite and terrestrial networks converge and new services, including direct-to-device connectivity, develop rapidly. First of all, I want to highlight the Commission's work. They have done an important proposal, but we need to move quickly. The existing rights expire in May 2027, so our timetable is tight.
Nevertheless, I have proposed a number of targeted changes. First, our close European partners, neighboring countries that are closely integrated into our communications and space ecosystem, can strengthen European competitiveness and resilience. We therefore propose that the delegated act determining their admissibility be adopted before the public consultation on the call. Companies, organizations, and joint ventures need clarity early enough to prepare and participate. Second, quality and innovation.
We are allocating a scarce and valuable public resource.
This should not become a competition about who pays the most. I therefore propose that the financial contribution may count for no more than 5% of the overall assessment. Quality, innovation and the substance of the project must come first. Third, investment and certainty. Satellite infrastructure requires very significant and long-term investment.
Operators need to know what happens at the end of their rights. We therefore introduce a review at least five years before expiry, so that it is clear in good time whether the framework needs to be revised or whether rights can be renewed. We should not find ourselves in the same time pressure again. The selection process must be based on real satellite expertise, independence and transparency. And finally, our rules must reflect technological reality.
Non-geostationary satellite constellations are deployed progressively.
Our regulatory requirement must take this into account. My objective is therefore simple: legal certainty, fair competition, technological openness, a strong and resilient European satellite economic system. The deadline for amendments was on the 6th of September, and I would therefore like to thank colleagues for their contribution, and I very much look forward to our continued cooperation and constructive discussions as we take this important file forward. Thank you.
Matthias Ecke
Thank you, Chair. Well, this looks like a small file, that's an urgent one, but it's a very important opportunity because it is about the future of our satellite services market in the EU and also direct-to-device, a very important new technique, and it's dominated at the moment very much by the US provider Starlink, so for us it could be an opportunity to set up a EU single market for satellite services. Well, thank you, Angelika Winzig, for your presentation.
As shadow for S&D group, I would table the following amendments. First, we would extend coverage requirements because these amendments would retain the requirement to be at least 95% for the population, 90% of the land area, because we want more than that. We want full coverage within 10 years. We want to make wholesale access requirements stricter to foster competition. We would also like to allow consortia to be applicable for the spectrum band even before they formed a joint venture.
And that one should also include third countries that are closely involved with our telecoms market. And last but not least, to be consistent with the EU legislation in international fora like ITU, our rules should be aligned with that. And of course we should not prejudice the DNA negotiations that are ongoing, so MSS should be without prejudice for that. So I'm looking forward to the cooperation with Angelika Winzig and the other shadows. Thank you very much.
Mélanie Disdier
Oui, merci Madame la rapporteure. Donc concernant vos propositions, on peut dire qu'elles vont dans le bon sens. Contrôle resserré, données et clés localisées dans l'Union, tiers européens protégés et limitation des critères financiers. J'émets toutefois quelques réserves. Premièrement, les pays voisins.
Leur ouvrir à égalité les tranches réservées contredit l'objectif du texte. Pour des coentreprises comme Eutelsat, nous proposons donc une dérogation sous garantie de filtrage des investissements étrangers comme pour les fonds européens de la défense. Deuxièmement, la période transitoire. C'est là que se gagnent clients et accords avec les opérateurs mobiles. Ouvrir la bande à un usage commercial pendant ces deux ans sans les conditions de contrôle et de sécurité exigées ensuite permettrait à un opérateur non européen de s'installer avant même la sélection.
Troisièmement, à propos de la gouvernance. La Commission choisit les opérateurs, fixe les conditions, contrôle, inflige des amendes jusqu'à 5 % du chiffre d'affaires mondial et retire les droits alors que les États membres ne rendent qu'un avis consultatif. Le passage aux actes délégués ne corrige pas ce déséquilibre. Voilà ce que je vous propose et en tout cas je me réjouis d'avance de travailler avec vous sur ce dossier. Je vous remercie.
Borys Budka
From ECR, Francesco Torselli. Okay, so we don't have anyone from ECR, so Renew and Michał Kobosko.
Merci beaucoup.
Michał Kobosko
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our colleagues for the amendments. As was said before, the time pressure is enormous in the case of this file, as we know the current rights in the 2 GHz band expire in May 2027, just eight months from now. The Commission only presented its proposal just before summer. We are now asked to vote in committee in November and in plenary early next year, and then the whole selection procedure must follow. This is not, obviously, this is not how we should manage one of the most strategic spectrum resources in Europe.
We will do our part and work quickly and constructively, but I expect the Commission to learn from this and also explain reasons for such a delay. Let me just jump to my three priorities here. First, a European direct-to-device operator. Direct-to-device must become a mass market service for every European, not a niche service. And it must not become another dependency on non-European providers.
For this to happen, the band needs to be big or broad enough. This is also why Renew proposes that European joint ventures of mobile network operators can also apply. They could combine their experience in managing networks with satellite capacity from one or more space segment providers. The EU-based joint venture would need to keep full responsibility and effective control over spectrum, security, and customer data. My second point: synergies between satellite and terrestrial networks.
These are not completely different worlds. The real value comes from hybrid systems. Just to finish, as a rapporteur on Digital Networks Act, which deals with satellite authorization, I believe that we should try to develop a common approach in both files in order to create a comprehensive legal framework. I'm ready to work hard with Angelika here and with other colleagues. Thank you very much.
