Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety Ordinary meeting
Legenda
Marcadores da transcrição
- texto Frase em reprodução
- texto Resultado da pesquisa
- texto Intervenção citada pela ligação que abriu
Clique numa frase para reproduzir o vídeo a partir desse momento. Selecione texto para o citar com o orador, a marca temporal e a ligação.
Mais opções
Desfasamento
Desfasamento da transcrição
Exportar
Gravação
Versões deste vídeo
- Gravação Versão definitiva · 12 de outubro de 2026Em exibição
- Captado em direto Transmitido em direto a 12 de outubro de 2026
As transcrições podem diferir ligeiramente de uma versão para outra.
ENVI European Parliament
Seguir as suas sessõesMathilde Androuët
Réduire les émissions, oui, bien sûr. Priver les Européens de moyens de se protéger de la chaleur et mettre la vie des plus fragiles en danger, c'est non. C'est pourquoi je vous appelle à soutenir cette objection.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we open the floor to the political group. We start with EPP, Manuela Ripa.
Manuela Ripa
Yes, thank you very much. I will read out the speaking points of my colleague Dimitris Tsiodras. He is responsible in the EPP for this objection. Dear colleagues, let me be clear from the outset. My position is to vote against this objection and support the Commission's implementing decision.
However, I would like to make a few points regarding the objection to the Commission's implementing decision on HFC reference values. First, we must ensure that our environmental legislation remains workable for European businesses and consumers. We are fully aware of the concerns regarding refrigerant availability, rising costs and the impact on SMEs, particularly in sectors such as refrigeration, heat pumps and healthcare.
These concerns deserve our attention. However, we need to distinguish between the legislation itself and the measures required to implement it. The Commission is not introducing new restrictions through this decision. The HFC phase-down trajectory, including the significant quota reduction from 2027, was already agreed by Parliament and Council in the F-gas regulation. The current decision simply establishes the reference values for allocating the agreed quotas among operators, following the methodology set out in the regulation.
It has also received a positive opinion from Member States through the comitology procedure. The central question is therefore whether the Commission has acted beyond its implementation powers. Based on the elements presented, there is no sufficient evidence to establish that it has. At the same time, we should not underestimate the practical challenges of implementation. The Commission must ensure that the transition does not undermine the competitiveness of European industry or create unnecessary costs for households and SMEs.
This requires close monitoring of refrigerant supply, market prices, the availability of affordable alternatives and the risk of illegal imports. Where genuine market disruption arise, the Commission should make use of the safeguard available under this regulation. Therefore, we expect the Commission to closely monitor refrigerant availability, prices, impacts on SMEs and the development of affordable alternatives and to act promptly if serious supply problems emerge. To conclude, my position is straightforward. We should reject the objection, uphold the existing regulatory framework and insist on practical, proportionate implementation that protects European competitiveness and consumers.
Ufuk Kâhya
Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Colleagues, last mandate, we took decisive action to phase out super greenhouse gases, so-called F-gases. By doing so, Europe has delivered for the planet and for the European industry, driving both industrial innovation and greenhouse gas emission reductions. European companies are now frontrunners in the development of clean, natural alternatives to F-gases. So the regulation is good, both for the climate and for our economy.
It even provides flexibility and safeguards for a slow phase-out in the beginning to allow companies time now and then to speed up towards 2050. After a summer where enormous parts of Europe struggled to get fires, forest fires under control, and people were struggling to survive and to work in the heat, the far right now proposes to allow for more super greenhouse gas emissions. They seem to live in another world and it's no surprise that they want to weaken Europe, hamper progress and plummet us back into the past. Instead, we need more strong and decisive action to protect people, our economy and our planet. Now it's time for action, to also phase out F-gases that are also PFAS.
These PFAS gases may not cause global warming and are maybe cheap for companies, but they do give people cancer and destroy our nature. And we have to stop this now.
Bans on these PFAS F-gases would be a win-win for our health, the environment, and EU competitiveness. European companies are already investing in F-gas and PFAS alternatives, but they need help. This is why the Commission should ban PFAS F-gases as part of the upcoming PFAS restriction proposal. We cannot wait years to stop companies emitting dangerous gases that cause cancer. We need action now.
Thank you.
Volker Schnurrbusch
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Madame Androuët, for your draft. The ESN group fully supports this objection. From 2027, the overall HFC quota ceiling falls by almost 50%. This decision sets the company reference values used to allocate access to that shrinking supply. Behind these figures are hospitals, farms, food producers, and thousands of small businesses that depend on functioning refrigeration.
Brussels cannot demand that businesses remain competitive while pursuing rules that risk making essential repairs unaffordable. The Commission should answer: what will happen to prices? Will small maintenance companies retain access to supplies? How will essential services be protected? Saying that alternatives exist is insufficient.
They must work safely in the actual installation at a cost its owner can afford. We demand a revised decision, a transparent assessment, and effective safeguards for essential supply. Member states must be able to protect healthcare and the cooling chain for food. Thank you.
Peter Liese
Thank you, Chair. I would just add a few reflections to what Manuela Ripa read out on behalf of Dimitrios Papadimoulis. So we as the EPP, we are against the objection. But I find it interesting that Madame Brasier-Clain admitted that climate change exists. Mr. Snobuš didn't.
And I think, Mr. Schnurrbusch, you are an intelligent guy. You will admit that climate change exists. Unfortunately, in your respective, unfortunately, in your respective groups and parties, that is not the case. You know, in the ESN group, and your party chair, Mr. Chrupalla, said it was a normal summer. It was not.
It was an extraordinary summer, and most of people know that it is also linked to climate change. And I'm also not sure how is the position on the Patriots group now. I think Rassemblement National admits that climate change exists, fine, but do the other colleagues in Patriots agree? I don't know. So, I think there is a point that we need more air condition, and this is my message to the Greens.
So you can say goodbye to your critical attitude to air condition because we have solar. And that's another message to the far right. You never supported solar in the past. We have solar. When it's hot, we have a lot of energy, and there is no problem with fossil fuels when it's hot in summer.
So air condition is fine. You can do it without a bad conscience, also because of this regulation. We replace, we replace the dirty gases that cause climate change. We have more environmental-friendly material, and that's why this is really a good regulation, and it will allow to do the air condition without a bad conscience. So that's why let's do it and not support the objection.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. I want to highlight that the objection was presented by Madame Androuët. We don't have any evidence from Brassac-Klein still about climate change, but we have placed in catch-the-eye if she wants to say something. If no other colleagues want to take the floor, we leave it to Willem van Ierland, Head of Unit, Low Carbon Solutions, from the Commission.
Please, you have the floor.
William VAN IERLAND
Thank you, Chair, Honorable Members. We welcome the opportunity to explain the nature and implication of this implementing decision. The implementing decision has indeed no impact on the total allowable quantities of HFCs on the European market for the coming period. That total amount is already decided in the regulation approved by the European Parliament and the Council, and the manner on how to do so is set out in Annex VII to that regulation. The implementing decision cannot change that.
Article 17(1) of the regulation legally requires the Commission indeed to determine the reference values for producers and importers, and this reference values determines the share of each producer and importer of the total amount of these allowed quantities. So the implementing decision only serves as a basis for allocating the total already set allowable quota to importers and producers and does not establish a new policy. Maybe reacting also on some of the reasons why the objection was tabled. Indeed, the premise seems to be that the resolution appears to say that strict F-gas policy is putting the health of people at risk. May I underline this is certainly not the case.
Actually, indeed, the F-gas regulation aims to reduce climate change and its impacts, and in that way it's been quite successful. Historically, F-gas emissions have been increasing rapidly because of increased use, among others, in applications such as air conditioning. Since 2014, when the quota system was established, we have managed to revert that and we're now actually looking already at a reduction by more than 40% of these emissions. So in that way, the F-gas policy has been a very successful policy in contributing to the fight of climate change. The F-gas regulation is therefore ensuring a transition away from indeed highly climate-damaging refrigerants, including in heating and cooling equipment, towards more climate-friendly solutions.
I want to guarantee or stress that there are many alternatives available. The latest review of the regulations takes this into account and it actually doesn't look only at the climate impacts of these refrigerants, but also looked towards the need to move towards PFAS-free alternatives in certain applications where the alternatives are available. That was an issue to which the Parliament itself attached particular importance during the co-decision negotiations. Still, it's clear climate change is occurring and the Commission fully agrees that access to cooling is increasingly important in Europe. In this context, it should be noted that the aim to increase the deployment of heat pumps, in itself a solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from heating, will also allow for more cooling services where needed when operated in inverse modus.
Furthermore, the regulation requires the Commission indeed to monitor every year the impact of the HFC quota system on the heat pump market. If a severe shortage of HFCs were to threaten the achievement of the Union's heat pump deployment targets, Article 17(7) expressly allows the Commission to make additional HFC quota available.
We are monitoring the market and until now we have not seen any such severe shortage of HFCs and of course we will continue to continue monitoring the market. On the other hand, not establishing the reference values in accordance to the regulation would mean that the correct basis for allocating annual quota would not exist. That would result in big uncertainty and would seriously destabilize the HFC market in the EU. So the Commission shares the Parliament's objective of ensuring that the transition is safe, workable and fair. The EU F-gas policy is there to prevent climate change.
We will continue to monitor its implementation closely and use the safeguards provided by the regulation where justified. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. The vote in ENVI will take place the 19th of October while the vote in plenary will be probably in the month of November, of course if it will be adopted in ENVI. So, oh yes, so now we move to the next item, the number five, the objection about the benchmark values for free allocation of emission allowances for the period from 2026 to 2030. I leave the floor to the proposer of the objection, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain.
Merci Monsieur le Président. Cette objection part d'un constat simple et trop souvent répété. On demande à l'industrie européenne de se décarboner mais sans lui donner les moyens économiques et technologiques de le faire. C'est le cas ici. Les valeurs de référence déterminent le nombre de quotas gratuits attribués à l'industrie.
Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain
Plus elles sont basses, plus le nombre de quotas gratuits diminue, ce qui augmente la facture carbone pour les entreprises. Tout cela au moment où le renforcement des objectifs climatiques de l'UE raréfie l'offre de quotas et augmente donc leur prix. Sur le plan technologique, la baisse des valeurs de référence risque de réduire les allocations plus rapidement que les secteurs ne peuvent déployer les technologies de décarbonation disponibles. Dans plusieurs secteurs à forte intensité énergétique comme l'acier, le ciment, la chimie ou les engrais, ces technologies ne sont tout simplement pas encore matures ou restent trop coûteuses. Et cela va générer des écarts.
