If you are interested in water or air quality proposals, this may be helpful.
The key message from this exchange is a real desire from most to reach an agreement within 12 months.
You can find a video of the exchange and a transcript below.
Bas EICKHOUT 00:04
Good afternoon, everyone. We continue. But this is also the official opening of the Envy meeting, we just had a slots on the together with the Court of Auditors. Together with envy, the Budget Control and budget committee, those people are leaving the room now I see. So that leaves us the envy people. And before we start with the first item, it’s first the adoption of the agenda. I don’t see any points being raised. So the agenda is adopted. Then on chairs, announcements, it’s the usual stuff on interpretation and electronic meeting and the web streaming. Only one point is that we only have Slovenian in passive mode this time. So it will be translated away from it. Then we have the coordinators recommendations of the 25th of October. If there are no objections, they can be deemed adopted and approved, seems to be fine with that as well. And then we have to report back on ongoing inter institutional negotiations, just saying that’s in between when we had the large envy meeting and this and we meeting we had to try logs. One on ETS aviation, which made progress is then what you have to say I was there I would say progress is a big word. But we made progress. On the other one, we really made progress. And that is on the co2 standards for cars because a visionary deal was struck. Just before we went into the Green Week, somewhere Thursday night, it was around 10 o’clock AM as far as I can remember. But of course that will have to come back to envy and then go to the plenary for official approval, but a provisionary deal has been struck with the council and we thank the Czech and presidency and the Commission very much for helping in striking that provisional deal. That brings me then to the Envy agenda, where it where we go more into the contents. And the first item is we have here Commissioner sync of issues. And it’s always a pleasure to have you in the NV meeting and good afternoon. And we do have here a package of the three laws, which was published one and a half week before. And it’s called the zero pollution package, right, and it’s consisting of three elements. And what we’re going to do is that you are going to present the core elements of that. And then of course, we will have around the speakers to to react to that. And then we have your reply to that. So, Commissioner, great to have you here and you have the floor.
Commissioner Sinkevičius 02:44
Thank you very much, your boss, Honourable Members, ladies and gentleman, of course a very good afternoon to you all. And I’m also extremely happy to be here with you. Thank you, of course for the invitation to present zero pollution package to you, which commission as best pointed out, adopted less than two weeks ago on 26th of October, and which is a big step forward. For citizens health and for the environment. Our zero pollution ambition for 2050 is to reduce air, water and soil pollution to levels which are no longer harmful to health and natural ecosystems that respect the boundaries with which our planet can cope and there’ll be creating a toxic free environment. And yes, there is still a long way to go to reach the 2050 target. But the three legislative proposals we just adopted one to improve air quality one to address fresh water quality, and one to modernise wastewater treatment will take us further in the right direction with measurable targets for 2030 as a stepping stone to that 2050 ambition. And let me start with the first one, your quality. We have to acknowledge that this is an area where several decades of new policies have already led to considerable improvements and the trends are going in the right direction and thanks to our joint efforts, and that’s definitely positive but it’s not enough. Air pollution is still the number one environmental threat to citizens health and serious challenge for our economies. And the cost of present pollution levels is still far too high. The impacts are worse for the most vulnerable, notably children, the elderly, people with certain medical conditions and economically disadvantaged. It’s clear that we need to do more here and that we need to act with determination what we propose will align EU air quality standards much more closely with the latest recommendations of the World Health Organisation. When you add this to the improvements existing policies already, the expected result will be 70% fewer premature deaths. From bad air quality in the next 10 years, at the same time, we are setting the EU on a trajectory to achieve zero pollution for here by 2050. This builds on the many core benefits we get from decarbonisation, and the repower you efforts, that brings a huge acceleration towards cleaner energy production. But our proposal is not only about thresholds, we are also proposing to strengthen the rules for monitoring and modelling air quality and improve the framework for air quality plans. These new rules will be easier to enforce. We have revisited the way Member States cooperate in tackling cross border cases, and we are improving access to justice. We also want to give citizens a collective right to claim compensation when their health is affected as a result of laws not being enforced. This is our goal not just for air but for wastewater as well. At the same time, we are harmonising the rules for competent authorities so that they can impose more dissuasive penalties against polluters will breach air quality measures. This will relieve the economy and the healthcare system. The cost burden from illness and lower productivity the benefits are at least seven times greater than the costs your colleagues and Let me emphasise that Europeans really expect us to act. The recent Eurobarometer survey from 20 14/4 of October showed clearly that citizens and in particular those living in cities near industrial plants, or asthma sufferers, they are all worried about the effect of air pollution on health and the environment and ask us to act. Let me now turn to the proposal on fresh water. In the order River, on the Polish German border this summer, we had a terrible insight into what can happen if you fail to protect a river from pollution in times of drought caused by climate change. And this dramatic lesson showed the urgent need to increase the resilience of our rivers, reducing pollution and boosting their biodiversity in the single best way to do that. Today, we still find pharmaceuticals, pesticides, prefers in Europe’s fresh waters at the levels that endangers the aquatic environment. We are addressing these problems by raising the standards for rivers, lakes and ground waters as part of our drive toward zero pollution. key changes include tackling the threats from new pollutants, bringing their concentrations down to safe levels, introducing an early warning mechanism for groundwater pollution, increasing availability, and transparency of pollution data, and requiring member states to alert each other about other about pollution events. And that way, we have a chance to correct some of the mistakes that were made with the or the river the summer and that should not happen again. Nowhere in Europe, member states will also be obliged to reduce pesticides involve ground and ground and surface waters. That way our soils stay healthy, less treatment is needed for drinking water, and overall resilience will increase. As regards pharmaceuticals. Let me be clear, we all need them for our own health, but their residues can be very unhealthy for nature. Without compromising access to affordable medication. The most harmful residues must be removed from our freshwater, another clear source of micro pollutants, our personal care products, and the benefits of better monitoring and reducing pollution from these persistent micro pollutants will be significant for water, soil, biodiversity, and also for human health. The third element of our zero pollution package is the revision of a law which has brought enormous benefits to EU citizens already. And I’m talking about the urban wastewater treatment directive. Our goal is to bring the more than 30 years all directive in line with the ambitious ambitions of the European Green Deal. Given the current energy crisis, we need to mobilise all our resources. This wastewater treatment sector can both save energy and produce renewable energy including green biogas, which would be a reasonable substitute to a natural gas. Part of the proposal is an energy neutrality target for the sector to be reached by 2040. Combine this measure with the reinforcement or of some of the standards has the potential to reduce the sector of greenhouse gas emissions by almost 50%. But also infrastructures need to adapt to climate change. Europe’s rain regime has already changed how rains makes the treatment of wastewater more complex. In urban areas, our proposal puts the priority on nature based solutions. Greening the cities, for example, reduces the risk of floods. It also contributes to biodiversity and the well being of city dwellers. We also bring in new rules to reduce emissions of micro pollutants in line with the ones identified in the freshwater proposal. Two categories in particular and namely, harmful residues from pharmaceutical and personal care products that can be found in urban wastewater today pass through wastewater treatment plants, and ended up in fresh water. Under our proposal procedures will be required to contribute to the costs of cleaning wastewater to avoid taxpayers having to pay that bill. This is a practical application of polluter pays principle. Drawing on this on the lessons of the pandemic. We also proposed to ensure the systemic detection of health relevant parameters in wastewater. This will help with anti microbial resistance, and also with COVID-19 and its variants. And this variants can already be identified in wastewater well before they actually spread widely through the population. And we propose clear rules to improve the transparency of the sector and ensure access to sanitation for all. Overall, the costs of this proposal are two times lower than its benefits, we made sure that our proposal is affordable for all. Finally, let me be clear that high standards for air and water quality are crucial, but on their own, they of course, were going to be never enough, they have to be effectively implemented on the ground. So all three proposals include suggestions as regards to improve enforcement and the result should be more effective laws and lower administrative burden for member states. Honourable Members since the beginning of this mandate, the commission has been making important progress with the rollout of the European Green Deal, and CO legislators are investing important resources to finalise the crucial fit for 55 package, which will help us reaching our emission reductions, goals by 2030. And climate neutrality by 2050. We are progressing in our green transition, in spite of the challenges faced by the pandemic, the war and the resulting energy and economic crisis, which have not reduced the relevance of the European Green Deal but on the contrary, shown that our green agenda is actually the best way to making us more resilient and better prepared for similar crisis. The free proposals I presented today and which are now on the college Slater’s table are key elements of our zero pollution, ambition, and thus, of the environmental pillar of the European Green Deal. As such, they are crucial to increase the resilience of our health and of our environment. And this is why I’m calling on you today to treat them with the necessary priority so that we can proceed quickly with inter institutional discussions and allow trialog negotiations to be finalised before the end of the parliamentary term. We need to see tangible progress by 2024. Under all Green Deal work strands, climate energy, but also environment and zero pollution is a crucial component here. For air pollution, we are listening to the voice of science, the people and the who. For water standards, we are including new chemicals, which were still unknown when the first standards were adopted. And for wastewater, we are updating legislation from a different era, the directive was adopted towards the end of the last century. So we owe this improvements to the European citizens. So once again, thank you very much for your attention. And of course now we look forward to your comments and questions.
