I can’t find the best way of finding out where someone stands on an issue than by either listening to or reading what they say.

I prefer  to do this unfiltered. Sure you can get a summary sent to you or read someone’s point of view, but I find that I miss something.

There are exceptions.  Peter Ludlow’s EuroComment gives you insights into what really happened in the European Council that many of those in the room were likely not aware.

I’ve listened/watched most of the exchange of the ENVI Committee since I worked for a MEP  there in 1997.

You can find a copy of the otter summary (it is not perfect), the video link from the EP and an audio file.

They give a good flavour of where MEPs and groups stand on the issues.

Thursday’s exchange was interesting.

The cross Party support for strong public health measures was clear. The deeper ecological vain of the new nationalist groupings was interesting to me.

On climate, support for action was strong from the EPP and those to their Left. As Lena SCHILLING – Green  quoted ” regarding the comment from the colleague from the ifd the scientific communities agree that climate change is human made your scientists who deny that right now as are as credible as doctors who still think smoking is healthy”/

The first votes in the new EP will be key to watch. I think those who predicted a surge against public health legislation may be in for a shock.

What was interesting was those used the Draghi to advance their agenda. Support for his message seemed strongest from the ECR and the ESN.

Finally,  you can listen to the exchanges, and note those groups who support your clients’ positions. After that, you can see if the groups in support make up a strong majority. If they do, you know your chances of success are strong. If the MEPs who sound like you are a small minority, you realise you need to go back to the drawing board.

 

 

 

Otter Summary

EP ENVI Committee, 12 September 2024

Thu, Sep 12, 2024 1:17PM • 3:08:26

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

commission, member states, eu, european, europe, climate, farmers, regulation, year, report, climate change, levels, countries, forest fires, gracia, risk, chairman, agriculture, disasters, emissions

SPEAKERS

Christine Schneider, Dimitris TSIODRAS, Norbert Lins – EPP, Peter Liese, Jacek OZDOBA – ECR, Sakis ARNAOUTOGLOU – S&D, Anne-Sophie FRIGOUT – PfF, Grégory ALLIONE – Renew, Martin HÄUSLING, Michael BLOSS – Green, Emma FOURREAU – The Left, Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA – PfF, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, IN, Martin HOJSÍK – Renew, Marc JONGEN – ESN, Nikolas FARANTOURIS – The Left, Leire PAJÍN – S&D, Pär HOLMGREN – Green, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA – ECR, Hans Das – DG ECHO – European Commission, Aurelijus VERYGA – ECR, SA, Yvon SLINGENBERG – European Commission, Anto, Paolo INSELVINI, Anna ZALEWSKA – ECR, ant, Majdouline SBAI, ALMUT BITTERHOF – DG SANTE, César LUENA – S&D, Paolo INSELVINI – ECR, Christophe CLERGEAU, Lena SCHILLING – Green, Hans, Grégory ALLIONE, Jonas SJÖSTEDT, Michalis HADJIPANTELA, Antonio DECARO – Chair, Javi LÓPEZ – S&D, Michal WIEZIK, Anja HAZEKAMP, Anja ARNDT – ESN, Stine BOSSE

Antonio DECARO – Chair  00:09

Bonjour. Good morning. Good morning, everybody. You so let’s start today’s envy, meeting item one on the agenda, adoption of the agenda. If there are no objections, then the draft agenda can be adopted without modifications. The agenda is approved. Item two. Item two, the members of the committee are invited to speak their mother tongue, if it is one of the languages for which interpretation is available. Interpretation is available in 21 languages. It’s also strongly recommended to avoid reading out of speech. Please use your speaking notes as background material and speak freely and at a natural pace. And this is a request forthcoming from the interpreters, so please don’t read out a speech and don’t speak at lightning pace either. Interpreters. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. As usual. The meeting file is available electronically via the E meeting application and the meeting will be web streamed. That brings us on to item number three, chairs, announcements concerning co ordinators recommendations of the fourth of september 2024 the coordinators recommendations have been circulated electronically, and if there are no objections, then they can be deemed approved. No objections forthcoming. Therefore, the recommendations are approved. Item number four, adoption of the minutes. If there are no objections, then the draft minutes of the meeting four, September 2024, can be deemed approved. I do not see any objections, therefore the minutes are approved. Let us now move on to Agenda Items five and six. So agenda items five and six, Commission regulation amending annexes two and three to regulation 396, 2005 of the European Parliament and of the council as regards maximum residue. Maximum residue levels for syproconazole and Spiro diclofen in or on cert products. Commission regulation amending annexes two, three and five to regulation 396, 2005 of the European Parliament and of the council as regards maximum residue levels for bennomil carbendersim and thiophenate methyl in or on certain products, as was the case in The previous legislature, the Envy committee has received the implementing regulations that have been received by the Commission via the comatology procedure, and the European Parliament has a right of scrutiny here and can oppose these acts. So today we are looking at two proposed commission regulations looking at maximum residue levels for specific substances, which are pesticides. And the European Parliament can oppose this. Four members of the Envy committee from different political groups have lodged their opposition to this draft proposal. So I’d like to give the floor to Mr. Christophe clarjo To present the justification for the opposition. So I give the floor to one of the CO reporters, Mr.

Christophe CLERGEAU  04:35

Christopher Bonjour. Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, the answer you have to come up with this morning is simple, are we accepting for dangerous products to be allowed into Europe, which are banned in Europe, but are present in form of residue on imports? Do we accept to endanger. Human health and the environment. Do we accept to continue applying a policy that establishes unfair competition conditions for European farmers because these products are being imported into the EU at production standards lower than those that are applied to European produce? I’m not going to repeat the complicated names of these products. The chairman pronounced them very well. They’re banned in Europe because they’re dangerous for human health. They’re considered endocrine disruptors. They’re dangerous for reproduction. This committee, in the past, very often, has voted in favor of this sort of objection to send out the message that there should not be differential treatment between products produced in UK and standards applied to imported products. If we ban products in Europe, they should be banned in all the products consumed in Europe. And here to conclude, I’d like to draw your attention to products which we’re looking at, because behind this decision of principle, there’s a reality of consume, consumption that citizens make. And agriculture, lemons, limes, mandarins, gombo, certain cereals. So we’re talking about a very broad variety of products that are affected and that potentially can have a massive impact on our farmers as well. So if you want to defend fair trade, defend the environment and defend human health, then you’ll vote in favor of these objections. Thank you Gracia. Thank

Antonio DECARO – Chair  06:46

you very much. I will now give the floor to the shadow reporters and also members of the NV committee, so we’ll openly catch the eye procedure. Nicholas ajipaniya, please. Okay,

Michalis HADJIPANTELA  07:11

yes, good morning, because I came early regarding the report that we have proposed or about the two products, and I didn’t understand your question. I just understand

Antonio DECARO – Chair  07:29

your question. I just came in well, I gave you the floor as a shadow, as a shadow rapporteur, you’re in the list of the shadow rapporteurs

Michalis HADJIPANTELA  07:41

for which topic.

07:47

So the point we’re dealing with at present is items five and six on the agenda. We’re looking at pesticides and maximum residue levels, because

Michalis HADJIPANTELA  07:59

there will be a vote later on regarding the report, I just wanted to clarify which point you would like me to talk, because it happens to be the reporter for all the points that will be discussed today. That’s why I made the question to be clear regarding the objections, we had a group meeting yesterday, and we have requested to receive more information from the Commission to clarify a few issues that my colleague raised during the during the meeting yesterday. The meeting has been arranged with the Commission today, and once we have the the the answers from the Commission, we’ll get back to you.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  08:53

Gracia.

08:53

Thank you very much. I will now give the floor to Michael visic. Applause.

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY  09:07

Yeah, I can take the four. Yeah, it’s sort of a point of order, because I’m slightly confused what this means we’re voting today on this. Now one group has a meeting with the Commission, or are we talking about the commission being here answering our questions during our debate. Now,

Antonio DECARO – Chair  09:29

la Commissione,

09:31

okay, so the commission is here this morning, represented by Helmut vitahoff from Digi Santo, and his job is essentially to respond to your question. So I’m just giving the floor, as is usual, to the shadow operators, and then I also open the catch the eye procedure. So after we’ve heard from the shadow operators, it’d be possible for all envy members to take the floor anyone who is interested in asking any questions or. Making any comments, and then after that, we will hear from representative digicante

Antonio DECARO – Chair  10:10

Michael vesic. Thank you very much.

Michal WIEZIK  10:14

I will speak in Slovakia. Ladies and gentlemen, these two objections have to do with pesticides, fungicides that are used as a matter of protection of various plants, including soya beans, some oil plants, citruses, because they are being used, that means that are used elsewhere, not in Europe, in the EU, they are banned because they have serious effects on the human health as well as reproductive health. More precisely, they are disruptive to the encryptional system as well as carcinogenic. They have a negative impact also on our waters. So this is why they’re banned. But the proposal of the commission is basically increasing the levels that would be allowed for these substances that we are apparently supposed to import, these products containing this dangerous substances. This is a huge risk for the public health, but also there’s another problem, and that is that it impacts the competitiveness of our farmers, who have to abide by very strict rules in terms of health norms, and at the same time, we’re opening the door to very cheap imports containing these dangerous substances, which is putting our agriculture producers at a disadvantage. If we look back towards the end of the previous legislature, this was basically one of the reasons why the farmers went out in huge numbers into the streets and protested. I believe the commission should really thread very carefully and reconsider whether we should go ahead with this, because it goes against the demands of our farmers. So I believe the objection is truly justified, and anybody who cares about the health of our citizens of our environment should really support both of these objections. Thank you, Gracia.

12:12

Thank you very much, and I give the floor to Martin heisling,

Martin HÄUSLING  12:18

please. Well, colleagues, this is an important decision that we have to take, and can send important signal to the commission. We don’t want double standards to be applied. What we ban in Europe for good reasons, because it’s toxic, because it endangers health. We can’t allow it to get in through the back door into Europe and expect consumers to have to swallow it. So it’s a question of applying rights. Raising the maximum residue level that the commission is proposing is a slap in the face of consumer protection and will affect the environment as well, and hence we can’t accept it. We’re talking about quite important products, citrus fruits, okra, sugar, beet, coffee. And if the commission is saying, then it’s dangerous in Europe, well, it’s dangerous in other regions as well, but we can see if it’s being allowed back into Europe, then we’re endangering our consumers, and that’s something we cannot accept and hence my group supports this objection very strongly, because we have to send out signals. Some colleagues have pointed out to me that last autumn, we had farmers demonstrations saying, we want the same standards we can’t expect to apply stronger rules and standards in Europe than let others to export their products to us on a lower standards. So applying double standards there, and this is something we need to make clear to our farmers that we refuse to accept this. A ban is a ban, and a ban should mean a ban so against the proposal from the Commission, and we hope we’ll be able to garner a majority so that we can send out a clear signal to farmers and consumers that we are not accepting these Double standards. Thank you.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  14:21

That’s it. Thank you very much. And I give the floor to Anya Hauser camp,

14:27

yeah. Dr Bell,

Anja HAZEKAMP  14:28

thank you. Chairman, well, it’s a very straightforward debate, isn’t it? Basically, what it comes down to, it is, if something is so toxic that it can’t be used safely and will is banned, then you shouldn’t be eating it. So if our farmers are banned from using this dangerous pesticide, then we have to make sure at the same time that it can’t be let in through the back door, ie, through imports and end up on our tables. The maximum residue levels need to be kept as low as possible. As a result, that’s not just better for health of the people who are eating the fruit and vegetables, but also those who are farming those vegetables, growing them elsewhere in the world. It’s better for the environment. And these residues are not just dangerous for humans, but for animals as well. And the chair on the cake is dangerous for farmers here because it’s just not fair that if our farmers are having to face unfair competition where foreign competitors are using these banned substances and they’re not allowed to, we are against then raising these maximum residues of cyprocanizal and Spiro diclofen. And I’d like to ask the commission we’ve been waiting for years for a proposal of a law that you’ve promised to ban export of these dangerous export of these dangerous products. Because what we’re exporting, we cannot allow to come back as a boomerang. This is a law that we’ve been promised for years. It’s time to deliver. I’d like to hear a reaction from the Commission. Thank you.

Hans Das – DG ECHO – European Commission  16:22

Applause.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  16:29

Adesso Thank

16:31

you very much. So now let’s hear from envy members, I would like to remind you that you’re speaking to me two minutes, two minutes maximum.

Aurelijus VERYGA – ECR  16:39

Christina.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  16:43

We’ll start with Christina Schneider.

