Jessika Roswall

Policy topics Jessika Roswall is active on

What Jessika Roswall has said (80)

• 2026-06-10 “Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be part of today's celebration. And let me begin by congratulating everyone involved with KfW – past and present – for your 30 years presence here in Brussels. But even more than that – for a long history of responsible banking. A lot has changed in the last 30 years. But your commitment to Europe has remained steadfast. I am also delighted to see such a range of expertise and experience here this evening. If there's one thing I've learned during my 1,5 years as Commissioner for the Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive, Circular Economy, it is this: The challenges facing us today are varied and multiple – from real wars and trade wars to energy challenges, climate change, water scarcity and biodiversity loss. But they are all connected – in complex ways. And together, they threaten our national, economic and environmental security. Tackling them requires a whole-of-society approach. And the financial sector plays a fundamental role in this effort. Today, the connections between our environment and our economy are more evident and better understood than ever before. And yet, nature is too often invisible in corporate accounts and absent from boardroom discussions. Together, we need to change that. We need to put nature on the balance sheet – and again, your role is vital. Circularity, safe and innovative chemicals, water resilience, healthy soils and other ecosystem services provide essential business value. They are proof of a principle: Investing in our environment is not about being kind to nature, it is about economic resilience. About sustainable growth. About long-term savings and long-lasting efficiency. And about mitigating corporate risk. The European Central Bank found that more than seven out of every ten non-financial corporations, representing nearly 75% of corporate bank lending, rely heavily on at least one ecosystem service. Another study shows that more than half of global GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature. As one of the largest promotional banks in the world and a founder of the Joint Initiative on Circular Economy (JICE), KfW has been a critical partner in advancing investments in the environment. Now, we need to take that experience and expertise to the next level. The EU is determined to do its part. We are committed to investing in nature, circularity, and the economic resilience that comes with it. The proposed Multiannual Financial Framework has a 35 per cent climate and environment spending target. And this binding target will apply across all the main funds of the future MFF. For example, the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) will back innovative technologies and solutions that are strategic for the EU. The ECF will also pay particular attention to investing in SMEs, reaching out to smaller-scale beneficiaries, and improving project bankability – areas in which KfW has had a big impact. However, public funding alone will never be enough. Now more than ever, we need private capital to close the massive annual investment gap in the environment. Today, that gap stands at 177 billion euros, including 38 billion for nature and biodiversity. Part of the reply is the Commission's work on a Savings and Investment Union, mobilising more private funding across the board. And we have also launched work on nature credits, to reward those investing in ecosystem services. Let me now focus for a moment on circularity – which is both an economic and environmental necessity. Building a circular economy in Europe will help us to cut waste and reduce the EU's material dependency. Our Circular Economy Act will focus on building a true Single Market for secondary raw materials and waste. And it aims to establish an economic model that prioritises circular design, resource recovery and reuse – whether it's gold and copper from smartphones, phosphorus from wastewater, or cobalt from batteries. The Circular Economy Act will provide investment clarity. And it will show that investing in circular companies is a profitable and competitive choice. This is vital – because the circular economy is facing an annual investment gap of 82 billion euro. The Joint Initiative on Circular Economy (JICE) from KfW and others plays an important role in filling this gap. It has already shown that investing in circularity works as it overachieved its initial target. It has committed to reaching EUR 16 billion in investments in circular projects. And it shows that it is possible to develop innovative financing structures for infrastructure, municipalities and private companies. I hope we can build on that basis and renew this great initiative –I want to thank KfW for its continued involvement and support. The German Industry Association BDI recently found that by just implementing circular solutions which are profitable today, we can double the circular economy and its value – so there is plenty of scope to scale up. Ladies and gentlemen, Investing in our environment is one of the smartest economic decisions we can make. And you are at the very heart of that process. You have the power and potential to drive investments. To boost the resilience of our economy and environment. And to speed up the circular transition. I look forward to putting nature on the balance sheet, together. But in the meantime, congratulations again. I hope you enjoy the celebrations. And here's to another 30 years.”
  Circular economy
• 2026-06-02 “Ladies and gentlemen, Dear friends, Thank you for the invitation. It is a pleasure to join you this year again at the Swedish Representation – and especially to be here with representatives of one of Europe's most important forest industries. Sweden's forests are not only central to Sweden's national identity and economy. They are also essential to Europe's future bioeconomy. And today, that future matters more than ever. Over the past years, Europe has faced one shock after another: the pandemic, the energy crisis following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, disruptions in global supply chains, and now instability in the Middle East. The situation in the strait of Hormuz remains volatile. We all know there will be no quick recovery for fossil fuel markets and that impacts go well beyond energy. Once again, we are reminded how vulnerable we are to external dependencies – whether for energy, raw materials or industrial inputs. That is why resilience has become one of Europe's defining priorities. And this is where the bioeconomy can play a decisive role. A strong European bioeconomy allows us to replace imported fossil-based materials with renewable European resources. It helps reduce strategic dependencies, create jobs, strengthen rural economies and accelerate innovation – while supporting our climate goals. And forestry sits at its very foundation. Last year the Commission adopted the Strategic Framework for a Competitive and Sustainable EU Bioeconomy. Our objective is clear: to make Europe a global leader in sustainable bio-based industries. And the time to scale up bioeconomy solutions is now. Fossil energy prices are skyrocketing. Supply chains are disrupted and a significant part of fossil based feedstock is stuck in the gulf. The kerosin that propels our planes. The naphta that is the basis of our chemical industry. The fertilisers that our farmers use to produce food. So we urgently need alternatives. And bio-based solutions are available here and now. Sustainable aviation fuel is being scaled up. Our chemical industry has invested in installations to produce chemicals from bionaphta. Our innovative farmers are investing in bio-based fertilisers. Now is the time for our businesses to change over and mainstream the bioeconomy. And for us as policy makers to move from strategy to action. In October, at the International Bioeconomy Forum in Dublin, we will launch the call for interest to join the Bio-based Europe Alliance, aimed to mobilize private demand for biobased materials and products. We want to gather EU companies committed to collectively purchasing bio-based materials, products and applications worth EUR 10 billion by 2030. At the same time, work is advancing on the Biotech Act II. We will remove barriers to market uptake, simplifying rules, creating lead markets for bio-based products and supporting first-of-a-kind industrial projects. And just recently, we kicked off a new European Bioeconomy Investment Deployment Group with our National Promotional Banks. And initiatives such as Sweden's Biodiversity Credit Alliance show how private investment can help reward those who actively protect and restore nature. Ladies and gentlemen, So this is really the time to scale up the bioeconomy. And yes, the bioeconomy relies on a healthy environment – bioeconomy businesses are obviously among the 75% of European companies that rely heavily on one or more ecosystem services. You all know that without healthy forests, there is no sustainable bioeconomy. And without a viable bioeconomy, there is no long-term forest-based economy. And across Europe, forest ecosystems are also under growing pressure. So protecting forest resilience must therefore be at the heart of our common work. It is about safeguarding the long-term future of the forest economy itself. Forests are multifunctional landscapes that deliver economic, environmental and social value together and give us opportunities. I also want to focus on the opportunities I see in the Nature Restoration Regulation. I want to help Member States implement the Nature Restoration Regulation in a way that is an opportunity to strengthen resilience, boost innovation, manage risks, create new business models and provide greater clarity and predictability for the future. Ladies and gentlemen, Forests are one of Europe's greatest strategic assets. They are essential for our climate goals, for biodiversity, for rural livelihoods and for Europe's industrial future. The challenge before us is not to choose between competitiveness and sustainability. The challenge is to make them reinforce each other. And I believe Europe can do exactly that – and Sweden has a key role to play in leading the way. Thank you very much, and I wish you an excellent evening.”
  Management of EU forests
• 2026-06-01 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1.6.2026 Written question The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) [1] presents an opportunity to enhance trade in deforestation-free products and boost opportunities for sustainable producers worldwide. The EUDR fosters engagement with operators and producing countries to support compliance and minimise adverse trade impacts. This dialogue occurs regularly, enabling the Commission to address stakeholder concerns and provide clarifications as needed. Following the revision of the EUDR [2] , companies now have an additional year to prepare for its entry into application, alongside streamlined requirements. The updated text, together with the recently published guidance documents [3] , ensures greater predictability and legal certainty. The Commission will monitor trade patterns of relevant commodities and products, maintaining ongoing engagement with stakeholders. Regarding certification schemes, efforts to strengthen traceability and sustainability are encouraged. The more robust and EUDR-aligned these systems become, the easier compliance will be for operators. The EUDR clarifies that public and private certification systems may serve as risk mitigation tools, provided they supply the required information under the EUDR. However, companies remain responsible for conducting due diligence and will be held accountable for any potential breaches of EUDR. The Commission stands ready to support the development of public traceability systems — both existing and new — to raise standards and ensure effective implementation and monitoring. The Commission will continue close collaboration with all stakeholders, including the soy sector, to facilitate a smooth transition when the EUDR takes effect at the end of 2026 and to support its implementation. [1] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206-247. [2] Adopted on 19 December 2025, Regulation (EU) 2025/2650 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards certain obligations of operators and traders, OJ L, 2025/2650, 23.12.2025. [3] https://green-forum.ec.europa.eu/publications/guidance-document-regulation-eu-20231115-deforestation-free-products_en.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU · Trade impact on forests
• 2026-05-22 “Thank you very much. The title of this session — from scrap to shield — captures very well the shift we need in Europe. For too long, we have looked at waste mainly as an environmental challenge. Today, we need to look at it also as a strategic resource — and in some cases, as part of Europe's security architecture. This is particularly true for critical raw materials. They are essential for batteries, electronics, clean technologies, aerospace and defence systems. They are also essential for Europe's ability to act with more strategic autonomy in a more unstable world. And the reality is that Europe remains too dependent on external suppliers for many of these materials — sometimes for extraction, sometimes for processing, sometimes for refining, and often at the most sensitive points of the value chain. We have learned this lesson on energy. Dependence comes with a price. It exposes our companies, our citizens and our security. The same is true for materials. But there is also a very practical opportunity here. Europe already has many of these materials in its own economy: in batteries, vehicles, electronics, wind turbines and many other products. That is where circularity becomes very concrete. High-value recycling of metals, batteries and permanent magnets can reduce dependencies, strengthen industrial resilience and create new capacity in Europe. But we should be honest: this is not simply about recycling more. For defence and aerospace, materials are not ordinary commodities. They must meet very demanding standards. And companies will not use secondary materials in sensitive applications unless they can trust the quality, the performance and the security of supply. So the real question for us is: how do we build a system where recovered critical materials can become reliable defence-grade inputs? I see four priorities. [1] First, access to feedstock. Valuable materials must not disappear into low-quality treatment, landfill or uncontrolled exports. We need better collection, better sorting and better treatment of strategic waste streams. [2] Second, quality and trust. If recycled materials are to enter high-performance applications, we need clear standards, traceability and reliable information on material composition. [3] Third, demand certainty. Investment will not happen if there is no market. Public procurement — and where appropriate defence procurement — can help create confidence, while fully respecting safety and performance requirements. [4] Fourth, scale-up and investment. Many technologies already exist, from advanced sorting to AI-enabled recovery, tailings valorisation and material substitution. The challenge is scaling up. This is where public-private cooperation is essential. Governments, industry, recyclers, technology providers and investors all need to be part of the same value-chain logic. This is also the logic behind the upcoming Circular Economy Act that I will be presenting this autumn. We want to make the Single Market work better for circular products, waste and secondary raw materials. We want to reduce fragmentation, strengthen the business case, and make it easier for high-quality secondary materials to circulate and scale in Europe. Of course, recycling will not solve everything. Europe will still need sustainable primary raw materials, diversified partnerships, processing capacity and innovation in substitution. Europe has shown that it can respond decisively when dependencies become strategic vulnerabilities. With RESourceEU strategy we are building a more secure and diversified industrial base. Let me finish with a simple message. Europe cannot afford to lose strategic materials from its own economy. We need to turn scrap into shield. Because circularity is no longer only an environmental priority. Circularity is also security. Thank you.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials
• 2026-05-21 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 21.5.2026 Written question The Commission monitors Member States’ transposition of the Single-Use Plastic Directive (SUPD) [1] , including on extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, and takes appropriate action. Enforcement of EPR under the SUPD lies with Member States. The SUPD does not set requirements for ‘legacy gear’. The Commission's evaluation of the SUPD, due by 3 July 2027, will assess, inter alia , EPR schemes for fishing gear containing plastic and their impact on collection rates, and also if EU policies outside of the SUPD (e.g., the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF) [2] , the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) [3] and the Port Reception Facilities [4] ) provide incentives for the collection of waste fishing gear containing plastic. The Commission has no plans to mandate financial contributions for proactively retrieving ‘ghost gear’. The EU does address marine litter resulting from the fisheries sector through targeted actions funded by the EMFF and EMFAF, as shown by a recent report [5] . The EU fisheries control framework does not mandate digital marking/GPS tracking of fishing gear, and the Commission has no current plans to establish such requirements. Vessel-based obligations, including specific requirements to report and, if feasible, retrieve lost gear, and the obligation to carry retrieval equipment ensure control and traceability. Vessels must report gear info at departure, during fishing, and upon return to port. Fishing gear must be visibly marked for inspection. Digital solutions can complement visible gear marking but are not required. Non-compliance, especially concerning gear marking and illegal disposal, can lead to infringement proceedings. [1] Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, OJ L 155, 12.6.2019, p. 1-19. [2] https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-investment/european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund-emff_en. [3] https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-investment/emfaf_en. [4] https://www.emsa.europa.eu/sustainable-ports/port-reception-facilities.html. [5] Report on marine litter actions funded under the EMFF and EMFAF — Oceans and fisheries (2026), https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/publications/report-marine-litter-actions-funded-under-emff-and-emfaf_en.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries · Circular economy · EU policy towards plastics
• 2026-05-12 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 12.5.2026 Written question The European eel [1] is not protected under the Habitats Directive [2] . The obligation under the Environmental Liability Directive [3] (ELD) to prevent and remediate significant biodiversity damage is limited to damage to habitats and species protected under the EU law. The ELD only applies to damage caused by economic activity. A potential damage resulting from the non-recognition of eel as endangered species is thus not covered by the ELD. Regarding the Water Framework Directive [4] , it requires Member States to implement measures to ensure that the status of water bodies, including as regards river continuity and fish communities, does not deviate, or only slightly, from undisturbed conditions. Furthermore, it is not allowed to trade eels from and to the EU [5] . Member States, including Spain, take various measures through their eel management plans under the Eel Regulation [6] and other legal instruments. In particular, the EU sets temporary fishing closures under the Fishing Opportunities Regulation [7] . As there is no obligation in EU law to list the eel as ‘endangered’ in the national catalogue of threatened species, the decision on this matter is solely for the Spanish national authorities, without prejudice to the aforementioned obligations under EU law. The Nature Restoration Regulation [8] requires Member States to make inventories of their artificial barriers to the connectivity of surface waters, and to plan for removals of obsolete barriers in order to reach the EU-wide objective of restoring 25 000 km of rivers to free-flowing rivers between 2020 and 2030. The Commission monitors the implementation of relevant EU legislation and continues working with Member States and stakeholders to help rebuild the eel stock. [1] Anguilla anguilla. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1992/43/oj/eng. [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2004/35/oj/eng. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/60/oj/eng. [5] The competent scientific authorities of the Member States agreed unanimously that they would not be able to issue a non-detriment finding for the export of European eel specimens, as it is critically endangered, as required under Article IV(2)(a) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Therefore, since 2010, a zero-export quota has been issued and published on the CITES website. [6] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A32007R1100. Details about a most recent progress of Member States in implementing their eel management plans (EMPs) and measures under the Eel Regulation are provided in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advice in subject published in 2025 https://ices-library.figshare.com/articles/report/EU_request_for_technical_evaluation_of_the_Eel_Management_Plan_progress_reports/28381268?file=54121004 and in the ICES report from the Workshop in support of this advice https://ices-library.figshare.com/articles/report/Workshop_for_the_Technical_Evaluation_of_EU_Member_States_Eel_Regulation_Progress_Reports_for_Submission_in_2024_2025_WKEMP4_/28788749?file=54098411. [7] Council Regulation (EU) 2026/249 of 26 January 2026 fixing for 2026, 2027 and 2028 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2025/202,OJ L, 2026/249, Council Regulation (EU) 2026/266 of 26 January 2026 fixing for 2026 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas,OJ L, 2026/266, 30.1.2026. [8] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj/eng.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2026-05-12 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 12.5.2026 Written question The Water Framework Directive [1] is neutral regarding public or private ownership of water services and leaves full discretion to Member States as regards national governance structures. The directive also allows Member States broad flexibility in setting water pricing and related cost-recovery mechanisms, taking into account socioeconomic, environmental, geographic, and climatic conditions, provided the environmental objectives are met. Member States are hence entirely responsible for water management, including allocation decisions, prioritisation during scarcity, infrastructure investment, and compliance with the Water Framework Directive and the Drinking Water Directive [2] . The latter requires ensuring access to safe drinking water, to identify and manage supply risks, and taking timely preventive and corrective action where risks are known. Particular attention must also be paid to vulnerable groups during supply disruptions. To ensure access and affordability, Member States may use tools such as subsidies, social or progressive tariffs, and cost redistribution from households to polluters and intensive users, in line with the polluter-pays principle and the ‘adequate contribution’ clause. The Water Resilience Strategy [3] recognises access to clean, affordable water as a human right and includes a flagship action to support leakage reduction and infrastructure modernisation. Under the modernised cohesion policy [4] , EUR 1.3 billion (EU contribution) [5] has been allocated to Greece for 2021-2027 to strengthen water management and resilience, including drinking water systems. [1] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1-73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32-35. [2] Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast), OJ L 435, 23.12.2020, p. 1-62. [3] https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en. [4] https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/2021-2027_en. [5] Out of which EUR 73.4 million have been allocated under the regional Programme ‘Attiki’.”
