European Commissioner for Environment, water resilience and competitive circular economy · ENV · Sweden
- 2026-07-14 “Thank you, Madam Deputy Secretary-General, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me begin by thanking the United Nations for convening this important meeting and the Secretary-General for his inspiring remarks.
The EU strongly supports the work of the Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals.
The European Commission co-chaired the Panel, and we are pleased to see its recommendations moving towards implementation.
We especially welcome the Panel recommendations on material efficiency and circular economy, an area where the EU has long advocated for ambitious action.
Critical energy transition minerals are indispensable for a prosperous and sustainable.
There is simply no economic security, green transition, or digital future without them.
Everything we discuss today stems from this truth.
The crucial question, then, is how we secure resilient, environmentally sustainable, fair and affordable supply chains.
Part of the answer is to diversify supply and strengthen responsible production.
Through the Critical Raw Materials Act, the EU is reinforcing domestic capacities while building strategic partnerships with partners around the world.
But increasing extraction alone is not enough.
We cannot dig our way out of this problem.
This is recognised by the UN recommendations. And the EU is committed to turn these recommendations into action.
We recognise that the circular economy is not simply an environmental ambition – it is a strategic necessity.
It means more efficient use of critical materials and less vulnerability to supply disruptions, price volatility and geopolitical dependencies.
More value. Less waste.
More reuse of materials and – as a result – less extraction or importation of materials.
Circularity is a journey that strengthens both resource security and economic resilience.
It starts with designing products that are more durable, repairable and easier to reuse.
It continues with remanufacturing, high-quality recycling and recovering valuable materials from batteries, electronic waste and even mining waste.
And it ends by squeezing every drop of value from the resources we already have.
In Europe, our efforts are designed to support this transition – whether we talk about laws on critical raw materials, batteries, or sustainable products design -- they all contribute to making critical mineral value chains more resilient, competitive and sustainable.
We have also made progress on traceability and transparency in our rules, and are committed to strengthening this work beyond our own borders.
Let me therefore finish with a word on international cooperation.
This is the very foundation of progress – and the reason we are gathered here today.
The EU will continue to build partnerships that diversify supply, create local value, support innovation and uphold high environmental and social standards.
On this, we are guided by a simple but powerful principle: Resilient critical mineral value chains are not only about securing supply. They are about ensuring that the clean energy and digital transitions are built on fairness, sustainability and circularity.
I look forward to working with all of you to deliver this future.
And to turn the Panel's recommendations into concrete action delivering concrete results.
Thank you.”
Circular economy · Sourcing of critical raw materials
- 2026-07-14 “Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
Let me warmly thank the co-hosts for organising this event. But even more importantly, thank you for the work undertaken with the co-chairs to prepare the UN Water Conference and shape the Interactive Dialogues.
The European Union is determined to support this effort – including by sharing our experience in sustainable and resilient water management.
Water is our lifeblood. It needs better protection and more support.
Our Water Resilience Strategy is our response to this urgent need.
It will serve as our flagship contribution to the Conference.
In support of the Conference preparations, and in close cooperation with Senegal and the UAE, the EU is ready to engage in Water Resilience Dialogues on governance, financing, nature-based solutions, climate resilience, water reuse and digital water systems.
We will organise a high-level workshop in September to refine policy messages and shape concrete initiatives across several Interactive Dialogues, notably:
Water for Prosperity (ID B - Spain and China)
Water for the Planet (ID C - Egypt and Japan)
And Investments for Water (ID F - France and South Africa)
The EU is committed to stronger global water governance.
And we are committed to making water a foundation of resilience, prosperity and effective multilateral cooperation.
But we need to take concrete steps to deliver concrete results.
Beyond 2030, we should work towards a permanent intergovernmental process for water within the UN, while better integrating water into climate, biodiversity and land agendas.
And together, we can protect our most precious resource – for our societies today, and for future generations tomorrow.
Thank you.”
EU policy on water management
- 2026-07-13 “Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you for joining us today. And thank you to Administrator De Croo and UNDP for helping to organise today's important event.
Water is our lifeblood. It is like a thread that connects us all. That ties our economies and our environment together. Our healthcare, development, industry, and so much more.
If we cut that thread, or allow it to fray and snap, everything falls apart.
In Sweden, for example, 45 percent of our electricity comes from hydro.
65% of Europe's electricity production relies on water for cooling.
So, water scarcity could leave our homes dark. It could force our factories to shut up shop and our businesses to pull down the shutters.
In Europe, and beyond, if we do not protect and repair the water cycle, our crops wilt and our fields run dry.
Our food and energy security, sanitation, industrial resilience, trade and more are all powered by water – in one way or another.
This shows us how exposed we are to water risks. June this year was the hottest June ever recorded. And Ocean temperatures are rising.
This is deeply alarming. If the water cycle falters, they do too.
So, the stakes couldn't be higher.
Sustainable Development Goal 6 recognises these risks – and seeks to avert them.
And it holds up water security as a fundamental, essential human right.
But progress is far too slow, too disjointed, and too uneven.
Today, despite all of humanity's technological advancements, more than 2 billion people still lack access to safe drinking water.
More than 3 billion lack access to proper sanitation.
This is simply unacceptable.
On top of that – climate change, land-use change, unsustainable water use and pollution are disrupting the water cycle.
They are increasing the frequency and severity of droughts and floods, and damaging water quality.
It is a harsh reality that leaves us with two clear lessons.
First – we are at a fork in the road. One path continues towards a broken water cycle. It is the path of business as usual. The irony is that there will be no business at all at the end of this road.
The other option – we act, urgently, collectively, and decisively, to repair the water cycle and deliver water resilience at scale.
The second lesson is simple: we cannot solve this problem alone. We need the private sector to play its part.
Industrial leaders, institutional investors, innovators and experts in market intelligence and regulation, water experts and development partners – all have vital roles.
That's why meetings like this one are so important. Today, we have exactly the type of broad coalition, expertise and experience that we need to deliver change.
In Europe, we are responding to these challenges through our new Water Resilience Strategy.
We are taking concrete steps to restore the water cycle, to build a water-smart economy, and to ensure access to clean and affordable water and sanitation for all.
We are investing in water infrastructure, water efficiency, urban planning, digital solutions and more – at home and abroad.