Christine Schneider  16:47

Thank you very much. For those of you here in the last term of office in the European Parliament, this is a discussion that’s not completely new. We are in the environment and public health and food safety committee. So we’re looking at human health, but also the environment. And so we have to look at the question of approval or reapproval of plant protection products as a matter of course, and we, as our group this period, we’re not going to play along with the games of some of the other groups that we can somehow survive without plant protection products in the future, when some people are saying they’re supporting our landscapes and our countryside, they’re also the ones who in this realm are always trying to take tools out of The toolboxes of our farmers that are essential. So of course, we cannot expose our farmers to unfair competition. That, of course, is a question that we stand by. But import tolerances have a different background. Hence, my question to the Commission, as far as I’m aware, and two of the substances at question, there wasn’t even a request for them to be approved in Europe. So the question is, why are we allowing more and more plant protection active ingredients from outside Europe that not allowed in Europe? We’d like to know the reason it seems like the approval procedure in Europe is too long, too bureaucratic. Takes too much time. We should have equal competition rules. But I am interested in what happens if this objection goes through today, is it the case that we will have higher import tolerance levels than the commission is proposing and concerning a greater range of products? That means we’re actually endangering health to a greater extent, and there are more products that would then be affected. So my question to the commission, if this objection goes through in Parliament today, does it mean that there’ll be a higher import tolerance, and does it mean there’ll be more vegetables, food fruit that will be treated with these plant protection products, because the objection will actually go against what we’re trying to achieve. Thank you

19:14

very much. I’ll now give the floor to Dimitri, three of us,

Dimitris TSIODRAS  19:20

yes, I have to raise two questions to the representative of the commission. Has the commission taken into account that the competitive disadvantage for the European farmers if we allow continued imports into the Union from third countries with the less reduced standards. What is the reasoning behind this regulation? I would like some explanations.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  19:58

Thank you very much. We’ll now hear from Pablo silvini,

Yvon SLINGENBERG – European Commission  20:03

Gracia presidente.

Paolo INSELVINI  20:04

Thank you very much, Chair. And I’d also like to thank all of the other colleagues who have shared their views, and it’s a view that our group supports, as was said by one of the previous speakers. I think it’s clear that we need to send a message to the commission that we are here to defend the health of our citizens. We are here to protect the environment. We are here especially to protect our companies and our farmers. And I’m very happy to see that things have changed compared to the previous legislature. As has already been said, We cannot allow active substances that are banned in Europe to come in through the back door, via free trade agreements and via regulations which do not allow our farmers and our companies to engage in fair competition at an international level. So we are very happy that things seem to be changing, and we think that we need reciprocity to be front and center here, because when you look at international trade, if this principle is absent, then we cannot walk the walk. I think we need a change of tack here on agriculture, and this is a first step forward. So we want to send a clear message to the commissioner to vote in favor of this objection. Thank you. Applause. Thank you very much. I’d like a floor to Steen Bossen,

Stine BOSSE  21:35

thank you for me. This is a pretty obvious question. Whose interests are we to defend? Of course, citizens of Europe, the environmental issues of Europe, the farmers of Europe and the businesses of Europe, we should, in all areas, make sure that we actually mirror the rules that we have for our production, for our farmers, for our citizens, and of course, we should vote in favor of the objection. Thank you,

Antonio DECARO – Chair  22:14

Gracia.

22:14

Thank you very much, and I give the floor to Gregorio. Leone,

22:20

bonjours,

Grégory ALLIONE  22:21

yes, good morning. Everybody very surprised to see this proposal, particularly given the proximity of last June’s elections, where most of our fellow citizens in all countries across Europe talked about Europe which is disconnected from what they’re expecting. And we’re talking about protecting our citizens here, on European citizens, if something is not good in Europe, then it’s not good if it comes from outside. And this objection is interesting, because it also protects our farming. So when we impose of rules on our agriculture, they have to be imposed on others as well. So I’m in favor of this objection. Gracia,

23:08

thank you very much, and I give the floor to Mach linsbay.

Michelle president,

Majdouline SBAI  23:20

German colleagues. Yes, just to add to what Martin hoisling said, I would like to take the opportunity of this objection to remind the commission that since 2020 it committed to adopt necessary measures to ensure that dangerous banned chemical substances banned in the EU are not allowed in through imports. Over 80,000 tons of pesticides were exported for farming purposes in third countries in 2022 these dangerous pesticides are now on the plates of art citizens in Europe and exposing third country workers to the health risks of these products, without talking about, not to mention unfair competition. My colleague, who I pay tribute to today, talked about banning pesticides banned in the European Union. Unfortunately, as you know, he this never happened because there wasn’t a majority in our parliament. So I would like to avail myself of this debate on maximum residue levels to remind the commission and the Parliament of the need to open this chapter again to stop the export of these dangerous substances. What is bad for us and our children, is bad for the rest of the world too. And another point to react to what the EPP said is that the Envy committee has already asked for a return to lower residue levels for certain substances that what happened in the. January 2024 and that was progress, which means that today we can make further progress. And rest assured that the ecologists and I myself will ensure that that happens.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  25:16

Gracia, thank you very much, and I give the floor to jonath

Pär HOLMGREN – Green  25:24

Sedgwick.

Jonas SJÖSTEDT  25:24

Thank you very much. Chairman as lead on the file, Anya Hausa campus already said we stand behind this objection, but I have a question to the commission, if we allow plant protection product residues that we’ve banned in the EU to come in, that means somebody else is going to be working with these plant protection products that we regard as being dangerous for human health or dangerous for the environment. So it’s farmers or people working the land in these countries that we import the food from who are going to have to bear the brunt of those risks. And very often we’re talking about countries where rules for protecting the labor, environment or protecting human health maybe are, you know, not quite as good as what we have. I’m wondering if the commission has taken into account the fact that this can have negative health effects for these people who are forced to work with these plant protection products in the countries that we importing from, and in that case, we’re actually exporting health risks to other people. Thank you. Applause.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  26:45

Grazia,

26:46

thank you very much. Now I will give the floor to the Commission representative from DG, sante Helmut mitterhoff,

ALMUT BITTERHOF – DG SANTE  27:00

thank you Chair. I would like to give you some further information, also replying to some of the points that were made here. First of all, I would like to say that commission believes that our regulations, our drafts presented, are fully in line with the objectives of our regulation, which is to ensure a high level of protection of consumers. There was some comments made on the commission proposing to raise maximum residue levels for pesticides, which I would like to clarify. This is not proposed at all. We are not proposing to raise any maximum residue level. On the contrary, for ciproconazole, we are proposing to lower 273 MRLS out of 315 86% for carbondas, material, we are proposing to lower 312 levels out of 315 99% in it means we are maintaining for ciproconazole, about 20 to 30 Codex levels, which were agreed internationally, and for carbdaze, we are maintaining three. So this is what our proposal is about. We are not raising. We are lowering. This is very important, because I would like to draw the attention to the effects of not adopting this regulation. The effects of not adopting this regulation would mean that we cannot move, we cannot lower all these maximum residue levels. They would remain as high as today. And of course, you have mentioned concerns of consumers of being exposed to pesticide residues. We fully agree our consumers would expect us, if possible, to lower them, and we would like to do that. But if we cannot, then we cannot do the lowerings either, so the levels will remain. It is also not in the interest of EU farmers. You were mentioning farmers, and I can understand the concerns EU farmers will be facing the higher values still in our legislation and third country farmers importing according to these values, this is still possible for a long list of products, while for our proposed draft regulation, it would only be possible for a handful of crops. So I think this is important as a starting point, because we believe strongly that the measure we are proposing is very much helping consumers and helping farmers at the same time. So then coming back on the argument of public health, this is also very important. You have rightly pointed out that the properties of the substance is falling under the classification of certain hazards. This is correct, but it is also fully correct that the. European Food Safety Authority has carried out a risk assessment and for these substances, came to the conclusion that we have a threshold for a safe exposure for consumers. So it is not because the substance is a reprotoxic substance that there is a concern to human health with the levels we are proposing. All the levels we are proposing have been considered to be safe, and we are far below this exposure threshold that is existing for these substances, no health risks for consumers at all. If there was a health risk, we would not make such a proposal. The maintaining of certain levels is due to the fact that the commission is part of Codex alimatarius and has subscribed to following international standards. Also we have subscribed to follow the WTO SPS agreement. So our trading partners expect us to stick to the rules as much as we also stick to the rules. Importantly, in the draft regulation on Cipro, gonasol, we have kept and maintained a level for feed, feeding stuff, soybeans, they are in the commodity which the EU is not producing in sufficient quantity. We need to import it. And this is important for EU farmers, because they need feeding stuff and protein sources for their animals. We would not be having enough soybeans on the market if we cannot go through with this proposal. So I think this would at least clarify some of your questions. I would also like to come back to the argument of reciprocity related to our trade obligations. If we don’t stick to our trade obligations, we would maybe face issues with other countries not sticking to them either. This would hamper export of EU products to third countries. So it would not be in the interest of farmers if the EU suddenly tries to circumvent agreed international standards. We have subscribed to the wtsbs agreement, and we are part of Codex Alimentarius, where each year we are refusing many values because they are not okay for us, but when we agree to them, then they are fully safe for consumers. On the export of dangerous substances. I do cannot have the details exactly, because this is not digisante dealing with it, but what I know is that there is work ongoing on an initiative of export of dangerous banned substances, and this work has advanced. But of course, with the changeover of the new commission, there is a bit of a delay now, which will be kept up to speed again when the new commission is in place. So for the competitive advantage of the farmers, we do not see with these regulations here at stake that there would be any disadvantage for EU farmers coming from them. It is true that citrus, which is regulated for Carbendazim and tiofana meter, we propose to maintain two or three levels, but EU farmers can also profit from them. Should they have a particular pest that cannot be managed by other means, it would be possible for those farmers to ask the competent authorities of their countries for emergency authorizations, and if such are granted, they need a maximum residue level for it, so they would be helpful in case of a need. But actually, we did not see in the in the past years, anybody asking for it, which suggests that actually, farmers, if the EU, do have enough tools to fight against such pests. So we cannot see any indication here that this proposal would lead to a disadvantage of farmers in the EU. On the contrary, we see that if we cannot go ahead with it, we might have a lot of problems with imported problem products, for many, many food commodities, and actually also there is no, absolutely no Risk for consumers. Thank you very much.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  34:20

Grazie.

34:22

Thank you. So the debate is finished, so the CO reporter is asked to chip in. I’ll give the floor to coraporter, Mr. Claus your for one minute, and if necessary, then the Commission can respond again. One minute.

Christophe CLERGEAU  34:45

Thank you. Chair. Just one comment to our colleagues, if we approve this objection, it’s not the end of the debate. The commission has to come back with a new proposal which caters for our arguments. Secondly, I. Welcome to the European Parliament for the new members. This is an illustration of the Commission’s obstinacy, refusing to listen to what was expressed at the ballot boxes during the elections. They continue to pursue free trade. So why aren’t these products, why are these going to be banned? Why aren’t they going to be banned if they’re banned

Antonio DECARO – Chair  35:27

in Europe? Non credit bison, I don’t think we need to get the floor back to the commission, because that wasn’t a question. Mr. Clausio, we are the European Parliament. The European Parliament, the European Commission is the European Commission. So we all have our work to do, and our work now leads us to vote. That’s 945 that’s when it was scheduled. So let’s before we move to the vote on this point, we need to vote on another point, and then we will have the vote on these two points that we have examined together. So first of all, we’re going to be voting on the budget, and we need to vote on the two points linked to the regulation that were presented by karapato Akashi, because this is the only possibility that we have for the objections is the next plenary, which will take place next week. So therefore there’s a very narrow time frame, and that’s why we need to have a vote today. So what I suggest we do is move on to agenda item seven, which is the vote on the budget. So let’s turn our attentions now to item seven in line. What we have in Article 2216 of the regulation, we need to bring up to the top table alternates who are not going to be voting. So if you have the names of the alternates, then please, if you can bring them up, and then we will have a check for the vote lunativo. So the only name I have is Javier zaleos, who is replacing check. So get your cars ready, because we’ll have A check. I so if you’re ready, then we’ll have a check, and just after the check, we’ll proceed to the vote. We’ll be voting first on the budget item seven, and then after that, we will vote on the regulations we just had a discussion on. So we’re not voting on the regulations straight away. No, we’re voting on the budget first check. I check, check. Check is closed. You pasiamo de so ALA. Let’s now proceed to vote. This is agenda item seven, general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2025, all sections do Bemo pasare directamente a la votazione ricordo

39:42

so proceed directly to vote. I would like to remind all of you that we are a roll call vote for this. Let’s now proceed to vote. I.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  40:16

Well, that’s your NICU, sir, the vote is closed. I cinquanta said devotee, 57

40:32

votes in favor. 22 against. Three abstentions approved. The

Antonio DECARO – Chair  40:50

Let’s now move on to the vote on agenda item eight. This point pertains to the first of the regulations that we discussed at the beginning of today’s meeting. So this is Commission regulation on cyproconazole and Spiro diclofen in or on certain products. This is the first regulation amending annexes two and three of regulation 396, 2005 1005 I would like to remind all of you that a roll call vote has been requested by snd, the greens, Eva and the left, and therefore We will proceed to a roll call vote. That’s you. Apriamotazione, vote is open. Qiao, the vote is closed. She quanta quatro voti,

42:12

54 votes in favor for against, 22 abstentions approved the

Antonio DECARO – Chair  42:26

pasia al punto numero No. Let’s move on now to item nine. We will be voting on the Commission regulation which amends annexes two, three and five of regulation, 396, 2005 so this vote pertains to the maximum residue levels for Carbendazim, bennomille and thiofinate methyl in or on certain products. A roll call vote was once again requested by certain groups, and therefore we will proceed to a roll call vote. The vote is open. About vote is closed. 54 votes in favor, five votes against, and 21 abstentions approve the minuto. We’ll now have a brief break before we move on to the final two points on today’s agenda. Applause. Okay, let’s get back to work. Thank you.