Bas EICKHOUT 13:54
Thank you very much. And indeed, we will now have first round of coordinators or they’re substitutes for the different political groups. I already also open catch the eye for everyone that would like to also ask a question that will be then taken after the round of coordinators or their representatives. And I start with the representative or up and that is penalise.
Pernille WEISS (EPP/Denmark) 14:19
Thank you bass. And thank you commissioners thanking us for being with us. Again, it’s always a pleasure to talk with you about what we can do for the environment and especially this package has a very great interest of me as being Chair of the mid water there for my questions will relate to that part of the package. The current urban wastewater treatment director has been criticised for being insufficient and regarding to addressing stormwater overflows especially the current directive does not include monitoring requirements for this issue, which will likely only become More serious as you will experience more extreme weather in the future. Therefore, also because I know that you have actually addressed this question, I would though, like to ask a commissioner for further details about how Member States should fulfil obligations for monitoring the storm water overflows, which sometimes discharge without passing through treatment plants first. Also, do you hold plans to incentivize national and local authorities to build up capacities to treat wastewater and ensure that stormwater is actually led through these treatment plans instead of just as charged into the environment, also related to urban wastewater treatment directive, I would like to ask to the lack of compliance with the complete and commission so far has been trying to promote through funding therefore, several member states still rely on EU funding to build relevant wastewater infrastructure, rather than a sufficient system of water tariffs and public budgets. Therefore, could you please let us know in more details how you plan to address these shortcomings to promote sufficient investments in by Member States to manage it nutrients to treat micro pollutants and to reach energy neutrality without relying excessively on EU funds? Only? What role do you envision for water tariffs in respect to member states different financing strategies? Thank you so much.
Bas EICKHOUT 16:32
Thank you very much. And now we turn to the coordinator of SMD Timo welcome.
Tiemo WÖLKEN (S&D/Germany) 16:37
Thank you very much boss, and the commissioner, good to have you here. Thank you very much for taking the time. And I would start by thanking you for your hard work on this package. And I want to underline the strong support of my group for the intention. So we are fighting for zero emission. So thank you very much for your proposal. I strongly believe that without EU legislation, we would breathe many more air pollutants, we would drink toxic substances, and it’s due to the EU legislation that people are living healthier European Union, technology evolves. And we now need to work on really banning all toxic substances with impacts on humans, and therefore I want to reject cynical create claims by other political groups who try to frame good environmental legislation as a burden. The opposite is true. The status quo is a burden for the people living in the European Union, a burden on the health of EU citizens. So my group is very happy to work on this package. And we want to strengthen the ambition and some aspects. And I would like to ask you two questions. The first one regarding the ambient air quality directive, you’ve chosen not to fully line the limit, while us in the directive of the WH o recommendations for human exposure, as far as I understand your justification is that this would not be feasible in the short to middle term. But I would like to know, are these values compatible with the W H O recommendations as a whole in your eyes? And the second question is, again, I want to applaud the introduction of the polluter pays principle in the urban wastewater treatment directive. This is something my group has requested for a very long time next to significant contribution to the additional costs. This should incentivize action at the source of pollution. This is good. But why did you not cover other industries by the extended producer responsibilities such as biocides, pesticides, producers, or the textile industry. And I would also like to know where you still see need for further regulatory action to reduce pollutants at the source. Thank you very much.
Bas EICKHOUT 19:12
Thank you very much for renew. Now we have news Torvalds.
Nils TORVALDS 19:16
Thank you bus and thank you, Commissioner for being here with us today. Before coming to this meeting, I went to some of the maps you can find on the European environmental agency size site about different member states and how air quality feels and how water resources are looking in the different member states. And what you find by looking at the map says that the situation in the different member states are very diverse. So it’s probably fairly easy to breathe or Drink water. In Finland? It’s not so easy. Have you heard from my colleague Timo can that when you do it in Germany, I don’t know what they drink there, but mostly beer, but we don’t know. That’s right good boat, so it should be fine. But if you have bad water, then it’s not that fine. So my challenge the first challenge, and probably my only challenge and this issue is that, how did you get this to the subsidiarity test? Because in a way, you always say that you does it better than the member states. And that’s probably not really true in this case, which actually raises the ACL, should you have another sort of legal basis for this case. At the same time, I’m sure that if you look at the majority of the member states, you still have very pure air. And you have a lot of premature death because of that. And the same goes for for bad, quality, fresh water. Therefore, we are going to help you as much as we can, and get it through as fast as we can. Because even if I’ve doubt the subsidiarity clause, you have, I think we should we should do a good job and get our voice directed in the right direction. You already mentioned yourself, how much we could actually earn by taking out all the things you can find in in urban wastewater, we probably could get all the phosphorus we would need for the next decades, by taking it out from from from wastewater, from wastewater. So yes, I doubt some of the issues here. But we certainly are going to help you, even if it or don’t always like to help you. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 22:07
Thank you very much. Now I give the floor to myself. So I’ll change my role here. First of all, really thank you very much for for publishing this package, one and a half week ago, almost two weeks ago, because we know there is indeed a pressure. My colleague, Tim Walberg, already said it by some political groups that are saying we support the Green Deal, but then not really is it because basically, they say after fit for 55, we’re done. Whereas it was very clear that the Green Deal means that we are striving for an economy that is climate, neutral, fully circular, but also a zero polluting economy by 2050. So if you support the Green Deal, it’s also very clear that non zero pollution steps have to be taken. So we really are happy that that the commission has come through with these proposals. And of course, as others already said, we will help in also getting this through the legislative machinery hopefully before the end of this term. However, we do have questions of course, as well, because if you didn’t look into the proposals, we still have the feeling that sometimes you have given into some of the pressures, and certainly on air quality and TMobile can already answer that as well. First of all, the parliament was very clear in its resolution saying that you should align with the World Health Organisation standards, and you’re not doing that by 2030. So this means that still we are allowing more pollution to our citizens than what World Health Organisation is recommending. But even beyond that, I have to say the wording for 2050 is even more puzzling to be very honest, because you state as the main target that you want a zero pollution by 2050, but you do not define zero pollution. And if we then look at the review that you introduce, you have a lot of ingredients, and one of them will be the World Health Organisation standards, but it’s only one of them. So we cannot even be sure we are aligning by 2050 The World Health Organisation standards. So I really would like to hear more concretely, when is Europe going to align with the World Health Organisation standards? Because that’s not clear from the proposal to be very honest. Second question is on the water pollutants very quickly. It’s very good that P FOSS has been added to the annex, however you only add 24 of P FAS whereas we know it’s 1000s of P FOSS elements. So why these 24 And what is going to happen with the methodology that was promised before that all the pieces will be encompassed. Thank you very much for that and now I’ll change back to my role as a chair again. And I continue the list of coordinators and there is no speaker for ID. So that means we now move to ECR Alexandre, Vonda
Alexandr VONDRA 25:00
Thank you very much boss. So, ECR certainly acknowledge that the poor air and water quality is an serious issue and we should stay committed to improve it. However, you know, as somebody who grew up in the command economy and remember the differences between the projection and the Praxis or just recently, when we had this previous debate with the budget committee, I think we have to be careful about having harmony between what we are planning to do and what we are doing. And here, I guess it’s not sufficient to set higher target alone. The ceiling for 2030 and mid century have to be set at a level that is realistic deliverable. And evidence based. Any analysis relating to 2030 and beyond has many uncertainties associated with it. These in turn could have significant implications for the confidence one can have in any conclusions drawn from the analyses, levels of economic and population growth as well as the sector specific developments, including technology and policy costs, will all affect the level of emission at the end of this decade. such uncertainties these can make the difference between a ceiling being achievable and unachievable, where ceilings are set within 10% of the maximum technically feasible level of reduction uncertainity around emission projections means it could turn out that it is not technically possible to meet the ceiling. And the commission assessment. This seems the case for the fine particulate matter like pm 2pm. Five, given the high number of infringement cases under the ambient air quality directives and the national emissions ceiling directive, with nearly all member states have tried to meet existing to doesn’t set the targets. The legal and final financial consequences of not meeting a ceiling make uncertainity an essential consideration for member states. Who does Commissioner CKB choose outline the lessons drones from the implementation problems that have repeatedly beset existing EU air quality legislation and explain what the commission has done in the latest air quality proposal to limit these analytical uncertainties and ensure that member states will be in a position to implement the final legislation in full. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 28:11
Thank you very much. And we also do not have a speaker for the left. So that concludes the round of speakers on behalf of the coordinators, there is still a catch the eye and we have taken all the names already. But we first now give the floor to the commissioner so that he can respond so that also the catch the eye can react again a bit to your replies as well. So Mr. Commissioner, you have the floor.