Through the Global Gateway, we are scaling up partnerships and mobilising investment worth over 300 billion to address the most pressing global challenges – and water is one of the central pillars.
But a significant financing gap exists in the water sector.
Yes – we need greater coordination within and between existing mechanisms, financial institutions, and multilateral development banks.
But public funding alone will not be enough.
We need to mobilise private finance at scale.
And we need to work together to enable and de-risk investments.
That means strengthening governance frameworks, addressing tensions around water pricing and affordability, and building the necessary institutional and technical capacity.
With the upcoming UN Water Conference, and one of its Interactive Dialogues focusing on investments for water, we have a real chance to move from ambition to action.
We cannot allow this opportunity to pass us by.
Now – my primary goal today is to listen.
Where do you see roadblocks to water resilience, and how can we overcome them together?
How can we mobilise public–private financing for water security?
How can we contribute concretely to the UN Water Conference?
And what do we need to do to ensure that it delivers concrete results?
Over to you.”
EU policy on water management
- 2026-07-13 “Excellencies, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,
It is a pleasure to join you today.
Thank you to UNEP and Germany for partnering with the European Union on this important discussion.
Madame Deputy Executive Director has made some excellent points – and has echoed some of my own thinking.
We meet at a decisive moment. With only four years left until 2030, progress on the Sustainable Development Goals remains far too slow and far too uneven.
At the same time, the triple planetary crisis of climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss continues to deepen.
If we want a sustainable future, we must act on all three together – urgently, decisively, and collectively.
Today, I want to focus on a simple truth that is often overlooked.
Pollution is not only an environmental problem. It is a human health problem, a development problem, and an economic problem. In fact, the World Economic Forum has pointed out pollution as a key risk.
The air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. The soil that grows our crops. All of these are impacted by pollution. And all of these impact our health and wellbeing.
Pollution harms children's development, weakens communities, increases health costs and damages productivity.
Discussions like this one are an important part of the solution – but our ambitions and the political will on display here today must be translated into concrete action.
Pollution is closely linked to the Sustainable Development Goals under review this year.
If we want clean water and sanitation, we must reduce chemical releases, untreated wastewater and dumping.
If we want clean energy, we must speed up the shift to cleaner technologies.
If we want sustainable industry, we must invest in cleaner production, safer chemicals and resource efficiency.
If we want sustainable cities, we must improve air quality and waste management.
In other words, action on pollution is not separate from development. It is one of its cornerstones.
The good news is that solutions exist.
Pollution is largely preventable. When we invest in prevention, we save lives, reduce costs and create new opportunities.
Circularity is a crucial step.
It cuts waste, reduces exposure to harmful substances, lowers pressure on nature, reduces the need for extraction, and strengthens competitiveness.
It can also support innovation, new business models and quality jobs.
This is why the European Union sees pollution prevention as part of a broader transition to a cleaner, more resilient, more circular and more competitive economy.
In the European Union, we are working across sectors to reduce pollution at source, promote clean technologies and safe and sustainable chemicals.
That means moving towards cleaner modes of transport, improved water and waste management and more sustainable production and consumption patterns.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is a reason we are gathered here today. Pollution crosses borders and boundaries like air or water.
We need global action to tackle this global crisis.
The EU supports stronger global governance, including through the Global Framework on Chemicals.
And we are striving to conclude an effective global agreement on plastic pollution and to operationalise the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution. Its establishment show how we can make progress on multilateralism even in difficult times.
I am also counting on the next UN Water Conference to drive a global agenda for reducing water pollution.
We must also recognise the links between pollution and biodiversity. Polluted soils, rivers, seas and ecosystems are less able to provide food, clean water, resilience and livelihoods.
This shows again that our agendas are connected. Climate, biodiversity, pollution and circular economy policies work better when they move together.
My message today is therefore simple.
We need faster action, stronger implementation and broader partnerships.
I call on all countries to place pollution prevention at the centre of their development strategies, to mobilise public and private investment, and to create the policy conditions that reward clean innovation.
I also call on business, cities, youth and civil society to keep pushing for change.
A pollution-free economy is not a distant vision. It is a practical pathway to better health, greater resilience and shared prosperity for all.
Thank you.”
Circular economy
- 2026-07-13 “Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates,
I am honoured to deliver this statement on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.
Just over ten years ago, when the 2030 Agenda was adopted, it carried the promise that global cooperation could deliver concrete benefits for people. It sought to promote peace and shared prosperity, while protecting the planet. That promise is being severely tested.
There is an unacceptable gap between our commitments and their implementation. Trust in multilateral cooperation has been eroded. And the international rules-based system founded on international law and human rights has been undermined.
The High-Level Political Forum is designed to help close that gap and restore that trust. It is meant to be a space where political will meets action, and where progress – and setbacks – are examined honestly.
This edition comes at a pivotal moment, in a year where the Conferences of the Party of the three Rio Convention are taking place and in the context of the UN80 initiative.
With four years remaining before 2030, the EU notes with grave concern that progress towards the SDGs is severely impeded by multiple and interlinked crises, especially conflict, increasing inequality, and the triple planetary crisis of climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss.
The EU stands by the 2030 Agenda and stresses the urgent need for accelerated action to reverse these alarming trends.
The primary responsibility rests with us, the UN Member States. We must tackle the critical, cross-cutting challenges that hinder sustainable development, while advancing its key enablers, including climate action, the full realisation of human rights and gender equality.
Ladies and gentlemen, multilateralism faces testing times. However, progress is possible provided our actions are transformative, equitable, innovative and coordinated.
First, the availability and sustainable management of water, sanitation and hygiene is a key priority for the EU. As water stress grows, achieving SDG6 requires sustained global commitment. This must include promoting nature-based-solutions and a climate-resilient and integrated water resources management, with special attention to the outsized impacts on women and girls.
The EU calls for a strong position on water as a key cross cutting element beyond 2030 and looks forward to the 2026 UN Water Conference as a stepping stone to a stronger global water agenda post 2030. The EU advocates for a regular intergovernmental UN process on water, taking into account the ongoing UN80 reform which provides an important context.
Second, while progress on SDG7 has been notable, including increasing renewable energy generation, it is slowing. Only a small portion of energy investment reaches the areas most in need. Achieving SDG7 requires a significant investment in developing countries to expand equal and inclusive access to electricity and scale up low carbon technologies and renewable energy, generation, transmission, distribution and storage.