49:57

Let’s now move on to agenda item. Items 10 and 11. So items 10 and 11 on our agenda say we looking at a report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the operation of regulation 2018, 841,

50:21

also known as the Lulu CF regulation pursuant to Article 17 out of two as amended by regulation 2023, 839, and a report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the operation of the European climate law and of the effort sharing regulation and on the emissions trading scheme directed in the context of the global stock take. In the previous legislature, the parliament adopted a series of very important legislative instruments to fight climate change, and this was part of a package which became known as fit for 55 the Envy co ordinators have decided to invite the European Commission to today’s meeting to present two reports which are looking at the functioning of climate legislation, in particular on the list of the two points that I’ve heard before, we’re looking at the Lulu CF regulation land use and the land use change the European climate law, the effort sharing regulation and the emissions trading system directive. So, straight off the bat, I will give the floor to the representative of the European Commission. Ms, Yvonne slingenberg, in the meantime, I will open the catch the eye procedure, because envy members will be able to talk after we’ve heard from the Commission. Please go ahead. Miss slingenberg,

Yvon SLINGENBERG – European Commission  51:56

thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to all honorable members of the Parliament, and we’re very happy to have been given the opportunity to present the reports that you just mentioned here today. So to start, I would like to recall that the commission has been fully committed to transforming the EU into a clean and resource efficient and competitive economy in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement, the European Green Deal was designed as the EU’s compass to achieve exactly that. Geopolitical developments in the last years, however, and their social economic consequences have confirmed also that the transition to clean energy and clean technologies is essential for Europe to become more autonomous and resilient, and it can drive economic growth and innovation. As you know, the Commission President has set out her vision for delivering Europe’s sustainable prosperity for this next commission mandate, and this will surely be the subject of much discussion over the coming weeks, in the steps towards approval of the new college. So you will bear with me that I cannot comment on this stage, on the concrete actions to implement the political guidelines. I will, however, present the main points of the reports and how we see progress so far in delivering our objectives. So first, in relation to the European climate law, that was a very important legislative instrument, first ever, where the EU has set the long term direction of travel, namely, the goal to become Climate Neutral by 2050 as well as a target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030, and all that is in comparison to 1990 it is good news that the EU greenhouse gas emissions continue to fall. The EU has achieved a steady decrease in its emissions since 1990 The latest figures show that we have reached a reduction of 32 and a half percent while growing the EU economy by 67% however, there is also a clear need to significantly step up implementation efforts and accelerate emission reductions in order to stay on track to reach our targets. Action is most needed in areas which still require significant reductions in emissions, and here I refer to buildings and transport, other areas where progress is slow, for example, agriculture, or where in recent years there has been a deteriorating trend, as is the case for the carbon sink. Now, with the fit for 55 package, as you alluded to, Mr. Chairman, co legislators have put in place a comprehensive set of policies that set the Union on a path to reach its 2030, climate targets in a fair, cost, effective and competitive way. It follows a complementary approach, combining regulatory measures with targets and pricing. Specifically, a new element in the package was a price on the emissions for sectors under the ETs and. Which was extended member states targets under the effort sharing and the Lulu CF regulations. So that is land use, land use change and forestry, and complemented by financial and other support measures. And there, of course, we also think of the ETS revenues looking ahead at the period post 2030 the climate law requires the setting of an intermediate target for 2040 and in February of this year, based on scientific advice and a thorough impact assessment, the commission made a recommendation for a target, 2040 target of net 90% reduction, as announced in the political guidelines, the new commission will make a proposal to enshrine this target in the climate law in early next year, together with the clean industrial deal. Now the specific policies and instruments that will be needed to achieve this target is already the subject of a lot of discussion and will be proposed later in the mandate, also taking into account the mandated reviews of the current legislation, which are due in 2026 in parallel a different dimension, the climate law, for the first time, also required the EU and member states to strengthen resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change impacts and enhancing their adaptive capacity. In 2023 again, Europe witnessed its largest wildfires ever recorded one of the wettest years. It was major marine heat waves and widespread devastating flooding. The small good news only is that under the progress assessments on adaptation, the need for climate adaptation and better preparedness, we see is increasingly understood. Despite all this, it is also very clear that current climate adaptation policies and measures are not keeping pace with the rapidly growing impacts and risks, and this was illustrated again in the European climate risk assessment that was presented by the European Environment Agency in March of this year, and the corresponding commission communication on managing climate risks also from March clearly, bolder measures are urgently needed, as indicated in the political guidelines, the Commission will therefore Prepare a European climate adaptation plan to support member states, notably on preparedness and planning and ensure regular science based risk assessments. Now let me turn to the EU Emissions trading system under the fit for 55 package. The scope of the EU ETS was broadened and the rate of annual emission reductions, also known as the linear reduction factor, has been increased altogether. The emissions cap has been tightened in order to bring emissions down by 62% by 2030 and the operational parameters of the market stability reserve have also been calibrated to maintain a balanced EU carbon market in order to help advance sectoral decarbonization, the free allocation rules as part of the emissions trading system have been updated, and the EU ETS has been expanded to cover maritime transport as well as additional emissions from aviation. And then a whole new element was that a new emissions trading system for fuels used in buildings and road transport has been introduced, and it will start operating in 2027 the introduction of carbon pricing in these sectors will complement the regulatory measures that are already there and stimulate cost effective emission reductions. So this new system is also often referred to as the ETS two, actual climate fund, will come into force in 2026 so one year before the ETS two system starts operating to also support other sectors in tackling the decarbonization challenge, more resources generated by the emissions trading system have also been leveraged for the green transition and to ensure that the money from pricing pollution, because that is what the ETS does to ensure that that money leads to investments in the green transition, Member States must now use 100% of The revenues from the sales of EU allowances for climate and clean energy purposes. Then turning to the effort sharing regulation, following the review also of that legislation last year, it means that member states will have to collectively achieve an emission reduction of 40% compared to 2005 levels, and that is an increase in ambition compared to the legislation that was in place before, when it was 30% the member states’ individual targets have been increased accordingly. The approach under the effort sharing regulation means that it is up to the member states to determine at nine. National level, the policies and measures that can deliver the targeted greenhouse gas emission reductions. Now we, as you know, yearly bring out a climate action progress report. It will come again, end of October for this year, but last year’s report showed that emissions over 2021 because those were the most the best available data we had at the time that the emissions in 2021 were 14% lower than 2005 levels, and that they were 3.3 below the sum of Member States’ 2021 emission limits. At the same time, it indicates that the projected greenhouse gas emission reductions, because we also get these from member states, would be 32% by 2030 so clearly, a little bit of a way to go still. Now, what are the tools there? We have National Energy and Climate plans prepared by member states, and these are currently being updated with the aim of adjusting member states policies and measures to the new targets. Drafts of the updated plans allowed us to estimate that the projected again, greenhouse gas emission reductions would be at 33.8% by 2030 and member states are now in the process of submitting their final National Energy and Climate plans, taking into account the recommendations that the commission made last year on the draft plans, and on this basis, we foresee further improvement towards closing the estimated gap. Then turning to land use, land use change and forestry by storing carbon in soils and trees, the land sector plays a key role in achieving the EU climate neutrality objective. It is the same at the same time, it is the source of our food, as well as sustainable biomass needed to substitute carbon intensive materials and energy and contributing to the transition to a circular and Climate Neutral bio economy. And due to this important role, the Luna CF regulation established the target to increase land based carbon removals in the EU by an additional 42 million tons of CO two, equivalent by 2030 and that should bring us to a total of three and 310 million tons of CO two removed in 2030 now, while the lunac sector currently still represents a net carbon removal or a sink, unfortunately, there is a declining trend since the last decade, and this is to a large degree due to a decrease in the net removal in forests, and That again, is caused by an increase in harvesting combined with a slight reduction in forest growth, in addition the growing severity of natural disturbances such as storms, insect outbreaks, wildfires and droughts, as well as decreasing efforts in afforestation also have a negative impact on European forests. All this shows that upscaling land based carbon removals, in conjunction with increased resilience of this precious natural resource of the EU is more important than ever. The Commission assists member states and farmers and foresters of the stakeholders in these sectors in achieving these objectives through funding mechanisms, capacity building and the deployment of technologies like the Copernicus satellite program, which will support better monitoring of carbon removals. We have also agreed the new carbon removal certification framework, which will help to enhance carbon removals through, for example, rewetting peatlands, promoting agroforestry and scaling up carbon storage in wood products. Furthermore, it will create a new revenue stream for farmers and foresters. Now, mobilizing private funding and creating effective market based approaches will be key to scaling up these efforts, and this has been clearly acknowledged in the recently published report on the strategic dialog on the future of EU agriculture. Now, in conclusion, the revised climate legislation sets the EU on a path to reaching the targets in a fair, cost, effective and competitive way, and being a leader internationally. The EU has shown that the European Green Deal is the answer to both the energy security and climate challenges as climate action creates jobs and reduces our dependency on imported fossil fuels. It is not only about setting targets, but also about creating the right enabling environment and putting people at the core of the transition. Surely, there is still much work ahead of us, and implementation is now the priority, but in all commission services, we are fully committed to work with and support member states and all stakeholders in that endeavor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:04:59

You. Gracie,

1:05:00

thank you very much. And I give the floor to Peter. Lisa,

Peter Liese  1:05:03

thank you very much Chair. And thank you to the Commission for that explanation climate change is maybe the biggest challenge of our time, beyond peace and war. These are not my words. That are the words of my party chairman at home, Friedrich Merz, who is, at least, I hope, the next chancellor of Germany. So it’s not a left issue. It’s it’s something that would concern all of us, and we need to take it serious. And what I hear from the Commission is is not good news, so we are not on track in serious parts of climate policy. ETS works well So, and that’s also a lesson that we all should understand, market based measures are effective. They are cost effective, and they bring us to the target in the lucf sector and in the effort sharing sector. You said there is a way to go. And I would ask you to be a bit more precise. You spoke about the projection of member states. I think that member states sometimes are even too optimistic. I mean, their projections are not bringing us to the target. You know, what are the real facts? Do you check that? The second point I would make is the connection to the Draghi report. It was very clear that Mario Draghi doesn’t question the core of the Green Deal and our targets, but he was also very clear that we stand in the way with a lot of bureaucracy, even for green investment. You know, I know several projects, one of those close to my constituency, where a company wants to invest 1 billion. They don’t need any state money. They have support from the European Innovation Fund, but they cannot start because the German law doesn’t allow CCS, and they need CCS. This is a lime factory, and without CCS, you cannot decarbonize lime. And also, many private house owners or people that rent a flat, they have several obstacles when they want to install solar panels. So the first thing to do is to ease the bureaucracy and to ease the rules for those that want to invest. Last but not least, you mentioned the ETS two. It is not yet implemented. I think it’s a cornerstone of our climate policy, and nobody has an answer how we can achieve our targets without the ETS two, but we need to put the emphasis more on the on the revenue and how the member states spend it. The Commission tends to focus on the social climate fund. That’s important, but the bigger bulk of the money is national revenues. And in the legislation, it says that also when it comes to national revenues, member states need to take social issues into account, and I ask the commission to be a bit more offensive here. Member states are spending money for programs which mainly benefit for the risk. In Germany, there has just been a program to support new cars, and even the close to the economy newspaper say now the workers, they finance the SUV of their boss. So this has to stop. We need to channel the money to the poor, to the working poor in particular, to make it really possible for them to decarbonize. Thank you. Applause.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:09:15

Gracie,

1:09:16

thank you very much. Peter Lisa, we’ll now hear the floor. We’ll now hear from Linz

Peter Liese  1:09:23

Finn dankovot.