  EU policy on water management · Water pollution
• 2026-05-11 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question Article 13 of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) [1] requires Member States sharing an international river basin to ensure coordination of their management plans. Such coordination should cover measures to ensure appropriate quantity and dynamics of freshwater flow to allow the achievement of good ecological status. Moreover, as Parties to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Water Convention [2] , EU Member States must ensure ‘exchange of information on existing and planned uses of water and related installations that are likely to cause transboundary impact’. Under Article 12 of the WFD, where a Member State identifies an issue which has an impact on the management of its water, but it cannot resolve it on its own, it may report the issue to the Commission and any other Member State concerned and may make recommendations for the resolution of it. The recently amended provision [3] strengthens this cooperation by making it mandatory. Neither Bulgaria nor Greece have made a notification to the Commission under Article 12. The WFD does not specify which form the cooperation between Member States should take. Article 3(4) WFD allows Member States to use existing structures stemming from international agreements. Information on cross-border cooperation should be reported in the River Basin Management Plans. Prior to their adoption, the draft plans are made subject to public consultation. Given their delay in reporting, the Commission is currently still assessing the Third River Basin Management Plans of both Bulgaria and Greece and will consider in this context the state of play in relation to transboundary cooperation. [1] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1-73. [2] Convention on the Protection and use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. [3] Directive (EU) 2026/805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 March 2026 amending Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Directive 2006/118/EC on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration and Directive 2008/105/EC on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, OJ L, 2026/805, 20.4.2026.”
  Water pollution · EU policy on water management
• 2026-05-11 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) [1] strongly supports deposit and return systems, as they have many positive qualities including ensuring high collection rates, and less litter. The 10% reuse target for beverage packaging in the PPWR applies as of 2030 and to larger ‘final distributors’ such as retailers and restaurants, with a sales area of more than 100 m 2 . All micro-enterprises are exempted from offering reuse, and Member States can implement further exemptions to consider specific local conditions, including final distributors in areas with low population density. A Member State can also introduce national exemptions for packaging of materials with high recycling rates, such as aluminium, provided that it fulfils the conditions set in Article 29(14). The Commission has recently published a guidance document [2] for the PPWR that clarifies how this exemption can be applied. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts under the article 29(18) supplementing the harmonised reuse targets in the PPWR. Such delegated acts can exempt economic operators who face particular economic constraints, or specific packaging formats where achievement of the reuse targets is hindered due to hygiene and food safety or environmental issues. To ensure legal certainty for economic operators and the integrity of the internal market, the Commission will act only when the necessity to act is demonstrated via adequate evidence, also taking the applicable exemptions into considerations, and when it is confirmed by the Commission’s own impact assessment. [1] Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025. [2] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/guidance-document-packaging-and-packaging-waste-regulation-ppwr_en.”
  Sustainable packaging · Re-use of packaging · Circular economy
• 2026-05-11 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question The Commission is aware of the environmental concerns raised by the Honourable Member, both through petitions submitted to the European Parliament and related correspondence. These claims have been thoroughly examined but have not led to the opening of an infringement procedure, in accordance with the principles set out below. The Waste Framework Directive [1] requires Member States to ensure that waste is managed without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and in line with the waste hierarchy which prioritises waste prevention, reuse and recycling. In addition, the directive promotes the recovery of construction and demolition waste, including through selective demolition and high-quality recycling. Where asphalt contains hazardous substances, such as tar, additional requirements under EU waste and chemicals legislation may apply. Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as the guardian of the Treaties, Member States are primarily responsible for ensuring compliance with EU law. In line with its strategic approach on enforcement action, which focuses on cases of systemic non-compliance [2] , the Commission considers that the means of redress available under national legislation would be the most appropriate mechanism to address individual cases of possible non-compliance such as this one. In this respect, the competent national and regional authorities are responsible for authorising, monitoring and enforcing compliance with the applicable rules and are best placed to assess the specific circumstances of the case. [1] Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3-30, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 109-140 and Directive (EU) 2025/1892 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 September 2025 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, OJ L, 2025/1892, 26.9.2025. [2] Communication from the Commission — EU law: Better results through better application, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10-20, and Communication from the Commission — Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers, 13.10.2022, COM(2022) 518 final.”
  Environmental crimes and justice · Water pollution
• 2026-05-11 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question On 30 January 2026, the Commission opened an infringement procedure by sending a letter of formal notice to Spain [1] for failing to comply with the reporting obligation under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive [2] . The required report provides an assessment of the conservation status of the habitats and species covered by the Habitats Directive (including the Iberian wolf) based on the status and trends of species and habitats, as well as the main pressures and threats affecting them. The Commission services are assessing the reply by Spain prior to deciding on its follow-up. The Commission recalls that, under the Common Agricultural Policy [3] , comprehensive support is available for livestock protection measures against predators like the wolf and that EU State aid rules allow Member States to compensate up to 100% of direct and indirect costs from wolf-related damages to livestock. Regarding the provisional application of the agreement with Mercosur, the Commission does not share the negative assessment of the Honourable Members. The agreement includes an unprecedented set of measures aimed at protecting sensitive agri-food sectors. Imports of sensitive agricultural goods are subject to very limited tariff-rate quotas that will be gradually phased in. [1] INFR (2025)2214, https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringement-decisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&page=1&size=10&order=desc&sortColumns=decisionDate&refId=INFR(2025)2214. [2] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and on wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. [3] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy_en.”
  Large Carnivores
• 2026-05-11 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question The Commission closely monitors the implementation of EU law in the Member States, including the application of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The ruling of the CJEU mentioned by the Honourable Member is now reflected in the Commission proposal for a regulation on speeding-up environmental assessments [1] whose Article 4(4) reads: ‘Competent authorities shall consult the public concerned by the environmental decision-making procedure relating to a plan, programme or project subject to an assessment in accordance with paragraph 1 at the same time as they consult the authorities likely to be concerned by that plan, programme or project (…)’. It is worth noting that under Article 16 (6) of the Renewable Energy Directive [2] Member States are required to ensure that administrative and judicial appeals in the context of a renewable energy project and related infrastructure, including appeals related to environmental aspects, are subject to the most expeditious administrative and judicial procedure that is available at the relevant national, regional and local level. [1] COM(2025) 984 final. [2] Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 82, as amended by Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023, OJ L, 2023/2413, 31.10.2023.”
  Environmental crimes and justice · EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• 2026-05-08 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 8.5.2026 Written question The Commission does not intend to review the expired phase-out dates for the import, export and manufacture of mercury-containing lamps for general lighting purposes. Under Directive 2011/65/EU [1] the placing on the Union market and import of electrical and electronic equipment containing mercury is prohibited, subject to time-limited exemptions listed in Annex III. The exemptions for mercury-containing lamps used for general lighting expired between 2016 and February 2025. Certain exemptions for specific lamp categories, including high-pressure sodium lamps and special-purpose lamps, remain valid until February 2027, and renewal applications are currently under assessment. The revised Regulation (EU) 2024/1849 [2] aligns the regulation (EU) 2017/852 [3] with the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) framework. As a result, once a mercury-containing lamp category is no longer permitted on the EU market under RoHS, the corresponding restrictions on manufacture and export apply under the Mercury Regulation. The revision of the Mercury Regulation was supported by an impact assessment [4] , which examined technical, operational and economic aspects, including the feasibility of the measures and their timelines. [1] Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 88-110. [2] Regulation (EU) 2024/1849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/852 on mercury as regards dental amalgam and other mercury-added products subject to export, import and manufacturing restrictions (‘Mercury Regulation’), OJ L, 2024/1849, 10.7.2024. [3] Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008, OJ L 137, 24.5.2017, pp. 1-21. [4] SWD (2023) 396 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=SWD:2023:396:FIN.”
  Mercury
• 2026-05-08 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 8.5.2026 Written question The aim of the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulation [1] is to safeguard human health and the environment from the threats posed by POPs. This is achieved by prohibiting, swiftly phasing out, or restricting the manufacturing, placing on the market, and use of specific POPs. In this context, and to provide legal clarity and facilitate enforcement, the Commission is currently setting an unintentional trace contaminant (UTC) limit value for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). Pursuant to the objectives of the POPs Regulation, the Commission seeks to establish this limit value as low as is practically feasible. The Commission has analysed the impacts of the measure. When setting up a proposed UTC limit value for PCB, the Commission will take into account waste hierarchy principles, the expected decrease over time of PCB-content in input material, the technical feasibility of industrial processes to achieve such limit, the technical limitations of detection methods and the technical progress in analytical techniques. The Commission is also evaluating claims from Member States and stakeholders concerning analytical capabilities and is dedicated to ensuring that the UTC limit value matches advances in detection technologies and can be adequately enforced. [1] Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants (recast), OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, pp. 45-77.”
  Circular economy · Chemicals regulation
• 2026-05-08 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 8.5.2026 Written question Better implementation and enforcement of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) [1] is and will continue to be a priority for the Commission. The Commission is conducting Structured Water Dialogues with Member State to accelerate action on the ground. The call for evidence of the environmental omnibus highlighted possible problems in granting permits for the extractive industry, resulting from the WFD, hindering the achievement of the benchmarks for 2030 set out in the Critical Raw Materials Act [2] . These possible challenges arise against a backdrop of intensifying global competition for critical raw materials and the EU’s growing reliance on single suppliers, creating systemic economic security risks. This has led to a decision to review and revise the WFD. The online Call for Evidence [3] , which closed on 14 April 2026 , allowed all stakeholders to provide their views on this targeted revision. This will be complemented by ad hoc consultations of experts representing all interested parties in the context of the Strategic Coordination Group under the Common Implementation Strategy of the WFD. As for the specific meeting referred to by the Honourable Member, it had to be rescheduled on short notice since the President of the Commission called an emergency Security College focused on the evolving situation in Iran and the Middle East. The Commission will be conducting an Impact Assessment for the targeted revision of the WFD that will be based on the evidence provided by all stakeholders in the Call for Evidence as well as other sources, including extensive data provided by the European Environment Agency [4] . [1] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1-73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32-35. [2] Regulation (EU) 2024/1252 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1724 and (EU) 2019/1020, OJ L, 2024/1252, 3.5.2024. [3] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-launches-call-evidence-water-legislation-2026-03-17_en. [4] https://www.eea.europa.eu/en.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials · EU policy on water management
• 2026-05-08 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 8.5.2026 Written question The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIAD) [1] requires the competent authority to be satisfied that the reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of a project is up to date when taking a decision to grant development consent. If the state of the environment has changed between that conclusion and the time a consent is granted, the assessment may need to be updated. Hence, new information on significant environmental effects of the project must be considered during the development consent procedure. Regarding changes in environmental characteristics after development consent has been granted, the EIAD does not set a specific timeline for the implementation of the project. As outlined in the Water Resilience Strategy [2] , Member States must identify the most appropriate options to ensure water supply, based on an integrated strategy that balances demand and supply while considering climate impacts. They must also meet the objectives set out in the Water Framework Directive [3] (WFD). If the hydropower project in question is expected to lead to negative impacts, including on the Campolattaro reservoir [4] , it can only be authorised if justified according to the criteria set out in the WFD [5] . Regarding NextGenerationEU [6] funding, the Commission’s monitoring of the implementation of the Italian national recovery and resilience plan (RRP) is based on the requirements outlined in the annex to the Council Implementing Decision (CID) on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Italy [7] . Accordingly, the Commission assesses the specific characteristics of a given intervention in the context of the assessment of the milestone or target pertaining such intervention only where explicitly required by the CID Annex. [1] Article 8a(6) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codification), OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, as amended. [2] https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en. [3] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p.1. [4] The Campolattaro reservoir (water body ITF015LWLAGODICAMPOLATTARO) is reported under the Water Framework Directive as in unknown ecological potential in Italy’s third river basin management plan for the river basin ‘Appennino Meridionale’, with pressures due to urban wastewater, diffuse agricultural pollution, as well as damming and abstraction for agriculture, public water supply and industry. [5] Article 4(7) thereof, including all practicable mitigation measures. [6] https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/eu-borrower-investor-relations/nextgenerationeu_en. [7] ST 15106/25 + ADD 1 COR1- Annex to the Council Implementing Decision amending Implementing Decision of 13 July 2021 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Italy.”
  EU policy on water management · EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• 2026-05-07 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 7.5.2026 Written question The Commission published the guidance document [1] on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) [2] on 30 March 2026. The aim is to provide clarity to stakeholders ahead of the first implementation milestones. The possibility of allowing Member States to apply a transitional approach until at least the beginning of 2027 regarding the producer responsibility was examined by the Commission in cooperation with the responsible Member States’ committee on waste. The PPWR is directly applicable in Member States by 12 August 2026. However, in terms of extended producer responsibility, national implementing measures will be needed. In this context, the Member States have a margin of appreciation to take measures that accommodate for national circumstances in the implementation of the PPWR. [1] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/guidance-document-packaging-and-packaging-waste-regulation-ppwr_en. [2] Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU · Sustainable packaging
• 2026-05-07 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 7.5.2026 Written question The Commission is not informed on whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was undertaken for the project at stake. The construction of cycling paths could fall within the scope of Annex II, point 10 (infrastructure projects), letter (b) of the EIA Directive [1] . Under Article 4(2) of this directive, ‘Subject to Article 2(4), for projects listed in Annex II, Member States shall determine whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 […]’. Furthermore, according to Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive [2] , any project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. According to Article 6.4, if, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. Italy has transposed these provisions in its legislation [3] and has adopted national guidelines [4] to improve their application across its regions. Veneto has also transposed such guidelines into its regional legal order [5] . It is for the Italian competent authorities to apply the above rules and procedures to this project and to ensure that, if damage to a protected sites has occurred, it is adequately restored. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission may decide to intervene if systemic issues with application of these provisions of EU law arise [6] . [1] Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codification) OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1-21; Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment Text with EEA relevance OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1-18. [2] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206 22.7.1992, p. 7. [3] https://www.mase.gov.it/pagina/la-valutazione-di-incidenza-vinca#:~:text=Si%20tratta%20del%20processo%20d,di%20significativit%C3%A0%20di%20tali%20incidenze . [4] https://www.mase.gov.it/pagina/linee-guida-nazionali-la-valutazione-di-incidenza-vinca-direttiva-92-43-cee-habitat-articolo . [5] Legge regionale della Regione Veneto n. 12 del 27 maggio 2024 — Disciplina regionale in materia di valutazione ambientale strategica (VAS), valutazione di impatto ambientale (VIA), valutazione d'incidenza ambientale (VINCA) e autorizzazione integrata ambientale (AIA). [6] Communication of 19 January 2017 (EU law: Better results through better application — C/2016/8600, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10-20) and in the communication of 13 October 2022 COM(2022) 518 final — Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• 2026-05-07 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 7.5.2026 Written question The recycled content targets for single-use plastic (SUP) beverage bottles for 2025 and 2030 are laid down in the SUP Directive [1] and the Commission is empowered to adopt the necessary related implementing acts pursuant to Articles 6 (5) and 13(4), thereof . While the evaluation of the SUP Directive is ongoing, it is important to stress that the recycled content targets of the SUP Directive for beverage bottles will be repealed when the recycled content targets of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) [2] will apply (planned as of 1 January 2030). The responsible Comitology Committee recently issued a positive vote on a draft implementing act under the SUP Directive laying down technologically neutral rules for the calculation, verification and reporting of recycled content in SUP beverage bottles that are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as the major component [3] . This draft restricts recycled plastic to material that has been recycled in the EU until 21 November 2027. After that date, the geographic scope also includes Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries [4] and third countries with which the EU has bilateral arrangements ensuring the environmentally sound management of waste. There is sufficient supply of recycled PET (rPET) in the EU. Approximately 3.1 million tonnes of PET beverage bottles were placed on the EU market in 2022, while existing PET recycling capacity amounted to around 3.0 million tonnes [5] . To meet the 25% target in the SUP Directive for 2025, approximately 0.8 million tonnes of rPET are required. Under the PPWR, the Commission intends to adopt implementing and delegated acts on the calculation methodology, sustainability criteria and equivalence rules with third countries. [1] Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, OJ L 155, 12.6.2019, pp. 1-19. [2] Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025. [3] Comitology Register, Meeting CMTD(2026)166, https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/comitology-register/screen/meetings/CMTD%282026%29166. [4] To which the OECD Decision of the Council on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations (OECD/LEGAL/0266) applies. [5] Calculations of the Joint Research Centre (not published) based on data from Petcore Europe (PET Market in Europe: State of Play, 2024, https://www.petcore-europe.org/images/pet/PET_report_V3.pdf).”