Commissioner Sinkevičius 28:33
Thank you very much. And of course, thank you for your questions. And then thank you very much of course for your support. It’s absolutely extremely important. Now, first of all, as regards the storm water overflows and urban runoff. So, the proposal addresses this, this this problem and member states are required to develop their integrated urban wastewater water management plans and take action to reduce at the same time risk of flood and pollution emitted to the environment. And these plans need to be based on monitoring results and should clearly explain how pollution from stormwater overflows and urban runoff will be reduced. What is the situation member states are incentivized to actually meet and an indicative target that storm water will throw represents no more than 1% of the annual collection urban waste water load and Member States and of course first of all its cities will also have to consider in priority the use of nature based solutions and here this would not only be beneficial for urban wastewater management, but also for biodiversity, climate and general human wellbeing now, as regards water pricing, so water pricing is 70% First of all is water tariffs. And then then 30% is public budget. And what’s very important that we introduce a new financing pillar, extended producer responsibility, which I will address later on in more detail as it was in questions. So our impact assessment showed very clearly that water tariffs are not expected to increase. Depending of course, how they extended producer responsibility going to work, how the industry is going to deal with it. But again, that might be reflected on a very, very minor increase of price of some products, but not on water bills. And now, of course, as regards the member states, and some of them trying and still trying to to implement. Number states can use number of funds, as regards the improvement of urban wastewater, first of all, cohesion, policy funds, but also other funds available. As regards the full alignment, to who and this is a question that two of the speakers asked. So I know of course very well. And then commission is a viewer of the European Parliament resolution, which called on the commission to align who air quality guidance. And, of course, our impact assessment that showed very clearly that reaching who interim targets, which who itself has included in the air quality guidelines of 2021, it’s within the reach of 2030. But we’re not able to fully align. And there are one of the things that let’s don’t forget that we are very much dependent on other legislation. It’s not only ambient air quality directive, but other legislative legislation as well. And for example, fit for 55 package is going to have immense role to play, or our energy transition, and so on. So Commission has a review clause. And of course, depending on scientific progress, depending on energy transition, and etc. After the review, we’ll see in which position we’ve we find ourselves. But I need to stress that, of course, reaching the already revised targets that we have proposed, it’s not going to be a straightforward and easy work, member states will have to put in a significant effort to do so. By contrast, our impact assessment did no show did not show a variable path way as yet to ensure full alignment. And this is why of course, we as I mentioned, proposed those regular reviews of the air quality standards to periodically reassess them in line with latest scientific evidence in line with social and of course, technological development and, of course, implementation of our legislation, which is going to play a crucial role. And I hope that certain decisions that are adopted by this house and by the Council, as regards for example, combustion engine won’t be reversed. Now, as regard second part of the questions as regards the pharmaceuticals, and and, and cosmetics as being micropollutants included, first of all, the impact assessment showed that this is the 92% of toxic load. So we basically addressing the biggest pollutant and with others, it would be more difficult to indentify them to treat the investments if there would be even possible because in some we don’t even have a technology that would be way too, too expensive. So that’s why given this information, we of course, move with the biggest micro pollutants with the biggest toxic load and then of course, in the future, we might address the others as well. We are open to extended producer responsibility to other sectors, once we have you know a solid information because pesticides they are roughly around 7% of input and then if you look the input load to the wastewater treatment plants in decreases two to 2% of total toxic load. So it’s really small numbers that we talking here about now, as regards the new Star Wars question. And thank you very much for your support. So, first of all, of course, we looked at the subsidiarity principle very carefully in the impact assessment. And I have to say that this is not a new piece of legislation that we’re putting on the table, it’s a revision. So it’s always been very enshrined. And as regards an equal situation in member states, it’s great that in some member states, we have a better situation than in others. But worse is to see that situation in some is sliding down and is there is still a lot of work to do as, for example, concerning fine particulate matter, the political with the highest documented health impacts, we see the highest concentration in parts of northern Italy, and some Eastern European countries. And if we talk about pm 10, then again, we have Central and Eastern Europe. And it’s primarily due to solid fuels, as well as the older vehicle fleet and so on. So there is differences across Member States and some situation is better in some, it’s definitely worse. If you look at at Western Europe and our largest cities, of course, you see no to occur a lot, especially in the larger cities due to due to traffic. So there is definitely a European issue. And I hope that this proposal is tackling can European issue and if we will be able to get those, let’s say with with the with the worst numbers up, that’s only going to be for the benefit of first of all citizens and people living in that region and for the benefit of their health. As I already addressed the air quality, if you may allow us I will straight away go into into the 24 PFAs. First of all, those 24 are the most frequently found peoples, including of course, have very toxic ones and the standard set on the latest scientific knowledge is very strict. And in drinking water, there is a standard for total puffers and but this is subject to establishment by by the 12th of January 2024 have technical guidance regarding those analytical methods for P FOSS total and then some of P Foss and while correct measuring of PII first total by 2024 is feasible for drinking water. The method still needs of course, further improvement and further work prefer to use it for the groundwater and and and the surface water water which is much more contaminated. So, consequently, the current methodology at this stage would not be reliable enough to distinguish between P FOSS substances and other fluorinated substances in surface of groundwaters. We can look a total PFAs again, in the future revision when the ban on all but essential uses is in place and work on methodology for of course, measuring pupils in surface and groundwater is concluded and maybe a couple more words as regards zero pollution definition, I think definition was always there from the very beginning of the proposals. So, zero pollution is defined as our aim to push down the pollution levels, that they are no longer harmful to people, health and to environment and this was always enshrined in in our ambition, this was always always always part. Of course we have to take as we deal with with with many issues, we have to take different let’s say standards, different different numbers and etc. But the goal is very clear what we want to reach by 2050. And as regards by when then your quality standards could be aligned with W H O levels. Again, at this moment, as I said before, we did the impact assessment, it showed that by 2030 is not feasible. But if we will be able to, for example, speed up and really advance sensing the urgency our energy transition that might change if we will be able to advance on pollution in our larger cities as regards the traffic and then change to cleaner mobility Till that might speed up and during the revision, we will see a different results that might be feasible by 2030. But of course, for us proposing this, we have to bounce from the legislation which is on the table. So there is definitely room for improvement, but there are still a lot will have to be done by Member States a lot of work. As regards the last question, as regards the implementation, which often often fails, the ambient air quality directives, they already have proven that they can be very effective, they can be enforced in national courts, and at the EU level too. But what we put on the table is more than just increased standards or higher ambition. Our proposal will further improve implementation and enforcement with first of all stronger provisions to justice, introducing provisions for collective damage redress, and clarifying penalties and public information so that people know the state of air quality and can demand action for clean air more effectively. And that, of course, a lot depends. If citizens do you have enough information, because we have some member states, some cities who tend to have a decent results of monitoring. But then if you put the monitoring station in the park, or on the busiest junction, that’s a big difference in what you find in your results. Unfortunately, we still have these cases. But we’re working very actively with those cities to to ensure that citizens have the correct information. And then of course, I hope that they will be able to use the right as regards seeking justice of unimplemented. Legislation. As regards the additional funding, air quality is a priority. And we of course boosted the funds for clean air in the coming coming years, over 126 billion euros will be available for clean air directly or indirectly in the current funding period. And this means that that more than 17 billion per year can be used, for instance, for cleaner energy, sustainable transport, air quality monitoring, it’s almost three times as much as what was available in the previous period. And you know, there is a multiple purposes, multiple chances from member states to use the money we have recovery and resilience facility, which can be used and energy can be addressed as the first one but also transportation, cohesion, the connecting Europe facility, rural development funding horizon, Europe and of course, our life programme, as well as invest you programme. So opportunities are there. I think, very often member states have to really priorities, I prioritise it and of course, it’s very difficult. When Minister of Finance he looks at budget lines and then the calculations which are further as regards citizens health and how we are quality affects it. It does not reflect maybe the necessary budget lines. But I can reassure you that those costs which significantly outweigh the benefits, especially when we see that in some cases, you can also successfully improve situation as regards the energy crisis. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 43:44
Thank you very much also really for replying to all the questions in an elaborative manner. But there is now a catch di so I’m sure there will be some follow up here and there. First, we go to for SMB headlines Goodson
Heléne FRITZON (S&D/Sweden) 43:59
Thank you, thank you share, I will continue in Swedish. And so firstly, I say a tactile walk. First of all, I’d like to thank the commissioner, I’m very pleased that there is a package for zero emissions. Air pollution is also a question of equality. We know that women and foetuses actually are affected worse by air pollution. So it’s good that this package is going to bring about a halving of the effects. But I have to say, I’m not completely happy listening to the answer you’ve just given on the who. And I do share the opposition that colleagues have raised here because we know that stricter limit values in line with the Whu Oh, who would actually bring about benefits that outweigh the costs clearly, so I think there’s more work that needs to be done. I’d also just like to mention something is very Swedish in nature and that’s on wastewater treatment. Basically, it’s good having high levels have limit values on emissions and limit values for phosphorus. But when it comes to nitrogen, the new demands here are going to cost a lot. And I don’t see any environmental benefits if we look at the northern inland lakes or the northern parts of the Baltic, for example. So I think it is important that we do take that into consideration. How are we going to justify this when we see no environmental benefit? How does the commission justify having stronger and stricter limits for nitrogen if it’s not actually protecting against acidification and algal blooms, because there are other methods that work much better? Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 45:47
Thank you very much. And now we go to villainy trillion while you cheer us up badly on Jose.