Damian Boeselager
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, rapporteur. We have three main priorities that I want to underline here now for our amendments. The first one is that we should bring all relevant MSS bands into the European framework. We support generally the approach by the Commission, but we should not limit it to the 2 GHz band.
Second, it's very important for us that we create space for European and smaller players. And this is the question of who gets access to this market. The satellite infrastructure of course has enormous upfront costs and strong economies of scale. And without safeguards, there might be a very high level of concentration. And that means we need to look at access conditions and the appropriate conditions and targets that facilitate access for smaller companies, specifically also startups and scale-ups that might be the innovators of the future in this realm as well.
And the third priority is in regards to the competition and efficient use. Of course, spectrum is a scarce resource. And for us, it's very important that we are careful about effectively handing the control of this to individual companies. And this should be done with a competitive allocation mechanism, as is done for other public infrastructure. And this would also enable a better use.
So overall, we are very clear: this is one European market. There should be more opportunities for European innovators and strong competition rules for this scarce strategic resource. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much and now I've got two members for catch the eye, first Mrs. Katri Kulmuni from Renew and then Mr. Grudler also from Renew.
Thank you very much. And now I've got two members for catch-the-eye.
Katri Kulmuni
Merci Monsieur. First, ladies first. Sorry, sorry. Pardon. Katri, sorry.
Thank you, thank you chair. So the discussed proposal by the Commission in principle is understandable, but there is a one great worry that with current limitations it would leave large part of both the Finnish and Swedish high north outside of the satellite services, meaning the coverage. The Commission proposal covering either 90 percentage of the surface or 95 percentage of the population would either leave one third of the Finland outside of the satellite services or then with the population cover the three most highest north communities, meaning the Sami home region, which is the only indigenous people in whole of Europe. And the size of these territories are size of Slovakia, so I believe no one would be suggesting leaving one of the nations outside of this system, so I sincerely do hope that you will lift the coverage to be full coverage and leave no one behind.
Christophe Grudler
Merci chers collègues, deux points rapidement. Premièrement sur la méthode, comme mon collègue Kobosko, je regrette fortement que la Commission européenne soit venue si tard avec cette proposition. Nous avons un mois pour décider ce qu'il va advenir des fréquences stratégiques, et ceci pour les vingt prochaines années. C'est complètement inacceptable dans le calendrier. C'est pour cela que j'ai proposé un amendement pour séparer l'extension du règlement lui-même.
Deuxièmement, il est essentiel que ce règlement soutienne pleinement notre souveraineté technologique, y compris sur la partie spatiale et sur le cœur du réseau. Je ne veux pas que nous créions une nouvelle faille, une nouvelle dépendance pour les vingt ans à venir. J'appelle donc la rapporteure et les rapporteurs fictifs à soutenir tous les éléments qui iront dans ce sens. Oui, nous avons besoin que des consortiums européens se créent rapidement pour lancer des services sur ces fréquences, mais rapidement ça ne veut pas dire en abandonnant nos souverainetés technologiques pour les décennies à venir.
Borys Budka
Merci beaucoup. Now final remarks for our rapporteur, so Angelika, the floor is yours.
Yes, thank you for your valuable input. I think this has been a very useful starting point as we now move into more intensive negotiation. It was particularly valuable to hear in this first discussion where colleagues see the main priorities and areas of focus for the work ahead. And I'm looking forward to our constructive work. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you. And the final vote will take place in our ITRE committee meeting in November 19. So thanks for our rapporteur, co-rapporteurs for your effort. And now we will have very short break till 4:00 and we will start item 5.
Okay, let's start item five, European Union Space Services Agency and amending Regulation EU 2021/696, and it's consideration of draft report. We've got our rapporteur, Christophe Grudler, and then our shadows.
And of course, the rules are always the same. We've got 45 minutes for discussion. So first, I will give the floor to our rapporteur. Christophe, the floor is yours for four minutes.
Christophe Grudler
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Chers collègues, ce projet de rapport répond à une réalité en fait assez simple. Les activités spatiales de l'Union prennent de l'ampleur et deviennent toujours stratégiques. L'Agence de l'Union européenne pour le programme spatial, que l'on appelle EUSPA, doit donc disposer d'un mandat clair, de ressources suffisantes et d'une gouvernance à la hauteur de ses responsabilités croissantes. Tout d'abord, le rapport clarifie quel est le rôle de l'agence, qui est avant tout responsable de l'exploitation, de la maintenance, de l'évolution et de la sécurité des infrastructures, y compris de leur accréditation de sécurité.
Que ce soit la navigation et le positionnement avec Galileo, l'observation de la Terre avec Copernicus et EOGS, les télécommunications avec GOVSATCOM et IRIS2, ou encore la surveillance de l'espace avec EU SST et la météorologie spatiale. Sur EOGS, c'est-à-dire l'imagerie gouvernementale. Nous précisons que l'EUSPA devrait être en charge de l'exploitation du pooling and sharing, comme elle le fait déjà pour le GOVSATCOM Hub, c'est-à-dire mutualiser des capacités existantes d'observation et demain donc des nouveaux satellites EOGS, tout en prévoyant un rôle clair pour le SatCen. Sur Copernicus, il semble important que l'EUSPA s'implique davantage dans la sécurité de cette composante, comme elle le fait déjà pour d'autres composantes du programme spatial européen. L'EUSPA aura également un rôle renforcé pour faire bénéficier concrètement les citoyens, les services publics et nos secteurs stratégiques des capacités spatiales européennes.