  EU policy towards plastics · Circular economy
• 2026-05-07 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 7.5.2026 Written question Availability of complete and reliable data on status and trends of forest health, resources and disturbances is key to support the development of a resilient and sustainable forest bioeconomy and achieving biodiversity and climate mitigation and resilience policy objectives and targets. The forest monitoring law proposal [1] was intended to improve such data . However, since the European Parliament did not give this proposal the necessary support , the Commission announced its intention to withdraw the proposal. The Commission remains committed to a robust EU-wide knowledge base for effective and efficient action in response to growing pressures such as droughts, wildfires or pest outbreaks. In line with the EU Forest Strategy for 2030 [2] , the Commission will strengthen the monitoring of climate effects and other natural or human induced disturbances on forests as part of the Forest Information System for Europe [3] . A forest science partnership has been set up to support the development of new methods for indicator monitoring based on remote sensing, with a focus on the existing EU policy framework. Furthermore, the Commission just published new guidelines to future-proof Natura 2000 sites against climate change [4] , and it plans to improve in its forthcoming European climate resilience framework [5] the overall monitoring of progress towards climate resilience and adaptation. Yet, it is too early to tell whether this framework will include a specific focus on forests. Under Horizon Europe [6] , a co-funded research and innovation partnership on Forests and Forestry for a Sustainable Future [7] has been proposed which will also support the improvement and alignment of forest monitoring in Europe. [1] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-forest-monitoring-framework_en. [2] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/forest-strategy_en. [3] FISE : https://forest.eea.europa.eu/. [4] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/guidance-adapting-natura-2000-sites-climate-change_en. [5] https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/adaptation-and-resilience-climate-change_en. [6] https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/horizon-europe_en. [7] https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-15.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Management of EU forests
• 2026-05-07 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 7.5.2026 Written question The Seveso III Directive [1] covers establishments where dangerous substances may be present in quantities exceeding certain thresholds. Member States have to ensure that their operators take all necessary measures to prevent major accidents and to limit their consequences for human health and the environment [2] . They must prove, at any time, that they have taken these measures, in particular for the purpose of inspections, which Member States have to perform [3] . Based on the information at the disposal of the Commission, such requirements do not apply to the concerned factory [4] . In 2023, Greece reported on its implementation of the Seveso III Directive for 2019-2022 [5] and indicated that 232 inspections were carried out for Seveso establishments during the reporting period [6] , also highlighting that the implementation of inspections was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic [7] . The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Directives [8] set minimum requirements for the health and safety protection of workers, requiring employers to evaluate all occupational risks and to put in place preventive and protective measures. Members States have a primary responsibility to monitor the application of these legal provisions and to take the necessary steps for enforcement . The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, monitors the situation and may decide to take appropriate action. It aims to follow up swiftly on systemic issues involving the application of EU law [9] in EU countries. However, one-off instances are better addressed at national level, provided there are available remedies, including judicial ones. In such cases, it is up to the national courts to apply and enforce citizens' rights under EU law. [1] Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC, OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 1 . [2] Article 5 of the Seveso III Directive. [3] Article 20 of the Seveso III Directive. [4] This factory has indeed not been reported by the Greek authorities as being covered by the Seveso III Directive. [5] Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and efficient functioning of Directive 2012/18/EU on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances for the period 2019-2022, COM/2025/508 final. [6] 104 visits were carried out for upper-tier establishments and 128 visits for lower-tier establishments. [7] The next reporting on the implementation of the directive is planned in 2027 for the period 2023-2026. [8] Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1, Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens, mutagens or reprotoxic substances at work (CMRD), OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p 50, Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11. [9] https://commission.europa.eu/law/application-eu-law/implementing-eu-law/infringement-procedure_en.”
  EU competences on social policies · EU rules on hazardous working conditions
• 2026-05-07 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 7.5.2026 Written question Member States shall establish an integrated, adequate network for the recovery of mixed municipal waste and for waste disposal [1] . This network shall enable the EU as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste management. Member States shall also move towards that aim individually. The Waste Shipment Regulation [2] imposes strict rules on shipments for recovery of mixed municipal waste and refuse-derived fuels processed from such waste. Shipments of such waste destined for disposal shall be prohibited according to the regulation [3] . Other refuse-derived fuels are subject to prior consent procedures in most Member States. The impacts on health do not determine if the practices are recovery or disposal [4] . All waste management shall be carried out without risks to health and environment [5] . Waste-derived fuels subject to incineration or co-incineration fall under the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) [6] . Plants performing activities listed in Annex 1 to the IED must operate in accordance with permits based on Best Available Techniques [7] . National authorities and the judiciary are primarily responsible to ensure that EU law is properly implemented and better placed to carry out investigations in individual cases such as this. [1] Article 16 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3-30, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 109-140. [2] Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on shipments of waste, amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 2020/1056 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, OJ L, 2024/1157, 30.4.2024. [3] Article 4(3) of the Waste Shipment Regulation. [4] Article 3(15), 3(19) and Annex II of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, as amended. [5] Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, as amended. [6] Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17-119. [7] Best Available Techniques (BAT) means the most effective and advanced techniques, developed on a scale allowing implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions.”
  Industrial emissions directive (IED) · Circular economy
• 2026-05-06 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 6.5.2026 Written question The Commission is not informed about any situation in relation to the San Gregorio military training ground that could jeopardise other activities taking place near the city of Zaragoza. The San Gregorio military training ground indeed overlaps with two sites in the Natura 2000 network, namely the special area of conservation ‘El Castellar’ (ES2430080), designated under the provisions of the Habitats Directive [1] , and the special protection area ‘Montes de Zuera, Castejón de Valdejasa y El Castellar’ (ES0000293), designated under the provisions of the Birds Directive [2] . The overlap of military grounds and Natura 2000 sites is not prohibited by EU law. There are numerous examples across Europe of Natura 2000 sites in military areas that sustain valuable biodiversity and several LIFE projects under the EU programme for the environment and climate action [3] have supported this over the years [4] . In the case of the San Gregorio training ground, it is the responsibility of the competent national or, if applicable, regional authorities, to determine the compatibility between the military activities and the conservation objectives of these sites. [1] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50. [2] Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7-25. [3] LIFE : https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en. [4] For instance LIFE NATURARMY (FR) https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/LIFE18-GIE-FR-001029/to-promote-and-strengthen-the-army-as-a-natura-2000-site-manager-in-france-and-in-europe; LIFE21-GIE-PL-INF-ARMY (PL) https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/LIFE21-GIE-PL-INF-ARMY-101074108/supporting-users-of-military-areas-in-the-management-of-natura-2000-sites; MILITAIRE GEBIEDEN (BE) https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/LIFE03-NAT-B-000024/integrated-restoration-of-natural-habitats-on-military-areas-in-natura-2000; VATTAJAN DYYNI LIFE (FI) https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/LIFE05-NAT-FIN-000104/restoration-of-dune-and-coastal-habitats-in-the-vattaja-military-area; ZAHORIE SANDS (SK) https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/LIFE06-NAT-SK-000115/restoration-and-management-of-sand-dunes-habitats-in-zahorie-military-training-area; HUNGARIAN LITTLE PLAIN (HU) https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/LIFE08-NAT-H-000289/restoration-and-conservation-of-priority-listed-pannonic-sand-land-habitats-in-military-owned-area-of-the-hungarian-little-plain.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-05-06 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 6.5.2026 Written question Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive [1] aims at safeguarding the continued ecological functionality (CEF) of breeding sites and resting places of species listed in Annex IV(a). Measures to ensure CEF [2] must have the character of preventive mitigation measures [3] . They may also include measures that actively improve or manage a certain breeding site or resting place in such a way that it does not suffer from a reduction or loss of ecological functionality. The preventive nature of the measures implies that they must be effective before the activity with the expected impact is carried out. If such measures cannot ensure the continued ecological functionality of the site concerned, the activity requires a derogation under Article 16. Implementing CEF measures is a way to comply with the requirements of Article 12 of the directive and avoid the need for a derogation under Article 16. A possible delay of the project caused by the implementation of CEF measures is per se not a valid justification to put in question an alternative solution in the meaning of Article 16. It is rather for the project developer to avoid possible delays of the project by considering compliance with the species protection requirements at an early stage of the planning process. While the Commission considers that national instruments such as a state-managed species protection fund may contribute to the maintenance and restoration of the favourable conservation status of species, it notes that such a fund should be established in a way that respects the requirements of Article 16 of the directive and complies with the EU Treaty principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay [4] . [1] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50. [2] As described in Commission notice ‘Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive’, C/2021/7301 final. [3] i.e. measures minimising or even cancelling out the negative impact to a high degree of certainty. [4] Article 191 (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• 2026-05-06 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 6.5.2026 Written question The brown bear is a strictly protected species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive [1] . However, it is possible to derogate from the strict protection regime if the conditions set in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive are fulfilled. Member States may rely on derogations to pursue public interests such as preventing serious damage to crops or livestock or public health and safety if there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to maintaining the species populations in a favourable conservation status. The correct implementation of the derogations is the primary responsibility of the national authorities, including judicial ones. Romania is home to an increasing bear population and, according to the latest data for the 2019-2024 period, the conservation status of the bear is favourable in both biogeographical regions (Alpine and Continental) where it occurs. A recent study carried out at national level [2] shows that Romania’s bear population increased from a mean population of approximately 6 300 individuals in 2007-2012 to above 11 600 in 2023. The same study, as well as official communication from the authorities, shows an increasing trend in bear habituation cases and bear attacks [3] and thus increasing risks for the health and safety of people in certain areas of the country. So far there is no evidence that the prevention and intervention quotas that Romania has been applying in recent years have had a negative impact on the favourable conservation status of the species. The Commission continues to monitor closely the use of derogations as well as the conservation status of Romania’s bear population. [1] Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the protection of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. [2] https://mmediu.ro/storage/2025/12/Raportul-sintetic-al-studiului-privind-zonarea-managementului-speciei-urs-brun.pdf. [3] According to the Emergency Ordinance 60/2025 there were 300 bear attacks over the past 20 years in which 26 people were killed . 11 of these people were killed in the last five years.”
  Large Carnivores
• 2026-04-24 “E-000987/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Article 5 of the Birds Directive 1 requires Member States to establish the general system of protection prohibiting, among other actions, the deliberate killing or capture by any method of individuals of all wild birds in the EU, including the red kite (Milvus milvus). Also, the red kite is listed in Annex I of the Directive, which means that it must be subject to special conservation measures concerning their habitat, and Member States must classify special protection areas for its conservation. The Commission considers that the new data on illegal killing of red kites and other birds of prey provided by the LIFE EUROKITE project under the EU programme for the environment and climate action 2 are important and must be given the necessary attention by the competent authorities in the affected Member States, who are primarily responsible for the correct implementation of the Directive. The Commission actively promotes cooperation, monitoring and data collection on bird protection among Member States, mainly through dialogue with national authorities, including in the framework of the Nature Directives Expert Group and its Task Force on the Recovery of Birds. In 2023, the Commission published a review of good practices on prevention in relation to combatting the illegal killing, taking of and trade in birds in the EU 3 . On 31 March 2026, the Commission adopted the guidance document on the general system of protection of bird species under Articles 5 and 9 of the Directive 4 . This interpretative guidance clarifies legal provisions and compiles the applicable case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to assist Member States in their implementation and enforcement actions. 1 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7–25. 2 https://www.life-eurokite.eu/. 3 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3287d532-fdd4-11ed-a05c-01aa75ed71a1. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_760.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Environmental crimes and justice
• 2026-04-24 “E-000864/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Nitrates Directive 1 requires Member States to implement action programmes ensuring that farmers adhere to good practices for the use of fertilisers in areas vulnerable to nitrate pollution with the aim of reducing and preventing further such pollution. Pollution is defined as a situation where nitrate concentrations in surface or groundwater exceed 50 mg/l or could exceed this limit if no action is taken, or where surface waters suffer from eutrophication. The EU threshold for nitrates in drinking water remains 50 mg/l 2 , but Member States are free to set stricter standards to protect public health. The Commission closely follows the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in the Member States. Based on their reports for 2020-2023, an EU summary report is currently in preparation. The Commission is finalising an evaluation of the Directive, expected later in 2026. The Commission is in contact with national authorities and has over the years initiated numerous infringement proceedings to ensure effective enforcement of the Directive. Also, the Common Agricultural Policy 3 provides Member States several tools to support farmers towards sustainable nutrients management. The Commission is not conducting scientific studies on individual cancer risk factors and their social costs but supports Member States in their efforts to improve cancer prevention, early detection and care through Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan 4 . Relevant actions addressing colorectal cancer include the European Code Against Cancer 5 , the EU-funded Joint Action EUCanScreen 6 , the development of European guidelines and a quality assurance scheme for colorectal cancer prevention, screening and treatment. 1 Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, pp. 1–8. 2 Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast), OJ L 435, 23.12.2020, pp. 1–62. 3 Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013, OJ L 435, 6.12.2021, pp. 1–186. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/public-health/european-health-union/cancer-plan-europe_en. 5 https://cancer-code-europe.iarc.who.int/. 6 https://eucanscreen.eu/.”
  Use of fertilisers · Water pollution · Groundwater Directive
• 2026-04-24 “E-000567/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission In response to the challenges facing the plastics recycling sector, the Commission adopted, in December 2025, a communication with a package of measures to accelerate Europe’s transition to a circular economy 1 . In the responsible Comitology Committee, the Commission secured the necessary support from Member States on new rules on recycled content in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic beverage bottles under the Single-Use Plastics Directive 2 on 6 February 2026 3 . The draft act is currently on its way to be adopted. These measures are expected to strengthen the sector’s competitiveness and support the functioning of the internal market. Moreover, Article 7(10) of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation 4 establishes safeguards to ensure that imported plastic recyclates are subject to equivalent conditions regarding emissions, separate collection, and sustainability criteria for recycling technologies. The detailed rules will be set out in an implementing act planned to be adopted by the end of 2026. Similar provisions have been included in the provisionally agreed End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation 5 . The Commission seeks to strike a balance between boosting demand and ensuring a sustainable supply of recycled materials. Upcoming initiatives are designed to support this objective. The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation 6 further provides enabling conditions through circularity requirements related to recyclability and recycled content. 1 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/communication-accelerating-europes-transition-circulareconomy-boosting-circularity-plastics_en; specific measures include: creation of separate customs codes for virgin and recycled plastics, monitoring efforts for EU and global markets for virgin and recycled plastics which will inform potential trade measures to ensure fair competition between EU-produced and imported plastics, investigations whenever evidence shows that EU industries are suffering injury from dumped or subsidised imports. Investigations continue where necessary, taking inspiration from the successful safeguard action in the steel sector. These measures complement anti-dumping duties on China and anti-subsidy duties on India, covering both recycled and virgin PET. 2 Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, OJ L 155, 12.6.2019, p. 1–19. 3 Comitology Register, Meeting CMTD(2026)166, https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/comitologyregister/screen/meetings/CMTD%282026%29166. 4 Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025. 5 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-circularity-requirements-vehicle-design-andmanagement-end-life-vehicles_en. 6 Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC, OJ L, 2024/1781, 28.6.2024.”