Véronique TRILLET-LENOIR (Renew/France) 45:57
Speak French Commissioner, thank you very much for your speech. Your presentation, it’s obviously a question of health for our citizens in Europe. We, we might have thought that this hearing would take place in the presence of the commissioner for health, that this investment is a budget investment, as you said, the benefits of combating air pollution is seven times greater than its cost. I think that sort of argument should convince even the most reluctant Member State. And then it’s a human investment, as colleagues have said, of the 33,000 deaths in Europe every year due to find particle matter. cancer in particular caused by those particles, the half half of those lives could be saved. If we follow the WHO criteria criteria. Now, I wasn’t entirely convinced, I must say by your answer, you say that the federal 55 might be an obstacle to alignment and who criteria, but I see it as an opportunity, we will reduce emissions linked to fossil energy. We’re going to ban the production of a heat motors of combustion motors in 2035. Isn’t it a virtuous cycle? This fit for 55? So I would also ask you about the alignment on who for the 2.5 particulate matter. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 47:43
Thank you very much Yota polish.
Jutta Paulus 47:51
Thank you, Chair. And thank you for being here, Commissioner and giving us a comprehensive and extensive answers, I would like to come on to a field which has not yet been touched so much. And I know that you’re the least one to to be responsible for what has happened. But I was really shocked that the one core piece of the zero pollution Action Plan, which is of course the revision of the reach, chemicals regulation, where it will now be delayed until 2023. So probably we will not be able to conclude it with it within our mandate. And I think this is really a missed opportunity. Because there we could have really made a difference. How we act on chemicals, how we act on pollution, by by grasping the problem at the root at the core, not end of pipe looking how much is in our water, how much is in our air, but saying we will only register and approve chemicals that are not detrimental to human and environmental health. So my question to you would be, what do you expect? How long will this delay perpetuate itself? Because of course, it will take quite a while until a new parliament sets up with work again. And so instead of concluded within this mandate, as was promised in the Green Deal, will we have to wait until 2028 or even 2030? What would be your educated guess on that? And the second question, do you also see the opportunity that rich could have actually brought forward also our climate ambition because if we would take up an additional feature in reach, looking not only at toxicity, environmental, adverse action and so forth, but also on energy input in production, climate effects of production? Don’t you think that given that Europe has such a large chemical industry this would have been really worthwhile doing? Thank you
Bas EICKHOUT 50:01
Thank you very much. For renew. We have still these. Merci beaucoup. Merci beaucoup.
Frédérique Ries 50:09
Thank you. And thank you to the Commission for being here with us. Again, the legal limits were the main air pollutants that we breathe here in Europe, date from 2008. Maybe you mentioned it yourself, the long term. And so we’re impatient to have the work done on the on the recast of those rules. Three 300,000, early that’s in Europe, the chirps are urgent it is. But I have to harp on about the limit values to invade. The parliament. Gave it 1,000,000,018 months ago, April last year. We have been out of the discussions, we were very much in favour of aligning under who limits and the main polluters and listening to you in your in your original presentation. And then your answers, you took a bow the there’ll be no pathway at the moment to full alignment and h2o values. But the DIS mentioned disparities by the member states in the commission communique, you talk about align more closely. And you I think that aligned much more. Now the devils in the detail and the exact wording used here. Are you seeing you will understand that we can’t be happy with this the vagueness of the semantics. So that’ll probably again, be at the heart of the negotiations between us. Another question, if I have time, why treat ozone differently? You have a target value? Does that mean non binding? Who has it as binding? And then remark I agree to entirely that the timing of our work is about the time of every work in your press conference with Mr. Timmermans. You talked about one year for the landing. It’s precious, it’s not as good as further single use plastics. But still, but I think it’s one year is necessary with continue to be to expose, we have the repairs bits bill and we have the five more times more than the it’s not enough for being so out of line with it who limits
Bas EICKHOUT 52:57
and otherwise,
Pernille WEISS (EPP/Denmark) 52:59
just because it’s so always so exciting to talk about environmental change and the climate challenge with us and given us especially in this committee, the rumour says about envy and Europe in general. And I hear that also echoing in your replies back to us that we are very much fond of regulation. We see incentives and something that we articulate through targets. And there I also think that there is some interesting questions and answers back on on that for reflection on a more political matter. What I would like to ask you now giving the floor again is in the EU climate law, there is an obligation laid down in the text that the commission should start up relevant climate partnerships, to make it possible for us to push for more business and research innovation in the climate transition. And when I listen to what we’re talking about here on the zero pollution package, we talk a lot of crap about regulation and targets with impact assessments where we don’t know exactly when we will reach the target set by wh H O. So we need to invest more in research, I say. And there the idea from the European Parliament is that the climate partnerships between researchers, industries, relevant industries and relevant politicians needs to work better together, it actually needs to be created. So I would like to ask you, when we put forward proposals in the zero pollution package plan to create climate partnerships, how will you from now on prepare to take onboard these proposals so that we don’t only regulate but we also incentivize by inducing more innovation in this field that would be very, very very welcomed. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 55:03
Thank you very much. And that concludes the catch the eyes. So that means you have the concluding five minutes to go to the into the last questions. Good.
Commissioner Sinkevičius 55:11
Thank you very much. And thank you for your question. So first of all, as regards the nitrogen analogy, so, you know, this proposal is not aimed at the drivers of eutrophication and nutrients, but the range of other pollutants. The question is, however, of course relevant for the existing Water Framework Directive or domain time exemptions run out in 2027. And, of course, nitrogen directive has to be to be to be implemented. So that’s and member states have not taken the measures to improve the water quality on time, they may need to impose limits on new economic developments that impact on on water quality. As regards the fit for 55 and baggage, no, I completely set opposite that it will have a positive effect. And we very much expect that to happen, actually. And hopefully, as I said, it will be finalised the same as the proposal for example, on banning combustion engine 2035. And hopefully there will be no flip flops on that too. And we will steadily advance with the with the European Green Deal agenda but also relevant industries agenda stew. Now as regards the reach. First of all, probably I will use an opportunity to clarify a couple of issues and myths around around the reach revision. So we will propose a targeted revision of the legislation, which with the aim of securing European competitive advantages and innovation by promoting sustainable chemicals, first of all, simplifying and then streamlining the regulatory process and then reducing the burden and protecting human health and the environment. And this revision is extremely important piece of legislation. That requires, of course, throughout the preparation consultation in order to ensure that it’s developed in a way that achieves higher protection for health and the environment, from hazardous chemicals but also supports you competitiveness. And it’s also the best remedy against increasing our dependence on chemicals produced in the rest of the world. We are finalising our impact assessment and we are finalising our costs consultations with the stakeholders and working on solid input from the regulatory scrutiny board. Once this file is ready, we will not hesitate to propose it and present it to the European Parliament and the Council. So the work is advancing. I think now it’s extremely important to finalise all the steps. And then when it’s ready, I hope we will have a green light to propose it. And hopefully, of course, we’ll be able to do it earlier than what’s in the Commission’s working programme because at the end of the day Commission’s working programme is also indicative document. As regards the air quality standards, again, European Parliament asked us to align with who standards subject to impact assessment and impact assessment showed that we cannot do it by 2030. And this is what what stated the first revision is going to happen in 2028. And as I said, depending on the technological scientific progress and so on, depending on implementation of our legislation, we might have a completely completely different, different outcome. Now, as regards the other pieces of legislation, as I said we are very much also as regards the air quality dependent on them and on their implementation and that’s why we had to refer to them and have the result which is not a full alignment by 2030. Last thing on zero pollution and then of course cola collaboration and research and climate partnerships. There are a lot of existing already partnership with local and regional Authorities, with researchers and of course, they are working even more closely together. As I’ve mentioned, there is a multiple opportunities for member states to also prioritise it as regards for example, Horizon Europe funding to be used, and then of course, invest additional resources into into research and then enhance even deeper researching, but as I said in my concluding remarks, all this comes with very important part at the end of the day implementation of the legislation because we cannot be naive and say that only research or a new targets will save us at the end of the day. It’s all about the implementation and in some parts of Europe, we still have a lot to step up that implementation and the means are definitely there. Once again, I thank you very much for your interest. For your questions. The work is definitely going to advance I’m very thankful for your support and enthusiasm to advance that work. I always enjoy the trial locks with even further going condition in finding that, that balance, which then of course, we able to finalise and ensure that clean water, clean air is not a luxury in Europe, but something that each of our citizens can have it their home. Thank you
Otter.ai transcript
Bas EICKHOUT 00:04
Good afternoon, everyone. We continue. But this is also the official opening of the Envy meeting, we just had a slots on the together with the Court of Auditors. Together with envy, the Budget Control and budget committee, those people are leaving the room now I see. So that leaves us the envy people. And before we start with the first item, it’s first the adoption of the agenda. I don’t see any points being raised. So the agenda is adopted. Then on chairs, announcements, it’s the usual stuff on interpretation and electronic meeting and the web streaming. Only one point is that we only have Slovenian in passive mode this time. So it will be translated away from it. Then we have the coordinators recommendations of the 25th of October. If there are no objections, they can be deemed adopted and approved, seems to be fine with that as well. And then we have to report back on ongoing inter institutional negotiations, just saying that’s in between when we had the large envy meeting and this and we meeting we had to try logs. One on ETS aviation, which made progress is then what you have to say I was there I would say progress is a big word. But we made progress. On the other one, we really made progress. And that is on the co2 standards for cars because a visionary deal was struck. Just before we went into the Green Week, somewhere Thursday night, it was around 10 o’clock AM as far as I can remember. But of course that will have to come back to envy and then go to the plenary for official approval, but a provisionary deal has been struck with the council and we thank the Czech and presidency and the Commission very much for helping in striking that provisional deal. That brings me then to the Envy agenda, where it where we go more into the contents. And the first item is we have here Commissioner sync of issues. And it’s always a pleasure to have you in the NV meeting and good afternoon. And we do have here a package of the three laws, which was published one and a half week before. And it’s called the zero pollution package, right, and it’s consisting of three elements. And what we’re going to do is that you are going to present the core elements of that. And then of course, we will have around the speakers to to react to that. And then we have your reply to that. So, Commissioner, great to have you here and you have the floor.