Cela signifie mieux intégrer les données spatiales dans les politiques de l'Union, comme la protection civile, mutualiser certains besoins, organiser des achats communs et renforcer la cybersécurité du secteur. Bien sûr, ces nouvelles missions doivent être accompagnées de moyens humains, financiers et techniques suffisants, disponibles en temps utile. L'agence doit pouvoir conserver une expertise solide en interne et assurer la continuité des services, y compris en période de crise.
Ici, nous attendons bien évidemment l'avis de la commission des budgets. Et pour moi, il est clair que nous rencontrons une difficulté avec l'EUSPA, qui n'a pas toujours les moyens humains pour mener à bien ses tâches. Mais aussi avec un personnel où il y a un turnover trop important, ce qui pose vraiment des problèmes parce que l'agence gère des services critiques et il y a des besoins de confidentialité, un personnel fixe, c'est bien mieux évidemment pour cela. Par ailleurs, le rapport propose que le Parlement européen désigne deux membres avec droit de vote au conseil d'administration. Le directeur exécutif serait maintenant confirmé après une audition devant la commission ITRE.
Cela serait un progrès pour le contrôle politique et la transparence. Enfin, une attention particulière est portée à l'accréditation de sécurité. Les échanges que nous avons eu montrent que le processus actuel n'est pas toujours assez fluide ni suffisamment prévisible.
Les difficultés rencontrées peuvent ralentir le déploiement de services spatiaux essentiels pour nos citoyens et pour nos autorités publiques. Le rapport propose donc un cadre plus clair pour chaque composante. Un plan d'accréditation précisera les preuves attendues, les responsabilités et les étapes. Ce calendrier sera défini conjointement par la Commission et le Security Accreditation Board, qu'on appelle le SAB, afin que toutes les parties connaissent dès le départ les attentes et les échéances. Mais cette recherche de fluidité ne doit nullement remettre en cause l'indépendance du SAB, bien évidemment.
Pour conclure, ce rapport soutient une EUSPA plus forte, mieux organisée, tout en garantissant une accréditation de sécurité indépendante et prévisible. C'est cet équilibre qui permettra à l'Europe de déployer ses services spatiaux avec confiance. Je terminerai peut-être par un mot à destination de la Commission européenne. Je reste convaincu qu'une erreur majeure a été faite en mettant une partie des tâches de mise en œuvre dans EICF, dans le fonds de compétitivité, et l'autre dans ce règlement EUSPA. Il aurait été plus logique d'avoir un règlement budgétaire renouvelé tous les sept ans et de l'autre un règlement qui définisse le contenu du programme spatial qui, lui, évolue à un rythme différent et qui prévoit les tâches pour l'ensemble des entités.
C'est vraiment un acte manqué que nous ne pouvons plus corriger à ce stade et je le regrette. Je vous remercie, évidemment heureux d'entendre les collègues. Merci.
Borys Budka
Merci beaucoup. Now from EPP, Paulius Saudargas, I'm sorry. One minute.
One minute. Okay.
Paulius Saudargas
Thank you, Chairman, dear colleagues. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Christophe Grudler for his draft report, really great report. And I look forward to working closely with you and other shadow rapporteurs. Space is becoming increasingly important for Europe's competitiveness, security and resilience. So that's why we need effective agency.
The Commission proposal expands agency's role by entrusting the agency with additional operational and exploitation tasks. The proposal increases the EU contribution to the agency from around 525 million in the current MFF to almost 1 billion in the next MFF, while new tasks entrusted to the agency will also be financed through the European Competitiveness Fund. As the EU space programs grows and more responsibilities are entrusted to the agency, in my view, the agency should have the mandate and capacity to take on greater share of tasks entrusted to it. So despite the very good report, I tabled some amendments.
And my amendments therefore build up on Commission's proposals to strengthen the role of agency in its exploitation and operational tasks and aim to create better coordination among Member States in space. The objective is also to make better use of existing European space systems and capacity and ensure that services they provide are delivered in an efficient way across the Union. In addition, I also propose to strengthen the role of the European Parliament as a budgetary authority, including by giving Parliament a greater say in the agency's governance and introducing voting rights in area where Parliament currently has non-voting role. So with proposed amendments, I want to move towards a more integrated European space market and a more coordinated European approach to space services. I look forward to working with you all on this file.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now the chair Giorgio Gori from S&D. Two minutes. Sorry.
Giorgio Gori
Thank you, Chair. Volevo innanzitutto ringraziare il relatore per il draft report.
Lo sviluppo del settore spaziale europeo è una priorità strategica dell'Unione non solo per il ruolo determinante che svolge per la resilienza e la sicurezza del nostro continente, ma anche perché rappresenta un fattore abilitante per l'industria europea, specialmente per diversi settori ad alta innovazione tecnologica. E quindi stabilire finalmente una base giuridica autonoma per EUSPA, non più legata alla durata di un singolo quadro finanziario, è un passaggio necessario per garantire continuità operativa e certezza del diritto, condizioni indispensabili per gli operatori economici e il funzionamento dell'agenzia stessa. La proposta della Commissione riprende e aggiorna quanto già previsto nel precedente regolamento sul programma spaziale, senza creare discontinuità rispetto all'assetto esistente. Resta però necessario garantire coerenza con quanto verrà stabilito da altre normative in via di definizione che per forza di cose incideranno sul ruolo dell'agenzia, in primis il fondo per la competitività e lo Space Act. È proprio su una definizione più precisa dei compiti dell'agenzia e delle condizioni alle quali questi vengono assunti che considero vi sia maggiore margine di miglioramento della proposta della Commissione.