Norbert Lins – EPP  1:09:26

Thank you very much, Chairman, I’ve got a couple of comments on the topic of agriculture, agricultural emissions. I’ve got the figures that I’ve looked at in 1990 we were at 483, million tons equivalent in 2023, 66, so we actually have a reduction of a quarter. So I don’t get the same result exactly as. The commission that agriculture is lagging behind. So have some specific questions to the Commission in agriculture. It’s not CO two emissions that are problem. It’s nitrogen and sulfur gasses that are problematic. So we look at biogenic methane emissions and other methane emissions photosynthesis, and the fact that we’re looking at short term, short cycle emissions. So how does the commission perceive this particular discussion? Does the Commission have the calculations at hand to factor that in, because methane emissions used to be considered as 25% more concentrated as a heating gas in the climate, but they didn’t take into consideration whether they were biogenic or not. So the question of the methane emissions. It becomes very important for Lulu CF, 2022, we did see a reduction in the sinks. We are aiming at 310 million. We’ve gone down from 200 and we want to go up there to reach that level. So maybe the commission has figures already for 2023 that’s something that I’d be interested in. Thanks. I

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:11:46

Gracia Paso la parola said, thank you very much. Please.

César LUENA – S&D  1:11:51

Gracia milegara, Presidente, gracias lingenberg

1:11:55

por su Thank

1:11:57

you. Ms slingenberg for your presentation. You did it at an interesting time, a week away from finding out what Mrs. Van der Leyen is proposing for the commission, and consequently the working plan lots remains to be done, clearly, and we have to remain ambitious. So the first point I wanted to raise is that we have to be careful with reducing our efforts and moving too rapidly from green to clean. And the President Elect with the Commission, has been saying that on many occasions, she’s talking about clean a lot more than green. So I think that we have to pay attention and make sure that we maintain the necessary ambition for the European Green Deal. Nothing is to be taken for granted. Five years, it’s clearly not enough with we’re lagging behind still. And I would also like to focus on two quick comments are Andre Lucia, Mrs. Lingerburg, we’re not going to reach our absorption targets, you said, and I quote, There is a declining trend because of harvest problems, deforestation and fires, if we don’t make the absorption targets, clearly, we’re going to have to address so whether countries will use the flexibility instrument, and for Spain, it’s necessary to be able to continue with these policies. So what do you plan to do if we fail to meet our absorption targets? How are we going to use the flexibilities which are laid down in the regulation, as far as absorption is concerned? And finally, we have to present a dedicated actor on the use and absorption of the flexibilities, when is that going to be presented and under what parameters?

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:14:18

Grazie. Pasola barula cavilopes, thank you very much. Javi Lopez, please.

Javi LÓPEZ – S&D  1:14:25

Thank you, Chairman. We’re debating the application of the regulation today the emission trading system in a global context where all the major blocs and all the parties, United Nations and all the climate discussions are taking place on a global level, what do we know about the world level of emissions? If we manage to go down to 1.5 degrees, which is the target for the international community, there is still a big gap between what we said we want to do and the target of 1.5 degrees, emissions will only go down by 2% by 2030 when the objective should be 43% by 2030 if we’re going to meet our goal. So what do we do? Step up our efforts, applying and accelerating the emission reductions, particularly in key areas such as transport, buildings, agriculture, and to do so, we’ve got two big instruments, the regulation in the EU which is working, but there is still a gap between what we need to do and what we’re planning to do. Just wanted to remind that our objective should be 40% by 2030 which is the result of this instrument. And current projections are around 33.8% in the key instrument in the ETS two, which has to be fit in with our application of ETs. So far, we’ve got to include transport and buildings by 2027 so we have to have a clear incentive to do so. There are also climate adaptation measures, and we can see very unequal progress, and we have to be capable to progress in the area of governance, financing and protection of nature. My question is, what should we do to close the gap between what we’re planning and the target that we have, what we’re planning to do, what we project to do under current legislation, and the target that we’ve set to ourselves of 40% and I know the regulation very well because I was the rapporteur and just picking up the Draghi report comment, which my colleague from the EPP mentioned, what I would like to say that the Draghi report says a lot of things, including the fact that we need massive, unprecedented investment of 8 billion euros, with a joint debt on an annual basis, inter alia, in order to meet our green jail goals. And I don’t think that we can cherry pick from the drag report, but that’s the level of investment that will be needed. Thank

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:17:55

you, Gracia. Thank you very much. So before I give the floor. I would just like to clarify here that I’m giving the floor to two members per group, and then at a second round, we’ll give everybody else the floor. So I give the floor to asofigure, please.

1:18:19

Yes.

Anne-Sophie FRIGOUT – PfF  1:18:20

Thank you very much, Jim. Ladies and gentlemen, we really have to do something soon, but we cannot allow headless reactions. If you look at the Green Deal, which is a considerable policy, means we have to have impact assessments. We need to take this seriously. But in the European Union, we’re seeing binding text on binding text, and it really isn’t helping finding solutions, and also has huge effects on the households around Europe. The new market system, the ETS two is a prime example. The price of carbon could go beyond 200 euros after 2030 that’s more than 50 cents on a liter of oil. We’re looking at almost 650 euros extra that each household would have to pay per year on its energy bills, which would destroy budgets, even though they’re suffering already. So what should we do? Should we should we get electric cars, or should we have a heat pump electric cars that are coming in from China, made with coal power, and in the longer term, destroying the middle classes through doing this by not allowing them to have cars. It’s not going to help. And then we see what’s happening with competition as well. The Draghi report is alarming because it considers that the electric vehicle park in. Europe could be reduced by 25% and we can see that this would have massive effects. So the European Union seems to be putting in place policies, without an industrial policy and punitive ecological policies as well. And then downstream from this, as you can expect, the green aspects need to be taken into consideration by the Commission. Are these 2030, and 2040, goals actually achieved while they realistic?

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:20:36

Thank you very much.

1:20:40

Now I will give the floor to Giorgia brusle, gracias.

Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA – PfF  1:20:47

Thank you, Chair. What is certain is that I read the commission report so we’ve got the same feeling as we’ve always had, that they are just here to poke fun at the European Parliament and the people who voted for it, because this report could have been done three months ago or in three months. It’s simply a list of what’s been approved, but there’s no real analysis of how and what the effects are of the application of the law approved in the EU. It’s not even as one consideration on the actual effects of the application of European climate legislation or emission rights, and you don’t explain why emission trading rights are going up, because we’ve got a financial markets where speculators are getting richer, and the European Left is delighted with a European speculative market for emission trading rights, and how it’s it’s if? How is it affecting business profitability? What is the cost to companies as a consequence of the application of climate law? And we don’t know how many businesses have gone bust or how many mergers have happened, because the SMEs are devoured by bigger companies, usually multinationals. We don’t hear anything about how it’s affecting competitiveness of European business compared to third country businesses. I’ve heard German MEPs who are probably more aware than what’s going on in their own countries, but we don’t know why Volkswagen is going to close factories and is going to lay off a massive number of European workers. We don’t know why the Spanish car industry is asking the government to buy electric vehicles because they can’t sell them because they’re inefficient and costly, and working class and middle class can’t afford them, the cost of living is going up, and airline tickets and costs in shipping are going up. We don’t hear anything about what’s going on in the airlines, because there is, there are not enough biofuels. So basically, we want the commission to talk about the social and economic aspect, the impact on farmers, businesses, families, of all this crazy legislation which was approved under the last Parliament. Thank you. Applause.

1:23:26

Thank you very much, and I give the floor to shavijaska. You

César LUENA – S&D  1:23:44

a microphone, please. This

Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA – ECR  1:23:49

one chair. Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to draw your attention to the Draghi report on the competitiveness. Based on this report, we can conclude that the world is taking a fast train and our share of GDP is falling the main problem is the wrong climate policy. It causes high energy prices and is a problem for our industry. So the main problem is energy costs for the industry. These costs are several times higher than in the United States, not to mention China, because the situation is even worse. We. Need to rethink and define our climate policy. We need to consider our climate policy because it kills our industry. If the European Commission doesn’t want to listen to the Europeans, now is the time to say no to climate ideology that kills our economy lowers the standard of living of our citizens, it not only leads to energy poverty, because if you cover agriculture by ETS, people will simply go hungry because they will not be able to buy food anymore. So we need fair conclusions. You cannot use the tragic report and accelerate. This is the wrong way to take.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:26:27

Thank you.

1:26:27

Thank you. Ana zaleska,

Anna ZALEWSKA – ECR  1:26:35

sir, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this report, although it’s quite superficial, it’s only a summary of What we did several months ago. What is the European Environment Agency say? And what are the scientists say? They all say unequivocally that we will not manage. We have no mechanisms, no means to reduce emissions by 55% so my conclusion for the Chair and colleagues is that before we listen to candidates for commissioners, climate, agriculture, etc. We should discuss in detail the implementation of the elements of 455, package, because corrections will probably be needed. I knew when I was listening to the commission that, of course, the commission could not have listened to the Europeans in the election campaign, because people are not do not agree, and Draghi confirms, maybe not directly, that the Green Deal is a failure, and that’s why we have lost our competitiveness, and we will continue To lose it. He mentions 800 billion euros a year. But he got to absorption, and we said from the beginning that it wasn’t possible. Member States said what their capabilities were, and the European Commission kept saying that it must be a target, fixed target. This is really serious, because those regulations were lobbied by basically one member state that was to gain on flexibility. So we should look, sit down and look at all the documents together with the scientists. I like to see the methodology, how given conclusions are made. It is the last chance to save Europe and the Europeans and our prosperity and competitiveness. Thank you.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:29:59

Gracia. Yes. Thank

1:30:00

you very much. Martina hisic, please.

Martin HOJSÍK – Renew  1:30:06

That’s him now, dear colleagues, we, especially in Central Europe, has one of the hottest and most extreme summers on the record. It’s not about the extreme temperatures is also about the drought, which is intermitted by really extreme rainfall. Right now, there are massive extreme weather warning all across the central because this, possibly, according to the current predictions, are going to be potentially 1000 year water coming up, starting tomorrow. So these are the causes. Are the human lives that people dying from the extreme heat, that also I sadly miss in the commission assessment. What we have to see is the suffering is the damage to businesses, farmers, infrastructure, human lives on a daily basis due to the climate crisis. Dealing with climate crisis, which actually is slowly turning into a climate catastrophe, is not only a matter of survival. It’s not only a matter of saving lives that are already alive, saving our infrastructure saving, actually our economy from being physically destroyed. But it’s also and if you look into you know the latest in drag report, but lots of reports for the last 20 years, is actually the business opportunity. And what I’m missing is hearing the colleagues on the right is how we actually can use the business opportunity properly, because that’s where we’re losing. We talk a lot, but we don’t act. There are encouraging signs. The massive increase in the use of renewables in countries like Poland and Germany are showcasing that. You know this is an opportunity, but we still taken over by the US and China in terms of the investments into clean technologies, into green energy, while we complain about them not doing anything, but they invest more in terms of the GDP than we do. So we really need to look at the barriers, because we will not only lose the climate, but we also lose the competitiveness if we don’t act on it. And sadly, we still massively subsidizing fossil fuels. So we actually subsidizing the harm, instead of helping the just creating enabling environment for the for the SMEs, which the innovative ones are leaving. We know the investing sufficiently. I would like to hear more from the Commission how we plan to invest sufficiently into the infrastructure, because that we should do, we don’t have to subsidize renewable we just need to stop putting the barriers in front of them. But just like cars, the electricity needs better and new roads. And this is I think I’m wondering where the commission sees the current state of the play in terms of the member states, and, last but not least, the Lulu CF, since I’ve been a shadow on the file, yes, I’m very concerned hearing about increased harvesting of the forest in the time when we need More capture, hearing about, essentially the failure of the classical forestry model and the need to really use close to nature forestry approaches, but also hearing about the deterioration of the soil. I’m wondering where the commission sees the role of the soil monitoring and resilience all that we are currently debating in this because, honestly, without the healthy soils, will not be able to use the best carbon storage better than any CCS, the best carbon storage in the world the nature has given us, and that’s our soils. And really give this support, not just our climate, but also to the farmers across Europe. Thank you. Applause.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:34:25