Commissioner Sinkevičius 02:44
Thank you very much, your boss, Honourable Members, ladies and gentleman, of course a very good afternoon to you all. And I’m also extremely happy to be here with you. Thank you, of course for the invitation to present zero pollution package to you, which commission as best pointed out, adopted less than two weeks ago on 26th of October, and which is a big step forward. For citizens health and for the environment. Our zero pollution ambition for 2050 is to reduce air, water and soil pollution to levels which are no longer harmful to health and natural ecosystems that respect the boundaries with which our planet can cope and there’ll be creating a toxic free environment. And yes, there is still a long way to go to reach the 2050 target. But the three legislative proposals we just adopted one to improve air quality one to address fresh water quality, and one to modernise wastewater treatment will take us further in the right direction with measurable targets for 2030 as a stepping stone to that 2050 ambition. And let me start with the first one, your quality. We have to acknowledge that this is an area where several decades of new policies have already led to considerable improvements and the trends are going in the right direction and thanks to our joint efforts, and that’s definitely positive but it’s not enough. Air pollution is still the number one environmental threat to citizens health and serious challenge for our economies. And the cost of present pollution levels is still far too high. The impacts are worse for the most vulnerable, notably children, the elderly, people with certain medical conditions and economically disadvantaged. It’s clear that we need to do more here and that we need to act with determination what we propose will align EU air quality standards much more closely with the latest recommendations of the World Health Organisation. When you add this to the improvements existing policies already, the expected result will be 70% fewer premature deaths. From bad air quality in the next 10 years, at the same time, we are setting the EU on a trajectory to achieve zero pollution for here by 2050. This builds on the many core benefits we get from decarbonisation, and the repower you efforts, that brings a huge acceleration towards cleaner energy production. But our proposal is not only about thresholds, we are also proposing to strengthen the rules for monitoring and modelling air quality and improve the framework for air quality plans. These new rules will be easier to enforce. We have revisited the way Member States cooperate in tackling cross border cases, and we are improving access to justice. We also want to give citizens a collective right to claim compensation when their health is affected as a result of laws not being enforced. This is our goal not just for air but for wastewater as well. At the same time, we are harmonising the rules for competent authorities so that they can impose more dissuasive penalties against polluters will breach air quality measures. This will relieve the economy and the healthcare system. The cost burden from illness and lower productivity the benefits are at least seven times greater than the costs your colleagues and Let me emphasise that Europeans really expect us to act. The recent Eurobarometer survey from 20 14/4 of October showed clearly that citizens and in particular those living in cities near industrial plants, or asthma sufferers, they are all worried about the effect of air pollution on health and the environment and ask us to act. Let me now turn to the proposal on fresh water. In the order River, on the Polish German border this summer, we had a terrible insight into what can happen if you fail to protect a river from pollution in times of drought caused by climate change. And this dramatic lesson showed the urgent need to increase the resilience of our rivers, reducing pollution and boosting their biodiversity in the single best way to do that. Today, we still find pharmaceuticals, pesticides, prefers in Europe’s fresh waters at the levels that endangers the aquatic environment. We are addressing these problems by raising the standards for rivers, lakes and ground waters as part of our drive toward zero pollution. key changes include tackling the threats from new pollutants, bringing their concentrations down to safe levels, introducing an early warning mechanism for groundwater pollution, increasing availability, and transparency of pollution data, and requiring member states to alert each other about other about pollution events. And that way, we have a chance to correct some of the mistakes that were made with the or the river the summer and that should not happen again. Nowhere in Europe, member states will also be obliged to reduce pesticides involve ground and ground and surface waters. That way our soils stay healthy, less treatment is needed for drinking water, and overall resilience will increase. As regards pharmaceuticals. Let me be clear, we all need them for our own health, but their residues can be very unhealthy for nature. Without compromising access to affordable medication. The most harmful residues must be removed from our freshwater, another clear source of micro pollutants, our personal care products, and the benefits of better monitoring and reducing pollution from these persistent micro pollutants will be significant for water, soil, biodiversity, and also for human health. The third element of our zero pollution package is the revision of a law which has brought enormous benefits to EU citizens already. And I’m talking about the urban wastewater treatment directive. Our goal is to bring the more than 30 years all directive in line with the ambitious ambitions of the European Green Deal. Given the current energy crisis, we need to mobilise all our resources. This wastewater treatment sector can both save energy and produce renewable energy including green biogas, which would be a reasonable substitute to a natural gas. Part of the proposal is an energy neutrality target for the sector to be reached by 2040. Combine this measure with the reinforcement or of some of the standards has the potential to reduce the sector of greenhouse gas emissions by almost 50%. But also infrastructures need to adapt to climate change. Europe’s rain regime has already changed how rains makes the treatment of wastewater more complex. In urban areas, our proposal puts the priority on nature based solutions. Greening the cities, for example, reduces the risk of floods. It also contributes to biodiversity and the well being of city dwellers. We also bring in new rules to reduce emissions of micro pollutants in line with the ones identified in the freshwater proposal. Two categories in particular and namely, harmful residues from pharmaceutical and personal care products that can be found in urban wastewater today pass through wastewater treatment plants, and ended up in fresh water. Under our proposal procedures will be required to contribute to the costs of cleaning wastewater to avoid taxpayers having to pay that bill. This is a practical application of polluter pays principle. Drawing on this on the lessons of the pandemic. We also proposed to ensure the systemic detection of health relevant parameters in wastewater. This will help with anti microbial resistance, and also with COVID-19 and its variants. And this variants can already be identified in wastewater well before they actually spread widely through the population. And we propose clear rules to improve the transparency of the sector and ensure access to sanitation for all. Overall, the costs of this proposal are two times lower than its benefits, we made sure that our proposal is affordable for all. Finally, let me be clear that high standards for air and water quality are crucial, but on their own, they of course, were going to be never enough, they have to be effectively implemented on the ground. So all three proposals include suggestions as regards to improve enforcement and the result should be more effective laws and lower administrative burden for member states. Honourable Members since the beginning of this mandate, the commission has been making important progress with the rollout of the European Green Deal, and CO legislators are investing important resources to finalise the crucial fit for 55 package, which will help us reaching our emission reductions, goals by 2030. And climate neutrality by 2050. We are progressing in our green transition, in spite of the challenges faced by the pandemic, the war and the resulting energy and economic crisis, which have not reduced the relevance of the European Green Deal but on the contrary, shown that our green agenda is actually the best way to making us more resilient and better prepared for similar crisis. The free proposals I presented today and which are now on the college Slater’s table are key elements of our zero pollution, ambition, and thus, of the environmental pillar of the European Green Deal. As such, they are crucial to increase the resilience of our health and of our environment. And this is why I’m calling on you today to treat them with the necessary priority so that we can proceed quickly with inter institutional discussions and allow trialog negotiations to be finalised before the end of the parliamentary term. We need to see tangible progress by 2024. Under all Green Deal work strands, climate energy, but also environment and zero pollution is a crucial component here. For air pollution, we are listening to the voice of science, the people and the who. For water standards, we are including new chemicals, which were still unknown when the first standards were adopted. And for wastewater, we are updating legislation from a different era, the directive was adopted towards the end of the last century. So we owe this improvements to the European citizens. So once again, thank you very much for your attention. And of course now we look forward to your comments and questions.