Questo darebbe maggiore certezza nell'applicazione e ridurrebbe il rischio di sovrapposizioni con i compiti già svolti da altri attori. Ad esempio, in merito al concetto di prontezza operativa, condizione necessaria affinché vengano attribuiti ulteriori compiti all'agenzia, ritengo che sarebbe preferibile definirla nel testo: criteri chiari su personale, competenze tecniche e garanzia di continuità dei servizi, una verifica componente per componente e un processo ben definito con cui la Commissione può pronunciarsi, trasmettendo ogni decisione a Parlamento e Consiglio. Sebbene comprenda la scelta del relatore di eliminare questo concetto, credo ci sia margine per migliorarlo nel lavoro che svolgeremo insieme. Infine, ho accolto con favore diversi passaggi del progetto di relazione, in particolare sul rafforzamento del ruolo del Parlamento e sull'indipendenza del comitato di accreditamento di sicurezza. Condivido il principio per cui chi gestisce i sistemi non deve poi anche certificarne la sicurezza, considerando la rilevanza di queste decisioni.
Ringrazio quindi ancora il relatore per la proposta di relazione e confido in un confronto costruttivo nel prosieguo dei negoziati. Grazie.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you chair. And first of all, I'd like to thank rapporteur Mr. Grudler on an ambitious and forward-looking draft. Thank you very much. And first of all, I'd like to say that we do support the overall direction and particularly welcome proposal to retain agency's broader current name rather than define it too narrowly through services. The rapporteur is right to clarify EUSPA's responsibilities across navigation, Earth observation, EOGS, GOVSATCOM, IRIS and space surveillance.
And also that EUSPA must receive necessary financial, human and technical resources sufficiently in advanced. New responsibilities must never come with unfunded mandates. So this is probably the key. But anyway, we still will submit some amendments and there will be three major areas. First of all, it concerns Prague.
We believe that Prague must remain EUSPA's genuine institutional and operational center.
Local offices may support the agency's work, but they must not lead to fragmentation or entire portfolios being transferred away from the headquarters because this is something which is not fully efficient from our perspective. Second, EUSPA should have a strong role in market uptake, commercialization, demand aggregation, and support for European downstream companies because our investment in space infrastructure must translate into European technologies, resilient supply chains, and concrete benefits for citizens and businesses. And finally, we support independent, effective, and timely security accreditation. However, any reform must preserve existing expertise, operational continuity, and Member States' confidence. We should carefully assess the proposed separation of technical accreditation support while avoiding both excessive Commission control on one side and weakening of the Security Accreditation Board on the second side.
In conclusion, Europe's space assets are strategic infrastructure, and we look forward to work constructively with the rapporteur and all team to develop it further. Thanks.
Ondřej Knotek
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Christophe. You did a very good job, and I think that your draft report is a solid basis for further, further work.
I'm convinced too that the agency's current name should be should be kept. Furthermore, it is important to explicitly mention the well-established name EUSPA. Of course, even more important is what tasks the agency will carry out. I appreciate that the rapporteur gives EUSPA a stronger and clearer role in the management and other activities relating to European space projects, including their security. I only believe that we should make a clear link to the new tasks arising from the EU Space Act.
We shouldn't give the agency new responsibilities without giving giving it the financial, human and technical resources. I'm glad to see we are on the same page on this. Certain procedural and organizational rules are up for the discussion at a later stage, to which I'm open, of course, and I will contribute to it with my amendments as well. There is, however, one important point to address: the security accreditation, which already has been raised by my other colleagues.
First, as a conservative, I ask: do we have evidence of fundamental systemic problems with accreditation and that the Chinese wall within the agency is not effective? Second, moving all technical assessment away from EUSPA staff could lead to loss of expertise and delays if Member States cannot provide enough experts. I also have doubts about practicality of three-month deadline. Not to conclude on a negative role, I'm ready to discuss this too amongst the shadows. Thank you once again, and I'm looking forward to work with you, Christophe, and also with other colleagues on this proposal.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Ondřej, and now from the Left, we've got our colleague Marina Mesure.
Marina Mesure
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je comprends bien qu'à travers ce texte, nous tentons d'élargir les prérogatives de l'EUSPA, notamment dans la gestion des services spatiaux européens d'observation de la Terre et d'IRIS². Pour moi, vraiment, le point crucial, et j'entends certains collègues qui l'ont mentionné avant moi, ça sera vraiment de mettre l'emphase sur le fait que ces nouvelles responsabilités doivent s'accompagner de moyens humains et financiers pour que ces missions puissent durablement nous servir.
Je dis cela parce que nous partageons tous l'objectif d'avoir des décisions plus rapides, plus fiables, et en même temps nos administrations ont de moins en moins de moyens. Et c'est d'autant plus inquiétant que nous sommes aussi dans les négociations en ce moment avec le Space Act, et nous voyons que certains collègues essaient de faire passer, et nous le voyons d'ailleurs de plus en plus dans les législations européennes, ce principe du silence vaut acceptation, c'est-à-dire que si on n'est pas capable de donner une réponse dans les temps, et bien dès lors ça devrait être accepté. Et nous nous y opposons évidemment avec force puisque justement si ces procédures des fois prennent du temps, c'est parce qu'on a depuis de très nombreuses années entravé les administrations dans leurs moyens humains et financiers pour pouvoir délivrer les autorisations. Donc ce point sera absolument central pour nous, celui des moyens financiers, humains. Et le deuxième point que je rappelle encore à plusieurs reprises dans le Space Act, c'est la question de la puissance publique.