Progress has been made on SDG9. However, regional disparities persist, and many developing countries face systemic barriers to inclusive and sustainable industrialisation. Countries must boost investment and promote sustainable consumption and production patterns, including by integrating or implementing the circular economy.
Finally, on SDG11, urbanisation is accelerating and cities face challenges like housing shortages, high energy costs and poverty. Advancing SDG11 requires integrated territorial development focused on affordable, sustainable, decent quality and inclusive housing and buildings, and investments in resilience against climate change and natural disasters.
The EU Agenda for Cities: Driving Growth and Prosperity is actively contributing to these goals.
Work towards achieving all SDGs is supported by our efforts on SDG17. It requires strengthened whole-of-government and whole-of-society partnerships. Closing the SDG financing gap and strengthening global partnerships are critical steps.
The EU stresses the need to mobilise all sources of sustainable public and private finance at scale, strengthen domestic resource mobilisation, address debt vulnerabilities, advance reforms of the international financial architecture, and foster partnerships to close the digital divides.
Through initiatives like the Global Gateway, the EU and its Member States support partner countries in promoting strategic autonomy, and accelerating social, digital and green transitions.
We take this opportunity to congratulate the countries who will present voluntary national reviews this year, including two EU Member States.
In closing, the EU strongly supports the HLPF as the central UN platform for review and acceleration of the SDGs. We call for strengthened multi-stakeholder engagement and look forward to engaging constructively once again in the Forum.
Thank you.”
Global priorities for international development
- 2026-07-10 “E-001235/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Water Framework Directive (WFD) 1 requires Member States to ensure that mining discharges do not cause deterioration of surface water status or prevent the achievement of good status. All point source discharges, such as mining waste, must receive prior authorisation with sufficiently stringent emission controls to prevent pollution and protect water-dependent Natura 2000 sites. The Extractive Waste Directive 2 sets a high level of protection for the environment and human health. It includes specific provisions aimed at preventing the deterioration of water status in accordance with the WFD, while leaving competent authorities a margin of discretion when applying those rules. Under the Habitats Directive 3 Member States must avoid deterioration of natural habitats and species habitats, and significant disturbance of species for which Natura 2000 sites have been designated. Any project, including mining waste discharges into rivers, likely to have a significant effect on Natura 2000 must undergo an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site. The competent authority may only approve the project after ascertaining that it will not adversely affect its integrity. In line with its enforcement strategy focusing on systemic non-compliance 4 , the Commission considers it is the primary responsibility of the Spanish authorities to adequately enforce the above provisions of EU law. The Commission is aware of the concerns raised by the Honourable Member and notes that, according to available information, the Spanish Environmental Prosecutor has opened an investigation 5 . In any event, the Commission intends to discuss bilaterally with Spain the implementation of the WFD during an upcoming structured dialogue. 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, pp. 1–73. 2 Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC - Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 15–34. 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 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. 5 E.g. https://elpais.com/espana/2026-03-10/los-ayuntamientos-de-sanlucar-y-chipiona-denuncian-los-vertidosmineros-en-el-guadalquivir-ante-la-fiscalia.html.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Environmental crimes and justice
- 2026-07-08 “President, honorable members, thank you very much for this debate. It was really encouraging for me. I would just shortly repeat some things. Bioeconomy is a big sector. I talked about it in the beginning, many have repeated, and it has a big potential. I also see the great importance for our resilience with bioeconomy. Biofertilizers was mentioned, I totally agree, that can create our own homegrown fertilizers. The competitiveness will be encouraged by this, but also, of course, fighting climate change and the decarbonization and the dependencies that we are today. Of course, I also see the challenges. Access to market mentioned for many, that is actually the one thing that is mentioned over and over again when I visit innovative companies all around Europe. There's a need for scale up, the need for finance, but also as I said in my beginning, it's not always the lack of capital, but it's the mix max of capital. I will end this, my intervention with stealing what MEP Shaun Kelley said. He said, let's now use this momentum. That was my words, maybe. But let's put circular bioeconomy in the heart of our industrial agenda. Thank you very much for the debate.”
EU support for bioeconomic applications
- 2026-07-08 “President, honorable members, thank you for organizing this debate on the bioeconomy and its potential to boost the EU strategy strategic autonomy, resilience, and competitiveness. The timing could not be more relevant. Europe is facing a changing geopolitical and economical landscape. Real wars, trade wars, and climate change have turned global energy and raw material material markets upside down. We often speak about our energy dependency, but we must also have a conversation about our material dependency. The bioeconomy is a part of the answer. Every time we use bio based materials to produce plastic, chemicals, textiles, or fertilizers, we increase our resilience and our independence. The recent crisis have highlight just how vulnerable our economics are at external shocks. They have also reminded us of the resilience that the resilience is not built overnight. It requires long term investments, strategic partnership, and confidence in Europe's own resources. In this context, building a competitiveness competitive and sustainable bioeconomy has become an economic necessity and clear strategic opportunity for Europe. And we know what the EU bioeconomy already means for citizens and businesses across Europe. I have seen it firsthand in discussions with farmers, fishers, rural communities, and innovative companies. And the number, they speak for themselves. The EU bioeconomy creates a value of around €2,700,000,000,000. It employs 17,100,000 people and corresponds to 5% of EU GDP. And every job in the bioeconomy creates 3 indirect jobs in the EU. And I have no doubts with the right incentives that we can deliver more economic growth, environmental benefits, and resilience. And for the 1st time, we have taken steps to maximize this potential with our new EU bioeconomy strategy. We showed that the possibilities that already exist in nature's design. We are not the only 1 who sees this. In October, the Irish presidency will bring the world to Dublin for the Global Bioeconomy Summit with the European Union as a committed partner. But strategies alone only can matters if they also lead to concrete actions. And this is only happening when policy, industry, and finance move together, and that is what I want to focus on today. 1st, we aim to remove barriers that delays market entry, creates uncertainty, and increase administrative costs. We will look at sector specific sector specific regulations, but also cross cutting efforts, steering, by the way by the by the soon to be established bioeconomy regulators and innovators forum. Some innovators tell me that they struggle with different national definitions of what can consider be considered as bio based. That matters a lot, of course, in terms of what legislative legislations, applies. So with the future, Biotech Act 2, we will streamline rules to remove bottlenecks and create a single market for these innovative products. We are also progressing work on bio based plastic, including the necessary preparatory test studies and consultation to provide greater clarity for innovators and investors. 2nd, we are taking concrete steps to bring investors to the table. The 1st meeting of the bio economy in this investment deployment group confirmed that the challenge is not lack of capital, but it's a mismatch between available finance and the needs of bio based industrial projects. That is why we will work closely with the EIB private investors and national promotional banks to better connect promising projects with the financial financing that they need to scale up. During the Global Bioeconomy Summit, we will officially launch the Bio Based Europe Alliance to mobilize private demand for bio based materials and products. And the alliance will gather EU companies committed to collectively purchasing bio based materials and products worth €10,000,000,000 by 2030. Also also investing economy. Global global materials, products, technologies, and applications. So we are are also also working on a buyer's club to leverage public and private investments for purchases of carbon carbon credits, thus encouraging investments across value change. Honorable members, building a thriving innovative bioeconomy requires buy in from all Europe, from farmers to the financial sectors, from rural communities to regulators, from policymakers to researchers and innovators. So here, the parliament plays a crucial roles role. I really look forward to continue working with you on this strategy.”