Bas EICKHOUT 13:54
Thank you very much. And indeed, we will now have first round of coordinators or they’re substitutes for the different political groups. I already also open catch the eye for everyone that would like to also ask a question that will be then taken after the round of coordinators or their representatives. And I start with the representative or up and that is penalise.
Pernille WEISS (EPP/Denmark) 14:19
Thank you bass. And thank you commissioners thanking us for being with us. Again, it’s always a pleasure to talk with you about what we can do for the environment and especially this package has a very great interest of me as being Chair of the mid water there for my questions will relate to that part of the package. The current urban wastewater treatment director has been criticised for being insufficient and regarding to addressing stormwater overflows especially the current directive does not include monitoring requirements for this issue, which will likely only become More serious as you will experience more extreme weather in the future. Therefore, also because I know that you have actually addressed this question, I would though, like to ask a commissioner for further details about how Member States should fulfil obligations for monitoring the storm water overflows, which sometimes discharge without passing through treatment plants first. Also, do you hold plans to incentivize national and local authorities to build up capacities to treat wastewater and ensure that stormwater is actually led through these treatment plans instead of just as charged into the environment, also related to urban wastewater treatment directive, I would like to ask to the lack of compliance with the complete and commission so far has been trying to promote through funding therefore, several member states still rely on EU funding to build relevant wastewater infrastructure, rather than a sufficient system of water tariffs and public budgets. Therefore, could you please let us know in more details how you plan to address these shortcomings to promote sufficient investments in by Member States to manage it nutrients to treat micro pollutants and to reach energy neutrality without relying excessively on EU funds? Only? What role do you envision for water tariffs in respect to member states different financing strategies? Thank you so much.
Bas EICKHOUT 16:32
Thank you very much. And now we turn to the coordinator of SMD Timo welcome.
Tiemo WÖLKEN (S&D/Germany) 16:37
Thank you very much boss, and the commissioner, good to have you here. Thank you very much for taking the time. And I would start by thanking you for your hard work on this package. And I want to underline the strong support of my group for the intention. So we are fighting for zero emission. So thank you very much for your proposal. I strongly believe that without EU legislation, we would breathe many more air pollutants, we would drink toxic substances, and it’s due to the EU legislation that people are living healthier European Union, technology evolves. And we now need to work on really banning all toxic substances with impacts on humans, and therefore I want to reject cynical create claims by other political groups who try to frame good environmental legislation as a burden. The opposite is true. The status quo is a burden for the people living in the European Union, a burden on the health of EU citizens. So my group is very happy to work on this package. And we want to strengthen the ambition and some aspects. And I would like to ask you two questions. The first one regarding the ambient air quality directive, you’ve chosen not to fully line the limit, while us in the directive of the WH o recommendations for human exposure, as far as I understand your justification is that this would not be feasible in the short to middle term. But I would like to know, are these values compatible with the W H O recommendations as a whole in your eyes? And the second question is, again, I want to applaud the introduction of the polluter pays principle in the urban wastewater treatment directive. This is something my group has requested for a very long time next to significant contribution to the additional costs. This should incentivize action at the source of pollution. This is good. But why did you not cover other industries by the extended producer responsibilities such as biocides, pesticides, producers, or the textile industry. And I would also like to know where you still see need for further regulatory action to reduce pollutants at the source. Thank you very much.
Bas EICKHOUT 19:12
Thank you very much for renew. Now we have news Torvalds.
Nils TORVALDS 19:16
Thank you bus and thank you, Commissioner for being here with us today. Before coming to this meeting, I went to some of the maps you can find on the European environmental agency size site about different member states and how air quality feels and how water resources are looking in the different member states. And what you find by looking at the map says that the situation in the different member states are very diverse. So it’s probably fairly easy to breathe or Drink water. In Finland? It’s not so easy. Have you heard from my colleague Timo can that when you do it in Germany, I don’t know what they drink there, but mostly beer, but we don’t know. That’s right good boat, so it should be fine. But if you have bad water, then it’s not that fine. So my challenge the first challenge, and probably my only challenge and this issue is that, how did you get this to the subsidiarity test? Because in a way, you always say that you does it better than the member states. And that’s probably not really true in this case, which actually raises the ACL, should you have another sort of legal basis for this case. At the same time, I’m sure that if you look at the majority of the member states, you still have very pure air. And you have a lot of premature death because of that. And the same goes for for bad, quality, fresh water. Therefore, we are going to help you as much as we can, and get it through as fast as we can. Because even if I’ve doubt the subsidiarity clause, you have, I think we should we should do a good job and get our voice directed in the right direction. You already mentioned yourself, how much we could actually earn by taking out all the things you can find in in urban wastewater, we probably could get all the phosphorus we would need for the next decades, by taking it out from from from wastewater, from wastewater. So yes, I doubt some of the issues here. But we certainly are going to help you, even if it or don’t always like to help you. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 22:07
Thank you very much. Now I give the floor to myself. So I’ll change my role here. First of all, really thank you very much for for publishing this package, one and a half week ago, almost two weeks ago, because we know there is indeed a pressure. My colleague, Tim Walberg, already said it by some political groups that are saying we support the Green Deal, but then not really is it because basically, they say after fit for 55, we’re done. Whereas it was very clear that the Green Deal means that we are striving for an economy that is climate, neutral, fully circular, but also a zero polluting economy by 2050. So if you support the Green Deal, it’s also very clear that non zero pollution steps have to be taken. So we really are happy that that the commission has come through with these proposals. And of course, as others already said, we will help in also getting this through the legislative machinery hopefully before the end of this term. However, we do have questions of course, as well, because if you didn’t look into the proposals, we still have the feeling that sometimes you have given into some of the pressures, and certainly on air quality and TMobile can already answer that as well. First of all, the parliament was very clear in its resolution saying that you should align with the World Health Organisation standards, and you’re not doing that by 2030. So this means that still we are allowing more pollution to our citizens than what World Health Organisation is recommending. But even beyond that, I have to say the wording for 2050 is even more puzzling to be very honest, because you state as the main target that you want a zero pollution by 2050, but you do not define zero pollution. And if we then look at the review that you introduce, you have a lot of ingredients, and one of them will be the World Health Organisation standards, but it’s only one of them. So we cannot even be sure we are aligning by 2050 The World Health Organisation standards. So I really would like to hear more concretely, when is Europe going to align with the World Health Organisation standards? Because that’s not clear from the proposal to be very honest. Second question is on the water pollutants very quickly. It’s very good that P FOSS has been added to the annex, however you only add 24 of P FAS whereas we know it’s 1000s of P FOSS elements. So why these 24 And what is going to happen with the methodology that was promised before that all the pieces will be encompassed. Thank you very much for that and now I’ll change back to my role as a chair again. And I continue the list of coordinators and there is no speaker for ID. So that means we now move to ECR Alexandre, Vonda
Alexandr VONDRA 25:00
Thank you very much boss. So, ECR certainly acknowledge that the poor air and water quality is an serious issue and we should stay committed to improve it. However, you know, as somebody who grew up in the command economy and remember the differences between the projection and the Praxis or just recently, when we had this previous debate with the budget committee, I think we have to be careful about having harmony between what we are planning to do and what we are doing. And here, I guess it’s not sufficient to set higher target alone. The ceiling for 2030 and mid century have to be set at a level that is realistic deliverable. And evidence based. Any analysis relating to 2030 and beyond has many uncertainties associated with it. These in turn could have significant implications for the confidence one can have in any conclusions drawn from the analyses, levels of economic and population growth as well as the sector specific developments, including technology and policy costs, will all affect the level of emission at the end of this decade. such uncertainties these can make the difference between a ceiling being achievable and unachievable, where ceilings are set within 10% of the maximum technically feasible level of reduction uncertainity around emission projections means it could turn out that it is not technically possible to meet the ceiling. And the commission assessment. This seems the case for the fine particulate matter like pm 2pm. Five, given the high number of infringement cases under the ambient air quality directives and the national emissions ceiling directive, with nearly all member states have tried to meet existing to doesn’t set the targets. The legal and final financial consequences of not meeting a ceiling make uncertainity an essential consideration for member states. Who does Commissioner CKB choose outline the lessons drones from the implementation problems that have repeatedly beset existing EU air quality legislation and explain what the commission has done in the latest air quality proposal to limit these analytical uncertainties and ensure that member states will be in a position to implement the final legislation in full. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 28:11
Thank you very much. And we also do not have a speaker for the left. So that concludes the round of speakers on behalf of the coordinators, there is still a catch the eye and we have taken all the names already. But we first now give the floor to the commissioner so that he can respond so that also the catch the eye can react again a bit to your replies as well. So Mr. Commissioner, you have the floor.