Les meilleures installations bénéficient d'investissements lourds que toutes les entreprises ne peuvent engager et qui se retrouvent ainsi pénalisées. Les valeurs de référence risquent donc d'être déconnectées des réalités économiques de nombreuses entreprises. Par ailleurs, ces valeurs reposent sur une méthodologie complexe fondée sur de nombreux paramètres techniques et règles sectorielles. Cette approche technocratique est donc elle-même facteur d'insécurité juridique et de lourdeur administrative. Comment mieux l'illustrer qu'en rappelant que pour être attribués, les quotas restants doivent être conformes à des audits énergétiques et à des plans de neutralité climatique sous peine de pénalités.
Plusieurs États membres ont émis des réserves sur cette révision et même demandé que les valeurs de référence de la période 2021-2025 soient maintenues. Car si nous réduisons trop rapidement les quotas gratuits alors que nos concurrents internationaux ne supportent pas les mêmes contraintes, nous risquons simplement de déplacer la production. C'est d'ailleurs exactement ce que les quotas gratuits sont censés empêcher.
Il y a enfin une question de cohérence. Depuis plusieurs mois, la Commission promeut la compétitivité et la réindustrialisation avec des politiques comme le pacte pour une industrie propre, la boussole pour la compétitivité et la déclaration de Budapest. La Commission a aussi pris conscience de certains risques en proposant d'augmenter les quotas gratuits pour les industries exposées à la concurrence mondiale. Mais c'est insuffisant. Nous ne pouvons pas demander à l'industrie européenne de rester compétitive si on ne lui en donne pas les moyens.
Et surtout, pourquoi figer aujourd'hui pour quatre ans des paramètres d'allocation dont le cadre méthodologique est d'une part en train d'être réexaminé par le Parlement et doit d'autre part déjà faire l'objet de corrections par la Commission, notamment les valeurs de repli. Nous demandons que les valeurs de référence applicables pour 2021-2025 soient maintenues le temps que les colégislateurs examinent la réforme de l'ETS et que les nouvelles règles soient définitivement stabilisées. Cela permettrait aux entreprises d'éviter une réduction brutale des allocations gratuites, quand bien même il faudrait élaborer une référence plus proche de la performance moyenne du secteur plutôt que des 10 % les plus performants pour mieux refléter la réalité économique. On croyait l'ambition irréaliste du pacte vert derrière nous après les déclarations en faveur de la croissance et de la compétitivité. Mais tant que dans la pratique la politique climatique nie la réalité industrielle, technologique et économique, ces déclarations resteront des vœux pieux.
Pour ces raisons, je vous invite à soutenir cette objection.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we leave the floor to the political group for two minutes each, EPP Peter Liese.
Peter Liese
Thank you, Chair. In agreement with the rapporteur for the benchmarks and the responsible colleague for this objection, Adam Jarubas, I can say that the EPP is against the objection because we are for the free allowances. And that has to be understood, I think, because if this objection gets a majority, industry will lose the free allowances because this delegated act will give the industry free allowances. Not enough, that's why we go further and we have this report of Adam Jarubas where we do it better immediately. But we have this delegated act on the table and if it is objected, the industry will for now lose all the free allowances.
And you know, we as an EPP, we are for the free allowances and we are for the stepwise approach that the huge majority of the member states agreed. They have agreed this act and at the same time said Commission needs to go further. And that's why we have this urgent procedure with Adam Jarubas as a rapporteur to change the system so that industry gets more free allowances. And in my report, Adam and me, we have also tabled an amendment on the methodology. But we need to be rule-based and we shouldn't have populistic efforts here.
So industry will lose the free allowances if the Patriots get the majority. And should I say I wonder why they tabled it anyhow? No, I don't wonder because they don't want solutions. They want to make trouble. They want to make a point but don't see the consequences.
So if you are for the free allowances, you need to vote against this objection. Thank you.
Sander Smit
Thank you very much, Madam Brasier-Clain, chers collègues. The ECR group, in contrary to the EPP group, can support this objection to the Commission Implementing Regulation 2024/1412. That's not because I don't share certain legal points made by the colleagues, but because free allocation is an essential safeguard against carbon leakage. It keeps production and jobs in Europe while companies invest in cutting their emissions. I think about ceramics.
No houses, no housing without tiles and bricks. European industry faces high energy costs and strong international competition. In several sectors, the technologies needed for deep emission reductions are not yet available at the adequate scale. In those sectors, lower benchmarks like these raise costs without delivering additional reductions in the short term. The Clean Industrial Deal allegedly aims at competitiveness and a predictable investment framework.
In July, the Commission itself proposed more free allocation under the heat and fuel benchmarks. Yet here it lowers the benchmarks while Parliament and Council are still deciding, we are still deciding on the rules as mentioned. That offers no stability for investments in installations that run for decades. The objection argues that the regulation exceeds the Commission's implementing powers. The Commission of course may reply that Article 10a, paragraph 2, sub-c of the ETS Directive requires benchmarks to be based on data from 2021 and 2022.
But if so, the transition must come from the legislator through the broader ETS reform as we envisage as Parliament and as ECR. So we can support the objection's paragraphs 8 to 10 as a very important signal. The Commission should repeal the regulation immediately to prevent legal uncertainty, submit a new draft that keeps the 2021-2025 values on a transitional basis until the reform is adopted with a legal basis for that transition in the reform itself. New values should follow only once the reform is in force, with full regard to competitiveness, investment security, and carbon leakage, including of ceramics and other sectors which are disproportionately affected. European companies need a consistent framework to keep producing in Europe and to keep investing in decarbonisation.
So we cannot generalize about certain sectors and situations. So I thank the colleagues for the signal and I think we should take it at heart, and also the Commission. And if we object, yeah, that legal uncertainty will ensue, then the Commission has to come up with a proper implementing regulation with the proper benchmark values. Thank you very much.
Michael Bloss
Thank you very much. So let me just say on the overall system of free allocations, in the last five years we had around yearly 39 billion euros of foregone ETS revenues per year. That's roughly the amount that the Commission is assuming is needed as annual investments for the decarbonisation of industrial production in the years 2031 to 2040. We see and we saw in the past that industries received free allocations and instead of investing them into the decarbonisation, they built plants outside of the Europe, which are today creating competition for European plants.
so we created basically the ones that are currently killing the industry. And currently it's very interesting if you look at the chemical industry, the actual payment for a ton of CO2 is currently 10 euros per ton. So we need to reform this system of benchmarks and free allocation altogether, but not in the way you want to do it because you speak about legal certainty,
but what is actually needed is legal certainty for those who have already invested and have already relied on the system we built, and they want to create a business case out of this and want to create future jobs, and with this objection you take this certainty away from them. So we believe that the proposed benchmarks that we already have, the industry continues to receive free allocation of around 75%,
the Commission stayed within its implementing powers, and in the upcoming revision we want to redo the system of benchmarks altogether. So the real problem is not the benchmarks, the real problem is the attacks on the ETS system that creates investor uncertainty and therefore also uncertainty for the creation of jobs in Europe. Thank you very much.
Jonas Sjöstedt
I'll be very brief. Thank you. We think the main objectives for this policy should be to have as low emissions as possible, to award those who have actually done their job and invested to slash emissions, and to have predictability,
so we don't support this objection. Thank you.
Anja Arndt
Ja, danke Herr Vorsitzender. Deutschland hat 2025 allein im verarbeitenden Gewerbe 177.000 Arbeitsplätze verloren, im Schnitt waren das fast 15.000 pro Monat, das ist ein unermesslicher Schaden für mein Heimatland. Trotzdem hat die Kommission im Juni in einer Durchführungsverordnung die kostenlosen CO2-Zertifikate im Durchschnitt um mehr als 16 % für die nächsten fünf Jahre reduziert.
Besonders betroffen sind wieder einmal Anlagen in Raffinerien, in der Chemie-, Keramik-, Glas- und Papierbranche. Sie brauchen für ihre Produktion viel Prozesswärme, Dampf und Brennstoff, und genau für Wärme und Brennstoff hat die Kommission die kostenlose Zuteilung von CO2-Zertifikaten sogar um 34 % gesenkt. Unsere Industrie steht kurz vor dem Zusammenbruch, und trotzdem wird die Klimaagenda hier eiskalt weiter durchgezogen.
Aber der Irrsinn geht ja noch weiter. Wenige Wochen später legte die Kommission dann selbst einen Vorschlag vor, um diese Reduzierung wieder abzumildern, und dabei wird doch die kostenfreie Zuteilung von CO2-Zertifikaten zurzeit in der Überarbeitung des gesamten Emissionshandelssystems neu festgelegt. Was für ein Chaos. Unsere Unternehmen können nicht mehr kalkulieren.
Anja Arndt
Die Kommission selbst hat sich völlig verrannt und den Überblick verloren. Wir von der ESN-Fraktion unterstützen deshalb die Forderung der Patrioten, die Durchführungsverordnung sofort zurückzunehmen und unterstützen den Einwand. Wir als ESN fordern darüber hinaus, das Emissionshandelssystem sofort aufzuheben. Die Steuer auf Luft, und es ist nichts anderes als eine Steuer auf Luft, ist kein Klimaschutz, sondern eine Deindustrialisierung über Verordnung, und das muss sofort beendet werden.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Catch the eye we have Manuela Ripa. No, okay. So Commission we leave the floor to Heiko Kunst head of unit ETS implementation.
Heiko Kunst
Yes thank you Mr. Chairman and good afternoon honorable members. I don't want to start with too broad points. I think it has also been mentioned and pointed to in the debate also of the previous agenda item that we are facing huge challenges due to climate change. And Europe's response is to have not only a legally binding target for the emission reduction enshrined in the European climate law but we also have the policy tools based on clear rules and long-term objectives. One of these policy tools is the emission trading system the EU ETS and in its last reform adopted by the co-legislators in spring 2023 and the Commission has the duty to implement to properly and correctly implement this legal framework which has been decided by both Council and the European Parliament.
The benchmark regulation which is facing this objection is part of this technical implementation. And I would like to underline that the directive is very clear when describing the way these benchmarks are calculated. There is a clear methodology prescribed in the directive and the use of verified data provided by industry on their real measured performance. All this is enshrined in the directive and the Commission does not have any additional discretion beyond that. Let me also point out that we're talking about real measured performance of European industries.