  Circular economy · EU policy towards plastics
• 2026-04-24 “E-000499/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Floods Directive 1 requires EU countries to carry out a preliminary flood risk assessment, prepare flood hazard and risk maps, and establish flood risk management plans, but the Commission does not assess whether concrete projects increase the risk of floods as this is not required under the legislation. Case-law from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2 indicates that, before a project affecting a water body is authorised, it must be shown that the project will not jeopardise the achievement of good ecological status in the affected water body or lead to the deterioration of the status of any of the quality elements defined by the WFD, including morphological conditions, unless an exemption on grounds of overriding public interest under Article 4(7) of the WFD applies. According to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 3 , any plan or project likely to have a significant negative effect on a Natura 2000 site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, must be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. It can only be approved if it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. Exceptions to this obligation may be accepted under the conditions established in Article 6(4). Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, it is primarily the responsibility of the Greek authorities to ensure compliance with EU environmental law. 1 Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood, OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27–34. 2 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 3 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50.”
  EU policy on water management · Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.)
• 2026-04-23 “E-000812/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission does not check itself the implementation of projects funded by co-funded partnerships like Biodiversa+ 1 but ensures that mechanisms are in place to meet criteria for excellent research, including for statistics. The implementation of TransWILD 2 is being supervised by the relevant Biodiversa+ Call Steering Committee, while the Research Executive Agency 3 oversees the implementation of Biodiversa+ under the supervision of the Commission. Co-funded partnerships pool resources from different partners to achieve common objectives, avoiding duplication of efforts. Biodiversa+ is co-funded by national research funding organisations (70%) and by Horizon Europe 4 framework programme (30%). The EU contribution to the budget of TransWILD amounts to a maximum of EUR 360 000. While the Commission cannot precisely comment on the details of statistical methodologies applied, using existing data is relevant for research activities. The TransWILD project was selected through a competitive and independent process and awarded under the 2021-2022 call on ‘Supporting the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems across land and sea’. While the change to the Habitats Directive 5 entails greater flexibility for the management of the wolf, the species remains protected. Member States have to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the wolf achieves and maintains favourable conservation status. Therefore, investments in appropriate prevention measures remain essential to reduce livestock predation. The Commission continues to help Member States and stakeholders in the design and implementation of such measures through funding and other forms of support 6 . 1 https://www.biodiversa.eu/. 2 https://www.biodiversa.eu/2023/04/19/transwild/. 3 https://rea.ec.europa.eu/index_en. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/horizon-europe_en. 5 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 6 Including Common Agricultural Policy interventions (https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agriculturalpolicy_en), research projects funded by Horizon Europe (e.g., https://cocoproject.eu/) and the EU programme for the environment and climate action (e.g., https://www.lifewildwolf.com/) that develop strategies for coexistence and prevention measures.”
  Large Carnivores
• 2026-04-23 “E-000914/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The proposal for a Regulation on a monitoring framework for resilient European forests 1 was rejected by the European Parliament on 21 October 2025 and the Council of Ministers envisaged significant modifications affecting the objectives of the proposal. Consequently, the Commission announced its intention to withdrawal. EU action on climate, biodiversity and circular economy as well as their benefits inherently relate to natural ecosystems, including forests. The proposal aimed to set up an EU-wide forest monitoring system on forest ecosystems and resources in the EU for accurate, timely and comparable data on forests across the EU, in view of increasing pressures and stressors, and their cross-border impacts. By improving and combining national monitoring systems with satellite-based Earth observation, the system would have: (i) supported public authorities in evidence-based policymaking, (ii) provided stakeholders with accurate information for effective decisionmaking, (iii) supported new business models such as the certification of carbon farming schemes, (iv) supported new markets for digital monitoring services. It did not touch on forest management. The EU has a variety of competences shared with Member States that address forests and forestry, including climate, environment and agriculture policies. The Union has repeatedly exercised these competences respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. In exercising the shared competences, the Commission is working in close cooperation with Member States’ competent authorities and stakeholders, respecting subsidiarity and based on the adequate legal basis. 1 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-forest-monitoring-framework_en.”
  Management of EU forests
• 2026-04-23 “E-000372/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission In response to requests for a coordinated approach in managing cormorant-fisheries conflicts, the Commission discussed with Member States in October 2025 1 to give mandate to the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) secretariat to develop an international single-species management plan for the Great Cormorant, promoting cooperation across its flyway. Due to lack of consensus among Member States delegates at the ninth meeting of the Parties 2 , the EU could not put forward the proposal. On 31 March 2026, the Commission adopted guidance on the protection of birds 3 , including ways to address conflicts with the Great Cormorant. In 2026, the Commission will stress test the Birds 4 and Habitats 5 Directives to evaluate whether they remain fit to achieve their objectives in a cost-efficient way. Additionally, it will continue the structured dialogue with Member States and encourage the coordination of measures consistent with EU legislation on the management of the impact of the Great Cormorant. While the Commission acknowledges that the work undertaken by the European Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Advisory Commission 6 provides information that is valuable for the coordination of action among Member States, it considers that the negotiation and agreement of a management plan should take place within AEWA. Work has started on a document providing recommendations and good practices on prevention and mitigation of the impact of main predators on aquaculture, including species that are proliferating due to climate change. The scope of this document in terms of species of predators covered is still under discussion and will depend on available information for the management of the respective species. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=66824. 2 AEWA MOP9, 10-14/11/2025, Bonn, Germany. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_760. 4 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7–25. 5 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 6 The project was supported with a grant under the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-investment/emfaf_en.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-04-21 “E-000715/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Pursuant to Article 17 of the Habitats Directive 1 , Member States are requested to report the population of species protected under the Directive every 6 years. Following the receipt of the data, the Commission has asked follow-up questions to a number of Member States as regards the alignment with the Habitats Directive, including Sweden. The reported value of 170 wolves as the favourable reference population (FRP) raises questions regarding its scientific underpinning. In the 2025 report of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) 2 , the value of 170 individual wolves reflects a minimum viable population (MVP) estimate 3 . A scientifically sound FRP is, by definition, higher than the MVP to ensure long-term population viability 4 . In the previous report in 2019, the FRP value for the Swedish wolf population had been set at 300 individual wolves. The Commission proposed, in March 2025, an amendment to modify the protection status of the wolf under the Habitats Directive from ‘strictly protected’ to ‘protected’. This gives additional flexibility to Member States in managing their local wolf populations, including by taking measures that are well adapted to regional circumstances, including in areas with specific challenges linked to population density and human activity. This amendment entered into force in July 2025 5 . Even after a change in status, it follows from Article 14 of the Habitats Directive, that Member States should take measures to ensure that the species concerned are maintained at a favourable conservation status, with sufficient flexibility to ensure effective and balanced management in practice. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 2 As stated in the SEPA report of 13 March 2025: ’the minimum viable population (MVP) for the Swedish part of the Scandinavian wolf population is approximately 170 individuals’ and the FRP ‘needs to be greater than 170’. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/49421e/globalassets/om-oss/slutredovisaderegeringsuppdrag/slutredovisning-ru-forvaltningsatgarder-for-varg-li202402201.pdf. 3 The MVP is the minimum population level required to minimise the extinction risk over a defined time frame. By contrast, the FRP is the population level ensuring that the species fulfils its ecological role in its natural habitat and range and is viable in the long term, considering uncertainties. To account for these uncertainties and for the precautionary principle, standard scientific practice is to calculate FRP by applying a multiplier to the MVP. Sweden previously applied a multiplier of 2, or 2 to 3. 4 Guidelines on concepts and definitions, Article 17 of Directive 92/43/EEC, Reporting period 2019-2024, page 25, https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/habitats_art17/Reporting2025/Final%20Guidelines%20Art.%2017_20192024.pdf/ . 5 Directive (EU) 2025/1237 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2025 amending Council Directive 92/43/EEC as regards the protection status of the wolf (Canis lupus), OJ L, 2025/1237, 24.6.2025.”
  Large Carnivores
• 2026-04-17 “P-001121/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Environmental Crime Directive (ECD) 1 entered into force on 20 May 2024 and must be transposed in national law by 21 May 2026. All Member States bound by the Directive are obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure that its objectives are achieved. Article 3(1) last sub-paragraph of the ECD referred to by the Honourable Member is part of the definition of unlawful conduct under the Directive. Firstly, it clarifies that a conduct is considered unlawful if a relevant authorisation is obtained fraudulently, or by corruption, extortion or coercion. Secondly, it provides that where an authorisation is in manifest breach of relevant substantive legal requirements, the holder is not exempt from criminal liability. Operators who act in good faith are not covered by this provision. Only those who rely on manifestly unlawful authorisations and damage the environment or human health may be liable to criminal prosecution, if their breach is substantial and obvious. Recital 10 of the Directive clarifies that this provision is not intended to shift from the competent authorities to operators the burden to ensure legality of authorisations. In order to fully and correctly transpose the ECD, the Member States bound by it must ensure that their national law considers a conduct carried out under an authorisation unlawful, if such an authorisation is in manifest breach of substantive relevant legal requirements. 1 Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC, OJ L, 2024/1203, 30.4.2024.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Environmental crimes and justice
• 2026-04-16 “E-000582/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Water Reuse Regulation 1 enables the safe reuse of treated urban wastewater in agriculture through harmonised minimum water quality requirements, while allowing Member States to limit or ban it in certain areas 2 . Progress will be assessed through Member States’ first ever data reports, due by June 2026, also feeding into the Commission’s evaluation of the Regulation by 2028. Water reuse is an important component of the Water Resilience Strategy 3 , and facilitating the implementation of this Regulation is essential to achieving the objectives of the Water Framework Directive 4 and climate adaptation by reducing pressures on surface and groundwater. Under the Common Implementation Strategy 5 of that Directive, a dedicated working group is supporting implementation at national level. Further to its guidelines on minimum requirements for water reuse of 2022 6 and the Delegated Act on risk management 7 , the Commission continues to work with that working group and national experts to identify implementation challenges and further guidance needs. The Commission also facilitates the application of the rules through dialogue with authorities and stakeholders, and the exchange of best practises via workshops, events, publications, and capacity building support 8 . Targeted funding through existing frameworks like the Recovery and Resilience Facility 9 , Horizon Europe 10 , the Common Agricultural Policy 11 and the Cohesion Policy 12 can support 1 Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 on minimum requirements for water reuse, OJ L 177, 5.6.2020, p. 32–55. 2 For reasons linked to geographical and climatic conditions. 3 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en. 4 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 5 Common Implementation Strategy for water policy – Working Group on Water Reuse: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/3eaafe7c-0857-47d4-a8968022df48d3ba. 6 Commission Notice Guidelines to support the application of Regulation 2020/741 on minimum requirements for water reuse 2022/C 298/01, OJ C 298, 5.8.2022, pp. 1–55. 7 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1765 of 11 March 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to technical specifications of the key elements of risk management, OJ L, 2024/1765, 20.6.2024. 8 EU Water Academy – Water Resilience Strategy (capacity-building): https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/water-academy_en. 9 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/recovery-and-resiliencefacility_en. 10 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/horizon-europe_en. Notably, on tackling barriers to scaling up circular water management in agriculture: https://cordis.europa.eu/programme/id/HORIZON_HORIZON-CL6-2025-02-FARM2FORK-03. 11 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy_en. 12 Cohesion Policy – particularly the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund - supports targeted investment in treated wastewater reuse projects for non-agricultural purposes. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/investment-policy_en.”
  EU policy on water management · Water pollution
• 2026-04-13 “E-000689/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission aims to take action against over-implementation – or ‘gold-plating’ – by making increased use of regulations instead of directives, and by enforcing the free movement rules 1 . However, in the area of environment, according to Article 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States may maintain or introduce more stringent protective measures than what is required by EU law, provided that such measures are in compliance with the Treaty. Based on the limited information available, the Commission does not find that the situation outlined by the Honourable Member necessarily involves disproportionate application or over-implementation of EU law. Generally, detailed licensing conditions are left to the Member States and are not laid out in EU environmental legislation. The Commission is fully committed to the objective of simplification and to ‘stress test’ EU legislation to remove unjustified burdens. The Commission aims to ensure that EU law strikes the right balance between environmental protection and other EU objectives, including competitiveness and public interest goals. For example, the environmental assessment and permitting rules include several overriding public interest exceptions 2 . 1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/nl/statement_26_405. 2 In the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Habitats Directive, and the Water Framework Directive. See Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codification) Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, pp. 1–21; Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, pp. 7–50; and Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, pp. 1–73.”
  EU policy on pesticides · Agriculture (green)
• 2026-04-13 “E-000698/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Projects not directly connected to the management of a Natura 2000 site, but likely to have a significant effect on it 1 , must be subject to an appropriate assessment to evaluate its impact in view of the site’s conservation objectives 2 . Projects may only be authorised if no significant impact is detected. This concerns any project likely to have an impact, even if located outside a Natura 2000 site, as is the case for the planned incineration plant. According to publicly available documents 3 , the project will not have significant impacts on nearby Natura 2000 sites 4 . Competent authorities must consider all the polluting substances, scientifically recognised as harmful, that an installation emits before granting a permit 5 including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) emissions, even if these were not included in the relevant best available techniques (BAT) 6 conclusions for the activity concerned. The Commission is working to determine current and future techniques to avoid or reduce PFAS emissions that could be applied in installations covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive 7 . The Innovation Centre for Industrial Transformation and Emissions 8 helps gathering knowledge on PFAS 9 . The Commission agrees that disposal operations undermine the circular economy by hampering the supply of valuable secondary raw materials. Disposal shall only be a last resort option according to the waste hierarchy 10 . With the forthcoming Circular Economy Act 11 , the Commission is assessing ways to maintain and improve incentives to move waste away from incineration. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 12 also encourages the recovery of sludge in accordance with the waste hierarchy. 1 Alone or in combination with other plans or projects. 2 According to Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. 3 On the Regione Veneto portal: https://sharing.regione.veneto.it/index.php/s/WRezFgeiEFHwLf4. 4 Namely, sites ‘Delta del Po (IT3270023)’ and ‘Delta del Po: tratto terminale e delta Veneto (IT3270017)’. 5 Case 626/22 of the Court of Justice of the EU, https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document?source=document&docid=287503&doclang=EN. 6 Best available techniques (BAT) means the most effective and advanced techniques, developed on a scale allowing implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions. 7 Directive (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 OJ L, 15.7.2024. 8 https://innovation-centre-for-industrial-transformation.ec.europa.eu/. 9 necessary before launching a revision of the relevant BAT conclusions. 10 Set out in Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3–30, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 109–140 and Directive (EU) 2025/1892 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 September 2025 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, OJ L, 2025/1892, 26.9.2025. 11 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy_en. 12 Directive (EU) 2024/3019 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 concerning urban wastewater treatment (recast), OJ L, 2024/3019, 12.12.2024, Article 20.”