EU support for bioeconomic applications
- 2026-07-08 “E-001083/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Trade between the EU and Colombia is governed by the EU-Andeans trade agreement 1 , which includes monitoring mechanisms under its title IX on trade and sustainable development. To complement the annual institutional dialogue on Trade and Sustainable Development under the Trade Agreement between the EU and Andean countries, including Colombia, several tools and actions are in place to promote a transition towards sustainable value chains including human rights protection. Upon entry into application of the EU Deforestation Regulation 2 in December 2026, operators placing on the EU market products produced with commodities originating from Colombia 3 will have to carry out full due diligence to ensure that they are deforestation free and produced in line with the relevant legislation of the country of Colombia, including in terms of human rights protected under international law and the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), including as set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) 4 will require large companies to identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and in their (global) value chains. Non-compliance is subject to public and private enforcement. The Global Gateway supports sustainable and quality investments with high social, environmental and governance standards in full compliance with human rights obligations 5 . The Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe Regulation 6 ensures the systematic application of the Human Rights Based Approach in all EU funded external actions. 1 https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/andeancommunity_en. 2 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. 3 Starting from the entry into application of the EU Deforestation Regulation at the end of 2026. 4 Enters into application mid-2029: Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859, OJ L, 2024/1760, 5.7.2024. 5 Including respect for territorial rights. 6 https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/funding-technical-assistance/neighbourhood-development-and-internationalcooperation-instrument-global-europe-ndici-global-europe_en.”
Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights) · EU policy on social & environmental impact of foreign investments · Trade impact on forests
- 2026-07-08 “Thank you very much, president. It's the 1st time for me in this new setting. So so, mister Sokol, I really fully agree that this is not, it is about growth and simplification and the competitiveness for Europe. And as I see, it's really the momentum now is to make this a sustainable industry strategy. Just to push for the the question on the medicine and the pharma sector, we are really important that that that we put the biotech, BioAct Tech Act to, into place very soon. Sis, Alwena, you correctly point out that the the resources that that we have when it comes to bio is not endless, but they are renewable. They are home ground ground, and that is why we need to treat them both, manage them with sustainability, but also use this as an opportunity to change, the decarbonization, agenda that we are into. I also want to highlight 1, maybe, additional point on that is that another part of my portfolio is that we also need to use the circularity here. Emmy Pidunatza, you mentioned the defense and resilience, and this is a key point for me. Because, as I started with my 1st intervention, it is about, reduce our dependencies and that, again, a new crisis has showed how much that cost for all of us and us as consumers. And then on the bioeconomy, on I totally agree with the the Mehmeti from Finland. I totally agree, and we know that this is not a niche. This is something this is a big sector. I showed a little bit with my figures in the beginning. It is a key sector for all of Europe. It is a sector that we can lead if we do this right. We do this together. And I think that the time to do this is now. It's never been better or worse, but there is that we have. So, absolutely, I will try to move the regulation into that sec security angle also. I think that I also a little bit on on, MEP Gualda that, for me to harmonize and use this and link it again to circularity is exactly where I am. Finally, to MEP Smith, as I see this, this is also an opportunity to create jobs. We already see how much jobs the the bioeconomy creates in rural areas, creates for foresters, creates for farmers. So this is also, again, something that is beneficial for all of Europe and a win win win situation. Thank you very much.”
EU support for bioeconomic applications
- 2026-07-07 “E-000992/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission EU legislation does not include a definition of offshore wind turbines decommissioning. The Waste Framework Directive 1 (WFD) requires that waste be managed without endangering human health and harming the environment. In particular, Article 13 paragraph 1(a) requires Member States to take necessary measures to manage waste without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals. The Commission is carefully evaluating possible aspects related to circularity which may be relevant to wind turbines in the framework of the Impact Assessment for the Circular Economy Act 2 planned for adoption later in 2026. Moreover, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 3 requires Member States to ensure that human activities, including decommissioning, do not adversely affect the Good Environmental Status of marine waters. Partial removal of offshore wind turbine foundations must be assessed against Descriptors 1 4 , 6 5 , 10 6 and 11 7 , ensuring no lasting harm to ecosystems or circular economy principles. Scientific studies 8 give some insight into how foundations of offshore wind turbine foundations can function as artificial reefs, possibly enhancing biodiversity. As examples, the abundance of Atlantic cod shows that rock protections around the foundations attracted most fish, and innovative ways to incorporate European flat oyster habitats into the design of offshore wind infrastructure are being tested. Understanding and minimising environmental impacts of offshore wind, including decommissioning, was also addressed in a recent call under Horizon Europe 9 . 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 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy_en. 3 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy, OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40. 4 Biodiversity. 5 Seafloor integrity. 6 Marine litter. 7 Energy and noise. 8 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783624000018. 9 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/HORIZONCL5-2026-02-D3-08.”