We do not we're not allowed to consider for example technologies which are not available. No we talk about reality which is measured and confirmed by verifiers. So only technologies which do work already in industry can contribute to this benchmark calculation exercise. And maybe also one point on the nature of benchmarks. The free allocation is based on benchmarks to make sure that frontrunners those who invest and who are willing to further invest in Europe to maintain and create new jobs in European industry that they get 100% free allocation.
That's the approach of benchmarks. The benchmark setters get full free allocation and those who are lagging behind they have to pay the difference between their own emissions and the benchmark level. And this gives a very strong incentive for the operators to decarbonize. Very important element of the ETS directive. So let me summarize on this point.
The directive leaves very limited discretion to the Commission and we believe that we calculated benchmark values exactly within that legal framework. Secondly I would like to make a point or raise some considerations on the procedure and the timing of this objection. The benchmarks have been adopted by the Commission in June and the free allocation for the year 2024 has to a large extent now been transferred to the operators' account.
It is hard to really understand the reasoning that we should now repeal this implementing act. This would create huge legal uncertainty for industries and operators cannot receive free allocation anymore unless we have a new legal framework in place. I really wonder if this creation of cash flow problems is really the idea behind this objection. I also heard in the debate the alternative, well, the Commission should just repeal this implementing act and replace it by the old benchmark values. But for that, I would like to recall that the legal framework is very precise.
With the legal framework, it is simply illegal to just prolong the validity of the old benchmark values, which has been applied in the period 21 to 25. Last but not least, I would like to make a point on the claim that this implementing act is misaligned with the economic context. I think it's also very important to recall that in Europe we have fossil fuel imports with an economic value around 400 to 500 billion euros per year. And I think for the long-term competitiveness of European industry, it is not a good idea to pay more than 1 billion euro per day. And beyond that, I think it is also in view of our strategic autonomy not wise to deviate from our decarbonization agenda in Europe.
And that concludes my remarks. Thank you for your attention.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. The point is closed. I may have some colleagues asking, but the point is closed. Now we have a pause until five. We have time, but we have also a procedure, I mean.
We will be back with the next item at five.
Good afternoon. I am delighted to welcome the members of the ENVI Committee and most importantly our colleagues from the Commission for the Environment, Climate Change and Energy of the European Committee of the Regions. A very warm welcome also to my colleague Kostas Bakoyannis, Chair of the ENVE Commission. It's a pleasure to host you once again here in the European Parliament. I'm particularly pleased that we are holding our second joint ENVI-ENVE meeting today.
As you will remember, the first joint meeting last year was a success, dedicated to the crucial topic of regions taking action on climate resilience and adaptation. It showed clearly how much we gain when we join forces and it convinced us that this dialogue should become a tradition, not a one-off. The success of the first meeting brings us naturally to today's theme: building a sustainable future, funding environment and climate policies in the next MFF. With the presentation of the Irish Presidency's new proposal over the weekend, the discussion could not be more timely. Last year, we discussed what the regions and cities are doing on the ground.
Today, we turn to the question that makes all that possible: how will the next EU budget fund our environment and climate ambition? Let me be clear from the outset: ambitious environment and climate policies are only as strong as the funding behind them. The next MFF must therefore provide adequate, ambitious and dedicated funding for the green transition. Targets on paper mean little if the resources to deliver them are missing. The ENVI Committee therefore defends a spending target of at least 35% on climate and environment.
This 35% should be reflected in all of a bigger and more ambitious next-term budget, not just a part of it. The next long-term budget must allow Europe to navigate challenging times and prepare for the future.
The cuts proposed by the Council could go in the opposite direction. They would make our communities and territories more vulnerable. Every euro invested in resilience and adaptation can bring back up to 10 euros in return. This is the logic we should follow in the next MFF. Resilience must be built into all EU programs, so that investment today protects our communities tomorrow.
On this note, I want to underline the importance of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. At the beginning of the month, this committee voted in favor of increasing the budget for the European Civil Protection Mechanism to over 11 billion. The Council's proposal to reduce the funding by 35% to about 7 billion is short-sighted and risks precisely to harm those member states that have suffered the most from devastating floods and heatwaves. Today we supported member states with more than 500 million after events of this summer. This probably would be much complicated, much complicated with the new MFF.
In short, after the summer that we have just witnessed, the proposed cut of the Civil Protection Mechanism is simply not acceptable. I would also like to say a word about the LIFE program. For over three decades, LIFE has been the EU's dedicated instrument for the environment and climate. It has funded nature protection, clean energy and climate projects, familiar to many of the local or regional leaders here today. Its legacy is remarkable and we must protect it.
Our shared responsibility is to ensure that LIFE's spirit, its added value and its dedicated focus on environment, climate and biodiversity live on. We will engage to this end in the upcoming negotiation. Finally, but not less important, is that do not significant harm principle gone existing. Every euro of the EU budget should contribute to our climate and environmental objectives, or at the very least not undermine them. This must be applied rigorously and consistently across all funding programs.
We will work to ensure a good and balanced outcome on this regard. Let me finally conclude with one thought. As a former city commissioner of the city of Milan, I believe that the experience of EU territories in implementing climate and environmental projects on the ground provide important insight for EU policy making. That experience is key to ensuring that the new MFF delivers on the EU's key priorities and that funding reaches all territories and communities across our Union, leaving no one and no region behind. This is precisely why our dialogue today must be continuous, not occasional, not ad hoc, but ongoing exchange built into our work.
Today's meeting is an important step in that direction. I look forward to a rich and constructive discussion with all of you. So, thank you and now I leave you the floor for your initial remarks.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
Well, thank you so much, dear chair, particularly thanks for this warm welcome to you and to all the members of the Parliament's ENVI Committee. This is our second meeting, as you said, our first meeting was a success and this is a success that we can agree that we all need, dear chair, especially at a moment such as this for Europe. It is important that we join forces. There is lots of political capital in this room that can only be multiplied when we actually stand next to each other, so I'm very much looking forward to the dialogue that will follow.
The topic of today's meeting is indeed a key priority. The European budget is not merely a financial framework, it's something much more than that. It's one of our most powerful tools for turning Europe's climate and environmental ambitions into action. Cities and regions deliver EU priorities in practice, from competitiveness and housing to climate resilience, clean energy and the green transition. Because of this, cities and regions must have a real role in designing and implementing programs, not just be consulted afterwards.
Since its creation, cohesion policy has been one of the main engines of climate action. Crucially, it has allowed each region to direct resources towards its most urgent territorial needs, from climate-resilient infrastructure and protection against disasters to circular economy solutions and sustainable energy production. So as negotiations on the next MFF are moving forward, let me reiterate two messages on behalf of Europe's local authorities. Number one, as you said, no cuts should be made to the budget for regional and territorial policies. We need a budget that matches Europe's ambitions on the ground, where new priorities do not come at the expense of existing successful policies.
Number two, regions should have a clearly defined role in national and regional partnership plans. Replacing a decentralized cohesion policy with a system managed solely at member state level risks undermining the very purpose of cohesion policy, bringing Europe closer to its people by investing in the places where they live in line with their territorial needs. I therefore welcome the Parliament's support on this key point. We must go further and stand firm to ensure that this principle is fully safeguarded in the final agreement. Funds under direct management are equally important for cities and regions when it comes to climate and environmental policies.
EU funding has enabled cities and regions to test bold ideas, to scale up innovation, become more competitive and connect with partners across Europe. Much of this progress has been made possible by dedicated instruments such as LIFE, which you mentioned, the mission on climate-neutral cities and the mission of adaptation. These instruments have been fundamentally redesigned in the new MFF, creating a significant risk of drastically reducing their positive impact on our cities and regions. LIFE, for instance, has long been one of Europe's most effective instruments for turning green ambition into visible local action. LIFE has delivered concrete change, bringing cleaner air, restored ecosystems, stronger climate resilience and practical energy solutions in the places where people live.
Dedicated funding under the Horizon program for missions has allowed many cities and regions to accelerate the implementation of climate policies. Innovation, business creation and resilience are concrete benefits of this. Even if these instruments do not continue in their current form, their legacy and purpose must endure. Let me therefore conclude, dear Chair, with a clear call. The next MFF must provide clear, accessible and sustained support for local and regional authorities and binding safeguards for their involvement in the national and regional partnership plans to deliver Europe's climate and environmental objectives on the ground.
Many thanks.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you Costas. I am now pleased to open this exchange on building a sustainable future funding environment and climate policies in the next MFF with the European Commission, the European Environment Agency and the ENVI rapporteur on the topic and the ENVI member speaking on behalf of the ENVI rapporteur. I thank you all for joining this exchange today. To start I give the floor to the European Commission. We have with us Claudia Fusco, a director at DG Environment and Yvon Slingenberg, director at DG Clima.
You have the floor for five minutes.
Yvon Slingenberg
Thank you very much both chairs and and presidents of this commission. So I'm Yvon Slingenberg with DG Clima and I'm here with Claudia as you said. I will start and also I'm afraid I have to leave a little bit earlier before the end of the event so because I have to replace my Director General but that's why it's very good that we're here together and we can hopefully cover also the points that the the distinguished members will raise. From our side just to recall indeed that we have legally binding targets when it comes to climate. We have binding targets for 2030, 2040 and of course the objective of Europe becoming the first climate neutral region in 2050.
And also those meeting those objectives and also of course many other green objectives that are very much linked to to the overall transition requires substantial investments in all sectors of the economy. I think we all agree on that. And that also means that it is essential to ensure that all financial flows private and public, national and EU level are aligned with these objectives. And for us that means that we should really try to maximize the positive effects of investments for the transition and of course the related policy reforms and minimize on the other hand any negative effects and there for example we can think about you know fossil fuel subsidies. In addition to supporting the clean transition and and achieving the EU's climate objectives the MFF will also in this way help to strengthen the EU's strategic autonomy reducing its still very strong dependence on the imports on fossil fuels and thereby enhance the resilience to price shocks which again in turn will bolster competitiveness and last but not least contribute to a fair transition for citizens and workers.
And this is the rationale of the Commission proposal very much for the MFF. And in order to bring these various dimensions together that again climate but also independence, competitiveness and a fair transition it is paramount to preserve the three key green mainstreaming features and I think you yourself mentioned them so I will repeat them a little bit from the side of the Commission namely first of all of course the overall green spending target of 35% for the budget as a whole but also very importantly the sub-targets for the specific programs and here I just want to recall the 43% for the national plans but also for the 3 for the European Competitiveness Fund and 30% for Global Europe. Now where should these investments and this support go? Clearly just to give an example we need massive investments in electrification, in grids, in interconnectors, in renewables, batteries, storage capacity and of course linked to all of that also the skills. And and in that way these investments would also help to tackle our dependencies as I just mentioned, high energy prices and also of course the need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
We can save a lot of money also by preventing you know additional fossil fuel imports for example according to the IEA the EU saved already more than 50 billion in 2025 alone.