Pour nous, la force du secteur spatial européen repose pleinement sur la force qu'occupe la puissance publique.
Et donc ce sera là aussi pour nous un élément absolument essentiel que nous porterons de la même manière dans le Space Act qu'aujourd'hui dans le texte qui nous est proposé sur les prérogatives de l'EUSPA. Merci.
Borys Budka
Thank you, dear colleagues, and I don't have anyone in catch-the-eye procedure. So now I will give the floor to Mrs. Isabella Poldrugo, Deputy Head of Unit at DG DEFIS and Unit Space Policy. So the floor is yours.
Isabella POLDRUGO
Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Commission welcomes the proposal of the European Parliament and it looks forward to a constructive support to the rapporteur, Mr. Gluder, the shadows and the ITRE Committee. The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Union Space Services Agency, EUSPA, ensures legal certainty and the agency's continuity of operation and activities beyond the MFF cycles. The new name better reflects the agency's identity, its evolving role and the new responsibilities. It also takes into account the fact that in the European Competitiveness Fund, there is not reference anymore to space programs or to space programs.
Nevertheless, it is important to keep the acronym to profit of the brand awareness raised in these late last years.
EUSPA will play a key role in the implementation of the actions related to the Union space system and space policy implementation as included in the European Competitiveness Fund. This is why the Commission's proposal includes three groups of task: the own task, that is the one that EUSPA has already today, as well as the entrusted task, that is performed by EUSPA also now, and a third group, subject to the operational readiness of the agency, that includes the new task to align with the ECF provisions. This is to keep the structure of the agency flexible and adaptable to the evolving implementation of the European Competitiveness Fund. Additionally, the regulation includes specific provision to continue operating in case of crisis, ensuring the continuity of services and preserving the security of the European Union space system and operations, including the security accreditation. We are talking today about an operational system used by 4.5 billion users worldwide, with new services including for the governmental users.
This is why the role of EUSPA, including the one of the Security Accreditation Board, is key to ensure the security and continuity of services that enable our economies, security and well-being. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Thanks a lot.
And now for the final remarks, the time is for our rapporteur, so Christophe, the floor is yours again.
Christophe Grudler
Merci Monsieur le Président. Yes. Très bel après-midi, hein, plein de choses à dire. Donc je serai donc très très court, très très court pour évidemment d'abord remercier les collègues qui sont tous très impliqués. Merci pour leurs interventions et leur soutien.
Merci donc en particulier aux shadow rapporteurs Sodargas, Gori, Krutílek, Nagoyava, Nagoyova, sorry, Lagodinsky, Mesure. Je pense qu'on peut faire du bon travail ensemble. J'ai pris note de tous les éléments. Je suis confiant qu'on arrivera vraiment ensemble à créer les bases du futur de l'EUSPA et que nous pourrons parvenir à renforcer les moyens de cette agence aux côtés évidemment de nos collègues de la commission des budgets. Donc je reste bien sûr à votre pleine disposition pour toutes les précisions que vous jugerez utiles.
Merci.
Borys Budka
Merci beaucoup.
And after all your remarks and positions, I would like to announce that the deadline for amendments is the 1st of October at midday. So remember, amendments to 1st of October. And the vote is planned on our ITRE committee meeting at 1st of December. Thanks a lot. And before we will go to item 6, we will have the break because this is planned for quarter to 5.
So we must wait for our rapporteur and shadows rapporteur. So now we've got more than less 20 minutes of break and we will meet again here in this room quarter to 5.
Okay, let's start item six. And as always, you know the rules, so first I will give the floor to our rapporteur, Mr. Jüri Ratas, then our shadows, and if time permits, we will have the catch-the-eye procedure. And we don't have Commission, so there will be very simple. So, Jüri, the floor is yours.
Jüri Ratas
Thank you, dear chair, dear colleagues, dear Boris. The reform of the EU Emissions Trading System comes at a critical moment for European industry and also our energy sectors.
Our commitment to climate neutrality is firm, but our pathway must be realistic and economically viable. As the ITRE Committee, our role is to protect our industry and improve the Commission proposal. European businesses face difficult and different challenges today: high energy prices, unfair global competition, and strict investment conditions. If our climate rules tighten faster than clean technologies become available, we will not lower global emissions. We will only risk severe carbon leakage and job losses in Europe.
Dear colleagues, my draft opinion focuses on providing our industry with predictability, flexibility, and the room to invest. I want to highlight four key priorities from my proposal. First, a prudent approach to conditionality. Imposing rigid reinvestment rules and tight deadlines for free allowances poses a vital risk to energy-intensive industries.
Jüri Ratas
Forced compliance under today's market conditions will lead to factory closure, not decarbonization. I propose removing these strict conditionality rules. However, we maintain the clawback clause: companies must keep their production capacity here in Europe or repay their allowances. Second, a realistic linear reduction factor. An aggressive reduction trajectory penalizes companies for lacking clean technologies that do not yet exist.
I advocate for a two-stage approach: a lower initial reduction rate of 3.2 percentage until 2035, moving to 2.2 percentage from 2036 onwards. This gives industry crucial breathing space until key technologies become commercially available. Third, dynamic safeguards for global competitiveness.
A permanent export solution for CBAM is absolutely crucial, as Parliament has reiterated several times. Tools like CBAM are still untested. I propose a system of sector-specific key performance indicators. We must continuously monitor production relocation, output drops, or adjusted. And fourth, pragmatic solution for carbon removals and top performers.