Thank you

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY  1:34:29

much, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank you in particular for putting this very important item on the agenda. And I’m emphasizing that because I believe we’re in a very crucial phase in our fight against climate change. The fight against climate change is in the face of really serious implementation of all the work that has been done on paper in the last couple of years here in Brussels and in all the member states. I. Yeah, and that means that we now have to prove that we can really work this out, that we are capable in fighting climate change in the right way, and that we can can really limit the amount of emissions going into the atmosphere. And not only is it the case whether we can do it, it’s also extremely important that we do it very quickly, because every day that we lose makes the fight against climate change more difficult, but also more expensive. And for that reason, I am highly, highly disappointed and concerned about the fact that the member states are so far behind in transposing the European ETS legislation into national legislation. Okay, the deadline was the end of June. It’s just two months ago, we could argue. But only one member state, Austria has done so, and all the others have not done so, and we’ve even heard that one member state, Slovakia, is openly claiming that they’re not going to do it because they don’t agree. And my question to the commission is, how are we going to deal with this, this reluctancy by the member states to be to show the same urgency that the European Union has shown in the last couple of years. And we all know it’s going to be difficult. The Easy Solutions has been found, yet the low hanging fruit has been picked. But we are we know for four years that it’s going to be difficult to fight against climate change, and we’re now facing this phase, so let’s deal with it and and do what we have to do in a very, very urgent and Quake manner. Then final remark on, well, something that I heard about lack of impact assessments. The liberal group has always been a great supporter of impact assessments. They’re extremely important. And I must say that on most issues, on the Green Deal, there are thorough impact assessments. But at the same time, we have to move very quickly. But one remark the best and most realistic impact assessment we’re seeing on a daily basis, and that is the fact that farmers are unable to do their job because of lack of rain, because of flooding, etc, etc. And Martin heisig said it before me, we’ve seen so many people even dying in the streets of Europe because of flooding. That is, that is the best and most realistic impact assessment that we can look at at the moment. So my main question to the commission is, how can we speed up the process and make sure, also from this committee, that the member states are going to implement the legislation that we have concluded and they have concluded as well. And in what way can we assist member states to do it in a in a better way than that they’re doing now? Thank you. Applause.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:38:27

Gracie,

1:38:28

thank you very much. Per Homer, please,

Pär HOLMGREN – Green  1:38:38

gratis in your Presidente, dear commission, dear colleagues, for more than 1.5 years now, we’ve been on the wrong side of 1.5 degrees. And for me, as a green MEP, it’s obvious that I fear that the climate targets and legislation we put down for 2030 during the last mandate will not be enough. And in this reality, of course, the least, the very least we have to do is to ensure that we really stand by the climate legislation we’ve put in place already. But this report states clearly that the EU is not on track to meet the 2030 net removal target in the Lulu seaf, and this is nothing but a disaster. And as recognized by the report, with increased impact from climate change, resulting in more and more forest fires and other related natural disasters is it also becomes harder and harder to really increase our carbon sinks. So I have three very distinct and important questions to the commission. First of all, what actions will you take to ensure the climate resilience of the. Lucia sector. And the second one is that, given that the report notes, farmers and foresters are not receiving proper support from the member states to change practices so that they align with our carbon sink targets, what are you planning on doing to ensure our farmers and foresters are able to change practices, and that our forest and agriculture sectors becomes both socially and environmentally sustainable. And third and last, and maybe even more most important, are you preparing to launch some sort of infringement procedures for those member states that do not meet their legal obligations under ludicrous Thank you very much.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:40:54

Gracia, thank you very much. Michel blas,

Michael BLOSS – Green  1:40:57

yeah, thank you very much chair. Hello, everyone. Good to be back here in the committee. And I can, I mean, I was impressed. Also, what my colleagues from the Liberals said, the challenge of of the climate crisis has become even harder now, and we see that over the summer with the with the with the droughts, for instance, in Greece. Actually, I also want to say, if you look into the reports my colleagues from from from Spain here, then we see the forecast for 2030 and impacts on the agriculture in Spain, which is devastating. So I wouldn’t call it an ideology. I would actually make sure that you take care of what people really care about, and this is that they would be able to continue to farm also in Poland. I mean, we already have Europe is the fastest heating continent. Poland has already passed a two degree Celsius. So this is the problem. I think that we should be taken care of, and believing that in the old system where you are dependent on Russian fossils would actually make sense. I think we actually have overcome that. So now the really way forward is, how do we accelerate the rollout of renewables? Because that will guarantee us cheap energy, also in Poland, my question now is on the on the implementation of the fit for 55 and and especially the ETS two, and unfortunately, my colleague Peter Lisa, just left. But I think it’s a crucial question that the Commission said why we were discussing and negotiating it that the starting price will be, I think, in the impact assessment, was around 15 to 20 euros. Now we have actually different impacts assessments from various scientific organizations that would rather see it in the direction of 200 so what, what do you think is the is the starting price of the ETS two and connected to that, the there is also the question of how, how do we do the social compensation? There is the idea to be able to give a climate dividend. There is very specific definition of how this climate dividend can be paid out by the social climate fund, but not from the rest of the ETS revenues that go directly to member states. So can it be done per capita, or what are the concrete requirements to pay out this climate dividend? Thirdly, well, it was mentioned before. I think the Commission wrote to many member states formal letters that they did not transpose the ETS regulation. So my question is, what will be the next steps? How do you make sure that it will be implemented? And lastly, just on the climate law in the climate action and progress reports, the last one that was presented, the commission itself complained about a lack of data. So what will you do to get the new methodology that we actually have the data that we need to produce a report that can actually show us where are where actions are needed. Thank you very much.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:44:20

Gracia,

1:44:20

thank you. Nicolas. Ferran Torres,

Nikolas FARANTOURIS – The Left  1:44:24

Thank you, Chair. First of all, I would like to welcome the representatives of the commission to our committee and to thank them for their presentation. And in principle, I agree with evaluation, findings and recommendation, including in the commission communication, the consequences of climate crisis are constantly intensifying, however fires floats and other catastrophic phenomena have multiplied in recent years, and these apply chiefly in the countries of. South. And I come from a country in the Mediterranean Greece. And at the same time, weather shortages and are dangerously increasing, especially in the countries of the European Union of the South. As I said before putting many regions and islands at the state of emergency, mainly in the summer season. Despite all these, our policies are so far insufficient to respond the magnitude and consequences of the threats we face. The Union civil protection mechanism, we believe, is an emblematic, positive example of real solidarity at Union level, and we should build upon this mechanism and this initiative, for the reason it must be strengthened so that it can respond to the constantly changing and unfortunately negatively circumstances. It is therefore critical, we believe, to strengthen the operational capacity of this mechanism at the same time, it is of greatest importance to strengthen prevention which pay attention more on the prevention measures against natural and manmade disasters. This dimension is often neglected, and many attempt to justify this negligence by the magnitude of unprecedented phenomena. Unfortunately, this kind of phenomena have become the new reality, and we must face this reality. We therefore need to enhance and upgrade both our policies to deal with the climate crisis and our policies instrument and mechanism dealing with the consequences, including the union civil protection mechanism. This upgrade should be institutional, for example, through possible legislative changes, but also financial, through an ambitious enhancement of the relevant budgetary funds dedicated to these purposes. In this context, the idea included in the Commission’s communication for possible specific emergency funding mechanisms should be further explored, and we support this. The EU as well as the member states, must upgrade their strategic readiness and further develop an integrated approach to crisis management with sufficient capacity, manpower and funds, and I hope that the Commission’s recommendations will not remain on paper, and that they will provide a Kickstarter for more holistic and comprehensive policies for the benefit of our planet and the citizens. Thank you.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:47:42

Gracias. Afternoon. Thank

1:47:43

you very much. Now this issue union civil protection mechanism, that is something we’ll do with the next item on our agenda. So give the floor to Emma furo, please.

Emma FOURREAU – The Left  1:47:54

Merci beaucoup. Thank you. The debate on the carbon state regulation comes after a recent publication of a study which talks about the collapse of global carbon sinks, a big cursor of forest fires in Canada, Siberia and so on. And we’ve seen that the acceleration of the reduction of CO two emissions is a priority. The Union cannot continue to count on the capacity of nature to absorb the ravages of capitalism. We have to go for a more intelligent reafforestation. The carbon sink compensation policies are doing nothing, as we’ve seen in France, where we have a net loss in store storage, an artificial forest will never replace a natural living one. And before planting forests, we should perhaps think about not destroying them. I’m thinking about the art deficialization of soils. For example, there are 20 to 30,000 hectares of hectares which are treated in this way, particularly around Marseille, and yet the local authorities continue to build motorways. There are 366 hectares of farmland which are at threat, which million trees are at risk just in order to reduce the cost of transport, and there are activists are protesting, and their lives are at risk. They go up into the trees, and their lives are in danger because they’re cut down. Once again, we’ve seen that this regulation is a step in the right direction. It’s not strict enough. We shouldn’t soar off the branch that we’re sitting on, however, and it’s time for the European Union to respect its own rules. Thank

1:49:55

you. Thank you very much. Mark Jorgen, please. You. Yeah, fine. Danke,

Marc JONGEN – ESN  1:50:03

thank you very much, Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, the report we’ve heard and the Draghi report both shows something quite clearly, and that’s the ideologically failed climate policy at European level. It’s the wrong way of approaching things, and it’s ruining our economy and our agriculture. According to German business forecasts, there’ll be stagnation in 2024 in Germany, it will lose, lose its advantages on production and in Europe as well, though it’s a shortage of millions for investment and a lot of subsidies are going into renewable energies that aren’t producing reliable electricity production and are still not profitable. The Draghi report, I think, has shown that quite clearly, situation in Germany is very serious. There are a lot of companies and key industries are facing the obligation to leave Germany and go elsewhere, and obviously this failed and crazy European climate policy is at fault. The chairman interrupts the fit for

1:51:15

Yes, please. I’m just receiving a message from the interpreters, please. If you could speak more slowly. That would make things much easier for our interpreters. Thank you very much.

Dimitris TSIODRAS  1:51:23

See now President, thank

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:51:25

you very

Christophe CLERGEAU  1:51:27

much. If I

1:51:29

can keep the time, I’ll do that. Yes, you might get said Steve

Marc JONGEN – ESN  1:51:33

the European climate law, the effort sharing regulation fit for 55 Initiative and the admission trading system are reliant on dubious models of climate change, and the dogma that CO two reduction is necessary and requires a transformation of industry and business to achieve that. This is countered by renowned scientists who say that there’s still an open discussion, but that open discussion is not being allowed. This is something that’s urgently necessary. Climate policies of the EU is now being revealed as a business war against our own farmers and industry. The so called Green Revolution means destroying people’s livelihoods in France every three years, three days, sorry, a farmer commits suicide, a study from the US ministry from 2020 predicted that the implementation the Green Deal in Europe would reduce agriculture income by 16% we’re now seeing that this is accurate, that agriculture is going down the plug hole, and indeed, food security is being stressed as well. It is high time that this unrealistic, idealistic goals be given up and we adopt a pragmatic and realistic policy again, and that means we should adapt to climate change and not make this attempt, which is doomed to failure in trying to counter it in other ways. And a final comment, even if all European measures were adopted and we assume that CO two is as dangerous as the models claim, then the European measures altogether wouldn’t change the world climate because we in Europe constitute only about 9% of global emissions, and big countries like India and China are not on board. Thank you. Applause.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:53:48

That’s it. Sakis, thank you very much. Sakis,

Sakis ARNAOUTOGLOU – S&D  1:53:56

thank you. Chairman, well, we are constantly talking about climate change, and there are constant discussions in the media, and a lot of people are involved in it. But the question is, are the citizens of Europe convinced that climate change even exists? Because if we don’t convince citizens that we have climate change, you can take as many measures as you want. At the end of the day, the measures will be pointless. So why are the citizens not convinced of climate change and the extent of the change? There is information overload and confusion. Multitude of information can be counterproductive, and actually people don’t understand at all, and there is too much information from scientists and in the media, and this can lead to skepticism on climate matters, the changes. Which are being called for to combat climate change can be seen as too expensive and as a limitation of the personal Comforter of citizens. There are psychological aspects too. The refusal to address such a huge challenge can be a defense mechanism. I was a presenter in Greek television, and I received a lot of messages turning down the whole question, refusing to participate in the fight against climate change. And there are lots of climate phenomenon which actually seem to suggest the opposite is happening to climate change. So we have to take into account this matter, to explain to people what climate change actually is. So we have to raise awareness among citizens. We have to communicate clearly and simply and to boost a trust in a science and also education in schools, we have to get students and children to understand the real dimension of the problem, because climate change has been broadcast as something to be afraid of, then I think we have to do something about that, so that we give the citizens a grain of optimism that the apocalypse is not round at the corner, but everybody individually can do something to Protect the future and the future and the future of

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:56:53

future generations.