And that money can of course then be used again to support the transition. We also need investments in infrastructure for hydrogen and for carbon capture and use and storage. And other areas where more investment is also needed includes vulnerable households, micro-enterprises and transport users affected by rising energy costs and the circular economy. Now, you clearly all know this very well and also you are, or at least many of you are building and delivering this transition locally, as we also see in the missions adaptation and the cities mission. And we learn a lot from that all together.
Now the second key feature is around tracking and performance. So there as well we need a horizontally applicable framework with harmonized intervention fields, corresponding climate and environment tracking coefficients and a leaner set of performance indicators. That would really make it much easier for all actors and that is what the Commission has proposed. Now third feature is a more consistent, improved and simplified application of the do no significant harm principle. We're happy to see that the stakeholder feedback that we got in response to the open public consultation has shown broad support for the overall direction of travel in this respect.
And then I just wanted to mention the fact that indeed, like you also said, Mr. Chairman, that it will be very important to step up our actions when it comes to climate resilience. And this is again about social, economic and ecological systems, looking at the increasing climate risks that we see all around of, all around us, of course, and impacting the economy, infrastructure and citizens. There will be a new proposal coming forward end of this month, a new European climate resilience law, and we hope that that can also help in this respect. Now just before handing over to Claudia, and she will go more into depth in the territorial dimension of the green spending, I just wanted to echo also what you were saying on the one hand, the proposals made by the Irish presidency, we're happy to see that the green features are preserved, but we are also a bit disappointed about the significant cuts to the budget which, you know, will also have its impacts on some of the things that we very much support. So we hope to count on the Parliament and the Committee of the Regions in, you know, backing that up as well to preserve the vital role that the MFF can play to advance the transition while at the same time reinforcing our strategic autonomy and competitiveness and help ensure a fair transition.
Thank you.
You have to allow me more time if you, so I can go ahead? Okay, thank you. I will be briefer than Yvon, but Yvonne has already underlined very important points. So thank you for being here also on my side as responsible for DG Environment. Of course, we also took note of the Irish presidency negotiating box and take care of note, take note of this and we are analyzing.
Claudia Fusco
Of course, we regret the cuts, that's, this is clear. We also look forward to the European Council discussion and also to EP position on this proposal because the objective and the common objective to make this coming and to make sure that the investment that we want to be ready for 2028 is to get to an agreement towards the end of this year, otherwise we will not be on time for that. So again, the Commission recognized the strong role, the central role of the regions and the cities. President von der Leyen herself last year also ensured that also the preparation of the plans would have been done in full cooperation with the regions. And also on the CAP.
So it is important to continue the, in terms of investment, if we look more at the, let's say, environmental side, we have to invest more in nature restoration, in water resilience, in pollution reductions and circular economy to build a more sustainable, competitive and crisis-ready economy. The President herself announced a number of activity, of initiatives, you mentioned yourself, Mr. Maran, the heatwaves, heatwaves plan, action plan on which we are working, the water initiative on which we are also working.
But there is a lot for the regions and for the local authorities in the current structure of the budget. National regional partnership plans, these are key. These will support all regions with additional support to those lagging behind, less developed regions, and also the cities and rural areas. It is also based on a shared management and also the cooperation with the regions is embedded in a way, also with the national authorities that they have to inform how they have consulted the regions and the local authorities when presenting their plan. There is also the EU facility which is mainly dedicated also to with the life-type activities.
You both mentioned the importance of life and we intend to continue the good work of the life project that also bring together citizens very close also to Europe and we have to keep the good features of this. Let me spend a word on the national restoration plans. This is a part, a very important part of the national regional partnership plans. The Member States have started delivering the deadline by 1st of September. So and this is also very much done in cooperation with regions and cities.
Claudia Fusco
So again, also for the restoration, the local authorities have to play their role, a role. European Competitiveness Fund. There is also the importance of the local and regional ecosystem for translating innovation into industrial deployment and economic impact. And this, for example, the clean transition and decarbonisation windows are very much of interest for the local authorities in terms of circularity of waste, transport, energy and life activities will also be normally covered by this European Competitiveness Fund. I think that's all to complement what I wanted to say and now I'm very much looking forward to listening to the debate.
Thank you.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
Thank you very, very much to both directors for their contribution. I'm now pleased to give the floor to Ms. Iila Mononen, Executive Director of the European Environmental Agency. Ms. Leena Ylä-Mononen, you have the floor for five minutes.
Leena Ylä-Mononen
Thank you, Chair, and I'm really pleased to be here with you in this debate today. Yes, this summer was again a brutal reminder of what we can expect from the changing climate, both here in Europe, the world's fastest warming continent, but also across the globe. And building resilience and adapting our societies and infrastructure, it will not come cheap. But our work in the European Environment Agency shows time and again that the cost of inaction far outweigh the cost of acting in the short term. If we are to protect the environment, societies and economies, we will need to keep investing in different areas.
And I outline some of the priority areas. First, making the agriculture, energy and transport sectors climate resilient. This may require investments of between 53 billion and 137 billion euros annually by 2050 and a further 59 to 173 billion euros then towards 2100, so the end of the century. And current committed funding levels are estimated to be at just 15 to 16 billion euros per year. So we have an investment gap already of 100 billion euros annually by mid-century.
Cities, of course, are another pertinent example. Three quarters of Europeans live in urban areas, which are at particular risk from heatwaves and extreme precipitation.
Over half of European cities already have dedicated adaptation plans, but good practices are not being scaled quickly enough. The most reported barriers to implementation are the availability of sustained funding and sufficient budgetary capacity, so also calling for investment. Circular economy, already mentioned several times, another area with significant opportunities and needs, reducing our dependence on imported raw materials and volatile commodity markets while strengthening also competitiveness. And according to the latest estimates, closing the investment gap in circular economy requires an additional 82 billion euros annually, which would mean a 68% increase over current levels. And in order to address this, public investments and fiscal policies have a strategic role to attract more private capital.
Fourth, healthy functioning ecosystems, already mentioned also, it's really a backbone for our industries and societies as well, and of course for our well-being. And despite increased funding during the 2014-2020 MFF, our assessment show ongoing biodiversity decline due to habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and overexploitation, and of course also the climate change. Protected areas also suffer from inadequate management and funding. So the projected biodiversity funding for the EU and its member states for 2021-2027 shows significant disparities and an investment gap again. It will therefore be crucially important to foresee substantial resources in the next MFF to fund the national restoration plans through the national and regional partnership plans.
The coming days and weeks will be crucial as decisions will be taken about the size of the next MFF budget and its priorities. Our role in the European Environment Agency is to provide robust evidence, trusted data and clear analysis, and we can help demonstrate why climate and environment spending is not a constraint but a foundation for Europe's long-term prosperity. We firmly support of course the case of maintaining the 35% for climate and environmental spending, as well as broader environmental safeguards. And these include the do no significant harm principle to ensure that future investments do not harm environmental objectives related to climate change mitigation, adaptation, transition to circular economy, pollution prevention and control, sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems, so very important. This and the MFF in general will define the focus of the EU's interventions for a very long time, all the way through to 2034.
And the budget is a key instrument for accompanying the EU, the member states, our regions, cities, businesses and citizens in general towards the green and clean future we want to achieve together. So it is definitely not only about protecting the environment and climate, increasingly this is also about the EU's competitiveness, security and resilience. I thank you for your attention.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, executive director, for your intervention. We now move to the MEPs, we start with Manuela Ripa, speaking on behalf of Michalis Hadjipantela, the ENVI rapporteur for the opinion on the interim report on the proposal for the MFF. Mrs Ripa, you have five minutes for Hadjipantela plus one point thirty seconds for you.
Manuela Ripa
Thank you very much, dear chairs, dear executive director of the European Environmental Agency, Leena Ylä-Mononen, dear directors of the European Commission, dear colleagues, dear ladies and gentlemen. Indeed, I speak today in place of my colleague Michalis Hadjipantela, who is the ENVI rapporteur for the opinion on the next multiannual financial framework. The next European budget is not simply about how much money we spend. It is about what kind of Europe we want to build and what we want to preserve. A Europe that is economically strong, competitive and secure.
A Europe that supports its regions, farmers and industry, but equally a Europe that protects its natural resources, strengthens its resilience and safeguards the living condition of future generations. I firmly believe that these objectives must reinforce each other, because environmental protection and economic competitiveness are not opposing priorities. They are two foundations of Europe's long-term prosperity. Across Europe, we are witnessing the consequences of climate change: floods, droughts, wildfires and increasing pressure on our agriculture, infrastructure and water resources. These are not only environmental challenges.
They are economic risks threatening jobs, businesses, food security, public finances and thus the stability of our communities. Preventing damage is less expensive than repairing it. That is why the next MFF must invest in resilience, prevention and sustainability. The Commission's proposal offers opportunities to simplify funding, reduce bureaucracy and mobilize investments more effectively. And this ambition is important.
But simplification must not come at the expense of transparency, predictability or the objectives of successful European programs. This is also a central concern reflected in the EPP Group's approach to the future European budget. European funding must deliver genuine added value, support competitiveness and remain predictable for our regions and beneficiaries. In this context, I would like to highlight the broad agreement achieved in our ENVI committee. Under the rapporteurship of Michalis Hadjipantela, our opinion was adopted by 51 votes to 8, with strong support from colleagues across political groups.
That agreement offers an important foundation for our negotiations. First, we must safeguard the proposed 35% spending target for climate and environmental objectives. But for me, this target must be understood as a minimum baseline, not as a guarantee that all our environmental needs are adequately financed. We must measure success not only by how much we spend, but by what we achieve. Second, nature and biodiversity protection need clearly identifiable and adequate funding.
On a personal note, I think it is essential that the existing separate biodiversity target of 10% should be maintained in the new MFF and given stronger legal safeguards. And I say this as a member of our parliamentary delegation to the upcoming biodiversity COP to Armenia and as a co-chair of the EP delegation to the last CITES COP. No question, investing in innovative technologies and industrial decarbonization is essential. But restoring wetlands, protecting forests, improving water quality and maintaining healthy soils are equally important investments in Europe's economic resilience. These priorities should complement each other, not compete for visibility within increasingly broad financial instruments.
Third, we must safeguard the experience and achievements of the LIFE program. For more than 30 years, LIFE has translated European environmental objectives into concrete results.