  Industrial emissions directive (IED) · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-04-10 “P-001000/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission At this stage, the Commission does not have up-to-date cost estimates for implementing Articles 4 to 13 of the Nature Restoration Regulation 1 , broken down by Member State. The Nature Restoration Regulation includes a significant number of flexibilities for Member States and allows them to take into account also measures which are already ongoing and budgeted. Not least for that reason, exchanges with Member States have highlighted that estimates about costs and the related eventual funding gaps will depend significantly on how Member States implement the Nature Restoration Regulation and, therefore, on the content of the draft national restoration plans which Member States will finalise by September 2026. The Commission will continue to work with Member States on the matter going forward. The current Multiannual Financial Framework 2 provides a number of opportunities to fund nature restoration. In addition, the Commission has presented a number of measures to address possible funding gaps. First, the Commission proposal for the next EU long-term budget 3 sets an ambitious target of 35% of spending for climate and environment objectives, with the aim of mobilising over EUR 700 billion between 2028 and 2034. In particular, the national and regional partnership plans provide to consider the national restoration plans, as set out in Article 22(2)(a) of the proposal. Secondly, the Commission is also working to facilitate the mobilisation of complementary private investment, and has presented a Roadmap to develop nature credit schemes 4 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869, OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027_en. 3 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/env/items/892839/en.”
  Agricultural funding · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-04-10 “E-000259/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The tethering requirement for caps of single-use plastic beverage containers under the SingleUse Plastic (SUP) Directive 1 was introduced because caps were found on EU beaches more than twice as often as the containers themselves 2 . In combination with the separate collection targets for SUP beverage bottles it aims to reduce littering and increase recycling of the caps. In line with the Better Regulation guidelines 3 , the Commission conducted an impact assessment before the adoption of the proposal for the SUP Directive, including stakeholder consultations 4 . Beverage containers holding liquid food for special medical purposes 5 are exempted from the tethering requirement. The harmonised standard for test methods to demonstrate that plastic caps and lids remain attached to beverage containers that was developed by the European Committee for Standardisation 6 takes into account the safety of the containers’ closures during their intended use. In view of the upcoming evaluation of the SUP Directive (due by 3 July 2027), the Commission has launched a call for evidence and an open public consultation 7 , inviting all interested stakeholders to share their experience with the different measures of the Directive, including the tethered caps design requirement. The evaluation will assess the effectiveness of the Directive and provide evidence on whether the expected environmental benefits have been achieved, as well as on any safety and usability issues that may have arisen. 1 Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 155, 12.6.2019, p. 1–19. 2 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment ‘Reducing Marine Litter: action on single use plastics and fishing gear Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment’, Annex 3 (Current situation: Facts and Figures). 3 https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation_en. 4 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment ‘Reducing Marine Litter: action on single use plastics and fishing gear Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment’, part 1-3. 5 As defined in point (g) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on food intended for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes, and total diet replacement for weight control and repealing Council Directive 92/52/EEC, Commission Directives 96/8/EC, 1999/21/EC, 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC, Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 41/2009 and (EC) No 953/2009. 6 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/1060 of 30 May 2023 on a harmonised standard for test methods and requirements to demonstrate that plastic caps and lids remain attached to beverage containers drafted in support of Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 7 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14422-Rules-on-single-use-plasticsand-fishing-gear-evaluation-_en.”
  EU policy towards plastics · Sustainable packaging
• 2026-04-10 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 10.4.2026 Written question The Commission assessed the feasibility of a 100% reuse target for pallet wrappings and straps used for transport within the same Member State or within the same company, through a dedicated study [1] . The study concluded that the exclusive use of reusable options in 2030 could undermine transport safety and lead to disproportionate costs. On this basis, and pursuant to Article 29(18)(a) of Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation [2] (PPWR), the Commission has adopted a Delegated Act [3] exempting the use of pallet wrappings and straps from economic operators under Article 29(2 and 3). Under Article 30(3), for the 40% target, the Commission shall adopt an implementing act establishing the methodology for calculating compliance with the reuse targets [4] by 30 June 2027. The work on the methodology is already underway and aims to be simple and proportionate, minimising administrative burden [5] while fully considering hygiene and food safety considerations. In that context, the Commission will look at the availability of reusable solutions at scale and beyond pallets wrappings and straps. In addition, Article 29(13) provides for exemptions for micro-enterprises and operators placing no more than one tonne of packaging on the market per year, thereby avoiding disproportionate impacts on smaller companies. [1] https://op.europa.eu/s/Ada1, page 13. [2] Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025. [3] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/commission-delegated-decision-exempting-certain-economic-operators-use-pallet-wrappings-and-straps_en. [4] The reuse target allows operators flexibility in organising their operations. For example, they may use reusable wrappings for shorter intra-EU transport and single-use wrappings for longer distances or combine single-use pallet wrappings with other reusable transport formats listed in Article 29(1), while still meeting the overall 40% reuse target. [5] For instance, by taking advantage of d igitalisation.”
  Circular economy · Sustainable packaging
• 2026-04-10 “E-000648/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission E-scooters fall under the definition of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), as per the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive 1 . Member States must ensure that EEE producers fulfill their extended producer responsibility to finance and organise separate collection and treatment of such waste. All EEE producers must be registered in every Member State where they place EEE on the market and report the quantity of EEE placed on that market. Member States report annually to the Commission such quantities and the amounts collected, prepared for re-use, recycled, and recovered. This includes WEEE treated in another Member State or outside the EU. Some Member States have set out rules on penalties applicable to infringements of national provisions on WEEE management. Member States have individually taken action specific to their national circumstances to reduce the number of non-compliant producers 2 . Regarding light means of transport (LMT) batteries, many provisions of the Batteries Regulation 3 have not yet started to apply, such as those on due diligence, labelling and battery passport. The Commission has no indication from market surveillance authorities that there are significant compliance problems with those provisions that already do apply. The WEEE Directive specifies the rules for WEEE shipments, inspection and monitoring, and distinguishes between used EEE and WEEE to prevent illegal WEEE exports. As per the Waste Shipment Regulation 4 , the export of WEEE from the EU to non-Members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is prohibited. The export of WEEE from the EU to OECD countries is subject to the prior notification and consent procedure. 1 Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast), OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 38–71. 2 More details are available in the Commission SWD(2025) 184 final on the evaluation of the WEEE Directive. 3 Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries, amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Directive 2006/66/EC, OJ L 191, 28.7.2023, p. 1–117. 4 Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on shipments of waste, amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 2020/1056 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, OJ L, 2024/1157, 30.4.2024.”
  Sustainability of batteries regulation · Circular economy
• 2026-04-07 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 7.4.2026 Written question The omnibus package [1] aims to reduce administrative burdens and reporting obligations while streamlining environmental procedures. It does not seek to affect the environmental objectives of the underlying legislation. The Commission proposal provides [2] that certain projects in strategic sectors or categories shall be considered to be of public interest and may be considered to have an overriding public interest and to serve public health and safety [3] . Member States may restrict this application to certain territories, types of technology or projects with certain technical characteristics. Competent authorities will need to assess projects on a case-by-case basis to consider their ‘overriding’ public interest and the absence of alternative solutions. Regarding the Industrial Emissions Directive [4] , its core elements remain unchanged, with Commission proposals focusing on simplification without compromising its objectives. The Substances of Concern in articles or in Products (SCIP) database has been considered ineffective and costly, as waste operators struggle with its complex information requirements. Regulation (EU) 2025/2455 [5] (One Substance One Assessment) introduces the Common Data Platform on Chemicals, which will incorporate data from the SCIP database. Regarding the revision of the Water Framework Directive [6] , in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines [7] , the Commission will conduct a proportionate impact assessment and consultation process ensuring that proposals are evidence-based. A call for evidence has been launched [8] . [1] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/simplification-administrative-burdens-environmental-legislation_en. [2] Under Article 14 and the toolbox for strategic sectors or categories in the annex to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on speeding-up environmental assessment, COM(2025) 984 final, 2025/0391 (COD). [3] For the purposes of Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, Article 9(1), point (a), of the Birds Directive 2009/147/EC, and Articles 6(4) and 16(1) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. [4] Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial and livestock rearing emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (Recast), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17-119, as amended by Directive (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 OJ L, 15.7.2024. [5] Regulation (EU) 2025/2455 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2025 establishing a common data platform on chemicals, laying down rules to ensure that the data contained in it are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable and establishing a monitoring and outlook framework for chemicals, OJ L, 2025/2455, 12.12.2025. [6] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1-73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32-35. [7] https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en. [8] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/17034-EU-water-policy-targeted-revision-of-the-Water-Framework-Directive_en.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU · Industrial emissions directive (IED) · EU policy on water management
• 2026-04-07 “E-000487/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has not received any complaint or query in relation to the possible environmental impact of Asera Mining’s plans in Västanå referred to by the Honourable Members. It will be for the Swedish authorities, in examining the request for a permit, to ensure that environmental legislation is complied with. Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, Member States are primarily responsible for ensuring compliance with EU law, including verifying individual cases of potential breach of the relevant rules. In line with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 1 , Member States must ensure that all water bodies achieve good status and take any necessary measures to prevent deterioration. In line with Article 4(7) WFD, new projects, including mining operations, require a preliminary assessment of their impact on all potentially affected water bodies. In the case of risk of deterioration, authorisation can only be granted subject to the strict conditions 2 . As announced in the RESourceEU Action Plan 3 , the Commission will shortly adopt guidance on the implementation of relevant provisions of the WFD in the context of the permitting of new projects, with a particular focus on the mining sector. Moreover, as per Article 7(3) WFD, Member States must ensure the necessary protection of waters used for abstraction of drinking water to avoid deteriorating their quality. Under the recast of the Drinking Water Directive 4 , the quality of the water supplied to consumers has to comply with the minimum quality standards. Member States have to ensure that a risk assessment and risk management are carried out in catchment areas for abstraction points. 1 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 2 These include overriding public interest, lack of better environmental alternatives and that all practicable mitigation measures are taken. 3 COM(2025) 945 final RESourceEU Action Plan: Accelerating our critical raw materials strategy to adapt to a new reality. 4 Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast), OJ L 435, 23.12.2020, p. 1–62.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials · Water pollution · EU policy on social & environmental impact of foreign investments
• 2026-04-01 “E-000740/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Infringement Case INFR(2018)2208 1 concerns failure to guarantee appropriate access to justice for environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as regards forest management plans (FMPs) in Poland. These are considered to be plans likely to have a significant effect on Natura 2000 sites and thus fall under the scope of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 23 . Under Article 9(2) of the Aarhus Convention 4 , environmental NGOs must be able to challenge substantive and procedural legality of environmental decisions. The Convention is an integral part of the EU legal order and binding on Member States under Article 216(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 5 . The Court of Justice of the EU, which under Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 258 of the TFEU is competent to rule on Member States’ compliance with their obligations under the Treaties, confirmed that FMPs fall under Article 9(2) of the Convention 6 . On 2 March 2023, the Court found Poland in breach of its obligations to ensure appropriate access to justice for FMPs 7 . Under Article 260 of the TFEU, the Commission is competent to ensure that rulings of the Court are complied with. The Commission is monitoring the state of the implementation of this ruling by Poland. It is within Poland’s discretion to design the modalities for appropriate access to justice and judicial review of FMPs within the Polish legal system, but this must be in line with the objective of ‘wide access to justice’ to the public concerned 8 . 1 https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringementdecisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&page=1&size=10&order=desc&sortColumn s=decisionDate&refId=INFR(2018)2208. 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 3 Judgment of 17 April 2018 in Case C-441/17, Białowieża, ECLI:EU:C:2018:255, para. 124. 4 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/aarhus_en. 5 Judgment of 8 November 2016 in Case C‑243/15, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, EU:EU:C:2016:838, para. 45. 6 Judgment of 2 March 2023 in Case C-432/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:139. 7 Ibidem, paras. 171-173. 8 Ibidem para. 174.”
  Environmental crimes and justice · Management of EU forests
• 2026-04-01 “P-000447/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Protecting Europe’s environment is imperative for prosperity and competitiveness, health and well-being of Europeans. Economic resilience and strategic autonomy depend on the environment and the availability of sufficient, clean natural resources. Implementation of the Nature Restoration Regulation 1 is just starting and it is too early to draw lessons on its impact. As stated in the environment omnibus communication 2 , the Commission will intensify its support to Member States and regional authorities preparing draft national restoration plans. It will work with Member States and stakeholders to consider additional measures in secondary legislation, support affected parties, attract investment, and reduce reporting burdens. It will stress‑test the Birds 3 and Habitats 4 Directives in 2026, considering inter alia climate change, food security, competitiveness, resilience, evolving case law and the need for legal certainty. The Commission will complete the evaluation of the Nitrates Directive 5 . Following the RESource EU Action Plan 6 and the environment omnibus communication the Commission will review and revise the Water Framework Directive 7 building on stakeholders’ input and experiences in Member States, emphasising simplification and the removal of potential bottlenecks to promote circularity and secure access to critical raw materials in the EU, while protecting the environment and human health. The Commission remains firmly committed to the EU’s environmental and climate objectives 8 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869, OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024. 2 COM(2025) 980 final,Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions;:Simplifying for sustainable competitiveness. 3 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7–25. 4 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 5 Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1–8. 6 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/01c448d6-dc93-40d7-9afe-4c2af448d00c_en. 7 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 8 As explained in its answer to written question E-004283/2025.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU · Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU policy on water management
• 2026-03-27 “P-000806/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, national administrative or judicial bodies are primarily responsible to verify compliance of individual projects with the EU environmental legislation. In principle, renewable projects can be permitted in Natura 2000 areas subject to the conditions laid down in the Habitats Directive (HD) 1 , which shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Nonetheless, the Commission has launched an infringement procedure against Greece 2 on non-compliance of the Special Framework for spatial planning and sustainable development for renewable energy resources with the obligations under Article 6(3) of the HD, as the Special Framework did not undergo an appropriate assessment procedure under the HD. A reasoned opinion was sent on 15 February 2023. The Commission is in close contact with the Greek authorities following the sending of the reasoned opinion (e.g. the case was discussed during the package meeting that took place in April 2024). In this meeting and subsequent correspondence, the Greek authorities informed the Commission on steps taken in order to address the breaches identified. The Commission reserves the right to take a further step and refer the case to Court of Justice of the European Union, should Greece fail to ensure that it conforms with its obligations. The Commission follows closely the application of the relevant rules on strategic environmental assessments as well as the requirements of the Aarhus Convention 3 on public participation, when licenses are granted. While it is important to avoid undue delays, it is crucial to respect the provisions of both the Convention and its Protocol on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context 4 and the Aarhus Convention. 1 Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 2 INFR(2014)4073, https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringementdecisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&refId=INFR(2014)4073&page=1&size=10 &order=desc&sortColumns=decisionDate. 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/aarhus_en. 4 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE): Convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context, signed at Espoo on 25 February 1991, and its Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment, signed in Kyiv on 21 May 2003.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• 2026-03-27 “E-000581/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Water Framework Directive 1 leaves Member States broad discretion to find the most suitable institutional framework. As storing water for one sector may potentially affect others, the European Water Resilience Strategy 2 and Guidance Document No. 24 3 recommend a coordinated approach to reservoirs, involving all relevant actors and considering their environmental impacts. A safe and reliable water supply is essential for all sectors, including agriculture 4 . To prevent disruptions, over-abstraction must be reduced across all sectors, by reducing demand, increasing efficiency, improving water retention on land, and promoting, where relevant, treated wastewater reuse. Drought-prone regions should also establish comprehensive Drought Management Plans. There are currently no plans for specific Commission Guidelines on reservoirs. The updated 5 Greek Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP) 6 provides for the adoption of a National Water Strategy for the protection and sustainable management of water resources. Both RRP and Cohesion Policy 7 fund investments and improvements in public water systems. Horizon Europe 8 supports research and innovation for agricultural water resilience, and previous projects offered solutions to improve current practices 9 . The Common Agricultural Policy 10 can support investments that enhance, among others, water efficiency and circularity. 1 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en. 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/river-basin-management-changing-climate_en. 4 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food/vision-agriculture-and-food_en. 5 https://greece20.gov.gr/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/CONSIL_ST_15754_2025_ADD_1_EN_TXT.pdf. 6 https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resiliencefacility/country-pages/greeces-recovery-and-resilience-plan_en#repowereu-measures-in-greeces-plan. 7 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/2021-2027_en. 8 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/horizon-europe_en 9 Restoring and protecting the water cycle as basis for sustainable water supply (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/3678416 ), Building a water-smart economy together with citizens and economic actors in a way that supports EU competitiveness, is attractive to investors and supports a thriving EU water industry (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/4408793 ) and Ensuring clean and affordable water for all (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/1755237). 10 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy_en.”