1:56:55

Thank you very much. Jacket ozboda, ladies and

Jacek OZDOBA – ECR  1:57:03

gentlemen, coal is no go timber equally. And if we look at TTS to begin with. I am surprised that anyone would like to extend ETS. It is definitely not beneficial to the Europeans if in the years 2027, 2030 costs will amount to 6000 per household, and later, 24,000 This is joke. This is target that was set in Russia. It is against the Polish people and the European people. When the Russian Federation is arming itself, we want to reduce our economy, and therefore the ETS two package should be thrown away only. Until recently, millions were used to change to gas. Now gas is no go. We were not permitted. Poland were not permitted.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  1:59:02

Gracias. Thank

1:59:02

you very much. The floor to Aurelius verrigai perminenki,

Aurelijus VERYGA – ECR  1:59:15

thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, we all agree that we have to take care of our environment and that we should pollute less. But I would like to ask the representatives of the commission the following, do you take into consideration how the pollution reduction that we seek over here and achieve in Europe. Does it go to other countries, and is there any leakage? And I can give you a very specific example, which of which you’re probably aware so. We know that some industrial sectors move to other countries. They relocate to other countries, and it is a serious problem, for example, medicine manufacturing, drug manufacturing and the manufacturing of the active ingredients in Europe, we have a problem. We have a shortage of these active ingredients because most of them are now produced in India or in other countries. And when I asked those producers why they relocated to India, they told me, well, because in Europe, there are two complicated climate requirements, we must realize that pollution is a global phenomenon, and if our producers move to third countries, does that really mean that we contribute to pollution reduction worldwide? And then let’s think about other consequences of such policy, because if our producers relocate to third countries, as it happened in the pharmaceutical industry, then we will have shortages here, and that will have serious consequences for our security the same, by the way, is going on in the energy field. China today is the largest producer of those rare metals that we need to produce, e cars, for example. So do you take into consideration how many companies relocate to other countries and how we’re going to deal with it. Thank you. Gracie the coil, Elena Schilling,

Lena SCHILLING – Green  2:01:54

regarding the comment from the colleague from the ifd the scientific communities agree that climate change is human made your scientists who deny that right now as are as credible as doctors who still think smoking is healthy. In fact, we know failing to act on climate change now will cost us exponentially more in the future. It threatens to rob the next generations of their future, but I actually have questions to the commission. First, are you considering to carry out a sufficiently detailed assessment earlier so it can be used as an input to the next passive package? Because we know we have to act earlier, and 2028 may be too late. And secondly, we very much welcome that the Scientific Advisory Board on climate change was set up and has provided valuable advice. However, it is worrying that the advisory board currently has only 14 staff plus a budget of a half a million euro. In comparison, the UK climate change committee has a budget of 7 million pounds on sexy staffs. How does the commission evaluate the resources the board has and if and how much additionally funds are needed to properly execute the task? Thank you. Applause.

Paolo INSELVINI – ECR  2:03:31

You. Thank you very much. Pauline Salvini, thank you very much Chair. Thank you very much to the commission. Now, when we talk about ambitious objectives, well, I get a bit scared to be honest, because often when we talk about ambitious objectives, we are talking about ideological objectives, and often they’re impossible to attain. So I would like to call all the partners attention, also the Commission’s attention to review the objectives make them more realistic. Because, of course, when we’re talking about environmental sustainability, we need to also consider social sustainability and economic sustainability as well, because we cannot sacrifice on the altar of green ideology our car industry, which is what we’re doing, components industry, farmers and others, because, of course, it’s these industries which keep Europe going. And when we’re talking about climate neutrality here, I think we need to have alongside that technological neutrality, if we have set objectives for our companies, we need to make sure that they are free to attain them in the way they best see fit and with the technology that they best see fit. So we’re looking at different sectors, of course, and. And last but not least, I think we also need to talk about reciprocity, because we cannot allow ourselves to limit our companies, make them pay tax to the hilt, but allow the import of products made on the other side of the world which don’t follow any of the rules that we follow. So I think that this principle of reciprocity needs to be front and center. And let me conclude by saying, if we put human beings at the center of all this, as the Commission says, We need to remember that, as is the case here in Europe, human beings need social and economic well being, and we need to guarantee that that’s something we need to ensure for our citizens. Of course, we need to make sure that companies are free to act, to make sure that it’s not ideology that’s at the center, but human beings.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  2:05:57

Thank you. Gracias.

Anto  2:05:58

Thank you very much. That brings us the end of the list of speakers. So now I will give the floor back to the representative the European Commission. Ms, Yvonne slimenberg, for 10 minutes, go ahead.

Yvon SLINGENBERG – European Commission  2:06:15

First of all, let me thank the honorable members for very interesting debate and interventions, and I will try to reply as best I can, also knowing that indeed there will be further discussions, certainly with the commissioner’s designate in the coming weeks and months. Now, I would like to start with indeed confirming that climate policies are based on thorough impact assessments. They are made in a timely manner. They are made on the basis of stakeholder consultation and the best possible science. We have had that for the different measures of the fit for 55 package. And we’ve also done another one in the beginning of this year, as I mentioned, for the recommended 2040 target, which was also based on the independent advice of the Scientific Advisory Board, which is an institution that was set up in the European climate law at the request of the European Parliament. So very much we look at the impacts on social economic impacts, the need for investments, but also the impacts of climate change and the need for Europe to become more resilient and to protect people better and to be much better prepared for the increasing climate impacts that we see around us. We also look at the economic opportunities from clean technologies and what is happening around us in the world and to what is needed in order to make sure that the European economy also profits from the opportunities in these clean technology and digitization transitions. Now next, I would like to indeed echo what some members have also said, that the package of legislation, after long and fruitful discussions in this house and also with the Member States and of course, with all stakeholders as well, have been agreed around a year and a half ago. So it is, in our view, to some extent normal but, you know, we’re not yet fully there. We need to work on implementation. This has, you know, started immediately. We are in constant dialog with member states authorities, but also with stakeholders, because it can only happen through dialog and cooperation that we find the right measures that are also, indeed, you know, acceptable for society at large. In this dialog, we use all means to our disposal. So that means we do our regular reports, but we also use our legal means. And indeed, the transposition of some of some of these pieces of legislation has been mentioned, and we of course, take the necessary legal steps, be it in terms of EU pilots or letters of formal notice when the deadlines are passed. But that in itself is not, in our view, sufficient. We very much want to have that discussion with with member states. And you know, there is a very constructive discussion. I also want to say on what policies and measures are needed, how the revenues that are generated through climate policy, and of course, notably, the emissions trading system, can be used to the best purposes. And I think we have really altogether managed to to set up a package in the fit for 55 package that ensures that, of course, some of these things still need to crystallize. The Member States, for example, need to put forward their social climate fund plans by summer next year. The commission is is working on guidance. We have already made good progress there, and we are, as I said, in constant. Dialog very specifically with individual member states. We have visited all member states since the beginning of this year, and we have really gone into deep discussions, also per sector, because, of course, there are different challenges for different sectors the political level, of course, as well. I mean, our commissioner is certainly also discussing this with his counterparts. So indeed, and I very much appreciate also some of you saying that we should discuss these things also openly here. I think somebody said, how can we assist in terms of the European Parliament, and I think very much to have a constructive and open and transparent debate in society, in all your constituencies, is only very much needed also, indeed, because many of you have highlighted, you know, the increasing climate impacts, and that is, as I said, Something also where the commission is very much of the view that we need to step up. We need to discuss this also. And I think, like some of you have indicated, for example, in the agricultural sector, this is very visible. We saw the report from the strategic dialog on the future of European agriculture coming out, and this was very encouraging, because this is where all the different stakeholders have discussed together for six months, and they have come out with a consensual report where they do recognize the challenges in terms of climate change happening, and also, you know, gives indications as to the way forward. Now, of course, those things will be for the next European Commission to work out in terms of policies and measures and what more can be done in order to support the different sectors to really make this transition. In terms of assessment, we will, well, as we always do, come again end of October with a very comprehensive climate action progress report. So these reports that we brought out in spring are indeed more sectoral, a little bit less granular, but our climate action progress report will have the latest data and will zoom in much more on all the different aspects of climate policy. And together with that, we will also have a carbon market report, as you know, also every year, where we will look at, you know, how the functioning of the ETS is is progressing. And we will also be sharing the information on how member states use the ETS revenues. Now that’s, as we mentioned in the review of the ETS has been, you know, kind of tightened in terms of what the member states need to report on. And we will, we will share that information. And this is also very much something that we discuss with member states. And we, you know, we look at, okay, where is the money going? Of course, the fact that, you know the revenues need to be used for for climate purposes, means that they cannot just be handed out in a way as a climate dividend, because there will need to be an environmental and climate related impact, a positive impact. Obviously, we will also, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, that we’re waiting still for National Energy and Climate plans, the final ones to come in. We so far have received only 10. Unfortunately, we are optimistic that we will be getting additional ones very soon. And then when we have them, we will do, obviously, an assessment of all of those, and also an EU level aggregate assessment as to where we are. And that will, again, you know, trigger further discussions with member states on how they could perhaps speed up now if, in the end, the assessment shows that, you know, the plans are not showing us that the gap will be bridged. There is also the option, notably in the context of the effort sharing regulation, to ask for corrective action. So just to highlight that, indeed, climate policy has a lot of belts and braces, and we will be using all of them in order to together make progress. Then many of you have pointed to the dragger report. Now I think this is a very important input to the further discussions for again, the next mandate. I think it highlights, indeed, the need for investments. It also highlights the fact that the transition can be a big opportunity for economic growth and green growth, as we see in other continents of this world. But that is indeed something that we will be discussing. The Commission President has said that she will be proposing a clean industrial deal. So all these things together with, you know, measures to support a just transition in all the different sectors will be what we will be working on in the coming months. And for sure, you will also be debating in terms of adaptation I already mentioned, we will, we will need to step up on that. And I invite you to again, have another look at the European climate risk assessment, but also the Commission’s communication on risk management, because we very much agree that solidarity is needed and important. At the same time, a lot more can be done on prevention, to really look at these things in an integral manner, and when policies and measures are designed and implemented that we also look at the changing climate and what that means, and that, of course, also goes for the land sector. It is very important that we, you know, don’t think that we can go back to how things were. We need to prepare for, you know, either more or less precipitation. And indeed, we hear it every day on the news. Yesterday, myself, I heard about the record low water levels in Poland, etc. So we need to, as I said, have constructive discussions on that. And I would say it clearly impacts the whole of society. At the same time, the global dimension, and I just want to close with that is also very important, because we are, of course, conscious of the fact that, you know, it is not Europe alone that can solve the climate change issue or ensure that we meet the 1.5 degrees target. We very much work together with other member states, and we have put in place also the necessary measures to, you know, make sure that there is no leakage. Carbon leakage, as we call it, we have proposed and agreed on a carbon border adjustment mechanism that will also only start it.

Aurelijus VERYGA – ECR  2:16:36

Mustang Mason, the clinician, is with A comma justice here and belittle justices. Mess. They put the boss map a a mess earlier. Who minute, visual air mass, shocking Miss partner, yes, a ticket, yes. Could the talk opportunity stadiums, but no Dinga, thank you. Pooping smashed out to tomato mass, but the that

Yvon SLINGENBERG – European Commission  2:18:04

we have a lot more work to do. As I said in my introduction, the commission services. And this is not just DG climate action, it’s also obviously colleagues in DG energy and many other DGS, DG transport move because, yeah, as I said, it’s the transition impacts the whole of society and the whole of the economy. But there is major actions that can be taken, and I think the societal debate can help to also talk about this with all those who are impacted and to together design the best policies and making use of the funds that are available. Thank you very much. Mr.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  2:18:50

Chairman,

ant  2:18:52

thank you very much. Thank you very much for being here this morning. So that brings us to the end of items 10 and 11 our agenda. Let’s move on now to the final item on today’s agenda. Item 12, communication from the Commission to the council and the European Parliament on the evaluation of the Union civil protection mechanism, strengthening the EU’s emergency preparedness. Now, as I’m sure we are well aware, in October of 2001 the commission breathe into life the European Union civil protection mechanism, looking at the cooperation between European countries and other 10 states that are participating in the area of civil protection, the commission has a key co ordination role here, in terms of a crisis response across the world in May 2024 the Commission adopted a communication on evaluating the union civil protection mechanism. Mechanism in the period of 2017 to 2022 and the commission is participating in our committee meeting today, and will present this communication to the members of our committee. So I will give the floor without any further ado to the commission. We will hear from Mr. Hans dash.