It was already mentioned and I want to reiterate it that it supports biodiversity, climate adaptation, pollution prevention and cooperation between regions, researchers and civil society. Not every project that creates Europe added value can be measured by its immediate commercial return. That is precisely why Life activities must remain identifiable, accessible and supported within the future financial architecture. Fourth, accountability must be strengthened. European citizens deserve to know where their money goes and what it achieves.
Clear objectives, transparent governance, effective parliamentary scrutiny and measured results are indispensable. This is not about creating more bureaucracy. It's about ensuring that European funding works. Dear colleagues, our regions and farmers must be at the center of this approach. Farmers are particularly exposed to droughts, soil degradation and changing environmental conditions.
Manuela Ripa
They need practical solutions, predictable support and support that rewards sustainable land management. And our local and regional authorities need sufficient resources to implement European legislation effectively. This is particularly relevant for the Nature Restoration Regulation. Ambitious objectives alone will not restore a single river, forest or wetland. Implementation requires investment, local expertise and the active involvement of our regions.
Again, on a personal note, I believe that in this context it would be important to earmark a minimum share of national NRPP funding specifically for the implementation of the Nature Restoration Law and help the regions to use the funds that were foreseen for it. Only 15% have been spent so far. Moreover, we need a way stronger circular economy. Using resources more efficiently, reducing waste, creating a market for high-quality secondary raw materials and strengthening Europe value chains can reduce strategic dependencies while creating economic opportunities. This is where environmental policy and competitiveness meet in a practical way.
Dear colleagues, Europe faces difficult budgetary choices. Security, innovation, industrial transformation, agriculture and competitiveness all require substantial investments. We must recognize these pressures and use public resources responsibly. But we should not create a false choice between a competitive economy and a healthy environment. A Europe that protects its natural resources is also a Europe that protects its economic future.
Our responsibility is therefore not simply to defend individual budget lines, it is to ensure that the next MFF provides the right balance between flexibility and predictability, competitiveness and sustainability, European ambitions and local implementation. Because Europe's competitiveness depends not only on what we produce, but also on what we preserve. Let us make the next European budget an investment in both. Thank you very much.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
Thank you very much, Ms. Ripa, and I am very happy to give the floor to Rafał Trzaskowski, the rapporteur on mainstreaming climate, energy and environmental priorities across the MFF. The floor is yours for five minutes.
Rafał Trzaskowski
Ευχαριστώ. Grazie, presidente, per l'invito. Concordo con il presidente sul fatto che lavorando insieme rafforziamo la nostra voce comune. Grazie. Guys, the times are crazy, completely unpredictable.
And so I think that people on the streets of our cities and in our regions are actually asking us the most basic questions. Are we effective? Do we need common action? Should Europe be stronger and self-sufficient? I mean, those are the real questions that people keep on asking us.
And now, of course, what is the answer? Should we be less ambitious? Should there be less money? Should there be more centralized budget? Or exactly the opposite?
Should we have enough money for our ambitious policies and should we have allies to actually implement that policy? So I wanted to thank our colleagues from the European Parliament for the work that you've done because we are on the same page and we are, of course, here to help you to deliver the message.
Now we've been talking about greening and climate change for years and I've been doing it myself as the mayor of Warsaw. Sometimes we're effective, sometimes we're less effective. I think that we need to translate that into the real questions that people keep on asking us about. We need strategic autonomy as been said by the European Commission. We need predictability.
We need our economy to be competitive. We need to take care of the health of our citizens. And most importantly in those crazy times we need to be resilient to crises, all kinds of crises. And I'm not predicting the worst kind of scenario but I'm talking about all the crises that we see that are actually compounded by climate change. And people keep on asking me for example what are we going to do in times of blackout.
And now I think that regardless of where we come from when you talk to the regional and local authorities the response is exactly the same because people keep on asking us about resilience. They keep on asking us about affordable housing. They keep on asking us about cheap energy. They keep on asking us about something that they call dual use because if we build a subway system in a city like Warsaw this is not only about fighting climate change. This is not only about good transportation which doesn't produce traffic jams or emissions but it's also a place for sheltering just in case or as we've done in Warsaw a place in which we can put all of our equipment, generators, beds and so on and so forth and prepare to any kind of crisis.
That's why I think that we need to translate the jargon that sometimes we use into answering the questions that people ask us because what we are doing in those committees both in the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions is exactly that, dealing with those priorities that I've just enumerated. Now do we need a flexible budget to do it? Do we need enough money to do it? Do we need predictability? I think that answers are absolutely clear.
That's why we have the commission supporting the position of the Committee of the Regions and also supporting the work that you are doing as a co-legislator because it is one of the most important roles that can be imagined. And that's why we've also signed a letter with 20 other mayors of capital cities of the European cities. Now why do we fight centralizations? Why do we want to involve cities and regions and why do we postulate that cities and regions should be involved in preparations of national regional partnership plans? Why?
Because we need allies. We cannot allow the member states to be left on their own. We need the European Parliament and we need the allies. That's what the commission was doing for years, supporting regions, supporting cities, supporting non-governmental organizations. Why on earth now we want to centralize that and leave all of those allies outside when those are the guys who are actually realizing these policies in practice?
And I'm a great fan of cohesion and I've been using a lot of money from the recovery and resilience facility. And you know what? When we are involved and the cities and regions are involved we know how to spend the money better and how to respond to the questions that people ask us. That's why we want to be in the game, not for institutional purposes, just to help you to deliver on what's important for most of us. And when you talk about 35%, guys, let's be realistic about it.
There will be a lot of greenwashing if people who are actually responsible for those policies are not going to be involved in the negotiations and in making this policy true.
Then the governments will wake up at the last moment and they will try to tell you, okay, now we have to deliver on the 35%. And the last message on direct funding. I've been fighting for it and the Committee of the Regions was fighting for it for years. We know that it shouldn't be a lot of money, but if you give a little bit money, at least for planning, directly to cities, then you put the whole machine in working. Then you have innovation.
Then you have sustainability. Then you build resilience. Then you have climate adaptation, but not as just slogans, but programs that people really want and you can actually show that it can be done. And once you have the administration of the city committed, once you have the administration of the regions committed, then it starts rolling like a tank. And then people fight for the money, how to use them and how to use them the most effective way.
So, I think that we cannot do it alone. Thank you very much yet again for your effort. And we are here to help you deliver the message because I think that this wonderful network that has been created for years, which realizes the priorities of the European Union, should be upheld and strengthened and not minimized by centralization. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, Mr. Trzaskowski, for your intervention, also for your passion. I would like now like to open the exchange of view with the coordinators. The ENVI coordinators will speak alongside their counterpart in the ENVI Commission, the ENVI Commission. We kindly ask you to stay in two minutes. We start with Peter Liese from EPP.
Peter Liese
Thank you, chairs. Dear Pierfrancesco, dear Costas, it's good to see EPP and S&D united at the board here. And I'm very happy that we have the discussion here with the Committee of the Regions. And my first point is really the last point that Rafał Trzaskowski made. The Commission proposal is a disaster when it comes to the involvement of cities and regions.
Now, member states may decide without really taking the position of the regions into account. And this is in particular a problem when the national government is not in line with the European values. You know, it was very important to support Rafał in Warsaw when the PiS government was in place because he was for the rule of law, he did it properly. So, that's why, you know, sorry to the Commission, some very often I defend your position, here you presented a disastrous proposal and it has to change. And I remember the letter of the four pro-European groups from last October.
Then there is the letter from this October, recently, also pointing out the weaknesses of the Irish proposal. And I think the priorities for our committee are clear. We need to protect the civil protection mechanism. We need to protect the second pillar of the common agriculture policy that is strongly connected with the environment and personally I really insist also to have the LEADER program. The cut of the competition fund and the Horizon are disastrous and in particular also for the environment.
We need innovation. On do no significant harm, EPP is more pragmatic than maybe others here in the room, so let's do it, but let's do it in a pragmatic way. Last but not least, as a rapporteur on ETS, I would highlight the connection here. We have a lot of money that is generated in the ETS and also this money should be targeted. We need to support the energy that doesn't come to the street of Hornos and the money shouldn't disappear somewhere.
So, let's look at all this together. Thank you.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
Vielen Dank, Herr Liese. I would like now to give the floor to Ms. Åsa Ågren Wikström from the CoR EPP group for two minutes.
Thank you so much and dear chairs and dear colleagues, thank you all for your interesting interventions. I think we all agree that we need adequate financing to build a more sustainable future.
Åsa Ågren Wikström
And we from the local and regional authorities, we are responsible for the implementation of 70 to 90% of the Green Deal policies. So we can't be expected to deliver Europe's climate and environment ambitions without the necessary resources. And this is why the next MFF should provide direct, accessible, and predictable support for local and regional authorities to make the green transition a reality on the ground. So we need binding safeguards for the involvement of local and regional authorities in the design and implementation of the EU investment. And we need strong territorial chapters.
And also we need a regional check to ensure that national and regional partnership plans reflect different local and regional needs. So we insist on the importance of maintaining a strong place-based approach allowing the EU investment to respond to different territorial realities in terms of climate and environment. Citizens need to feel the added value of Europe to their daily lives in the places where they live, be it through better air and water quality, more sustainable transport, better waste management, more green urban areas, or lower energy bills. So if Europe wants to be more competitive, more sustainable, and more responsive to the citizens, we need a budget that is capable of delivering those ambitions. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, Mrs. Wikström. We now leave the floor to S&D, Mr. Glucksmann, two minutes.
Christophe Clergeau
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je m'exprimerai en français. Et je voudrais d'abord dire merci à la directrice générale de l'Agence européenne de l'environnement parce qu'elle a dit la vérité. Et la vérité, c'est qu'il manque des dizaines et des dizaines de milliards d'euros pour répondre aux besoins d'investissement pour réussir la transition écologique et énergétique et pour réparer l'effondrement de la biodiversité. Et la vérité, c'est que cet argent n'est pas dans le budget européen et que même avant d'être réduit par la présidence irlandaise, ce budget est totalement insuffisant et que la question que nous devons nous poser, ce sont les ressources propres ou la capacité d'endettement en commun qui doit permettre de faire les investissements dont nous avons absolument besoin pour construire l'avenir de l'Europe.