  EU policy on water management
• 2026-03-24 “E-000519/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission There is no Commission guidance on the use of electric fencing in Natura 2000 sites or for mitigating conflicts with large carnivores. However, there have been several projects under the EU programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE) 1 whose actions related to the use of electric fences for protecting livestock from large carnivores. These include LIFE Lynx 2 aiming to rescue the Dinaric-Southeast Alpine lynx population and LIFE WILD WOLF 3 aiming to improve (or if favourable, maintain) the conservation status of the wolf in eight Member States. Cohesion policy 4 financed a project for the implementation of the national action plan for the conservation of the brown bear in Romania. Its budget included EUR 3 million for mobile electric fences, among other activities to protect the bears. Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 5 requires that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site that is likely to have a significant effect on the site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, should be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. The competent authorities can only agree to such a plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. This applies regardless whether a plan or project, such as the installation of electric fences, is funded by EU or national sources. Romania’s competent national authorities are primarily responsible for the application of EU legislation thus to ensure that the provisions of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive are correctly applied in Romania. 1 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en. 2 https://www.lifelynx.eu/about-the-project/. 3 https://www.lifewildwolf.com/new-page. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/investment-policy_en. 5 Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Large Carnivores
• 2026-03-24 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 24.3.2026 Written question The Commission is committed to further address the challenges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in waste in the EU waste legislation, including in the context of considerations on future circular economy-related policies. Ways to enhance the implementation of the polluter pays principle and support for the hazardous waste management sector may be explored, as well as possible measures on extended producer responsibility. The Commission is aware that the efficient destruction of PFAS in incinerators depends on several operational conditions which are discussed with relevant stakeholders. It is important to map PFAS content in waste streams and PFAS emissions during waste treatment, to enhance circularity while protecting the environment and human health. The Commission is also updating the list of pollutants of the Industrial Emissions Portal Regulation [1] to better report PFAS emissions and looking into ways to help Member States identify PFAS monitoring and abatement techniques. The Waste Shipment Regulation [2] regulates shipments of waste within the EU borders, as well as exports and imports of waste. Waste shipments must be accompanied by information on the carried waste, its origin, destination and the waste management operation it will undergo. Where waste containing PFAS is considered hazardous, stricter rules apply and a prior consent is needed before shipments can take place. From 21 May 2026, waste shipment procedures will be digitalised via a central system [3] to allow the involved authorities and economic operators to submit and exchange documents and information. Enforcement authorities in Member States will use those data to better monitor and control waste movements. [1] https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/f80de80b-a5bc-4c2b-b0fc-9c597dde0e42/library/ea510bf0-053b-45f3-974e-39460ab4b731/details. [2] Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on shipments of waste, amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 2020/1056 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, OJ L, 2024/1157, 30.4.2024. [3] Digital Waste Shipment System (DIWASS), https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-shipments/implementation-waste-shipment-regulation_en.”
  Circular economy · Industrial emissions directive (IED) · PFAs
• 2026-03-23 “P-000475/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission EU occupational safety and health directives set minimum requirements for the protection of workers. They require the employer to evaluate all occupational risks and implement preventive and protective measures. The Environmental Liability Directive 1 requires polluters to remedy any significant damage they have caused to environmental resources and to act preventively in case of an immediate threat. However, it does not apply to national defence or international security activities. Military establishments are also exempt from the Seveso III Directive (SD) 2 , aimed to prevent major accidents. However, non-military companies supplying hazardous substances for military applications are within its scope when the quantity of such substances exceeds certain thresholds 3 . Thus, operators are required to prove that they took all necessary measures to prevent major accidents and limit the consequences for human health and the environment. Member States are required to ensure appropriate consultation when planning the siting or modification of establishments 4 next to residential areas and conduct inspections 5 . Similarly, the Industrial Emissions Directive 6 (IED) requires operators of installations in its scope 7 to take the necessary measures to prevent accidents and limit their consequences, while Member States have to ensure that IED installations are covered by environmental inspection plans. Member States’s competent authorities 8 are primarily responsible to ensure compliance with and enforce EU legislation 9 . The Commission does not have the details of the concerned project enabling to assess whether the installation falls under the scope of the SD and IED and if so, whether these directives have been correctly applied. 1 Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, OJ L 143, 30.4.2004. 2 Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC, OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 1–3. 3 Defined in Annex I of the Seveso III Directive. 4 Article 13(3) of the Seveso III Directive. 5 Required under Article 20 of the Seveso III Directive. 6 Directive (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 amending Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L, 2024/1785, 15.7.2024. 7 Including defence installations, without prejudice to Article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12016E346. 8 Labour inspectorate or equivalent bodies for the occupational safety and health directives, environmental agencies or inspectorates for the IED, civil protection/environmental inspectorate and agencies or labour inspectorate for the SD. 9 Communication from the Commission - EU law: Better results through better application, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10–20, and Communication from the Commission - Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers, 13.10.2022, COM(2022) 518 final.”
  Industrial emissions directive (IED)
• 2026-03-23 “E-000642/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The establishments mentioned in the question are covered 1 by the Seveso Directive 2 (SD). The decision to relocate or remove storage tanks is within the remit of national authorities. However, the SD emphasises the need for strict land-use planning, prioritising human health and environmental protection 3 . Member States must ensure appropriate consultation when planning the siting or modification of establishments 4 next to residential areas. They must conduct regular inspections 4 and prohibit the use of facilities where serious safety deficiencies are detected 5 . The SD requires operators to take necessary measures to prevent accidents and limit their consequences 6 . It requires that safety information and measures be communicated to local authorities 7 and the public 8 . It stresses the importance of preparing and implementing majoraccident prevention policies 9 . Following a major accident, competent authorities must 10 take necessary measures, conduct investigations, compel operators towards remedial actions, and inform affected individuals about the incident and mitigation efforts. Without further information, the Commission cannot assess if the above-mentioned provisions of the SD have been correctly implemented and will contact the Greek authorities to investigate this further. Regarding air quality, based on the report provided by Greece under the Ambient Air Quality Directive 11 , only exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide limit value were recorded in 2024, in air quality zone ZON-EL0003, which includes the municipality of Perama. These exceedances are mainly linked to traffic-related sources. Data for 2025 is not available yet and will be reported in September 2026. 1 As lower tier establishments, except for Coral which is upper tier; https://industry.eea.europa.eu/seveso/establishments. 2 Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of majoraccident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC, OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 1–37. 3 Article 13(1) and (2). 4 Article 20. 5 Article 19. 6 Article 5. 7 Article 8 and 11. 8 Article 14. 9 Article 8. 10 Article 17. 11 Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1–44.”
  Industrial emissions directive (IED) · Air quality policy
• 2026-03-23 “E-000424/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The infringement procedure mentioned by the Honourable Member 1 is still ongoing. The Commission sent an additional letter of formal notice to Spain requesting to complete the designation of Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) as special areas of conservation (SACs) and the establishment of site-specific conservation objectives and measures for SACs 2 , as required by the Habitats Directive 3 . According to the latest information submitted to the Commission in August 2025, pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Habitats Directive, from a total of 1 278 SCIs, Spain has designated 1 209 SCIs as SAC, with 69 SCIs still in the process of becoming SAC (ten in the region of Valencia, including SCI L'Albufera [ES0000023], with approval expected in the fourth quarter of 2026). As regards the failure to set site-specific conservation objectives and conservation measures, the Commission is assessing the multiple replies and progress reports provided by Spain prior to deciding on the most appropriate way forward for this case in the light of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases C-444/21 4 and C-116/22 5 . 1 INFR(2015)2003. https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringementdecisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&refId=INFR(2015)2003&page=1&size=10 &order=desc&sortColumns=decisionDate. This is part of a structural action involving several other Member States in a similar situation. 2 Therefore, special protection areas (SPAs) for birds are not part of this infringement procedure. 3 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, pp. 7–50. 4 Case C-444/21: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 June 2023 — European Commission v Ireland, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0444. 5 Case C-116/22: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 September 2023 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62022CJ0116.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-03-23 “E-000312/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Under the Habitats Directive 1 , wolf populations north of the Duero River are currently listed in Annex V. Member States must take measures to ensure that the exploitation of species listed in Annex V is compatible with their being maintained at a favourable conservation status 2 . According to the information submitted by Spain in the latest report under Article 17 of the Directive for the period 2013-2018, the wolf was in unfavourable conservation status in Cantabria. A new report covering the period 2019-2024 is still to be submitted by Spain 3 . Without prejudice of the role of the Commission as guardian of the Treaty, the primary responsibility for correctly implementing the Habitats Directive lies with the national authorities. The Commission monitors the situation closely and is also waiting for the submission of the Spanish report under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that Article 14 of the Directive precludes Spanish legislation which permitted the hunting of the wolf, since the species was listed in Annex V and the conservation status of that species is classified as ‘unfavourable poor’ 4 . Additionally, the CJEU confirmed that if there remains uncertainty as to whether the exploitation of a species of Community interest is compatible with the maintenance of that species at a favourable conservation status, the Member State must refrain from authorising such exploitation. In this context, the competent authorities cannot allow the hunting of wolves, unless the cumulative impacts of the authorised quotas and any additional taking, as well as collateral deaths and illegal killing, is compatible with the achievement or maintenance of favourable conservation status. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 2 According to Article 14 of the Directive. 3 INFR(2025)2214, https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringementdecisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&refId=INFR(2025)2214&page=1&size=10 &order=desc&sortColumns=decisionDate. 4 Case C-436/22, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62022CJ0436.”
  Large Carnivores
• 2026-03-23 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 23.3.2026 Written question Under EU law, the Spanish wolf populations north of the Duero has been listed in Annex V of the Habitats Directive [1] since adoption, i.e. as a ‘protected’ species. This protection level gives authorities the flexibility to manage their local wolf populations, so that they can take measures that are well adapted to regional circumstances. However, pursuant Article 14, any taking in the wild of a species in Annex V, such as the wolf, must be carefully regulated since the Member State is still obliged to ensure that the favourable conservation status of the concerned populations is achieved and/or maintained . Member State authorities have the discretion to maintain or introduce more stringent protective measures [2] . Compliance with such measures, above what is required in EU law, is for the national authorities to ensure. It is important that the conclusion on the conservation status of the wolf is based on the best available scientific data obtained through the surveillance to be carried out by Member States under the directive [3] , which holds particular importance for the implementation of Article 14 [4] . This should also consider potential errors in sampling methods. Moreover, it is reasonable that surveillance takes into account factors that may have a negative impact on species’ conservation status, such as illegal killing [5] . A species cannot be hunted if effective surveillance of its conservation status is not ensured [6] . The competent administrative and judicial authorities in the Member States are primarily responsible for the correct implementation of the above obligations . The Commission is monitoring the situation closely and has urged Spain to submit its report under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive [7] for the period 2019-2024. [1] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, pp. 7-50. [2] As enshrined in Article 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. [3] Article 11. [4] Case C-436/22, paragraph 65, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62022CJ0436. [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=PI_COM:C(2021)7301. [6] Decision Court of Justice of the EU in relation to Article 14: Case C-436/22, paragraph 59. [7] INFR(2025)2214, https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringement-decisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&refId=INFR(2025)2214&page=1&size=10&order=desc&sortColumns=decisionDate.”
  Large Carnivores · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-03-20 “E-000426/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Under the Soil Monitoring Law 1 , the Commission will establish an indicative list of soil contaminants including pesticides and their metabolites which Member States will take into account when setting the soil contaminants to be monitored. The cited study will be considered in this exercise. Decisions on the approval of active substances in plant protection products are based on a scientific risk assessment considering effects on human health and the environment, including soil organisms, in accordance with criteria set in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 2 . The Commission mandated the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in June 2024 3 to review the risk assessment methodology for non-target arthropods other than bees, in-soil organisms and non-target terrestrial plants. EFSA clarified procedural aspects, timelines, deliverables and methodologies 4 . Under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the EU and all Member States committed to reduce the risk from pesticides on biodiversity by at least half by 2030. Additional measures are set through the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (SUD) 5 , which requires farmers to apply the principles of integrated pest management (IPM), prioritising preventive measures and natural pest control before chemicals as a last resort. Member States must adopt national action plans for reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment including soils. Horizon Europe, notably the Mission Soil 6 and Cluster 6 7 , funds research and innovation and Living Labs (e.g. SoilRes 8 and MultiSoil 9 ) that apply IPM, reduce the use and risks of pesticides, and improve soil health and biodiversity, with further funding opportunities in the Work Programme 2026–2027 10 . 1 Directive (EU) 2025/2360 of the European Parliament and of the Council on soil monitoring and resilience, OJ L, 2025/2360, 26.11.2025. 2 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1. 3 https://open.efsa.europa.eu/questions/EFSA-Q-2025-00658?search=terrestrial+ecotoxicology. 4 https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2025.EN-9216. 5 Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, pp. 71–86. 6 Mission Soil ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’, https://mission-soil-platform.ec.europa.eu/. 7 Cluster 6 ‘Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment’, https://research-andinnovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizoneurope/cluster-6-food-bioeconomy-natural-resources-agriculture-and-environment_en. 8 https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101218994. 9 https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101218951. 10 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/calls-for-proposals.”
  EU policy on pesticides · Reduction targets for pesticides · Soil protection policy
• 2026-03-17 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 17.3.2026 Written question The Commission monitors the application of the Habitats Directive [1] in the Member States — including hunting and the reported conservation status of species in Annex IV and V of the directive — through, among others , expert groups and the Member States’ reports under Articles 16 and 17 of the Habitats Directive. Article 17 reports concern, in particular, the conservation status of species which has implications for the Member States’ obligations regarding Annex IV species (Article 12 of the directive) and Annex V species (Article 14 of the directive). Article 16 lays down some exceptions to Articles 12 and 14, upon certain conditions. The Member States delivered their Article 17 reports in 2025. The assessment of these reports is ongoing. It is carried out in cooperation with the European Environment Agency [2] and will lead to a public consultation in spring 2026. The conservation status of the species in question is relevant when assessing whether the Member States meet their obligations under the Habitats Directive with regard to Annex IV species like bears, lynxes, and otters (subject to a higher level of protection); and Annex V species, like wolves [3] . As part of that assessment, in relation to Finland, the Commission will also analyse the matters raised by the Honourable Members, notably hunting quotas and access to justice, and decide on the need for any further action. [1] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50. [2] https://www.eea.europa.eu/en. [3] Directive (EU) 2025/1237 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2025 amending Council Directive 92/43/EEC as regards the protection status of the wolf (Canis lupus), OJ L, 2025/1237, 24.6.2025.”
  Large Carnivores · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-03-17 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 17.3.2026 Written question As referred to in the question, the strategic map and action plan for noise for Valencia Airport has been adopted by the Spanish authorities in 2024. Therefore, the Commission will continue to engage in the necessary dialogue with the Spanish authorities aiming to achieve compliance with EU law [1] for the outstanding entities, for which action plans or maps are missing, as soon as possible. The Environmental Noise Directive (END) [2] does not set binding noise targets/levels but establishes a framework for managing environmental noise with a view to reduce exposure where necessary. It does not impose operational restrictions on airports, nor does it prescribe any specific mitigation action. Consequently, under the END, it is not for the Commission to assess the measures set out in individual action plans. While Member States have discretion in deciding which measures to include in their noise action plans, the Balanced Approach Regulation [3] lays down the procedures that must be followed to introduce noise-related operating restrictions. In this respect, the Commission has received no notification from the Spanish authorities of any intention to introduce operating restrictions at Valencia Airport. The END also requires that the public be informed and be given the opportunity to participate in the preparation, review and revision of noise action plans. Moreover, citizens can challenge the legality of those plans before national courts or administrative bodies in accordance with the provisions of their national legal system. [1] INFR(2016)2118, https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringement-decisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&refId=INFR(2016)2118&page=1&size=10&order=desc&sortColumns=decisionDate. [2] Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise — Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation Committee on the directive relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, pp. 12-25. [3] Regulation (EU) No 598/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach and repealing Directive 2002/30/EC, OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, pp. 65-78.”