Aurelijus VERYGA – ECR  2:20:28

I’ll also open the catch the eye proceed. I’ll

2:20:33

also open the catch the eye procedure. I

Hans Das – DG ECHO – European Commission  2:20:41

thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, dear members of the committee, first of all, we’re, of course, very, very happy to have this first exchange on civil protection in the newly elected parliament, and we very much look forward to working very closely with all of you in the NV committee on this topic of civil protection. I think the previous debate already showed the very important links there are between climate change and the work in the area of civil protection. With climate change very clearly leading to more natural disasters, more extreme weather, and therefore also requiring a further strengthening of our civil protection work. Civil Protection is an important area, and it is in an area that we expect to become even more important in the coming five years, because of climate change and more extreme weather, but also because of the growing and changing security risk landscape that we face. It also happens to be an area that citizens deeply care about and where they’re very supportive of European action, and it’s an area where EU cooperation is actually making a difference, and some of you may have seen that even this summer, during the fires and floods in various countries. Let me use the next few minutes to briefly explain what the civil protection mechanism is about and what the conclusions are of the evaluation that we have conducted and shared with you. First of all, the union civil protection mechanism, which is the main instrument in this area for European cooperation, is essentially a framework for cooperation. It’s a framework for cooperation between the 27 member states, between them, between the commission and the member states, but also with 10 additional participating countries. These include Turkey, also all of the Western Balkan countries, except Kosovo, Norway and Iceland, but also Ukraine and Moldova. Since recently, that framework for cooperation covers everything related to the disaster management cycle, so from preventing disasters from occurring, to preparing for the response to these disasters and to the actual response to different types of risks and disasters, and for that response We have built at the heart of the civil protection mechanism, an operational center, a crisis center, which is available 24/7 it’s here in Brussels, and I would like to extend a very warm invitation to the NV committee to come and visit the center. I think it might be very interesting for committee members to see how it works, what it does, and how we try and work together with all member states and these 10 participating countries in the response to disasters inside the European Union, but also outside the European Union. So in a nutshell, whenever a country is affected by a disaster, be it a natural disaster or a man made disaster, it can ask for assistance. Rather than turning to 37 countries, they turn to the ercc, the Emergency Response Coordination Center here in Brussels, and we then coordinate the response from all 37 countries to these requests for assistance. In order to organize that response in the best possible way, we have developed a European Civil Protection pool, which includes, by now around 110 intervention teams covering everything from such a rescue to medical to shelter etc. And we have also developed a rescue as a strategic safety net, which is fully funded by the EU, which consists of additional capacities, response capacities, from medical countermeasures to shelter to generators to also. Of different types of response items, which is fully funded by the EU and which is available to all member states and these 10 participating countries in case of need. So in a nutshell, that is the very quick overview of the civil protection mechanism our legislation requires us to do regular evaluations, and that is what you have received from us earlier this year. This particular evaluation covers the period 2017 to 22 so it is, of course, a limited period of time, and it looks primarily at the effectiveness and the cost efficiency of our work. Let me briefly summarize the main outcomes and then come to the more forward looking recommendations. First of all, I think starting with the very positive, the evaluation very clearly shows that the civil protection mechanism works. It works well, and it works well despite a very quickly and very radically changing risk landscape. We see that over the past few years, the number of European Civil Protection operations. So the number of instances where member states or third countries were overwhelmed in their response and needed to ask for help has increased exponentially. In the early years of the civil protection mechanism, we had around 2025 operations per year. Over the last few years, we have gone well above and well beyond, 100 European Civil Protection operations every year, and that is first and foremost related to climate change, where we see that there is a very sharp increase, for instance, in forest fires, but also in floods. Last year we had the single largest forest fire ever recorded in Europe’s history, that was in Greece. This year, again, we had 12 activations of the civil protection mechanism for forest fires so over the last few weeks, so 12 member states and third countries asking for help to deal with forest fires. A total of 15 member States responded to that with around 35 aerial capacities, 12. So these are planes and then 12 helicopters and a lot of ground teams. We also put in place this year, a pre positioning of ground firefighter teams across strategic locations in the Mediterranean area in order to further develop the response. We also conclude that the civil protection mechanism does allow for a very clear and tangible expression of solidarity, European solidarity. The best example of that is probably the war in Ukraine, at this moment in time, which has triggered the largest, the longest and the most complex European Civil Protection operation we have ever conducted. We had to innovate enormously to deal with this situation. We have created logistical hubs in different member states to collect assistance for Ukraine. We have set up a medical evacuation process where Ukraine can send critically ill or injured citizens to European hospitals, and overall, we have deployed around 150,000 tons of vital assistance to Ukraine over the last two and a half years. Another conclusion is that we work increasingly cross sectorally, and I think that’s relevant for your committee, because there’s more and more coordination with the health sectors. There’s also more and more coordination and cooperation with the energy sectors, etc, etc. It’s not all good news. We also have to be honest and modest. There is certainly a need, and there is room to further improve the Civil Protection cooperation areas where we see good reasons to further strengthen is in particular around data, data availability, sharing of data, improving further our risk assessments, improving our early warning systems, improving our EU level anticipation capacity, and, of course, stepping up coordination.

2:29:45

Resource constraints remain a major concern, not only at the European level, but also at for many national civil protection authorities, the risks are increasing tremendously. The budgets tend. Who flatten at best. In some cases, they even go down. So there is a real discrepancy between the increasing challenges in this area and the available resources we have shared with you a number of recommendations, which are, of course, more forward looking. I will just quote the main one. So we do believe that it is high time to further strengthen the operational response capabilities for Europe as a whole. So both in member states and at European level, the Civil Protection pool that I mentioned and rescue, we also need to strengthen prevention and preparedness. In terms of prevention, it is very important that we mainstream disaster risk management across all relevant policy areas, that we tap into funding instruments available in cohesion, in agriculture and in environment. This is a cross sectoral issue that we need to address in a cross sectoral way. In terms of preparedness, we need to work on a whole of society approach. We need to better prepare our citizens for disasters, etc. We also need to better address the needs of vulnerable groups and in prevention, but also in response, the children, elderly persons with disabilities, suffer very often disproportionately during major disasters. They need specific attention in the planning and in the response to disasters. And finally, as I mentioned, we do think it is important to continue to reinforce the budget in particular, for these areas, of course, or more precisely, for these areas where European cooperation makes good sense. And that is not necessarily everywhere. I’m the first one to recognize that. But if you take the example of low probability, high impact risks, so risks that are not very likely to occur, but that if they occur, have a major impact. Think about chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear disaster risks. Of course, every member state needs to do a basic preparedness, but it doesn’t make sense for 27 member states and 37 countries as a whole, to all make repeated investments in something that is not very likely to happen in any case. So for items, for risks like that, it makes a lot of sense to work together and to try and develop collective capacities that are available to everybody in case of need. I will stop there, but of course, very keen to listen to the members and to respond to any questions you may have afterwards. Thank you.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  2:32:52

Thank you very much.

2:32:53

Thank you very much for those words. I’ll now open the floor for members of the committee. Peter, Lisa, first, please. Simile

Peter Liese  2:33:01

and thank you to the commission. I think it’s, in fact, very important to closely monitor the mechanisms, and I’m happy that the Commission accepts, first of all, we need to be cost efficient, and it’s also not always the European Union that should act, but there is a responsibility for the member states, and in particular, also for the region. So that’s important that we respect the subsidiary principle here. But on the other hand, you know the country I know best, Germany was over emphasizing the subsidiarity principle in the past, when we in the European Parliament, asked for more European action, because sometimes member states are, in fact, overwhelmed by natural disasters Germany was always hesitant, and I regret that they are also not always ready to accept help. You know, we had a big disaster in Germany, in particular, in Bavaria in July, and unfortunately, the authorities didn’t ask for support. I think it would be of help for the firefighters and for other staff to get, for example, Austrians, to help them, but they didn’t ask for it. On the other end, I would like to emphasis a very positive example where Germany understood that Europe can be of help. And that’s from last weekend. We had a big forest fire in the eastern part of Germany in Sachsen, Arnold and the responsible minister. Is a former colleague, Sven Schulze, and he was not too proud to ask EU rescue to help. And I think that’s how it should work. We have the local authorities that need to be prepared. We also need to speak about prevention. And forest fires are to be prevented. There are also human reasons, not only climate change, but also other reasons that we have to address. But when Europe helps, this is good for everybody, also for Germany. Thank you. Applause.

2:35:49

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Elizabeth.

Leire PAJÍN – S&D  2:35:54

Thank you, Chairman. Just briefly to underscore the Commission’s recommendations for this report. In recent times of a cascade of crises, we’ve been made aware of the need of strategies and tools which allow us to prepare, to get ready in advance so that we can respond to this kind of crisis and to boost resilience. We’ve seen flooding, the fact that the magnitude of fires is unknown as so we have to prepare a better response then we had the pandemic, and there’s a need to reinforce the capacities of the EU in prevention and a response to epidemics. So, as has already been said, we need an overall cross cutting vision of these mechanisms and also coordination with other institutions of the Egan in health, with era and with other institutions and organizations working on prevention and response. I also wanted to underline the importance of cities in prevention and response to crises of this nature. I think it’s up to the local governments to locate and define the magnitude of global catastrophes, which have a local impact. And I also wanted to focus on the need to exchange experience, international cooperation, humanitarian response. In other areas of the world, there’s a lot of experience out there in crisis management, I think it would be a good thing for us to use that experience so that we can exchange experiences with professionals in the area of co operation and emergencies within other regions who have been managing these issues for many years. I

2:38:03

grazie. Thank you very much. Sakis anatolo, please.

Sakis ARNAOUTOGLOU – S&D  2:38:09

Thank you. Chairman.

SA  2:38:15

The ucpm has proved to be a resilient mechanism to tackle a broad spectrum of catastrophes. As the nature of the threats develop, we have to focus on where it needs to be improved. Greece is often affected by fire, floods and earthquakes, cooperation within the ucpm has been of great use and has saved us in many occasions, and the ucpm has been activated significantly more Over the last few years, reflecting the heightened frequency and complexity of catastrophes, there is a need, therefore, to improve its capacity so that there can be a rapid absorption of funds. The cooperation of national authorities and the commission is necessary in order to ensure rapid reaction to emergencies, cyber attacks and other crises are also a part of what needs to be focused on. So we need to invest in advanced technology like drones and remote sensing to improve the location of the crisis and our response capacity, we should set up a central ucpm center to put. Assess information and decision making. We need to support research and development in areas of such as early warning systems, the reduction in risk and climate resilience, and as the client the other colleagues said, we need to boost cooperation with national organizations and in order to tackle emergencies, and what is also important is to increase public awareness raising on the dangers of these catastrophes, so that we can ensure that everybody is well prepared. Thank

IN  2:40:42

you. Thank you very much. Paolo intellini, please. Thank you very much. Chair. I would just like to thank the commission for that very long explanation. Now I think we are all aware, unfortunately, about how urgent the issue of natural disasters is in Europe, and I very much appreciate the Commission’s commitment in grappling with this problem, especially in terms of European solidarity. There’s a need for coordination. There’s a need for more investment in terms of operational capacity as well. On the other hand, and we talk about prevention, given that in some cases, we can’t avoid certain disasters, but other disasters are avoidable because there are those that can take care of our earth or our environment, we need to invest in them, these are farmers, for instance, because they represent the number one bioregulators on the planet, and in some cases, we can work with them to avoid some of the major disasters we’ve seen in Europe and in Italy, in particular, farmers have been forced to abandon valleys and of abandoned pasture land, and this has had an impact on certain natural disasters. So I think if we economically invest in farmers by helping them to safeguard nature, then I think we can avoid plenty of disasters happening in the first place. Thank you. Gracia. Pastor la parola, thank you very much. Gregorio, please. Marcim, President,

Grégory ALLIONE – Renew  2:42:25

thank you. Chairman, as you all know, before I was an MEP, I was an officer in the fire brigade, and I participated in a lot of missions, and in France, we had the good luck of showing our humidity by accepting European aid. The ucpm is very important because it’s necessary to tackle climate deregulation and the consequences that we’ve been talking about all morning in Germany in September, there are forest fires as we speak. This system, which is highly reactive and adaptable, and you underlined this during covid and when a war unfortunately broke out in Ukraine, we’ve seen this. There are things that we agree with, and there are lots of things that need to be progressed. And I’m sure there’s an Erasmus of civil protection which needs to be created to share a good progress, a good experience and good practice, and to foster cooperation between fire brigades. We work regularly in this committee on all of the causes of climate change, but all this has an impact for our citizens and on the development of climate change, I think, in this committee, therefore, during the next negotiations of the new MFF, we need to maintain the demands for funding. Since covid the budget of the mechanism has been multiplied by five, so we have to make sure that the level of funding is maintained. I would also like to talk about equipment. Equipment is very important in our various countries. We all have backing, particularly for the airborne intervention. And I think that we are talking about 12 Canadair water planes. And so we have to look at what the current fleet is in the European Union. But my question is as follows, so does the commission plan to support the creation of a European water plane, which would be much more efficient? And which would allow us to develop this sector. And I would like to underline that we have to be consistent, because at the moment, we have the recovery plan, which is funding the aviation industry, but we’re having difficulty in funding a low carbon plane, but when a plane drops water and saves a forest, that’s all that CO two that is not released. So I think we need protection for that sector.