Circular economy · Off-shore renewables
- 2026-07-07 “E-001233/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission In view of Spain’s failure to comply with its reporting obligations under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive 1 for the period 2019-2024, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure on 30 January 2026 2 . In the previous reporting cycle, covering the period 2013-2018, Spain reported the conservation status of the wolf as ‘unfavourable’ in its three biogeographic regions. It is for national authorities to ensure that the conclusion on the conservation status of the wolf is based on the best available scientific data 3 . The recent amendment of the Habitats Directive 4 has changed the protection status of the wolf from ‘strictly protected’ to ‘protected’, to align the EU legislation to the Bern Convention. This change gives additional flexibility to Member States in managing their local wolf populations, so that they can take measures that are well adapted to regional circumstances. However, Member States are still required to achieve and maintain wolf’s favourable conservation status at national and biogeographical level. Member States have discretion to maintain or introduce more stringent protective measures 5 . The Commission continues to promote the use of preventive measures to facilitate coexistence with large carnivores, which can be supported by EU or national funds. EU State aid rules allow Member States to compensate up to 100% of these damages. The Commission continues to assist Member States authorities and stakeholders in the design and implementation of such measures. National authorities are, however, the ones to decide on how to allocate such funds. 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 INFR(2025)2214, 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(2025)2214. 3 Case C-436/22, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5591/oj/eng. 4 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. 5 Article 193 Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Large Carnivores
- 2026-07-07 “E-000917/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The future EU-UK Agreement in respect of Gibraltar agreement, once applied, will not affect the issue referred to by the Honourable Members. The future EU-UK Agreement in respect of Gibraltar contains solid Level Playing Field provisions regarding State aid, taxation, labour and social standards, environment, climate and sustainable development. These provisions are aimed at preventing distortions of competition affecting EU stakeholders, including EU ports. As regards taxation, environment, climate, social and labour standards, the Agreement provides for non-regression which ensures that parties cannot weaken or reduce the level of protection in the different areas below the level in place on 31 December 2020 affecting trade or investment. Specifically, as regards emissions trading, the Agreement (Article 220(2)) provides that the UK, in respect of Gibraltar, shall ensure that such system or measures shall have an equivalent scope and effectiveness as the one in place in the EU at the time of the entry into force of the Agreement.”
EU relations with the Southern Neighbourhood · EU-UK relations
- 2026-07-06 “E-001093/2026/ Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission All calls for proposals under the EU programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE) 1 are equally open to applicants from all Member States and associated countries. With a view to ensuring maximum geographical coverage, the Commission, in collaboration with the LIFE Committee, has established in the Multiannual Work Programme indicative allocations for strategic integrated projects and strategic nature projects for each Member State. To date, under the current LIFE Programme, neither Germany at national level nor its regions are implementing any strategic project. One proposal that had been submitted, has subsequently been withdrawn by the applicants for lack of national cofinancing. The 2026 calls for proposals for strategic projects are currently open, and this represents a concrete opportunity to engage. The Commission has provided continuous support through specific technical assistance projects to develop the technical capacity of relevant authorities to participate in LIFE. The network of National Contact Points plays a crucial role in this regard, by informing potential applicants, providing guidance on policy priorities and project design. The European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency 2 regularly organise Info Days to assist all potential applicants and address their questions. The Commission continuously monitors and reviews administrative requirements to ensure they remain proportionate to the funds managed and commensurate with the added value delivered. This is achieved through continuous simplification of procedures, a dedicated monitoring team, and targeted capacity building activities, all of which are informed by feedback received from local implementing partners. 1 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en. 2 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/index_en.”
EU industrial funding · Circular economy
- 2026-07-06 “E-000694/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The implementation dialogues are a new political consultation tool introduced in 2025 on top of the Commission’s intensive stakeholder consultation processes. The goal of implementation dialogues is to capture first-hand implementation insights, identifying gaps and uncertainties, and surfacing practical burdens that can inform simplification and EU competitiveness priorities. This comes on top of all other established consultation tools the Commission employs based on the better regulation principles 1 . They are thus primarily informing the Commission’s efforts to improve its future simplification and implementation work. The participation of stakeholders from Member States who can contribute with experiences of how EU legislation is applied in concrete instances can be an essential asset for these dialogues. The Commission ensures the balanced presence of differing perspectives and stakeholder types in its preparation of the dialogues. The participating organisations and a summary of the dialogues’ outcomes is published on the respective Commission services’ websites as well as on the Europa website 2 . The Commission remains in regular and close contact at all levels with EU umbrella associations representing European civil society in all policy areas. It will continue to highly value their input and take it into account for policymaking. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-andtoolbox_en. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/simplification-andimplementation/implementation-dialogues-0_en#implementation-dialogues.”
Transparency requirements of EU institutions · EU engagement with civil society
- 2026-07-06 “E-001269/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission In July 2023, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new Regulation on End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVR) 1 . On 12 December 2025, the European Parliament and the Council reached a provisional political agreement on the Regulation. If adopted, its Articles 7 and 11, in conjunction with Annex V to that Regulation, will respectively regulate the design for removal and access to information on removal and replacement of electric vehicle (EV) batteries present in vehicles with specific obligations concerning digitally coded parts and components. The battery passport established by Article 77 of the Batteries Regulation 2 will also provide remanufacturers, second-life operators and recyclers with up-to-date information for the handling of batteries. The forthcoming ELVR – Article 27(3) 3 mandates that the vehicle, its parts and components, including the EV batteries, are treated in accordance with the waste hierarchy. Article 24(2) of the forthcoming ELV Regulation allows the delivery of ELVs without its EV battery to authorised treatment facilities to remain free of charge for the last owner, to particularly enable a potential reuse, remanufacturing or repurposing option, under the condition that the battery is handled in a professional manner. EV batteries remaining in the vehicle will be removed and further treated in accordance with the Battery Regulation. The Battery Regulation’s recycling targets for recovery of materials do not disincentivise re-use as those targets apply only to waste batteries without a reuse potential that have entered a recycling facility. Together these provisions help promote carbon neutrality and circularity for vehicles. The Commission has therefore not planned any amendments to the legislation. 1 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-circularity-requirements-vehicle-design-andmanagement-end-life-vehicles_en. 2 Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of th 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. 3 Numbering subject to change in the ongoing laywer – linguistic checks, latest version is available here: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6759-2026-INIT/en/pdf.”