Parce que si nous ne le faisons pas, tous les jolis mots utilisés par les uns et par les autres sur une Europe à la fois plus respectueuse de l'environnement et plus compétitive, tout ça, ça va s'effondrer. Et la seule chose que nous allons avoir, c'est une Europe invivable pour les Européens parce que la qualité de la vie sera tellement dégradée que la vie sera une souffrance pour les uns et pour les autres et que notre économie dont le socle est la nature sera en danger. Et je voudrais maintenant dire merci pour le maire de Varsovie parce qu'il a dit la vérité. Et la vérité, c'est que l'Europe est en train d'organiser son suicide politique en renonçant à s'appuyer sur les villes et les régions pour mettre en œuvre les grandes politiques européennes. Et que ce choix politique est totalement inacceptable.
C'est un choix illégitime démocratiquement et c'est un choix inefficace concrètement. Et maintenant, je voudrais terminer en disant : sommes-nous capables les uns et les autres ici de nous dire la vérité entre nous ? Est-il encore possible de redresser la barre pour avoir d'autres choix politiques à l'échelle européenne, une autre position au niveau du Conseil et un budget plus ambitieux ?
Je n'en sais rien. Ce que je sais, c'est que si nous le voulons, il ne faut pas seulement des discussions comme celle-ci, il faut des actions beaucoup plus fortes. Il faut que la voix des citoyens et des élus européens s'exprime avec force partout en Europe et s'adresse à nous députés, comme à la Commission, comme au Conseil pour dire ça suffit, sortons de l'hypocrisie, soyons à la hauteur des enjeux et faisons le choix d'un autre budget, d'un autre investissement en Europe et de s'appuyer sur les citoyens, sur les villes et sur les régions. Merci.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
Thank you very much and I would now like to give the floor to Ms. Arianna Censi, CoR PES coordinator for two minutes.
Arianna Censi
Grazie, grazie Presidente Maran, grazie Presidente Macojanis. Trovo questo incontro determinante, fondamentale, non tanto e non solo per il confronto e per la qualità degli interventi che mi hanno preceduto, ma perché abbiamo tutti l'interesse di unire le nostre forze per difendere un'idea di Europa forte, ambiziosa e giusta sull'ambiente e sul clima. Proprio in questo momento che è il più caldo, diciamo, di discussione sull'MFF, in particolare dopo la proposta di sabato. Dobbiamo insistere perché abbiamo bisogno di mezzi finanziari importanti e affidabili per fare azione concreta sull'ambiente e sul clima. Dirò tre cose molto schematiche perché gli interventi che mi hanno preceduto, in particolare l'intervento del sindaco di Varsavia, hanno enfatizzato il ruolo delle città, il ruolo dei cittadini e delle cittadine che devono desiderare queste politiche e le devono giudicare fondamentali e popolari.
La prima: mantenere un programma come LIFE in realtà almeno nel volume di quello attuale, ancorché avevamo richiesto un finanziamento, un ulteriore finanziamento, perché anche se non sarà sufficiente, sappiamo, per affrontare la crisi climatica e la perdita di biodiversità, non sarebbe una regressione che io giudico catastrofica. Secondo: insistere perché il principio del "do not significant harm" sia applicata orizzontalmente su tutti i fondi e gli strumenti. La terza questione è che la messa in atto delle politiche europee, come abbiamo detto, si fa a livello locale, a livello regionale e anche questo ha un costo e la necessità di finanziamenti che siano pensati a lungo termine. A questo parere, a questo proposito voglio ricordare che nel parere redatto da Stefania Proietti sull'Environmental Implementation Review che adotteremo in questi giorni durante la nostra plenaria, si parte dal fatto che c'è un costo stimato di 180 miliardi per i danni causati dalla non implementazione e dal non intervento e un intervento ipotizzato di 120 miliardi l'anno per rinforzare la capacità di implementare. Ci vuole pianificazione a lungo termine e questa cooperazione tra ENVI e ENVE credo sia una cosa non scontata, non dovuta e che porta a un'implementazione geometrica della nostra forza.
Grazie.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
And now I would like to give the floor to Ms. Kiss on behalf of the CoR ECR group for two minutes.
Enikő Kiss
Tisztelt elnök urak, kedves kollégák! Az éghajlatpolitikai és környezetvédelmi beruházások a következő többéves pénzügyi keretben továbbra is fontos prioritást jelentenek, ugyanakkor a kiadásoknak hozzá kell járulniuk Európa versenyképességének, energiabiztonságának és gazdasági ellenállóképességének megőrzéséhez, elősegítve az ipari bázis megerősítését és a stratégiai függőségek csökkentését.
A helyi és regionális önkormányzatoknak teljes körű szerepet kell játszaniuk mind a nemzeti és regionális partnerségi tervek, mind a nemzeti energia- és klímatervek előkészítésében és végrehajtásában, tekintettel az uniós célkitűzések helyi végrehajtásában viselt felelősségükre. A városoknak és régióknak további adminisztratív követelmények helyett kiszámítható és hozzáférhető finanszírozásra van szükségük. A helyi projektek célzott támogatását ezért egyszerűbb eljárásoknak, célzott technikai segítségnyújtásnak és kisebb adminisztratív terheknek kell kísérniük. Az éghajlatpolitikai és környezetvédelmi kiadási célok stratégiai irányt adhatnak, de nem mehetnek a rugalmasság rovására. A tagállamoknak és a régióknak elegendő mozgástérrel kell rendelkezniük ahhoz, hogy kezelni tudják sajátos gazdasági, területi és energetikai körülményeiket.
Az átláthatóság és az elszámoltathatóság továbbra is alapvető fontosságú. Az éghajlatpolitikai és környezetvédelmi kiadásokat egyértelmű mutatók, módszertanok és hiteles nyomon követési rendszerek révén kell nyomon követni annak biztosítása érdekében, hogy a közforrások mérhető eredményeket hozzanak. A hatékony végrehajtást kell előtérbe helyezni, nem pedig új kötelezettségek létrehozását. A kihívás egyre inkább abban rejlik, hogy Európa-szerte hatékonyan és következetesen kell teljesíteni a meglévő éghajlatpolitikai és környezetvédelmi kötelezettségvállalásokat. A technológiasemlegesség megközelítésének továbbra is irányadó elvnek kell maradnia.
A kibocsátáscsökkentéshez, az energia megfizethetőségéhez és az ellátás biztonságához hozzájáruló valamennyi alacsony szén-dioxid-kibocsátású technológiának jogosultnak kell lennie a támogatásra. Köszönöm.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now I leave the floor for Renew to Christine Singer.
Christine Singer
Ja, vielen Dank für die vielen Ausführungen zu den Herausforderungen und Anforderungen, die der nächste mehrjährige Finanzrahmen mit sich bringt. Und das Thema Natur- und Klimaschutz möchte ich nur einige Beispiele aus meiner Region nennen, denn Natur- und Klimaschutz beginnt mit den Menschen vor Ort und wir müssen ihnen Anreize geben, um mitzumachen. Ein kleiner Bericht aus meiner Heimat in Bayern beteiligt sich jeder zweite Betrieb über die zweite Säule freiwillig am Kulturlandschaftsprogramm, kurz KULAP genannt. Und damit werden auf rund einem Drittel der landwirtschaftlichen Flächen Umwelt- und Klimamaßnahmen umgesetzt. Und ich glaube, das ist die Herausforderung, die wir lösen müssen, damit die verschiedenen Politiken nicht in Konkurrenz zueinander stehen, sondern dass sie zusammenwirken.
In meinem Landkreis wird rund ein Viertel der landwirtschaftlichen Flächen durch Vertragsnaturschutz gefördert. Die Bauern erhalten so artenreiche Buckelwiesen, Almen, Streuwiesen im Murnauer Moos, eines der größten zusammenhängenden naturerhaltenden Moorgebiete Mitteleuropas. Und beide Programme werden von der EU mitfinanziert. Und wir brauchen auch künftig verlässlich diese Mittel, um eben praxistaugliche Mittel und eine faire Honorierung zu gewährleisten und damit auch den Regionen die Möglichkeit zu geben, Garant für Tourismus, für Wertschöpfung in der Region zu sein und auch bei den Kommunen die Leader-Mittel zum Beispiel einzusetzen, um für Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zu sorgen. Diese Klima- und Naturschutzmaßnahmen sind wichtig, sie verlangen unseren Betrieben viel Arbeit ab und dafür brauchen wir auch weiterhin eine angemessene und verlässliche Finanzierung.
Dankeschön.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
Thank you very, very much. And now I'd like to give the floor to Ms. Simeonova-Zarkin on behalf of the CoR Renew Europe group for two minutes.
Tsvetelina Simeonova-Zarkin
Thank you, dear Chair, dear representatives of the European Commission, MEPs, colleagues.
We are having today interesting and productive discussion, and I can't do anything else but agree with the previous speakers. First, I completely agree that green transition must remain at the heart of Europe's competitiveness and resilience. For Renew Europe, it is also about fairness. Clean local energy, efficient buildings, and modern infrastructure can lower bills, strengthen local economies, and improve everyday life. Citizens will support the transition only when they see tangible benefits in their homes, mobility, and communities.
Second, I agree even more that if we are truly determined to achieve the binding targets we heard about today, we need to see cities and regions as genuine partners in the next multiannual financial framework. And by genuine partners, we don't understand to be consulted at the end. We welcome simplification and flexibility, but simplification must not lead to centralization. As a municipal councilor in Sofia, I see that the green transition succeeds or fails locally. Like many European capitals, Sofia faces major investment needs in sustainable public transport, cleaner air, energy-efficient buildings, and adaptation to climate change.
We need a funding framework that recognizes actual investment needs and provides direct, accessible, and predictable support to cities and regions across Europe. Thank you.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Thank you, chair, and thank you to all colleagues who have spoken so far. There's a lot, it seems, that we agree on, and first and foremost, of course, we need the right governance around this coming MFF. We need that there is the involvement that need to be when you do a national and regional partnership plan, and that is involvement of regions, of local authorities, but also of civil society. I would dig into different things. First and foremost, there is green spending and the green spending target, which Commission proposed at 35%, and that is the bare minimum.
It has to be really strong and across all the different headings that has to work so we actually going in the right direction. But I want to say something also that a colleague from EPP said before, and that was a biodiversity spending target, because we cannot just put it all together and think then we succeed in all, because what we are facing right now with the loss of biodiversity in Europe, we need the right financing, and that as well need to go as a spending target across the entire budget. Then something we have been arguing for a lot here in the Parliament, and I know many of you has as well from the Committee of Regions, that is on the continuation of LIFE as a program, because I mean, when something really works, why stop it? Pretending it's just going to happen all of itself in the national regional partnership plan or in the heading two under competitiveness fund. I'm sorry, but when have nature ever won over other things?