Commissioner Sinkevičius 28:33
Thank you very much. And of course, thank you for your questions. And then thank you very much of course for your support. It’s absolutely extremely important. Now, first of all, as regards the storm water overflows and urban runoff. So, the proposal addresses this, this this problem and member states are required to develop their integrated urban wastewater water management plans and take action to reduce at the same time risk of flood and pollution emitted to the environment. And these plans need to be based on monitoring results and should clearly explain how pollution from stormwater overflows and urban runoff will be reduced. What is the situation member states are incentivized to actually meet and an indicative target that storm water will throw represents no more than 1% of the annual collection urban waste water load and Member States and of course first of all its cities will also have to consider in priority the use of nature based solutions and here this would not only be beneficial for urban wastewater management, but also for biodiversity, climate and general human wellbeing now, as regards water pricing, so water pricing is 70% First of all is water tariffs. And then then 30% is public budget. And what’s very important that we introduce a new financing pillar, extended producer responsibility, which I will address later on in more detail as it was in questions. So our impact assessment showed very clearly that water tariffs are not expected to increase. Depending of course, how they extended producer responsibility going to work, how the industry is going to deal with it. But again, that might be reflected on a very, very minor increase of price of some products, but not on water bills. And now, of course, as regards the member states, and some of them trying and still trying to to implement. Number states can use number of funds, as regards the improvement of urban wastewater, first of all, cohesion, policy funds, but also other funds available. As regards the full alignment, to who and this is a question that two of the speakers asked. So I know of course very well. And then commission is a viewer of the European Parliament resolution, which called on the commission to align who air quality guidance. And, of course, our impact assessment that showed very clearly that reaching who interim targets, which who itself has included in the air quality guidelines of 2021, it’s within the reach of 2030. But we’re not able to fully align. And there are one of the things that let’s don’t forget that we are very much dependent on other legislation. It’s not only ambient air quality directive, but other legislative legislation as well. And for example, fit for 55 package is going to have immense role to play, or our energy transition, and so on. So Commission has a review clause. And of course, depending on scientific progress, depending on energy transition, and etc. After the review, we’ll see in which position we’ve we find ourselves. But I need to stress that, of course, reaching the already revised targets that we have proposed, it’s not going to be a straightforward and easy work, member states will have to put in a significant effort to do so. By contrast, our impact assessment did no show did not show a variable path way as yet to ensure full alignment. And this is why of course, we as I mentioned, proposed those regular reviews of the air quality standards to periodically reassess them in line with latest scientific evidence in line with social and of course, technological development and, of course, implementation of our legislation, which is going to play a crucial role. And I hope that certain decisions that are adopted by this house and by the Council, as regards for example, combustion engine won’t be reversed. Now, as regard second part of the questions as regards the pharmaceuticals, and and, and cosmetics as being micropollutants included, first of all, the impact assessment showed that this is the 92% of toxic load. So we basically addressing the biggest pollutant and with others, it would be more difficult to indentify them to treat the investments if there would be even possible because in some we don’t even have a technology that would be way too, too expensive. So that’s why given this information, we of course, move with the biggest micro pollutants with the biggest toxic load and then of course, in the future, we might address the others as well. We are open to extended producer responsibility to other sectors, once we have you know a solid information because pesticides they are roughly around 7% of input and then if you look the input load to the wastewater treatment plants in decreases two to 2% of total toxic load. So it’s really small numbers that we talking here about now, as regards the new Star Wars question. And thank you very much for your support. So, first of all, of course, we looked at the subsidiarity principle very carefully in the impact assessment. And I have to say that this is not a new piece of legislation that we’re putting on the table, it’s a revision. So it’s always been very enshrined. And as regards an equal situation in member states, it’s great that in some member states, we have a better situation than in others. But worse is to see that situation in some is sliding down and is there is still a lot of work to do as, for example, concerning fine particulate matter, the political with the highest documented health impacts, we see the highest concentration in parts of northern Italy, and some Eastern European countries. And if we talk about pm 10, then again, we have Central and Eastern Europe. And it’s primarily due to solid fuels, as well as the older vehicle fleet and so on. So there is differences across Member States and some situation is better in some, it’s definitely worse. If you look at at Western Europe and our largest cities, of course, you see no to occur a lot, especially in the larger cities due to due to traffic. So there is definitely a European issue. And I hope that this proposal is tackling can European issue and if we will be able to get those, let’s say with with the with the worst numbers up, that’s only going to be for the benefit of first of all citizens and people living in that region and for the benefit of their health. As I already addressed the air quality, if you may allow us I will straight away go into into the 24 PFAs. First of all, those 24 are the most frequently found peoples, including of course, have very toxic ones and the standard set on the latest scientific knowledge is very strict. And in drinking water, there is a standard for total puffers and but this is subject to establishment by by the 12th of January 2024 have technical guidance regarding those analytical methods for P FOSS total and then some of P Foss and while correct measuring of PII first total by 2024 is feasible for drinking water. The method still needs of course, further improvement and further work prefer to use it for the groundwater and and and the surface water water which is much more contaminated. So, consequently, the current methodology at this stage would not be reliable enough to distinguish between P FOSS substances and other fluorinated substances in surface of groundwaters. We can look a total PFAs again, in the future revision when the ban on all but essential uses is in place and work on methodology for of course, measuring pupils in surface and groundwater is concluded and maybe a couple more words as regards zero pollution definition, I think definition was always there from the very beginning of the proposals. So, zero pollution is defined as our aim to push down the pollution levels, that they are no longer harmful to people, health and to environment and this was always enshrined in in our ambition, this was always always always part. Of course we have to take as we deal with with with many issues, we have to take different let’s say standards, different different numbers and etc. But the goal is very clear what we want to reach by 2050. And as regards by when then your quality standards could be aligned with W H O levels. Again, at this moment, as I said before, we did the impact assessment, it showed that by 2030 is not feasible. But if we will be able to, for example, speed up and really advance sensing the urgency our energy transition that might change if we will be able to advance on pollution in our larger cities as regards the traffic and then change to cleaner mobility Till that might speed up and during the revision, we will see a different results that might be feasible by 2030. But of course, for us proposing this, we have to bounce from the legislation which is on the table. So there is definitely room for improvement, but there are still a lot will have to be done by Member States a lot of work. As regards the last question, as regards the implementation, which often often fails, the ambient air quality directives, they already have proven that they can be very effective, they can be enforced in national courts, and at the EU level too. But what we put on the table is more than just increased standards or higher ambition. Our proposal will further improve implementation and enforcement with first of all stronger provisions to justice, introducing provisions for collective damage redress, and clarifying penalties and public information so that people know the state of air quality and can demand action for clean air more effectively. And that, of course, a lot depends. If citizens do you have enough information, because we have some member states, some cities who tend to have a decent results of monitoring. But then if you put the monitoring station in the park, or on the busiest junction, that’s a big difference in what you find in your results. Unfortunately, we still have these cases. But we’re working very actively with those cities to to ensure that citizens have the correct information. And then of course, I hope that they will be able to use the right as regards seeking justice of unimplemented. Legislation. As regards the additional funding, air quality is a priority. And we of course boosted the funds for clean air in the coming coming years, over 126 billion euros will be available for clean air directly or indirectly in the current funding period. And this means that that more than 17 billion per year can be used, for instance, for cleaner energy, sustainable transport, air quality monitoring, it’s almost three times as much as what was available in the previous period. And you know, there is a multiple purposes, multiple chances from member states to use the money we have recovery and resilience facility, which can be used and energy can be addressed as the first one but also transportation, cohesion, the connecting Europe facility, rural development funding horizon, Europe and of course, our life programme, as well as invest you programme. So opportunities are there. I think, very often member states have to really priorities, I prioritise it and of course, it’s very difficult. When Minister of Finance he looks at budget lines and then the calculations which are further as regards citizens health and how we are quality affects it. It does not reflect maybe the necessary budget lines. But I can reassure you that those costs which significantly outweigh the benefits, especially when we see that in some cases, you can also successfully improve situation as regards the energy crisis. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 43:44
Thank you very much also really for replying to all the questions in an elaborative manner. But there is now a catch di so I’m sure there will be some follow up here and there. First, we go to for SMB headlines Goodson
Heléne FRITZON (S&D/Sweden) 43:59
Thank you, thank you share, I will continue in Swedish. And so firstly, I say a tactile walk. First of all, I’d like to thank the commissioner, I’m very pleased that there is a package for zero emissions. Air pollution is also a question of equality. We know that women and foetuses actually are affected worse by air pollution. So it’s good that this package is going to bring about a halving of the effects. But I have to say, I’m not completely happy listening to the answer you’ve just given on the who. And I do share the opposition that colleagues have raised here because we know that stricter limit values in line with the Whu Oh, who would actually bring about benefits that outweigh the costs clearly, so I think there’s more work that needs to be done. I’d also just like to mention something is very Swedish in nature and that’s on wastewater treatment. Basically, it’s good having high levels have limit values on emissions and limit values for phosphorus. But when it comes to nitrogen, the new demands here are going to cost a lot. And I don’t see any environmental benefits if we look at the northern inland lakes or the northern parts of the Baltic, for example. So I think it is important that we do take that into consideration. How are we going to justify this when we see no environmental benefit? How does the commission justify having stronger and stricter limits for nitrogen if it’s not actually protecting against acidification and algal blooms, because there are other methods that work much better? Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 45:47
Thank you very much. And now we go to villainy trillion while you cheer us up badly on Jose.