Antonio DECARO – Chair  2:45:40

Thank

2:45:42

you very much. Lena Schilling, please. Vienna,

Lena SCHILLING – Green  2:45:46

thank you for the report and what you’ve said. Emergency Response and emergency plans is an important topic in a time of crisis. A lot of things in life are uncertain, but we can be certain of one thing, there are going to be more storms, floods and fires, climate crisis is here. My country is very vulnerable to storms and flooding. We have to be very grateful for the forces that intervene in these crises. So I think it’s important for in the EU we try to ensure that there are more resources for global crisis. We need a global approach, eu approach, common solutions, European solidarity, so I agree with the recommendations to increase the budget. My question to you is, what are the next steps after this report? What is the current status for the further development of the common protection mechanism? Crises never affect people in the same to the same degree. There are vulnerable areas, such as children, the disabled, the elderly, dear colleagues, we should ensure on a national level that these groups are particularly factored in in the emergency plan. So has the commission got any particular recommendations to making that area. And finally, one thing is very important to me, clearing up after a catastrophe is always more expensive and more painful than avoiding it in the first place. We’re talking about houses and infrastructure that has to be rebuilt, but above all, human lives lost forever. So it’s important for the text clearly to say if we don’t act now, if we don’t fight to climate change now, then the cost for us will be impossible to bear. It’s important for the commission to make clear that climate protection measures need to include a prevention as a major part of their approach. Thank you, Gracie.

2:48:06

Thank you very much. Nicolas ferrandores, now please.

Nikolas FARANTOURIS – The Left  2:48:12

Thank you. In my previous contribution, I talked about the mechanism as a part of the fight against climate change. And I congratulated the Commission and its representatives on its analytical communication. I think that we need harmonization in coordinating these ucpm activities, coordination between the member states, but I would like to and align to the commission that, as is the case in other good initiatives, we need to distinguish here between two things, between the North and the South, for example, as far as the impact of climate change is concerned, and the way in which the mechanism functions, or the weather phenomena and the areas affected are not to be approached in the same way. We don’t have the same problems in all EU member states as so through yes to harmony, harmonization, not to homogenization. We don’t want to have a blanket approach. And so I also want to emphasize the fact that in the commission’s report, although it’s mentioned, they don’t really talk much about prevention. In the budget committee where I’m a member. I said that we need to increase the resources through the Council for catastrophes in four member states in particular, we want to ask for resources at a time, at a time where we. Could try to put up barriers so we want more prevention rather than correction and repairs. Thank you, Gracia.

2:50:14

Thank you very much. I think that was the last speaker on the list. Any Hart is the last speaker on the list rather

Anja ARNDT – ESN  2:50:33

Yeah. Danko, thank you. Civil Protection is an important topic, but in line with the Lisbon Treaty, competence must lie with the member states of the EU the principle of subsidiarity must be respected, especially where the key to success is being close to citizens in the area of civil protection, each country must remain responsible for protecting its own population, creating the necessary infrastructure and also providing the money. Nevertheless, a community civil protection mechanism was set up in 2001 with low initial financial resources. The ucpm in 2013 a union civil protection mechanism called resc EU was then established by a decision in the spirit of EU centralisation. It’s interesting to recall how this was justified. It was because, apparently, natural disasters have increased significantly, in particular result of climate change. Rescue was then meant to receive around 369 million euros planned for 2020 but in 2021 this decision became a regulation, and instead, it had a budget of 3.3 billion, which is a nine fold increase in the budget. And of course, this money is being taken away from the net contributors of the EU, the same pattern can be seen again and again. What starts off as a small action program is expanded, further developed and finally, through regulations, it becomes compulsory for all EU member states. The EU civil protection mechanism is therefore yet another piece in the puzzle intended to undermine the competencies of EU member states in yet another policy area, once again, the commission is seeking to gain powers which it should not have as a managing authority. Therefore, we do not share the Commission’s conclusion, and I quote that it is now high time to develop an integrated approach to crisis management. The opposite is true, less centralisation, more subsidiarity, being closer to the citizens. This is what we need now. There is a risk that the member states will dismantle their own civil protection mechanisms and that they will therefore rescue you will have to intervene even more. Thank you,

Antonio DECARO – Chair  2:53:33

Gracia. Thank you very much. That was the last name on the list of speakers. As far as the members are concerned, I’ll now give the floor for concluding remarks to Mr. Hans dash from the Commission. Please feel free to provide any clarification or field any of the questions that were raised. Go

Hans  2:53:57

ahead. Thank you. Thank you so much to to all of you, it is important to have an open and frank exchange on these issues, and I’ll do my best to reply to the comments and questions in the clearest way possible. I will not take them chronologically, but let me try and group a few concerns that have surfaced in many different interventions. First of all, on subsidiarity, I think it is an incredibly important part of our work. The competence of the European Union in the area of civil protection is extremely limited. It is a supporting competence, the responsibility to prevent disasters, to prepare for disasters and to respond to disasters, is with member states. It’s not with the European Commission. The only competence we have is to try and support we try and do that to the best of our ability by making sure. Sure there is a close cooperation between member states in these areas. Many member states are facing similar or identical challenges. It is important that member states can learn from each other. It is also important that, in case member states get overwhelmed, they can rely in an efficient and effective way on support from neighboring countries, from other European member states, and that, of course, becomes increasingly important in a context where the risks are not remaining at the same level, but are increasing literally exponentially. If you look at the wildfire risk in Europe over the last 20 years, the wildfire risk in Europe has has literally increased exponentially. It used to affect a very limited group of member states in the very south. It is now affecting countries in Central Europe, in Eastern Europe, and there have always been wildfires also in the north of Europe. So in a context where the disaster risks are increasing very quickly and very extensively. We do think it is important that member states work together and that we have a good system in place where member states can rely upon each other in order to receive help in these moments where things go out of control. I do fully agree that prevention is the key, and we are putting a lot of emphasis on this. It is extremely important that we invest more time work and resources in on prevention. We are currently doing a lot of work already on that to take again, the example of forest fires. We have a forest fire action plan in place where we work with member states on, for instance, increasing citizens awareness of the forest fire risks. Most of our forest fires are manmade. They are started by human behavior which is clearly inappropriate and in many cases illegal, sparking a small fire, which then, with the current climatological conditions, very quickly develops into a major forest fire. So we need to make sure we work on preventing that human behavior that leads to these forest fires, some of you also mentioned very correctly the need to take a holistic, cross sectoral approach to this. Preventing forest fires is not just a civil protection issue. It is an issue for the farmers. It is an issue for the agricultural sector. It is an issue for the tourism sector. It has links with many different areas, and so what we are doing increasingly is to mainstream disaster prevention aspects into the work of other sectors. If we provide cohesion funding, we need to make sure that disaster risk prevention is included in that. If we finance big infrastructure projects across the European Union, we need to make sure that disaster prevention is included in that, etc, etc. So, so I think we there’s a lot of useful things that can be done and that are currently being developed. I fully agree with those of you who say that Civil Protection is first and foremost a matter of the local and regional authorities correct disaster response, disaster preparedness, disaster prevention needs to take place as close as possible to citizens. It is something we very much encourage. It is important that local regional authorities are well equipped to deal with disasters. But it’s also clear that with the current development of climate risk, of security risks, we need to prepare for a number of disasters that go well beyond the capacity of any local or regional authorities. We’re currently preparing for a number of disaster scenarios, be it in the security area or in the climate area, where, very clearly, a lot more capability is needed than what any region or local authority can can offer. And so European cooperation to make sure that we can provide additional capabilities from member states in a very quick and a very effective way makes a very. A lot of economic sense and a lot of operational sense. It is impossible for any municipality in Europe to be prepared for each and every possible disaster risk that would require enormous budgets that are simply not available. It is much more cost effective to rely on help that could become available from other municipalities within your same country, or to rely, also to a certain extent, on help that can be made available through other member states, through our civil protection mechanism and also through the rescue stockpiles. Why are we investing European budget into developing capabilities Well, precisely for that reason, because it is impossible for individual countries to be prepared for each and every disaster risk at the scale that might be necessary, and therefore it makes economic and operational sense to invest in certain common reserves that we manage together. It’s not the European Commission managing this. This is a supporting competence. So we provide funding, and then interested member states manage these European stockpiles. These European stockpiles are then available to all member states on a needs basis. So for instance, many of your countries, including Germany, by the way, has benefited from rescue funding in order to develop these firefighting capacities, the aerial firefighting capacities, many of you have received support from these rescue stockpiles during major disasters, etc, etc. On the topic of rescue, there is indeed a considerable amount of funding that has gone to developing a fleet of forest firefighting aircraft. We have a temporary, seasonal fleet at this moment in time. So every year again, we have a number of aircraft and helicopters that are on standby in different member states in order to respond very quickly to forest fires in other Member States or in neighboring countries. On top of that, we are developing a permanent fleet of 12 canadairs, medium sized amphibious aircraft. And for that, a number of member states are currently concluding government to government contracts with a company in Canada to provide these new types of canadairs. Why have we opted for that type of aircraft, as Mr. Aleone asked, we do feel that, or our member states experts have told us that the Canadair is the most appropriate type of aircraft to deal with the type of forest fire that we have in Europe, to respond to the fires in the particular landscape of Europe, our member states tend to have a lot of canadairs themselves, many of which are aging and need repairs, need additional work, etc. So it was very important for us to continue to have a continued production of canadairs in the future also, and the Canadair was the only option that is relatively quickly available. We’re hoping to receive the first of these aircraft by 2027

3:03:43

and then the other aircraft will follow over time. We are certainly not closed to other types of aircraft, and we do agree that there is an important need to widen the market. There is currently a monopoly. There is only one manufacturer for this type of aircraft globally. So of course, we all have an interest in stimulating also a European industry for these types of aircraft. At this moment in time, the existing Canadair was the best option and the only option available in the short term, but for the longer term future, we certainly are open, and we would like to encourage also a European manufacturing industry in this area. One of you has mentioned an Erasmus for civil protection. I will not comment on that particular proposal, but I do want to emphasize the importance of training and exercises. We already doing a lot of work on training and exercises. There’s a lot of cooperation taking place across the different work strands, but certainly it is an area where more needs to be done and can. Be done. I think with that, I have covered most of the comments in terms of budget. I want to be, I want to finish with that and be very clear about that the civil protection mechanism used to have a very modest budget with the availability of the next generation EU funding, we have been able to very rapidly develop significant strategic stocks that now benefit all member states. But the next generation EU funding has come to an end, as you know, and so we have gone back to our our previous funding levels, with very modest amounts of funding currently available for that whole Civil Protection cooperation. I get very worried when I see these statistics and the very strong increase in disasters, the very strong increase in the number of operations that we have to manage every year again, and the very limited budgetary resources available. This is not money for the European Commission. Let’s be very clear, this is money for the disaster management authorities in the EU Member States and in the participating countries. It benefits them directly. So it contributes to strengthening all of their capabilities. But I really would, I think with the current budget levels, we would not even be able to maintain the current level of stockpile we have in rescue. So there is really a discrepancy. There something that will need to be addressed in the future. Thank you again for the very interesting exchange. Your points are well noted in terms of next steps. There are many different things coming up. We’re, of course, at the beginning of a new institutional cycle. With a new college coming up. It will be up to the new commissioner designate to sort of announce what direction he or she wants to go with this. One thing which is coming up fairly quickly is a report that has been commissioned by the Commission president, which is currently being prepared by the former Finnish President ni nishta, which will look at how we can increase the preparedness of the European Union for both climate and security related risks, so that will be a stepping stone for further policy development in the coming mandate. Thank you very much. Gracie,

Antonio DECARO – Chair  3:07:58

thank you very much. Thank you very much for those words. We will be inviting you back to our committee at a later date, so that brings us to the end of our agenda, the next meeting on the 23rd of September weekend, and see you next week at Strasbourg. You important to.