We need clear rules for permanent carbon removals to ensure high environmental integrity without disrupting market stability. Furthermore, we must reward early movers to support their decarbonization efforts. The deadline for tabling amendments here in ITRE is set for today at 5:00 PM, and I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the colleagues who have already submitted their proposals and constructive input.
And dear colleagues, reaching climate neutrality, I think, cannot come at the cost of European production and jobs. I really look forward to working closely with all of you to find the consensus, to find the compromise, and of course to build a green, resilient, and competitive future for Europe. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now on behalf of S&D, Bruno Tobback, two minutes for you.
Bruno Tobback
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the rapporteur for his proposal. I think that what we are seeing happening today and the energy crisis that we face is a stark reminder of the need for decarbonization and energy efficiency as actually the only robust path to a competitive European economy. It is not just about saving the planet. Hoping for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz so we can get cheap oil or gas again is not a strategy for European competitiveness. And that transition will require massive investment, and the ETS is indeed probably the single most important instrument that we have to mobilize that investment.
It does that in two ways. It does it by setting a stable and predictable track for carbon prices, thereby creating a business case and investment security for market players and for industries, as cap-and-trade systems have already proven to do in many other industries and many other areas. At the same time, ETS also generates revenues, if it is well-designed, revenues that, at least according to my group, should go more than today towards stimulating investment in the contributing sectors and in enabling infrastructure to make sure that we can decarbonize in a competitive way, infrastructures such as grids. It is clear for us, colleagues, that getting this right will allow ETS to have its place as part of a broader investment strategy for Europe, and not just as a pathway to climate neutrality, but as a way to make sure that we are not in European industries, as we are in many cases too much doing today, manage decline, but about rebuilding and investing in an economic prosperity on a new and more solid foundation than what we have today. That is our challenge, and I'm looking forward to the hopefully interesting discussions we will have with our colleagues on that.
Thank you.
András Gyürk
Köszönöm a szót, elnök úr! Az EU kibocsátáskereskedelmi, úgynevezett ETS-rendszere súlyos tehertétel az európai ipar számára. Az elmúlt években az EU ipari termelése csökkent, és több százezer munkahely veszett oda. Mindez jelentős mértékben a magas energiaár-környezetben károsnak bizonyuló ETS-rendszernek is köszönhető. Megdőlt az a tétel is, hogy az EU példáját harmadik országok is követni fogják: a kínai szén-dioxid-kvóta jelenleg 12 euró, az európai pedig 84.
Így lehetetlen valódi versenyről beszélni. Ezért mi, patrióták, az ETS-rendszer teljes körű, radikális felülvizsgálatát kezdeményezzük. Meggyőződésünk, hogy az ETS-nek mostantól az európai polgárokat és vállalatokat kell segítenie. Több mint 100 módosító javaslatot nyújtunk be, ezek közül ismertetnék most néhányat. Először: a mostani felülvizsgálat keretében mi, patrióták, újfent kezdeményezzük a polgárok üzemanyag-fogyasztását és fűtéshasználatát alig több mint egy év múlva jelentős mértékben megadóztatni kívánó ETS2-rendszer hatályon kívül helyezését.
Ez a lépés évi több száz eurós többletkiadást és súlyos jóléti veszteséget jelentene minden európai háztartás számára.
Elfogadhatatlan ez az intézkedés, most még nem késő visszafordítani. Másodszor, kezdeményezzük az ingyenes kvótakiosztások feltételekhez való kötésének eltörlését is. Felelőtlenség a vállalatokat arra kényszeríteni, hogy gazdaságilag életképtelen technológiákba fektessenek be. Szintén javaslatot teszünk egy olyan mechanizmus kidolgozására, ami kedvezőtlen gazdasági helyzet esetén további ingyen kiosztásokat juttatna a vállalatoknak. Végül, szintén határozottan ellenezzük a hulladékégetők bevonását az ETS rendszerbe, illetve a távhő szektornak juttatott ingyenes kvóták eltörlését is.
Ezek a javaslatok érdemben nem csökkentenék az európai károsanyag-kibocsátást, viszont jelentős mértékben növelnék a polgárok fűtésszámláját és az önkormányzatok által fizetendő hulladékkezelési díjakat. Hatásuk különösen súlyosak lennének Közép-Európában, így Magyarországon. Ezek veszélyes elképzelések, amelyek ellen mi patrióták fel fogunk lépni. Számos más javaslatunk is van, amelyeket a közös munka során szeretnénk majd megvitatni. Köszönöm a szót, elnök úr.
Alessandro Ciriani
Thank you, chair, I will speak in Italian. Io ringrazio il relatore Ratas per il lavoro svolto e per averlo impostato su quella che per noi è una questione fondamentale, ovvero la decarbonizzazione può funzionare solo se procede insieme alla competitività della sua industria. Conoscete bene la nostra posizione, riteniamo che nelle attuali condizioni l'ETS sul settore manifatturiero vada sospeso, debba essere sospeso, perché non possiamo continuare ad aumentare il costo della produzione europea mentre mancano ancora molte delle condizioni necessarie alla decarbonizzazione. Detto questo, considero importante che il draft riconosca alcuni dei problemi che noi andiamo denunciando da tempo. Negli ultimi anni abbiamo fissato obiettivi sempre più ambiziosi, dando spesso per scontato che le imprese avessero già a disposizione energia competitiva, infrastrutture e tecnologie adeguate.