  Air quality policy · Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• 2026-03-17 “E-000564/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) Directive 1 sets out limit values for the concentration of several pollutants in ambient air, including nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), in order to protect human health. On 11 December 2025, the Commission opened infringement procedure INFR(2025)2187 2 based on the reported exceedance of those limit values in the agglomerations of Palermo (at the urban traffic sampling points of PA - Castelnuovo, and PA - Di Blasi), as well as of Naples and Caserta, all between 2015 and 2024 3 . The fact that a limit value for pollutants in ambient air is exceeded constitutes a failure to comply with Article 13(1), in conjunction with Annex XI to the AAQ Directive 4 . It is sufficient that a pollution level higher than that value is measured at a single sampling point to establish that a limit value has been exceeded in a given agglomeration 5 . Given the reported exceedances, the Commission has assessed the air quality plan adopted by the Sicilian region in order to determine whether the measures adopted were in line with the requirement to keep the exceedances as short as possible set out in Article 23(1). On that basis, the Commission found in the above-mentioned infringement procedure that Italy has breached Article 23(1) of the AAQ Directive. The Italian authorities have replied to the Commission on 11 February 2026. This reply is currently under assessment. Depending on the result of this assessment, the Commission may decide on the next step. The Commission expects Italy to take, without delay, all necessary measures to put an end to the infringements listed in the letter of formal notice. 1 Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, OJ L 152, 11.6.2008. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringementdecisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&refId=INFR(2025)2187&page=1&size=10 &order=desc&sortColumns=decisionDate. 3 Dataset (G) Information on the attainment of environmental objectives at https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/aqd/g/. 4 Cf. among others: C‑573/19, p. 96; C-635/18, p. 78; C-664/18, p. 54; and C-644/18, p. 71. 5 C-638/18, p. 44 and the case-law cited therein.”
  Air quality policy
• 2026-03-16 “E-000497/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, it is primarily the responsibility of the Greek authorities to select the location of projects end ensure that they are developed in compliance with EU environmental law. Decisions taken in this context are subject to judicial review by national courts, who are the common courts of EU law and the best placed to adjudicate on such matters. The Commission has thus not examined the authorisation of the project. Ensuring that all EU countries have access to Liquefied Natural Gas markets is part of the EU's energy union strategy 1 , as it can help diversify gas supplies and improve improving EU energy security in the short-term, while more sustainable solutions towards full decarbonisation by 2050 are established. Compliance with the ‘do no significant harm principle’ is assessed by the Commission if a project is supported by EU financial programs. This project has not been selected so far for EU co-financing by the European Structural and Investment Funds 2 . Further, while projects applying for Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) 3 funding are screened for their compliance with EU environmental law, the project in question has not received CEF funding, and is not eligible to do so under the CEF Regulation 4 as it has not been included in the Union list of Projects of Common and Mutual Interest under the Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E) Regulation 5 , which does not cover natural gas projects in its scope since its 2022 repeal. 1 https://energy.ec.europa.eu/strategy/energy-union_en. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding_en. 3 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/connecting-europefacility_en. 4 Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014, OJ L 249, 14.7.2021, pp. 38–81. 5 Regulation (EU) 2022/869 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2009, (EU) 2019/942 and (EU) 2019/943 and Directives 2009/73/EC and (EU) 2019/944, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 347/2013, OJ L 152, 3.6.2022, pp. 45–102.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding · Natural gas · Energy (green transition)
• 2026-03-13 “E-000344/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Environmental defenders often represent a vulnerable group which plays an important role in environmental protection. Criminal prosecution of individuals for non-violent actions aimed at legitimately preventing environmental harm raises concerns. The EU Strategy for Civil Society 1 as well as the Anti-Strategic lawsuits against public participation Directive 2 reflect the Commission's commitment of fostering an enabling and safe environment for civil society. The Aarhus Convention 3 provides safeguards against penalisation, persecution or harassment for exercising rights in conformity with its provisions. At the same time, the Convention does not establish immunity from criminal or civil liability, nor a right to civil disobedience. The EU is firmly opposed to commercial whaling, as reflected in its adherence to the International Whaling Commission’s moratorium and its rules under the Habitats Directive 4 and Wildlife Trade Regulation 5 . In any event, the EU continues to advocate for an end to commercial whaling through diplomatic engagement and cooperation with Iceland. Under the 2025 EU-Iceland Memorandum of understanding on enhancing cooperation on fisheries and ocean affairs 6 , the annual high-level dialogue will allow for matters related to marine biodiversity including cetacean conservation and welfare to be raised. However, the Commission does not intervene in individual criminal cases before national courts or other national authorities, and Iceland’s decision to allow the hunting of whales falls outside the EU jurisdiction. 1 COM(2025) 790 final. 2 Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’), OJ L, 2024/1069, 16.4.2024. 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/aarhus_en. 4 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 5 Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1–69. 6 https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/publications/eu-iceland-memorandum-understanding-enhancingcooperation-fisheries-and-ocean-affairs_en.”
  Environmental crimes and justice · Commercial whaling
• 2026-03-10 “E-000040/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission From 21 May 2026 onwards, the description of entry EU3011 as established in Annex III to the Waste Shipment Regulation 1 will clarify, in a legally binding manner which plastic waste shipped within the Union can be classified under that entry. Footnote 3 accompanying the entry provides a clarification for the qualifiers in the description. For the purpose of this Regulation, the terms ‘almost free from contamination and other types of waste’ and where relevant ‘almost exclusively consisting of’ shall be understood to mean that in a consignment of plastic waste or mixtures of plastic waste, classified under entry EU3011, the content of contamination, other types of wastes or non-halogenated polymers, cured resins or condensation products, or fluorinated polymers, other than the one nonhalogenated polymer, cured resin or condensation product, or fluorinated polymer that makes up the bulk of the plastic waste shall not exceed a total maximum of 6 % of the weight of the consignment. This clarification builds on the wording in the Correspondents’ Guidelines No 12 2 , mentioned in the question, which were developed prior to the adoption of the Regulation. The abovementioned provisions in Annex III to the Regulation lay down the classification, including the levels of contamination that is allowed in legal terms. A Regulation in EU law is directly applicable, meaning it becomes a binding legal rule across all Member States upon publication, without requiring national implementing legislation. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on shipments of waste, amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 2020/1056 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, OJ L, 2024/1157, 30.4.2024. 2 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/636f928d-2669-41d3-83db-093e90ca93a2/library/6e87092c-1c7d-47049c55-34650fb5cf88/details.”
  EU policy towards plastics · Circular economy
• 2026-03-10 “E-000128/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission While information on the Florence airport masterplan is publicly available on the website of the Italian Minister for the Environment and Energy Security 1 , to date the Commission has not received from the Italian authorities a notification under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 2 . For this reason, the Commission is not in a position to comment as to whether the conditions to obtain a derogation under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive have been met. Such a notification is required in cases where plans or projects are found to have a significant negative effect on a Natura 2000 site, where there are no alternative solutions and where they must be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. The Commission systematically examines any such notification to assess whether the requirements of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive were duly respected, including an assessment of the imperative reasons of overriding public interest that would justify the realisation of the plan or project in question. The assessment is based on the requirements set out in the Directive as well as on the Commission guidelines on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 3 . 1 https://va.mite.gov.it/it-IT/Oggetti/Documentazione/9937/14638?RaggruppamentoID=1137. 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. 3 Commission notice - Assessment of plans and projects in relation to Natura 2000 sites – Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, OJ C 437, 28.10.2021.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• 2026-03-10 “E-000036/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Danish report under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive 1 submitted to the Commission 2 and covering the 2019-2024 period indicated, for the harbour porpoise, a favourable conservation status with a stable trend in the marine Atlantic region, and an unfavourable-bad conservation status with a declining trend in the marine Baltic region. The report indicates bycatch and incidental killing as high pressures for the species in both marine biogeographical regions. By-catch of harbour porpoises has been monitored electronically with cameras on a number of Danish commercial gillnet fishing vessels since 2010 3 . Recent estimates indicate that by-catch in Danish and Swedish fisheries may exceed sustainability thresholds in parts of the western Baltic Sea 4 . Certain mitigation measures to limit by-catch are applied in Danish waters, such as the use of acoustic deterrent devices (‘pingers’) on bottom-set gillnets and entangling net vessels equal or above 12 meters in the North Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat (only from 1 August to 31 October) and parts of the Baltic Sea, as well as seasonal closures of static net fishing in the Natura 2000 area ‘Adler Grund and Rønne Banke’ 5 in the Baltic Sea. The Commission is currently carefully monitoring the situation in Denmark in relation to Article 12(4) of the Habitats Directive and may consider taking further steps if the measures taken by Denmark are deemed insufficient. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 2 https://reportnet.europa.eu/public/dataflow/1525. 3 Kindt-Larsen L., Brooks M. E., & Glemarec G., (2025). Nye estimater for bifangst af marsvin i dansk garnfiskeri, No. 25/1002606, 5 p., Feb 28, 2025, https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/nye-estimater-for-bifangstaf-marsvin-i-dansk-garnfiskeri/. 4 Kindt-Larsen L., Glemarec G., Berg C.W., Königson S., Kroner A.-M., Søgaard M., Lusseau D., 2023 Knowing the fishery to know the bycatch: bias-corrected estimates of harbour porpoise bycatch in gillnet fisheries. Proc. R. Soc. B 290: 20222570, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.2570. 5 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/303 of 15 December 2021 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 as regards measures to reduce incidental catches of the resident population of the Baltic Proper harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea, OJ L 46, 25.2.2022, p. 67–80.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-03-10 “E-000154/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is in the process of reviewing the Environmental Footprint (EF) Methods 1 to ensure that environmental impacts of different fibres are well reflected. It is based on wide stakeholder consultations and scientific inputs of the Joint Research Centre 2 and includes potential changes to updating land use indicator, covering soil organic carbon, a new indicator on biodiversity loss, or improvement of biogenic carbon accounting. Circularity aspects, like biodegradability, are already included in the EF methods. To support natural fibre production 3 the Commission introduced the 2025 Strategy for a Competitive and Sustainable EU Bioeconomy 4 . Efforts include boosting EU wool processing capacity, strengthening its value chain, optimising diversification and improving farmers’ income via the Programme for Research & Innovation 5 and the EU Common Agricultural Policy network Focus Groups 6 . EU countries may offer coupled income support for flax and hemp in their National Strategic Plans 7 , when justified, alongside direct payments. Cotton payments are available in Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, and Portugal, as well as eco-schemes promoting sustainable farming practices. A Strategy for Generation Renewal 8 seeks a 6% benchmark for young farmer support, including financial aid, training, and better investment prioritisation to encourage participation of the younger generation in farming. The Commission funds research for bio-based fibers in the 2026 CBE-JU Work Programme 9 and the ECOSYSTEX cluster 10 , and facilitates stakeholder engagement with the EU Textiles Ecosystem Platform 11 and knowledge exchange with the Knowledge Centre on Bioeconomy 12 . 1 https://green-forum.ec.europa.eu/green-business/environmental-footprint-methods_en. 2 https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/index_en. 3 Like cotton, flax, hemp, and wool. 4 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/bioeconomy-strategy_en. 5 HORIZON-CL6-2026-02-FARM2FORK-05: Boosting circularity and diversification strategies of terrestrial livestock production systems. 6 https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/focus-groups-innovation-knowledge-exchange-and-eip-agri/focus-groupinnovative-and-sustainable-ways-strengthen-role-farmers-revitalising-european-wool_en. 7 Under the Common Agricultural Policy. 8 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food/generational-renewal_en#documents. 9 https://www.cbe.europa.eu/system/files/2025-12/CBE-JU-AWP-2026_0.pdf. 10 https://www.ecosystex.eu/. 11 https://transition-pathways.europa.eu/textiles/about-eu-textiles-ecosystem-platform. 12 https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bio-based-textiles_en.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-03-09 “E-000217/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The environmental omnibus package 1 , adopted by the Commission and currently under examination of both co-legislators, contains a set of proposals that focus on reducing administrative burden without affecting the objectives of these laws and the environmental standards. The set of proposals focus on the ‘how’ and not on the ‘what’ with the objective to make the implementation of the laws easier for public and private sector. For this reason, the Commission view is that no assessment of impacts was needed. However, the package of proposals is accompanied by a Staff Working Document (SWD) 2 explaining the proposed amendments and their impacts in terms of costs savings. It also gives an overview of the extensive stakeholder consultations held in preparation of the package which also gathered input on the administrative costs and potential savings. The environmental omnibus package aims to reduce the administrative burden linked to the implementation of the laws, thus help support the implementation by private and public stakeholders so that the respective environmental objectives can be achieved quicker and in a more efficient manner. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2997. 2 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/download/9cc9e1e8-13c4-45f3-b9bc90e7e1b8133e_en?filename=SWD_2025_990_1_EN_autre_document_travail_service_part1_v3.pdf.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU · Climate efforts
• 2026-03-09 “E-000035/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Danish report under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive 1 has been submitted to the Commission, indicating an overall favourable conservation status for the wolf in both continental and Atlantic biogeographic regions 2 . The Danish authorities are primarily responsible for assessing the conservation status of the wolf in their territory. It is important that the conclusion on the conservation status of the wolf is based on the best available scientific data obtained through the surveillance to be carried out by Member States under Article 11 of the Habitats Directive following the agreed guidelines and the precautionary principle. The European Environment Agency 3 and the Commission are currently assessing the reports submitted by Member States, including the one submitted by Denmark. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 2 https://reportnet.europa.eu/public/dataflow/1525. 3 https://www.eea.europa.eu/en.”
  Large Carnivores · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-03-05 “E-000033/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Waste Framework Directive 1 requires Member States to ensure that waste management protects health and the environment. Waste treatment operators must have permits 2 and are subject to regular inspections by competent authorities 3 . Where waste is disposed of in landfills, strict operational and technical rules apply to protect surface water, groundwater, soil and air, and to prevent risks to human health throughout the landfill’s life cycle 4 . While certain landfills 5 must comply with the obligations set out in Chapter II of the Industrial Emissions Directive 6 (IED), the landfill in question was not reported by Italy as being covered by the IED. Liability regarding the environmental consequences of accidents and incidents is primarily a matter of national law. However, the Environmental Liability Directive 7 requires polluters to remedy any significant damage they have caused to environmental resources and to act preventively in case of an immediate threat of such damage. National authorities must investigate cases of environmental damage. Interested or (likely to be) affected parties can require the competent national authorities to act. To this end, they should submit their observations to the authorities with supporting evidence. Member States have a primary responsibility to monitor the application of EU law and enforce it. Individual cases like the one in question are better addressed at national level, where national authorities (including national courts) are best placed to ascertain whether there was a breach of EU environmental law. In line with its strategic approach on enforcement action, the Commission focuses on systemic non-compliance 8 , including under the EU Environmental Crime Directive 9 . 1 Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 109–140. 2 Article 23 of Directive 2008/98/EC. 3 Article 34 of Directive 2008/98/EC. 4 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 100–108. 5 Under point 5.4 of Annex I to Directive 2010/75/EU, landfills receiving more than 10 tonnes of waste per day or with a total capacity exceeding 25 000 tonnes, excluding landfills of inert waste. 6 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, as amended by Directive (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 OJ L, 15.7.2024. 7 Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, OJ L 143, 30.4.2004. 8 As set out in the Communication of 19 January 2017: EU law: Better results through better application C/2016/8600, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10–20 and in the Communication of 13 October 2022: COM(2022) 518 final - Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers. 9 Directive 2008/99/EC and Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC, OJ L, 2024/1203, 30.4.2024; the transposition deadline of the latter Directive is 21 May 2026.”
  Air quality policy · Water pollution · Industrial emissions directive (IED)
• 2026-03-02 “P-000197/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission According to the Habitats Directive 1 , the conservation status of a species will be assessed as ‘favourable’ when (1) the population dynamics of the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, (2) the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future and (3) there is, and will probably be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its population on a long-term basis. Member States must define the favourable conservation status in line with the above requirements. In doing so they can take account, where relevant, of the transboundary nature of populations. Directive (EU) 2025/1237 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2025 amending Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive) as regards the protection status of the wolf (Canis lupus) entered into force in July 2025. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 15 January 2027. The Commission will monitor transposition and implementation of the amended Habitats Directive. The Commission is in regular dialogue with Finnish competent authorities and is currently assessing the information provided by Finland as part of the periodic reporting pursuant to Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, as well as data and recent legislative and policy developments related to wolf management. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, pp. 7–50.”