Never. So we need to secure the funding there was for the area of LIFE program across the two headings. And then something that we are discussing a lot here in the Parliament, and I hope to get the help from you, Committee of Regions, that is on the principle of do no significant harm. Because what we are seeing right now, the way it's being challenged across committees from some parties and groups here in this Parliament is really sad, because it is a principle that works and it is a very good tool also when you are as a final beneficiary actually spend the money that we decided to spend together.
So it's a principle we know works. It is in a simplified version under the the performance regulation. So I do hope for for a lot of support for actually strengthening the do no significant harm across the entire budget. Thank you.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
Thank you very very much. And now I would like to give the floor to Ms Portanen from the SRA Greens and Progressive coordinator for two minutes.
Niina Ratilainen
Arvoisat puheenjohtajat ja muut paikallaolijat. Ilmaston lämpeneminen on haitallista paitsi ihmisten terveydelle ja luonnolle myös taloudelle ja yrityksille ja sen vaikutukset näkyvät moninaisesti paikallistasolla. Kaupungeilla ei ole vaihtoehtoja. Niiden on pakko investoida ilmastonmuutoksen sopeutumiseen, tulvien ja kuumuuden ehkäisyyn ja samalla ne kantavat ison vastuun myös päästöjen vähentämisestä. Sähköistäminen tarvitsee sähköverkkoja, lämmityksen vähähiilistäminen investointeja puhtaaseen kaukolämpöön, liikenteen päästöjen vähentäminen edellyttää toimivaa joukkoliikennettä ja kattavaa pyörätieverkkoa.
Samalla kunnat ja alueet tuntuvat tosiasiassa jäävän ulos sekä kansallisista ja alueellisista kumppanuussuunnitelmista että päästökauppatulojen jaosta ja rahoituskohteiden määrittelystä. Olemme alueiden komiteana vaatineet pakollisen kaupunkiluvun ottamisesta mukaan kansallisiin ja alueellisiin kumppanuussuunnitelmiin sekä 20 prosenttia paikallistasolle kohdennettua osuutta päästökauppatuloista. Nämä vaatimukset eivät ole ylimitoitettuja vaan aidosti tarpeellisia. Jos halutaan että EU-tason tavoitteet pystytään paikallisesti toimeenpanemaan ja jos halutaan että toimille paikallisten asukkaiden hyväksyntä saadaan. Osa toimista tulee nimittäin aiheuttamaan kustannuksia myös suoraan asukkaille.
Asukkaiden luottamuksen kannalta on tärkeää että myös EU pitää kiinni asettamistaan ilmasto- ja ympäristötavoitteista. Ei merkittävää haittaa -periaate on tässä hyvin olennainen. EU:n varoilla ei pidä rahoittaa toimintaa joka heikentää ilmasto- ja ympäristötavoitteita tai lukitsee alueita riippuvuuteen fossiilisista polttoaineista. Hyvät puheenjohtajat ja muut, EU:n seuraavassa monivuotisessa rahoituskehyksessä ilmastotoimia ei voida käsitellä lähinnä hätätilanteisiin reagoimisena. Katastrofirahastoja tarvitaan mutta katastrofirahasto ei ole sopeutumisstrategia.
EU-rahoituksen on autettava kuntia ja alueita toimimaan ennen kuin vahingot tapahtuvat ja rahoituksen tulisi olla ennakoitavaa, pitkäjänteistä ja helposti saavutettavaa, ei vain lyhyitä hankkeita tai tukea vasta katastrofin jälkeen. Kiitoksia.
Lynn Boylan
Thank you Chair and to all the colleagues from the Committee of the Regions I think for this very important discussion, but I think in these days it feels that this discussion is often futile. We now know that the spending gaps currently are huge. We need an extra 130 billion per year to meet our environmental goals and yet clearly this MFF is not going to prioritize nature. We have no dedicated spending target for nature and experience shows that it will be sidelined in the broader climate spending target. And we can be sure that whatever sum does get salvaged for the CAP, it won't be to prioritize nature either.
We have no fund for nature restoration and LIFE funding is set to disappear. And I think judging by the latest MFF documents produced over the weekend with no mention of LIFE or dedicated allocations for environmental priorities, it's very clear that the Irish presidency has also failed to put nature back on the table. And while the government is very quick to bring out its favorite buzzword in this presidency which is that they are honest brokers, I think we need to remember what the real role of an honest broker is.
It should not be a question of just balancing short-term interests of the parties that happen to be governing in Europe right now. The presidency should be an honest broker for all of the interests of all Europeans. And for all of us, nature is our lifeline, so we cannot survive with its destruction. And as an agenda setter, the Council presidency, I think, had the power to shape discussions, to guide priorities. But the Irish government has used instead the lack of future EU funding to explain an unambitious nature restoration plan, has failed to prioritize nature in the MFF negotiations, and the consequences for all Europeans of another seven years without adequate funding for nature is not something that a truly honest broker should be prepared to accept.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
Thank you very much, and we'd like now to move to the European Alliance Group in the CoR, Mr. McCarthy. You have the floor.
Kieran McCarthy
Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chairman. Can I say first of all, thank you very much to the honorable MEPs for meeting us. I think this is actually a very fruitful discussion, and it's clear that we're on the same page with our ideas and kind of opportunities and concerns. And can I, I know earlier in this year you had an analysis of MFF and climate action Green Deal, where it's actually at, and I'd actually love to see you present that to us as well, because one of the things that we brought out today was our State of the Regions kind of report, and but it's clear there's an overlapping of ideas and that we need to work together more on this. And can I, can I welcome the European Parliament's overall support.
We also work with the REGI committee in the European Parliament, and it's been really, really great that you have come out to support the European Committee of the Regions and our, our attack in this kind of MFF centralization proposal. I think Mr. Liese mentioned it's a disaster. It is a disaster in terms of the undermining of the partnership principle, subsidiarity, but also undermining a partner in terms of the European Committee of the Regions. It will send us back to the Stone Age in terms of 20 years ago in terms of our policy. And so many of our, my colleagues have mentioned that we need territorial impact assessments, regional checks, place-based analysis, and I stand over that.
But one thing that I always, I want to throw into the mix here as well, like a lot has been said about the LIFE program, but what shouldn't be forgotten, and I said it as well last year, are the Horizon Mission programs. And that within the overall European Competitiveness Fund and where it's actually going, we actually don't know really what's going to happen to the Horizon Missions or where they're actually going to sit. And so like there are 333 local and regional authorities involved in climate adaptation. Like there's 112 including my own city of Cork in climate neutrality. The Just Transition program, there's 94 Just Transition regions, and that program is going to be thrown out as well, not, and it's not just the LIFE program that's under threat, 151 regional innovation valleys.
Like there, there's actually an ongoing work program here that's actually working as well. And I, I take the point that you can look at it as a half glass full, but as a half, there's a half glass empty, but there's a half glass full there as well that we need to mind that. There has been lots and lots of trust built up in local and regional authorities, and they need a runway to succeed if, if cities want to be climate neutral or, or involve climate adaptation. So I would, would ask this committee to work closer with us when it comes to the Horizon Missions and to make sure that the, the overall European Competitiveness Fund doesn't dilute, that it enhances what's actually there at this moment in time, it doesn't dilute the ongoing work. So I, I would completely, I would call for, I'd love to see your analysis of, we'd say, where we're at at the moment in terms of Green Deal, clean transition, and where we're going into the future as well.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
Thank you very much, Chairman.
So we still have time to open the discussion to other ENVI and ENVE members. I'd like to invite members to take the floor for one minute each. Let me begin with Mr. Borboly for one minute, please.
Thank you.
Csaba Borboly
Thank you. The next EU budget must not only set green targets, it must also support the people and local authorities who protect nature and live with its daily challenges, especially in rural, mountain, and nature-rich regions. These regions need a real role in planning. They also need clear and direct funding for prevention, local data, research, and rapid action. Without local capacity, European goals will remain on paper.
And with your permission, a brief point beyond today's agenda but linked to MFF delivery: the nature stress test. I can show where rules work and where affected regions need practical support. When the Commission study appears in late autumn, I invite the relevant ENVI and ENVE rapporteurs to discuss its findings together and turn them into funding solutions. Thank you.
Kai Tegethoff
Yes, thank you for this exchange. The European Environmental Agency's own risk assessment is that Europe is the world's fastest-warming continent. Heat, droughts, floods, wildfires are already hitting infrastructure, health, food system, and finance. Risks cascade across borders. This is not a national problem, but a European one.
And the performance regulation has do no significant harm, but do no significant harm only asks: does this spending harm the environment? It never asks the reverse. It never asks: will this spending survive the climate it is built for? That is the gap. A bridge, a hospital, a grid financed today runs from 50 years to end of the century.
We are exposing ourselves to a situation where a flood barrier built for yesterday's rainfall could be overtopped in a decade, forcing us to pay twice for the same one asset. And this is the same for many other kinds of infrastructure as well. Infrastructure being funded in the 2030s, which is this next MFF, could not survive the 2040s or 50s. That is not sound financial management. And evaluating financial commitments after they fail is not a strategy for the future.
So the principle we need is already half-written. Recital 12 of the performance regulation invokes climate resilience by design, and Article 5 of the Climate Law speaks of a duty to cut vulnerability. But no single operative article currently delivers this in the MFF. We need a prior climate resilience check for all physical infrastructure investments, and the Commission has to develop a methodology to do so. So after having this stated and noted, my question to DG CLIMA and also to the EEA is quite simple: shouldn't every euro of infrastructure spending be checked for resilience before it is committed and not evaluated after it has failed?
What is your opinion, how can we deliver on it, and how should we make sure that we spend our money, our future money and European taxpayers' money efficiently?
Joško Klisović
Thank you. Dear colleagues, our success is not measured by the targets we set. It is measured by difference we make in the daily lives of our citizens. Everybody in this room is aware that only effective multi-level governance leads to better implementation. And better implementation delivers results to citizens.
So if you want to see our ideas and policies to make a real difference on the ground, ENVI and ENVE must work closely together. In the current MFF debate, we must defend together Cohesion Fund and effective role of local and regional authorities in decision making. The MFF is not just about money. It is about trust too and ability of local and regional authorities to deliver results and meet the EU targets. Yes, we need new resources for local and regional authorities because there is no Europe's competitiveness without its competitive cities and regions.
We can't speed up development, meet the EU expectations and do more with less. The Commission's recentralization idea fails at least on two accounts. It weakens the role of local and regional authorities and thus undermines implementation of the EU policies. We, the cities and regions, know our territory best. Trust us and we will deliver sustainable growth, quality jobs and security for our citizens.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we go to the Commission, Claudia Fusco. Oh, we have still... sorry. Okay. Good.