Le nostre aziende competono con produttori che affrontano costi energetici più bassi e non sostengono un costo della CO2 paragonabile a quello europeo. Se produrre in Europa diventa progressivamente più costoso, il rischio è perdere investimenti, produzione, posti di lavoro senza ridurre davvero le emissioni globali. Per questo considero positivi alcuni segnali del draft: maggiore prudenza sulle condizionalità, una traiettoria più graduale del Linear Reduction Factor e soprattutto la volontà di verificare cosa accade quando il CBAM sostituisce progressivamente le quote gratuite. Sul CBAM dobbiamo essere chiari: non possiamo eliminare una protezione certa sulla base della promessa che un meccanismo nuovo funzionerà perfettamente. Questo è un dogma, non è un regolamento.
Oggi invece sappiamo che così non è.
Dobbiamo guardare agli effetti reali su produzione, importazioni, esportazioni e investimenti. Su questa base lavoreremo nel negoziato con l'obiettivo di rafforzare ulteriormente il testo e garantire che la transizione non si traduca in nuova pressione sulla nostra base industriale, perché decarbonizzare non può significare delocalizzare. Grazie Presidente.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you Chair, thank you Yuri for your work on this opinion. The ETS review must indeed maintain a credible decarbonization trajectory while giving European industry the time and resources needed to make the transition. So I would like to point out few of the amendments that I've put down. First, the linear reduction factor. So I do share the rapporteur's approach of smoothing the LRF further between 31 and 34 before tightening it up from 36 onwards.
And this would allow more time for industrial decarbonization technologies and infrastructure to be deployed. Second, on international credit, I support the Commission approach, but I would like to add a request for the Commission to already make a preliminary assessment in 31 to give industry earlier visibility. Third, I also propose a more gradual and linear phase-out of the free allocation for CBAM sectors while maintaining its complete phase-out in 38 as proposed by the Commission.
My objective is indeed to ensure a gradual shift to CBAM, avoid abrupt changes in the level of free allocation and a better align the phase-out of free allocation with the rollout of carbon-neutral investments. In this regard, I also believe that we should retain the existing conditionality framework rather than introduce a new complex investment conditionality regime which goes against the spirit of the simplification we have been working on the past years. The ETS review should also structurally address the situation of the European exporters who do not benefit from CBAM protection when competing in third countries' markets. And moreover, I would like to increase from 50 to 75% the minimum share of national ETS auction revenue dedicated to decarbonizing ETS sector. Technology neutrality must also remain a guiding principle for the Innovation Fund, the Industrial Decarbonisation Bank and the Modernisation Fund.
This includes recognizing the role of clean and low-carbon electricity and heat generation in industrial decarbonisation. Alignment with the Industry Accelerator Act is as well an important priority. On permanent carbon removals, I would favor an alignment with the CRCF to ensure consistency with the current framework.
And finally, on the municipal waste incineration, I propose a five-year phase-in and a producers-pays approach so that the cost associated with fossil carbon embedded in products are not passed on to local authorities. So of course I look forward working with the rapporteur and all the colleagues on these amendments and I thank you for your attention.
Isabella Lövin
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, first of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Ratas for his work on the draft opinion. Now, the EU ETS is the European Union's most important core instrument to drive decarbonization for the industry. And this really plays a key role in ensuring that we achieve our climate objectives while we're supporting also the European industry in its transition and also making us independent on imports of fossil fuels. Now, the European industry needs a stable and an ambitious ETS that provides long-term predictability.
So changing the rules during the game is not what the industry is asking for. In this regard, we're concerned that the Commission proposal already lowers the level of ambition in several areas and that the draft opinion appears to take further steps in this direction.
In particular the linear reduction factor should not be weakened. The price signal should not be weakened further because companies and industrial sectors have already planned and invested on the basis of the existing trajectory. Changing it again risks undermining the stability and predictability that industry needs for long-term investment decisions. We're also deeply concerned about prolonging free allocation. A clear and predictable phase-out is important not only for achieving our climate objectives but also for providing certainty to companies that had already started adapting and investing in decarbonization.
They should not be punished for being the frontrunners. The ETS should be strengthened and implemented in a consistent, predictable and credible way. This is what I hear from all the industries in my home country Sweden that this is what they expect from us. This is essential both for achieving our climate objectives and providing European industry with the certainty it needs to really take the decisions on the much-needed investments.
I look forward to working constructively with you and to fruitful cooperation with all the shadow rapporteurs. Thank you.
Jussi Saramo
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I also want to thank the rapporteur for a draft that is a good base, but also we are very worried in the Left and in my discussions with Finnish industry and other European frontrunners, they have raised serious concerns. The changing the rules would destroy the foundations of their investments, the investments they have already done and the investments they are planning to do. And going back, it would not be a good thing for Europe as a whole, as we know that we need to get rid of this economy that is so dependent on the Russian and Middle Eastern and US fossil fuels.
So for the Left, it is important that reform efforts, they maintain strong incentives for industry to reduce its own emissions within the EU, that the carbon price there remain predictable and a clear emissions reduction pathway provides investment certainty for companies and supports the development of the European clean tech industry. The Commission's proposal includes several mechanisms that increase the supply of emission allowances, slow their phase-out, or allow EU internal emissions reductions to be replaced by credits and carbon removals. And the draft we are now having, it weakens some of these elements even further, and for us that's a big problem. In our view, the flexibility mechanisms must not replace the genuine emission reductions. So, but I can and of course we can understand that the political change after the last mandate, it's been big, so we are trying to find constructive cooperation, but to be honest, the situation we are going to is not very satisfying for us, so we really are trying to make big differences for the draft.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thanks a lot. And now in the catch-the-eye procedure, we've got Mrs. Sophie Eriksson. Not with us. Okay, so Mrs. Sigrid Friis.