  Large Carnivores
• 2026-03-02 “E-000078/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is currently analysing the findings of the exploratory feasibility study 1 , together with the views expressed by stakeholders. The study does not prejudge any future legislative or non-legislative measures, and no decisions have been taken at this stage on proposals concerning data collection or criminalisation related to illegally sourced wildlife. The Commission will examine the issues raised as part of its ongoing analysis, including in relation to data collection. Any future work would need to be consistent with ongoing efforts on electronic permitting and ensure coherence with related customs systems. The Commission remains committed to continued dialogue with all relevant stakeholders throughout this process. 1 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/3f466d71-92a7-49eb-9c63-6cb0fadf29dc/library/13062c04-a41e-434a-837b65e5ed2bda9f/details.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• 2026-03-02 “E-000228/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Nature Restoration Regulation 1 sets the target of stopping the loss of urban green space and tree canopy cover from 2024 to 2030, and then it stipulates that there should be an increase from 2030 onwards until a satisfactory level is reached. The level that is ‘satisfactory’ will be set based on guidelines to be established by the Commission by 2028. In the implementation process the Commission will also discuss with the national authorities the most effective means to support urban areas with significant deficits in green space. The Italian recovery and resilience plan (RRP) 2 includes several investments in urban forestation, climate adaptation and sustainable regeneration of towns and cities. In particular, these include measures to protect green areas and increase their number with the objective of both preserving and enhancing biodiversity and increasing the quality of life of the inhabitants of those areas (i.e., Investment 3.1 of Mission 2 Component 4). Another set of measures (i.e., Investment 4, 5, and 6 of Mission 5 Component 2) aim to regenerate and revitalise large degraded urban areas through, inter alia, the renovation, reuse, and repurpose of public urban areas. The descriptions of the actions implementing the above-mentioned measures are included in the Council Implementing Decision 3 and monitored and assessed by the Commission, in line with the performance-based nature of the Recovery and Resilience Facility 4 Instrument. However, the selection of specific projects and their territorial distribution is the responsibility of the relevant Italian authorities, who are also responsible for ensuring that the actions are completed within the RRP implementation timeframe. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869, OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resiliencefacility/country-pages/italys-recovery-and-resilience-plan_en. 3 ST 15106/25 ADD 1 - Annex to the Council Implementing Decision amending Implementing Decision of 13 July 2021 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Italy. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU policy on urban development
• 2026-02-27 “E-000151/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The exchanges between the Commission and Slovakia since 30 June 2025 have aimed at ensuring that any culling of brown bears in Slovakia is based on derogation decisions which meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive 1 . Slovakia explained to the Commission the methodology used for estimating its bear population and that it was launching a DNA-based bear census which will provide up-to-date information on the country’s bear population. The Commission continues to closely follow the situation in Slovakia. During these exchanges the Commission has received reassurance by Slovakia that any further culling of bear specimens required for the protection of human life and health would be done in full compliance with the provisions of the relevant EU legislation. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the protection of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1992/43/oj/eng), OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.”
  Large Carnivores
• 2026-02-19 “E-000042/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The definitions of the terms mentioned by the Honourable Member and their interpretation in concrete cases is a matter for the national authorities. The Commission has assessed the Irish national measures and has initiated an infringement procedure 1 concerning Ireland’s failure to correctly transpose the Drinking Water Directive 2 . This infringement procedure does not relate to the provision on the frequency of sampling. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringementdecisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&refId=INFR(2025)2106&page=1&size=10 &order=desc&sortColumns=decisionDate. 2 Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast), OJ L 435, 23.12.2020, p. 1–62.”
  Drinking regulation
• 2026-02-18 “E-000019/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Environmental Noise Directive (END) 1 is the main EU legislative instrument for addressing excessive noise pollution mainly caused by transport traffic, as well as from industrial activities listed in Annex I of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) 2 . As electricity generation from wind turbines is not listed in the Annex I of IED, there are no specific noise requirements for them under the END. Wind projects 3 are subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment 4 before authorisation, which includes a description of the emission of noise, and of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce or, if possible, offset any adverse effect. Member States are required, every five years, to adopt strategic noise maps showing noise exposure from major sources 5 . In this process, the END refers to the use of A-weighted equivalent sound levels as primary regulatory metrics in line with the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) 6 . It is however noted that wind turbines generate infrasound or lower frequencies of sound than traffic sources which may not be fully addressed by standard noise metrics. As outlined in 2023 Implementation Report 7 and the Zero Pollution Mid-Term Review 8 , the Commission is committed to improving the implementation of the END. In the EU programme for the environment and climate action 9 , noise and vibrations from wind turbines is a priority topic 10 and in Horizon Europe 11 several projects have investigated noise from wind turbines 12 . The Commission has also accepted the recommendations of the 1 Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, OJ L 189 18.7.2002, p. 12. 2 Directive (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 amending Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution Prevention and control) and Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, OJ L, 2024/1785, 15.7.2024. 3 Annex II, point 3(i) of the Directive 2011/92/EU. 4 In accordance with Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU. Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 124, 25.4.2014. 5 Articles 3 and 7 of the Environmental Noise Directive. 6 https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289053563. 7 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC, 20.3.2023, COM(2023) 139 final. 8 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/mid-term-review-zero-pollution-action-plan_en. 9 LIFE, https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en. 10 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/life/wp-call/2025/call-fiche_life-2025sap-env_en.pdf, para.2.4 noise. 11 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en. 12 Examples: Wind In My Backyard: Using holistic modelling tools to advance social awareness and engagement on large wind power installations in the EU (https://doi.org/10.3030/101083460); Understanding of the Physics of Wind Turbine and Rotor Dynamics through an Integrated Simulation Framework (https://doi.org/10.3030/763990); Closed-Loop Flow Control to Enhance Aerodynamic and Aeroacoustic”
  Air quality policy · Energy (green transition)
• 2026-02-17 “P-000028/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission As stated in its reply to written question E-002945/2024, the Commission considers that pruning and other maintenance of vegetation cannot be considered a ‘production process’ as their objective is not the manufacturing of any product. Consequently, the Commission considers that grass clippings and other residues from pruning and other maintenance of vegetation cannot be considered ‘by-products’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Waste Framework Directive 1 . This does not prevent their use for composting, as biomass or for biogas production 2 . The decree of 19 June 2024 referred to by the Honourable Member considers pruning and other vegetation maintenance operations to be ‘by-products’. The scope of the decree is limited to defining inputs eligible for biomass plants under an incentive scheme for renewable energy. Therefore, it does not seem to contradict EU waste legislation, provided that the obligations thereunder are complied with. The Commission does not consider that designating companies that maintain public green spaces as ‘initial producers’ of grass clippings and pruning residues entails that this waste is no longer ‘municipal waste’ but rather a ‘by-product’ from a production activity. The classification of grass clippings and pruning residues as ‘municipal waste’ 3 and the possibility for them to be considered a ‘by-product’ 4 are two different matters under the Waste Framework Directive, which are not affected by the qualification of the original waste producer. 1 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3-30. 2 According to Article 22 of Directive 2008/98/EC, bio-waste shall as of 31 December 2023 be either separated and recycled at source or collected separately and not mixed with other types of waste. 3 Article 3(2b) of the Waste Framework Directive. 4 Article 5(1) of the Waste Framework Directive.”
  Biofuels (RED II) · Circular economy
• 2026-02-05 “E-003747/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission presented a proposal to amend the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 1 in order to reduce the load on the EUDR Information System and ease the administrative burden for economic operators, while maintaining the Regulation’s environmental integrity. In December 2025, the co-legislators agreed on the revised EUDR 2 and the revised text has now entered into force. The new date of entry into application will be 30 December 2026 for all companies except for most micro- or small operators, for which it will be 30 June 2027. For micro- or small operators already covered by the EU Timber Regulation 3 , the entry into application will be 30 December 2026. The amendments to the EUDR also limit the obligation to submit due diligence statements to the first operator placing the relevant products on the market. Downstream operators, such as retreading industry or craft businesses, will no longer need to submit due diligence statements, nor to pass on the reference numbers further in the supply chain. The agreed text also includes a differentiated approach for low-risk countries. It notably exempts from the obligation to submit a due diligence statement ‘micro and small primary operators’ form a low-risk country that sell their goods directly on the EU market. A large majority of farmers, cattle ranchers and foresters within the EU will be captured by this definition and hence benefit from the simplifications. 1 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 2 Regulation (EU) 2025/2650 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards certain obligations of operators and traders, OJ L, 2025/2650, 23.12.2025. 3 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market, OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, pp. 23– 34.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights) · Trade impact on forests
• 2026-02-02 “E-004715/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Honourable Member is very correct, that water resilience is key to tackle water scarcity and other water related challenges. As announced in the Water Resilience Strategy 1 , the Commission’s proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2 features support to water resilience through investments and reforms. But already now, the mid-term review of the Cohesion Policy 3 has created a unique package of incentives for water resilience projects, including in relation to water infrastructure. Also, the Common Agricultural Policy 4 provides a wide range of tools, including support for sustainable farming practices and investments which increase water resilience in agriculture and rural areas, as well as risk management tools 5 . Interreg programmes 6 and the b-solutions initiative 7 also supports transboundary cooperation on water quantity issues 8 . The Commission continuously promotes transboundary cooperation on water scarcity and drought in the context of its cooperation with Member States in the framework of the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive 9 , particularly through a dedicated Working Group for Water Scarcity & Droughts 10 which facilitates the exchange of best practices and the development of common guidance. The Commission is also actively encouraging Member States and third countries to cooperate more closely on water quantity management issues in the context of the competent international river basin bodies, particularly through the adoption of coordinated Programmes of Measures for the various international river basin districts in line with Article 3 of the Water Framework Directive. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en. 3 COM(2025) 163, 1 April 2025 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/communication/mid-term-review2025/communication-mid-term-review-2025_en.pdf. 4 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy_en. 5 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/financing-cap/cap-funds_en. 6 https://interreg.eu/. 7 https://www.b-solutionsproject.com/ 8 For instance, by means of helping neighbouring countries in the Danube river basin calculate a water balance, https://interreg-danube.eu/projects/danube-water-balance. 9 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 10 The CIS Working group adopted, for instance, Technical Guidance no 24 of June 2024, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/river-basin-management-changing-climate_en.”
  EU policy on water management
• 2026-02-02 “E-004682/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission agrees with the Honourable Members that the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 1 is a cornerstone of the EU’s water resilience agenda. It remains committed to its successful implementation. In line with its simplification objective, the Commission has put forward proposal for an environmental omnibus 2 . In this proposal the Commission presented a package of measures to simplify environmental legislation. The changes will contribute to reducing the administrative burden for businesses, while keeping the EU's ambitious objectives to protect the environment and human health. The WFD was not included in the scope of the omnibus. However, in the context of the RESourceEU Action Plan 3 , the Commission has announced that by the second quarter of 2026 it will review and revise the WFD. This exercise will build on stakeholders’ input and experiences in Member States. Particular attention will be paid to simplification and the need to address potential bottlenecks in order to promote circularity and access to critical raw materials in the EU, while protecting the environment and human health. As outlined in the Water Resilience Strategy 4 , a more effective implementation and enforcement of the EU water legislation, particularly the WFD, is a priority to ensure water security and resilience in the EU. The Commission has recently kicked off the announced Structured Dialogue with Member States to identify implementation gaps and priorities and to work jointly towards a reinforced implementation of the broader EU water acquis. 1 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 2 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/simplification-administrative-burdens-environmentallegislation_en. 3 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/01c448d6-dc93-40d7-9afe-4c2af448d00c_en. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en.”
  EU policy on water management · Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-02-02 “E-004356/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) 1 has established for all packaging materials a modulation of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fees based on recyclability performance grade 2 . However, sales packaging made of lightweight wood is exempted from the recyclability obligations 3 , while it remains subject to EPR fees. The Commission is required to review this exemption by 1 January 2035 4 . Based on a Commission proposal 5 of 21 October 2025, the European Parliament and Council adopted in December 2025 a revised EU Deforestation Regulation 6 (EUDR) with targeted amendments to ease administrative burdens and reduce pressure on the Information System, while maintaining environmental integrity through simplifications and transitional periods. In addition, to support the implementation of the EUDR, the Commission issued 7 updated guidance 8 and Frequently Asked Questions 9 reflecting input from Member States, partner countries and industry. 1 Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025. 2 The methodology to calculate the recyclability performance grades for all packaging materials will be adopted in a delegated act, due 31 December 2027. This delegated act will also include a harmonised framework to help Member State modulate EPR fees of packaging, including wood packaging. 3 These materials are placed on the market in very small quantities, i.e. each category amounts to less than 1 % of the weight of the packaging placed on the Union market. 4 The assessment of the exemptions should consider at least the evolution of sorting and recycling technologies and practical experience gained by the economic operators and Member States. 5 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards certain obligations of operators and traders, COM/2025/652 final. 6 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 7 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1063. 8 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/5dc7aa19-e58f-42a3-bbbe-f0eb2e5a1d3a_en. 9 providing companies, EU Member States' authorities and partner countries with additional simplified measures and clarifications - https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/34861680-e799-4d7c-bbadda83c45da458/library/e126f816-844b-41a9-89ef-cb2a33b6aa56/details.”
  Sustainable packaging · Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-01-28 “E-004699/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Ensuring compliance of plans and projects with EU environmental legislation is primarily the responsibility of the Member States. In case of the project in question, which is to be located within the Natura 2000 site PLH 220032 Zatoka Pucka i Półwysep Helski, several provisions of the EU environmental legislation may apply. According to the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 1 projects such as hotel complexes outside urban areas must be subject to a screening to decide if a full environmental impact assessment is necessary. The Habitats Directive 2 Article 6(3) requires that a project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site must undergo an appropriate assessment in view of the site's conservation objectives and can be authorised only if it is confirmed that it would not affect the integrity of the site. According to information available to the Commission services 3 , two decisions issued for this project by the mayor of Hel, i.e. on the construction of the hotel complex and a permit to cut down over 400 trees are subject to a review procedure by the Local Government Appeal Board in Gdańsk 4 . The Board has also suspended the implementation of these decisions until its verdict is delivered. The project can therefore still be brought into compliance with applicable EU law, if any non-conformities are identified. The Commission focuses its enforcement action where there is evidence of a systematic breach of the EU law, rather than on individual cases of incorrect application 5 . The Commission does not have any competence to review permits or stop individual projects approved by the Member States. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue monitoring the situation and may decide to take appropriate action. 1 Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1–21, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014, OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1–18. 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. 3 https://oko.press/na-zywo/na-zywo-relacja/hel-na-razie-uratowany. 4 second instance permit authority. 5 Communication from the Commission - EU law: Better results through better application, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10–20, and Communication from the Commission - Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers, 13.10.2022, COM(2022) 518 final.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-01-27 “E-004381/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission In June 2025, the Commission adopted the Water Resilience Strategy 1 , with water efficiency as a key focus across all sectors in the EU, including water supply. This strategy strengthens the implementation of the recast Drinking Water Directive 2 , which was adopted in December 2020 and has since been transposed into national law by Greece. The Directive includes provisions for Member States to reduce leakage levels in the water supply chain. By 12 January 2026, Member States were required to report to the Commission the results of their assessments of water leakage levels within their territories and identify potential improvements for reducing leaks. By January 2028, the Commission will review these assessment results and establish a water leakage threshold through a Delegated Act. By January 2030, Member States that exceed this threshold must present an action plan outlining measures to reduce their leakage levels. In this context, the 2021-2027 Cohesion Policy 3 programmes support water management and water resource conservation across Greece, including measures to reduce leakages, with an EU contribution of EUR 71.7 million. In collaboration with representatives and experts from Member States 4 , the Commission has developed an indicator for water leakage levels. This indicator facilitates the use of harmonised water leakage data and enables effective benchmarking. The Commission has encouraged Member States to include this indicator in their reporting, which was due by 12 January 2026. Monitoring of and steering on this indicator should enable Member States to achieve the required water leakage level targets. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en. 2 Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast) OJ L 435, 23.12.2020, p. 1–62. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/2021-2027_en. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expertgroups/consult?lang=en&do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3030&Lang=EN.”
  EU policy on water management