Circular economy · Reparability of products
- 2026-07-06 “E-001084/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The demand for non-human primates for use in science is expected to continue as they remain essential in certain research areas, such as neurosciences and immunology, and for safety testing where no viable alternatives currently exist. Their use is regulated by the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 1 , which imposes stringent measures limiting their use for specific purposes. Currently, a significant proportion of non-human primates used in the EU are sourced from outside the Union. The Directive aims at ending the capture of non-human primates from the wild, including for breeding purposes. It also sets out some of the highest care and accommodation standards for non-human primates globally. Increasing EU-based breeding capacity can contribute to these objectives by ensuring compliance with EU welfare standards and reducing the risks associated with long-distance transport. The Directive sets out a legal framework for progressing towards their full replacement as soon as scientifically satisfactory alternatives are available. The use of non-human primates can only be authorised where a project evaluation satisfies the authorities of its compliance with the principle of the Three Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) and that the objectives cannot be met by using other species. The Commission does not have the competence to require Member States to adopt timebound roadmaps to phase out the use of non-human primates. Similarly, the Directive does not provide a legal basis for EU-level scientific or strategic assessments of national projects involving the breeding or importation of such animals. 1 Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 33.”
Use of animal testing
- 2026-06-29 “Prime Minister, Minister Hajder, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests,
I am delighted to join today's event.
I am delighted that you have chosen ‘Green Finance and Investment' as your theme for this conference.
How to finance our transition to a greener, cleaner, and more resilient economy is a fundamental question. It matters not only for our industry, financial institutions, rural communities and local authorities – but for the whole society and all of us.
So, the question is how we get there and how we mobilise the funding we need.
I can think of no better setting to discuss this question. Because we need to remember that there is no such thing as a transition without collaboration – across sectors, over borders, and between regions.
And that's why today's Forum – with public authorities, financial institutions, investors, development partners and the business community– is so important.
At its core, the green transition is about resilience.
It's about building a society – and economy – that can thrive and prosper for generations to come.
That can weather global and economic shocks – whether they are caused by climate change, real wars and trade wars, biodiversity loss, pandemics or something else entirely.
Environmental policy is one of the central pillars of this transition.
But today, environmental policy is so much more than simply protecting nature.
Environmental policy has become economic policy. Why?
Because healthy ecosystems and nature are the foundation for healthy economies.
They clean our air, stabilise our soils, pollinate our crops, and define our climate.
Take water, for example. It grows our food, powers our businesses, provides electricity, delivers our trade, and nourishes our societies.
Imagine a society without clean, abundant water? Factories shut up shop and businesses close down, our homes are dark, and our fields are parched.
So, it is no surprise to me when I see studies showing that more than half of global GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature.
Or, when I read that more than 7 out of 10 companies in the euro area are critically dependent on nature.
In fact, I would argue that all of GDP, and all companies, rely on nature in one way or another.
This means that, when we invest in ecosystems – or in sustainability – we are not being generous to nature, we are investing in our future.
And we have evidence to prove it.
We have seen how restoring wetlands means less flooding.
We know how the circular economy creates new business opportunities while reducing pressure on ecosystems.
Or how protecting grasslands benefits farmers.
And that's why environmental policy is the cornerstone of our plans to build a competitive economy, and a sustainable, resilient future.
For example, in the EU, our Nature Restoration Regulation is the first comprehensive law of its kind – and supports the restoration of ecosystems.
And last summer, the European Commission adopted a Nature Credits Roadmap to boost private investments in nature positive actions.
We have also scaled up biodiversity funding and aim to contribute up to 10% of our budget in 2026 and 2027.
I am very pleased that Moldova is so interested in these topics.
You have made important progress in recent years.
The opening of the first negotiation cluster is a milestone in accession talks – and it should be celebrated.
It demonstrates Moldova's commitment, and it shows what's possible.
Now, Moldova needs to focus on dedication on decarbonisation. On ecosystem protection. And on the circular economy.
I believe that the green transition – and the environmental action that underpins it – is the compass that can guide Moldova's path to the EU.
A lot of work has been done already to align your legislative frameworks with that of the EU. But as you know, this is an ongoing journey.
Let me share some thoughts on how to get to our shared destination.
First of all, we need visionary decision-makers to look beyond the next elections.
They need to make the green transition a priority.
Deciding how to spend limited resources is never easy.
Especially when the results of these decisions may not be visible in the short term.
But in the medium to long term, environmental policy, the circular economy, and restoring and protecting our ecosystems mean better economic performance, greater quality of life, and bigger opportunities for business.
However, decisions alone are not enough. You also need to ensure that you have an efficient administration to turn the decisions into concrete action.
To design environmental rules – and then to implement and enforce them.
It is good to have laws on paper. But they also need to work on the ground.
This is a challenge everywhere – not just here. However, in Moldova, only a fraction of the budget is being directed to environmental policy.
So, there is enormous potential for action.
The EU is determined to support Moldova's efforts.
Take the EU-Moldova Growth Plan, for example.
This 1.9-billion-euro package ties financial disbursement directly to green, structural, and administrative reforms.
There are other important projects underway across Moldova.
Millions of euros in EU funding are improving water resilience, energy security, air quality, and more.
A 200-million-euro loan from the European Investment Bank is backing a reforestation programme that will fight climate change and strengthen rural economies.
And the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is financing efforts to modernise solid waste infrastructure in Moldova.
As we speak, we are also looking into exactly how much funding Moldova needs to become compliant with EU environmental legislation.
By the end of this year, we will have a much clearer idea of these financing needs – and then the hard work really begins.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I like to think of enlargement as a stool that rests on three legs.
Aligning with EU legislation is one of these legs – and I commend the ongoing efforts.
Having the administrative capacity to implement the new legislation is another leg – and here more work is needed, as you know.
And – crucially – the investments needed to bring Moldova's environmental standards up to EU standards. This is the final leg of the accession “stool”.
Moldova needs serious financing plans backed by serious political commitment to address serious investment gaps.
This will be essential as we advance on the environment chapter.
Now, let me finish with an important point.
Nature is the backbone to all our infrastructure.
So, when we invest in it, we are not choosing nature over growth, we are choosing the kind of growth that lasts.
The EU is committed to this process, and to Moldova.
And I'm here to lend a hand, not to point the finger.
So, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the green transition.
I look forward to joining you on Moldova's path to EU accession.
And I look forward to working with you to build healthy ecosystems; a resilient, competitive economy; and a prosperous future for people across Moldova and around Europe.”
Energy (green transition)
- 2026-06-25 “You are all around the table are in process of preparing your national drafts for your drafts for national restoration plans by December this year. I know this is a big responsibility. Uh, and you will of course need to kick off a process to restore nature at the time when I understand budgets are tough and there are also new geopolitical challenges from the commission side. I've said it before, we are here to support you in this process. My director general and his deputy has visited many of your member states. And I also want to reconfirm to you that I will also give this, uh, give my this to you in writing again. And we need to implement the nature restoration regulation in a pragmatic and flexible way. I know this is a journey, but the journey has just been starting started. And in the draft plans that you are preparing, we are not looking for the perfection. I encourage you to plan for realistic and cost efficient restoration measures, starting from what is already happening today and making the most out of the limited resources that we have. So, dear colleagues, I will end that, and I'm really looking forward to hearing your views on this important matter. Thank you.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- 2026-06-25 “Sure. I promise, I thank you, Maria. Just I want to say very thank you very much. And it's great to hear the strong support for nature and biodiversity. And you know, I agree and it is not only exactly what the Irish said. Exactly. Now, it's not an environment that is not only an environmental necessity, it's also an economic security imperative for Europe. And it, as someone said, a strategic importance. However, and this is my maybe just to add, and this is not the discussion. It's. The sound is not exactly the same in other forums that you probably also attend. So I think one thing is important for all of us together that we bring this message also to other forums, and that how important it is to also invest and protect nature. Of course, always in a pragmatic way, taking into account that we all have tight budgets and that of course we also need to do it together with businesses and other stakeholders. Then finally, probably listened very carefully what I'm on. My first intervention that I said that the nature restoration plans, the drafts were going to be reported in December, that is, as you all know, not correct. I don't know why I said it, probably because December is my birthday. My birthday. Uh, but the correct is that it has to be delivered in September. Thank you.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- 2026-06-25 “To add something that what we have asked is the clear message to to convey clear messages have said to, to Turkey that not an invitation for an EU and UN member state is unacceptable. And today you have discussed that there are many member states that were very vocal on that, as I've said before, including the, the commission now on cars and vans our presidency focused on giving the, the appropriate space to delegations to to form and express their positions, whilst also progressing the text on vehicle labelling rules so that drivers get clear, reliable information when they buy a car. That part of the work is now in in good shape. On on the biggest political questions such as the the targets and flexibilities, more time is needed to bring those Member States positions together. Of course, the discussions also need to continue in connection with the work on the automotive omnibus, as I've said, and the Industrial Accelerated Act as they are, as they are all interlinked. And I am happy that we have laid solid groundwork for our Irish colleagues who will take over next week. I have every confidence they will steer us towards a balanced agreement, one that protects both our vision and and the strength of our automotive sector. Thank you.”
2035 ICE phase-out: strict zero-emission target vs. flexibility for carmakers
- 2026-06-25 “Yeah. First of all, allow me to say that the Cyprus presidency has organised several discussions and exchanges for the preparation of Cop 31, in response to earlier discussions on the importance of preparing early as a union with a more coordinated and forward looking approach to climate negotiations, with early planning, targeted initiatives and strong unity. Yes, we are concerned by information indicating that Turkey intends to invite only 26 EU member states to cope 31 conference and or the leader summit. Since the start of the preparatory meetings hosted by Turkey. Cyprus has not been invited to participate in any of them. This situation, as you understand, is unacceptable and inconsistent with Turkey's His responsibilities as host country of Cop 31. As host, Turkey has to invite all UN member states, including Cyprus, which also holds a coordination role as the presidency of the Council of the Union. This approach is contrary to the fundamental principles of inclusiveness and equal treatment that underpin the UN system and the Unfcc process, and it is therefore unacceptable. If the Republic of Cyprus is not invited in due time, then EU institutions and member States must engage without delay with Turkish authorities and convey a very clear message that non invitation of an EU and UN member state to a United Nations conference is unacceptable. We expect EU institutions and member states to show support and EU solidarity. Today we are very happy that we have. We had the support and not only today, the commissioner has has been very vocal on that from the beginning. Excluding any EU and UN member state from a United Nations conference is not in line with the rules of procedures of UN conference and should not be accepted, as I said preventing the unity of the European Union and ensuring a coordinated response are essential to safeguarding both the integrity of the process and the interests of the union as a whole. Thank you.”
EU-Turkey relations
- 2026-06-25 “The rapidly growing number of imported products, especially through online sales, has been creating significant challenges for enforcement, enforcement authorities and that we know and the commission is also preparing the European Product Act, which we expect to extend our toolbox for enforcement, combined also with the General Product Safety Regulation, the Market Surveillance Regulation, the Digital Service Act, and also the upcoming reform of the Union customs codes. We will we will benefit for a far better framework for controlling online sales and also to ensure stronger cooperation between services as well as the responsible authorities. In addition, the forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement, established under the European Chemicals Agency has also a central role in the coordination of actions on enforcement enforcing chemical legislation. The Commission remains fully committed to protect our citizens and the environment against substances such as the PFAs or forever chemicals and endocrine disruptors. This will be done through already existing instruments such such as rich restrictions and also complementary tools such as occupational safety and health and industrial emission legislation. We aim to streamline and increase their efficiency through better upfront planning and prioritization by early discussions in the One substance, One Assessment expert group and through the Reach Restriction roadmap.”
Chemicals regulation
- 2026-06-25 “Involve the industry, NGOs and member states in the implementation via consultation. Expert groups and bilateral meetings supplement the recommendations about the practical aspects related to the first restriction. I think arrested in food contract packaging with also further details. I am aware that this matter is one of the most complex. One causing concerns and you will remember the first rule was added by the co-legislators when the packaging and packaging waste regulation was negotiated. So we need to make this work for us. The guidance continues to hold, and I count on you to follow the guidance consistently to ensure a harmonised enforcement in the EU. The Commission remains fully committed to a transparent and timely adoption of the implementation. Implementing measures. Member States and the European Parliament have given us a clear, clear timelines and logical sequencing of the implementation measures, as I said to 2030, and I commit to work as fast as I know you need clarity. You need clarity. I also want to stress that national authorities have a key role to play. Some of the measures, for example, derogation from reuse targets that Finland and others have mentioned can only be triggered by you as national authorities. So I would also encourage you to your experts to get back to us on this matter, in case you believe you need this derogation. Now let's focus to the next important steps. Your involvement and continued engagement is essential to ensure a harmonised, clear and pragmatic application on the packaging and packaging waste regulation. Thank you very much.”