Sigrid Friis
Thank you very much and happy to have this debate today. I think it's very important. We need to be careful not to weaken the ETS trajectory further. It's one of the central pillars of both Europe's climate policy and our competitiveness policies. The businesses have made investment decisions on the basis on the direction that we have set.
Changing this direction now will create uncertainty, slow down investment, and it risks making the transition more difficult and more expensive. So I would really like to maintain the current LRF until 2036 and only adjust it afterwards. I'm also concerned with the introduction of international carbon credits. I think Europe needs enormous investments to decarbonize our industry, and every euro that we spend buying reduction outside the EU is a euro that is not being invested in the transformation that we need here at home. So instead of sending money abroad to pay for emission reductions elsewhere, the ETS should help mobilize investment in European clean technologies, industrial decarbonization, and energy security.
Finally, I think we should be very clear about the purpose of both the free allowances and the ETS.
As I said, decarbonization is expensive, so we shouldn't simply hand out the resources without strong conditionality. And ETS revenue should go towards climate priorities, not projects that risk creating new fossil fuel dependence or prolong existing fossil fuel use.
Emma Ytterell
Thank you so much. I have the privilege of being shadow on this file in ENVI, but I'm also really glad to be here in ITRE discussing this from an industry perspective. Because I think it's very easy, or important, not easy, but it's important to look at where would we be without ETS. We just had a fossil crisis, and the facts and reports shows that if we did not have the ETS in Europe, we would have been using more fossil energy, more vulnerable, and we would have had higher energy prices. We don't have high energy prices because of the ETS.
We have high energy prices because of the use of fossil fuels. So with the ETS, we will use less fossil energy and be less vulnerable and sensitive towards fossil energy crises.
And at some point, you have to then take a decision: do you believe in this system or you don't? Commission say they believe in this system, but they also present changes to the LRF, the MSR, the benchmarks, the addition of international credits, and more free allowances. All of these making the ETS weaker. What are the cumulative effects of this? And what signal does that send to industry?
I just want you all, members of the ITRE committee, to have that in mind. Five different parameters, or even more, is actually used to weaken this system that our industry is relying on. They are relying on us. Please have that in mind when discussing the details of this and look at the whole package and what signal we actually send to our most precious industries.
Katri Kulmuni
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, there's a contradictory in line with our commission with the common emission reduction targets with the one minor detail I'm lifting up.
There's a regulation currently in the proposal about 95 percentage usage of biomass, which will in the end kick out the factories that has been using the most with renewables out of free allowances. So with this artificial limit, they will continue using the 5 percentage of fossils, which isn't the idea when we are trying to get out of the fossils. So, and it will definitely also limit the ambitiousness to get sites that are 100% renewable. So I do hope that this will be changed. And another point of view, while I'm the northernmost of all of our colleagues, I'm worried that the ice class ships vessel exemption is only, it's not permanent, it is only an exception.
And it is so that winter comes every year into Finland where the ports will be ice-covered also in the future. So I do hope that it would be permanent while the winters are also. Thank you.
Gabriel Mato
Gracias, presidente. I'm going to speak in Spanish, if you don't mind. La revisión del ETS desde mi punto de vista debe alcanzar dos objetivos.
Por una parte apoyar la descarbonización, por supuesto, pero por otra preservar la competitividad de nuestros territorios. Y hablo desde las islas de las regiones ultraperiféricas como Canarias y por eso apoyamos y celebramos que la Comisión proponga prolongar hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2035 las excepciones para las conexiones aéreas y marítimas de estas regiones. Porque tenemos que tener claro por qué son necesarias. En Canarias, donde yo vivo, el avión y el transporte marítimo no son una alternativa, son una necesidad y una infraestructura esencial. No hay carretera, ferrocarril ni otra conexión que pueda sustituirlo.
Y si los costes del carbono encarecen estas conexiones, el impacto necesariamente se trasladará a los pasajeros, a las empresas y al precio de los bienes. Y si una conexión insular deja de ser económicamente viable, no existe otra ruta esperando para poder sustituirla. Por eso claramente queremos descarbonizar, pero desde luego no a costa de encarecer y de poner más dificultades todavía a la insularidad. La revisión del ETS debe mantener un tratamiento específico para estas regiones ultraperiféricas y garantizar lo que es la previsibilidad hasta 2035 y si fuera posible más allá, en línea con lo que establece el propio artículo 349 del Tratado.
Por lo tanto, la transición climática debe ser ambiciosa, pero también tiene que ser justa y por supuesto territorialmente coherente. Muchas gracias.
Borys Budka
Gracias. And this is the end of list of colleagues who were in our catch-the-eye procedure. So now I will give the floor for the final remarks our rapporteur. So please, the floor is yours.
Jüri Ratas
Yeah, thank you, thank you dear colleagues. And of course I understand that how important but also how difficult is this ETS topic for us. And like I said that tomorrow we will start our shadows meeting and I really hope that we could find this balance, if I could say so, between the economy, climate and also the social sphere. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Okay, thanks a lot. So this is the end of our discussion and as we informed, as our secretariat informed you via email, deadline for amendments was today at five and vote in ITRE will take place in November 19. So thanks a lot for the discussion and I just announce that we don't have any other businesses, so the next ITRE meeting will take place in Strasbourg, 8th of October. So remember we will meet on votes in Strasbourg. Thanks a lot and I close our today's committee meeting.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.