Véronique TRILLET-LENOIR (Renew/France) 45:57
Speak French Commissioner, thank you very much for your speech. Your presentation, it’s obviously a question of health for our citizens in Europe. We, we might have thought that this hearing would take place in the presence of the commissioner for health, that this investment is a budget investment, as you said, the benefits of combating air pollution is seven times greater than its cost. I think that sort of argument should convince even the most reluctant Member State. And then it’s a human investment, as colleagues have said, of the 33,000 deaths in Europe every year due to find particle matter. cancer in particular caused by those particles, the half half of those lives could be saved. If we follow the WHO criteria criteria. Now, I wasn’t entirely convinced, I must say by your answer, you say that the federal 55 might be an obstacle to alignment and who criteria, but I see it as an opportunity, we will reduce emissions linked to fossil energy. We’re going to ban the production of a heat motors of combustion motors in 2035. Isn’t it a virtuous cycle? This fit for 55? So I would also ask you about the alignment on who for the 2.5 particulate matter. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 47:43
Thank you very much Yota polish.
Jutta Paulus 47:51
Thank you, Chair. And thank you for being here, Commissioner and giving us a comprehensive and extensive answers, I would like to come on to a field which has not yet been touched so much. And I know that you’re the least one to to be responsible for what has happened. But I was really shocked that the one core piece of the zero pollution Action Plan, which is of course the revision of the reach, chemicals regulation, where it will now be delayed until 2023. So probably we will not be able to conclude it with it within our mandate. And I think this is really a missed opportunity. Because there we could have really made a difference. How we act on chemicals, how we act on pollution, by by grasping the problem at the root at the core, not end of pipe looking how much is in our water, how much is in our air, but saying we will only register and approve chemicals that are not detrimental to human and environmental health. So my question to you would be, what do you expect? How long will this delay perpetuate itself? Because of course, it will take quite a while until a new parliament sets up with work again. And so instead of concluded within this mandate, as was promised in the Green Deal, will we have to wait until 2028 or even 2030? What would be your educated guess on that? And the second question, do you also see the opportunity that rich could have actually brought forward also our climate ambition because if we would take up an additional feature in reach, looking not only at toxicity, environmental, adverse action and so forth, but also on energy input in production, climate effects of production? Don’t you think that given that Europe has such a large chemical industry this would have been really worthwhile doing? Thank you
Bas EICKHOUT 50:01
Thank you very much. For renew. We have still these. Merci beaucoup. Merci beaucoup.
Frédérique Ries 50:09
Thank you. And thank you to the Commission for being here with us. Again, the legal limits were the main air pollutants that we breathe here in Europe, date from 2008. Maybe you mentioned it yourself, the long term. And so we’re impatient to have the work done on the on the recast of those rules. Three 300,000, early that’s in Europe, the chirps are urgent it is. But I have to harp on about the limit values to invade. The parliament. Gave it 1,000,000,018 months ago, April last year. We have been out of the discussions, we were very much in favour of aligning under who limits and the main polluters and listening to you in your in your original presentation. And then your answers, you took a bow the there’ll be no pathway at the moment to full alignment and h2o values. But the DIS mentioned disparities by the member states in the commission communique, you talk about align more closely. And you I think that aligned much more. Now the devils in the detail and the exact wording used here. Are you seeing you will understand that we can’t be happy with this the vagueness of the semantics. So that’ll probably again, be at the heart of the negotiations between us. Another question, if I have time, why treat ozone differently? You have a target value? Does that mean non binding? Who has it as binding? And then remark I agree to entirely that the timing of our work is about the time of every work in your press conference with Mr. Timmermans. You talked about one year for the landing. It’s precious, it’s not as good as further single use plastics. But still, but I think it’s one year is necessary with continue to be to expose, we have the repairs bits bill and we have the five more times more than the it’s not enough for being so out of line with it who limits
Bas EICKHOUT 52:57
and otherwise,
Pernille WEISS (EPP/Denmark) 52:59
just because it’s so always so exciting to talk about environmental change and the climate challenge with us and given us especially in this committee, the rumour says about envy and Europe in general. And I hear that also echoing in your replies back to us that we are very much fond of regulation. We see incentives and something that we articulate through targets. And there I also think that there is some interesting questions and answers back on on that for reflection on a more political matter. What I would like to ask you now giving the floor again is in the EU climate law, there is an obligation laid down in the text that the commission should start up relevant climate partnerships, to make it possible for us to push for more business and research innovation in the climate transition. And when I listen to what we’re talking about here on the zero pollution package, we talk a lot of crap about regulation and targets with impact assessments where we don’t know exactly when we will reach the target set by wh H O. So we need to invest more in research, I say. And there the idea from the European Parliament is that the climate partnerships between researchers, industries, relevant industries and relevant politicians needs to work better together, it actually needs to be created. So I would like to ask you, when we put forward proposals in the zero pollution package plan to create climate partnerships, how will you from now on prepare to take onboard these proposals so that we don’t only regulate but we also incentivize by inducing more innovation in this field that would be very, very very welcomed. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 55:03
Thank you very much. And that concludes the catch the eyes. So that means you have the concluding five minutes to go to the into the last questions. Good.
Commissioner Sinkevičius 55:11
Thank you very much. And thank you for your question. So first of all, as regards the nitrogen analogy, so, you know, this proposal is not aimed at the drivers of eutrophication and nutrients, but the range of other pollutants. The question is, however, of course relevant for the existing Water Framework Directive or domain time exemptions run out in 2027. And, of course, nitrogen directive has to be to be to be implemented. So that’s and member states have not taken the measures to improve the water quality on time, they may need to impose limits on new economic developments that impact on on water quality. As regards the fit for 55 and baggage, no, I completely set opposite that it will have a positive effect. And we very much expect that to happen, actually. And hopefully, as I said, it will be finalised the same as the proposal for example, on banning combustion engine 2035. And hopefully there will be no flip flops on that too. And we will steadily advance with the with the European Green Deal agenda but also relevant industries agenda stew. Now as regards the reach. First of all, probably I will use an opportunity to clarify a couple of issues and myths around around the reach revision. So we will propose a targeted revision of the legislation, which with the aim of securing European competitive advantages and innovation by promoting sustainable chemicals, first of all, simplifying and then streamlining the regulatory process and then reducing the burden and protecting human health and the environment. And this revision is extremely important piece of legislation. That requires, of course, throughout the preparation consultation in order to ensure that it’s developed in a way that achieves higher protection for health and the environment, from hazardous chemicals but also supports you competitiveness. And it’s also the best remedy against increasing our dependence on chemicals produced in the rest of the world. We are finalising our impact assessment and we are finalising our costs consultations with the stakeholders and working on solid input from the regulatory scrutiny board. Once this file is ready, we will not hesitate to propose it and present it to the European Parliament and the Council. So the work is advancing. I think now it’s extremely important to finalise all the steps. And then when it’s ready, I hope we will have a green light to propose it. And hopefully, of course, we’ll be able to do it earlier than what’s in the Commission’s working programme because at the end of the day Commission’s working programme is also indicative document. As regards the air quality standards, again, European Parliament asked us to align with who standards subject to impact assessment and impact assessment showed that we cannot do it by 2030. And this is what what stated the first revision is going to happen in 2028. And as I said, depending on the technological scientific progress and so on, depending on implementation of our legislation, we might have a completely completely different, different outcome. Now, as regards the other pieces of legislation, as I said we are very much also as regards the air quality dependent on them and on their implementation and that’s why we had to refer to them and have the result which is not a full alignment by 2030. Last thing on zero pollution and then of course cola collaboration and research and climate partnerships. There are a lot of existing already partnership with local and regional Authorities, with researchers and of course, they are working even more closely together. As I’ve mentioned, there is a multiple opportunities for member states to also prioritise it as regards for example, Horizon Europe funding to be used, and then of course, invest additional resources into into research and then enhance even deeper researching, but as I said in my concluding remarks, all this comes with very important part at the end of the day implementation of the legislation because we cannot be naive and say that only research or a new targets will save us at the end of the day. It’s all about the implementation and in some parts of Europe, we still have a lot to step up that implementation and the means are definitely there. Once again, I thank you very much for your interest. For your questions. The work is definitely going to advance I’m very thankful for your support and enthusiasm to advance that work. I always enjoy the trial locks with even further going condition in finding that, that balance, which then of course, we able to finalise and ensure that clean water, clean air is not a luxury in Europe, but something that each of our citizens can have it their home. Thank you