Mr. Markkula, please.
Markku Markkula
Okay, thank you, Mr. President. Both public money alone cannot finance the transformation needed. So its strategic role is to mobilize much larger private investment into breakthrough technologies and their deployment: clean energy, electrification, storage, digital solutions, industrial decarbonization and so on. Europe's problem is not a lack of innovation. It is that too many good ideas never reach industrial scale.
We have a huge number of good practices produced by the EU missions and regional innovation valleys. Frontrunner cities and regions with their industries can become the real-life springboards where companies, researchers and public authorities turn innovation into investment, deployment and European scale. That's what we need at the moment.
Nadia Pelefigue
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je viens d'Occitanie et en août 2025, on a eu un énorme incendie dans les Corbières et c'était un des plus gros incendies que la France ait connu depuis des décennies. Cette année, on a eu des inondations et même une tornade qui a détruit intégralement 300 maisons. Pour nous, l'adaptation c'est un quotidien. Et le rapport du comité publié aujourd'hui le rappelle : un euro investi dans l'adaptation peut produire 10 euros.
C'est donc un très mauvais calcul de couper ces financements et même si on est cynique jusqu'au bout et qu'on n'est pas du tout sensible aux questions du changement climatique, on voit bien que c'est de mauvaise gestion que d'avoir ce type de calcul. Nous demandons trois choses : 35 % minimum pour le climat sur tout le CFP, un instrument dédié aux collectivités comme LIFE et une vraie place pour les régions dans les plans nationaux et régionaux.
Chaque euro ne protège que s'il arrive sur le terrain. En tant que rapporteur sur Omnibus et sur les simplifications des règles environnementales, je voudrais rappeler que pour aller plus vite, nous ne pouvons pas protéger moins. Et j'invite vraiment la commission ENVI à se saisir de l'opinion que j'ai eu l'honneur de porter pour le Comité européen des régions pour le prochain vote que vous allez commettre aux alentours de mi-octobre, début novembre. Merci à vous.
Vítor Salgueiro
Muito obrigado, falo em português. Gostava de salientar que o momento atual é particularmente exigente, que os municípios avançaram para objetivos particularmente desafiantes e até para metas mais ambiciosas que a própria União Europeia e os seus países. Por exemplo, a minha cidade, onde temos a meta de ser neutros em carbono em 2030 e vamos consegui-lo. Estamos a despoluir um rio que foi já considerado o rio mais poluído da Europa, a executar as verbas do Fundo Transição Justa para compensar o encerramento de uma refinaria que poderia ter impactos brutais na economia local. E tudo isto assenta numa enorme confiança e sigo aqui as palavras do meu colega Josko, que diz que para além da questão financeira, temos uma crise de confiança com políticas que só terão resultados com continuidade, que os cidadãos não veem acontecer a curto prazo.
E há uma crise relativamente ao futuro e sobretudo de continuidade face àquilo que viemos a fazer nos últimos anos e que só será ultrapassada, só será vencida se da Europa vierem também estes sinais de complementaridade e de apoio às políticas que as autoridades locais e regionais vêm protagonizando. E creio que a partir desta comissão nós não podemos deixar de passar a mensagem, como aqui já foi referido, que os poderes fracos locais significarão uma Europa também mais fraca e que precisamos da força das nossas entidades para que o futuro seja garantido também a partir da nossa intervenção.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, now we move to the Commission for the final remark, Claudia Fusco, director of DG ENV.
Claudia Fusco
Yes, thank you very much and thank you also for all your intervention. So, I think we all agree that the next MFF must keep climate and environment at its core because investment in climate neutrality, adaptation, nature restoration, water resilience, pollution reduction and circular economy is also an investment in the European resilience, competitiveness, strategic autonomy. We also want, I heard from you, implementation. We also want from the Commission dialogue with the regional authorities and with the cities. We will continue to do so.
Let me cover some of your remarks. Preserving the proposed green mainstreaming architecture is essential to deliver on the Europe that we want, that we all want. The 35%, the 35 target, this is certainly a minimum. This is clear. You know as well that under each pillar there are targets, for example for pillar one, so for national regional partnership plans, 43%.
For the European Competitiveness Fund, 43%. For Horizon, so for the research, 40%, which bring us to 70 billion euros, for example. So, it is not the maximum, it is a minimum which doesn't mean that we cannot use better and more the MFF for the climate and environmental objectives. How are we going to ensure that we avoid the green, this greenwashing? This is because the Commission on the, in the proposal that it's on, under discussion, has strengthened the system to, by which the tracking of the spending will be ensured by defining intervention fields and by adding also coefficients.
So the system that will allow us also to make sure that the budget is really devoted and given to truly environmental and climate spending. So this is reinforced compared to the current system. The do no significant harm. This is very, very relevant. It allows also the consistency I would say of spending across the budget because we have to make sure that whatever we spend goes into the right direction from across the whole budget.
And this is being at the same time we want to simplify and this is the approach of the Commission in this proposal to make sure that this is also easily applied which in the end would allow us to reach the objective. So we don't want to reduce the effectiveness of this principle. We want to make it more clearer to make it more better applicable. Some of you said we don't have enough budget and dependent from the presidency, the Irish presidency negobox of Saturday. And you're right, we know.
I mean the EU budget is not enough. Will not be enough and that's why we want to leverage the private spending and that's also something which is very much in the mind of the Commission when the proposal was put forward. We have to make sure that the private sector is with us to make sure that can use also the European budget and the national budget for the objectives we want to achieve. The principle of partnership and multi-level governance are not optional elements. Some of you said they maybe they are, but they are not.
Actually there is an obligation under the national regional partnership plans to consult the regional and local authorities in the design and also implementation and even to have some specific chapters for some member states who want to have those. We are in DG Environment and Climate, we are also supporting the internal discussions with our counterparts to make sure that this is also taken into account in the negotiations with the member states and the regions. So it is clear that also for the national restoration plans that was mentioned, these are also again it's an obligation. They are part of this policy framework that the member states will have to take into account. So the objective of the national restoration plans is to be embedded in the funding when presenting the national regional partnership plans.
Again, it's not optional. This is part of the policy framework. And we're doing this in cooperation with EEA to make sure that also there is a clear understanding for the member state how to take this into account through the template that EEA has developed to help us and is supporting us also in assessing these plans that member states are presenting. Life. Life-type activities.
This as I mentioned in my introduction, this will be reflected in several part of the MFF, of the proposed MFF. Of course there is the direct funding is under the EU facility and that's the place where we would like to see for example life-type activities based on the strategic integrated projects. Why? Because they are cross-borders, there is a lot of also of good experience and good that we can learn from and we can put at the services of also more member states. In the same vein, the implementation of the national regional partnership plans will build a lot on life-type activities such as for example the strategic nature projects because we have learned a lot and this knowledge will not get lost.
We will bring it with us when we discuss with the member states.
And so this is really a, I would say, a negotiations where the Commission has also an active role to play, supported by the by the agency as well. And also the the innovative part of life projects can certainly influence the preparation of the work programs under the European Competitiveness Fund. So this is another way to integrate the life-type activities into what into the existing architecture of of the MFF as proposed by the Commission. The rural areas, you might remember that there is a near-marking target of 10% under pillar one. So again, this is another way to support and to give prominence of these areas in the in Europe.
And I think I might be stopping here. Thank you.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
Thank you very much. And I'd like to give the floor to Ms. Eila Mononen to respond for five minutes.
Leena Ylä-Mononen
Thank you. I think I can I will be briefer than that. But really, I think the discussion has really highlighted the importance of cities and regions, both in the climate adaptation and building the resilience and for infrastructure and cities and coping with the already partially disastrous, I mean, global warming, but also in the work for protecting nature and restoring nature. And this work, of course, needs to be supported by by systems, by by governance, by and of course by adequate funding. So this this has been clearly, I mean, coming up in the discussion.
It is also very critical, like was referred, that we do not spend and waste EU funding for something that is actually then turning up to be either really stupid, so misused, or that it is actually becoming harmful for for environment and climate. And hence, the do no significant harm principle and its proper implementation is absolutely crucial. So this is this is of course where our agency also stands ready to to support the Commission and other actors with our data and knowledge and and of course also building building, let's say, our common knowledge base also for the use of the cities and regions. Whether we should also really look at the the resilience or climate resilience by design as a as a funding principle and put it in action, I think it is wise, because indeed now the climate change is clearly accelerating and the investments on infrastructure, we know, are meant to be lasting for decades, if not centuries, and hence we have to be really wise when spending public money in particular on on these issues. And we have to build the resilience of the citizens and cities in particular.
So I finish here, but wanting to to really thank you for allowing us also to be in this debate. Thank you.
Kóstas Bakoyánnis
So thank you very, very much, dear guests and dear members, for this extremely productive and very much constructive meeting. As I pointed out at the beginning, it is, I believe, essential to continue our close cooperation as the MFF negotiations are moving forward.
Climate and environmental priorities must be clearly reflected in budget allocations and cities and regions must be empowered to take actions with the right support of EU funds. On a more general note, I truly believe that this second ENVE-ENVI meeting has confirmed how important it is for institutions to work more closely together and to join forces in a more structured way. I hope that this meeting will continue to be held annually in the years ahead. I also believe that our cooperation should go way beyond regular meetings. At the CoR, dear co-chair, we organize study visits on the ground to see environmental projects led by our members as well as external commission meetings.
We would like to extend an open invitation to you and systematically count on your participation in these activities. In June 2027, we will hold our ENVE commission meeting in Alexandroupoli in Greece and would be absolutely delighted to welcome a delegation from ENVI to join us. Let me conclude by thanking all of you once again for your openness to cooperation and for co-hosting this meeting. I would like to particularly thank the chair for his open welcome and of course our two secretariats for making this possible. It has been an honor and a pleasure to be here with you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, thank you dear Kostas also for the kind invitation to the ENVI members to join meetings and activities of the ENVE committee. I think it's a crucial moment as we highlighted and there is a common view among the large part of members of the European Parliament and of the Committee of Regions on the idea that we should not only focus on environment but to obtain results there we need the alliance with local authorities, the one that implement really European policies. And I think that if we work together we can also convince member states that we should go back to a strategy that address the goals we are facing and the challenges we are in front of us. I look forward we go on working together even in the next years and I think that this second meeting will be followed by the third and the fourth and we have to go on working together. Thank you so much Kostas and thank you so much to all the colleagues.