Re-use of packaging
- 2026-06-25 “Thank you very much, Maria. And thank you to the Benelux and Jean-Luc for for bringing sharing your views on the upcoming Circular Economy Act. Uh, I think it's for me, it's very great to see the strong commitment for the circular transition. And, uh, I have had a lot of stakeholder outreach and we are currently, as you know, finalizing the proposal. Also together with Stefan and Teresa, we want to present a package that strengthen the businesses business case for circularity and makes a real difference on the ground for businesses, citizens, and also for the environment. And I think that if we get this right, it will be a transformation of our industry. Circularity used to be a discussion from an environmental perspective, but today it's more and more increasingly seen as a topic for our resilience, our independence, our competitiveness, and also economic security. And rightly so. While important progress has been made, circularity remains far below its potential. Literally all companies that I talk to tell me that they want to become more circular, but they are struggling because of the economics really don't add up. Virgin materials remains to sheep and to. Many valuable materials are lost. Secondary raw materials are often struggled to compete, and business face businesses faces barriers when trying to scale circular solutions across the single market. To make that difference, we need to focus on three objectives. First, we need to simplify the regulatory framework and remove barriers to the single market. We need to go back to basics. We need to looking at definitions of waste and byproducts and and also barriers for shipping waste within the single market.”
Circular economy
- 2026-06-25 “Second, we need to strengthen supply and demand side in our secondary raw materials markets. And this is partly a chicken and egg situation. Too little demand creates limited incentives for a bigger supply and vice versa. Thirdly, the Circular Economy Act has to reduce our dependency on imports of critical raw materials. The revision of the directive, many of you mentioned, that will be a key element of this effort. We need to become much better on collecting, recycling and recover the valuable materials in the e-waste and extending the scope of what is being collected. And there is, of course, a lot of you that can also that a lot of that you can also do on national level, for example, when it comes to consumer awareness, improve collection and just. And a waste management system and tax. And just yesterday we proposed a less tail, less red tape. When it comes to people selling second hand materials and second hand materials second hand online. Let me just close on one final point, and it's an important one. I really count on you to keep the ambition and high and progress swiftly in the negotiations on the upcoming commission's proposal. It is no coincidence that circular Circular Economy Act is mentioned in the One Europe One market roadmap with a quick delivery. Finally, I agree with you, Jean-Luc. You have a great opportunity, so let us together seize that opportunity. Thank you very much.”
Circular economy
- 2026-06-25 “Thank you very much, dear Maria and dear colleagues. And again, thank you to the Cypriot presidency for organizing this exchange of you. And thank you for your willingness to you all to engage in today's discussion on how to improve our chemical legislation and also the enforcement, enforcement, which is 20 years old. And much has happened since the science has developed. Our industry is further progressed and unfortunately, pollution have increased. We need to have regulatory decisions grounded in science, and I believe that we also owe it to our citizens to close the gap between scientific evidence and the regulatory management of chemicals. Executive Vice President and I have looked into a range of options to simplify and modernize reach in the past year, and also to ensure better enforcement. The overall discussion pointed to to the conclusion that this is not the right time to open the reach regulation at this point. It. It. Time in time, certainly. Certainty and predictability are important, and in particular for the EU industry. At the same time, we can improve effectiveness within the current framework. Therefore, we are exploring other ways to simplify and modernize the framework, including through secondary legislation. We will look at harmonization, digitalization and how to simplify various procedures and align reach to the recently revised CLP. Also, we recently adopted a roadmap towards phasing out animal testing for chemical safety assessment, which will have to be incorporated in the framework.”
Chemicals regulation
- 2026-06-25 “The list is long, but yet biodiversity remains largely absent from pricing and the risk models which leads it leads in turn to significant underinvestment. Investment in nation can generate economic and social benefits. The EU's Natura 2000 network yields annually social economic benefits valued at between 200 to €300 billion. And yes, the this year's Green Week theme was was exactly about this and I can witness from that week. That was earlier this month. A number of businesses that are changing business models towards more nature positive actions. We had a breakfast which took place during this week where I heard concrete examples from big and small investors that are factoring in nature and how that makes a business sense today. And so that brings me to my second point. And that is finance the future MFF that we just discussed. Of course, here an essential role. Biodiversity relevant spending must be systematically mainstreamed across the next EU budget. And I am, as I already said, happy that the Council maintaining our proposal to anchor nature restoration explicitly in the national and regional Partnership plans. But I also would like to urge you to look at the money that we already have available. It is striking that billions of euros of cohesion funds programmed for investments in nature in the current MFF have not yet been used, so I would like to urge you to see the take this opportunity to use them.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- 2026-06-25 “I think that this is a it's an opportunity, a momentum that we should use to support a coherent set of messages on water Cop17 will also need to find a sustainable solution for a difficult budgetary situations of the Secretariat. Due to that, US not paying its contribution. Savings from previous years have now been largely depleted. The EU will continue, of course, to provide meaningful financial support through voluntary contributions, but a more sustainable solution is needed. Finally, in line with the EU's broader values, we should continue to support a meaningful participation of civil society organisations and the effective participation participation of women and girls, and gender equality that is important for effective implementation on the ground. Dear colleagues, in view of the Cop I would like to hear from. Of course, whether you agree that the 2024 conclusions remain valid as a basis for the EU position at the upcoming Cop. And of course, I also would welcome your views on any other issues that you consider should be given particular emphasis. We are looking forward, as always, to working with you for the upcoming. With also with the upcoming. Where are you? Irish presidency to make this and the other cops successful. Thank you.”
Climate policy
- 2026-06-25 “Thank you very much. And thank you for bringing this as an A or B for the new rules that, as correctly said, will start. Some of it will start from the 12th of August, but also some will apply from 2030. The European Council has called to create a true single market and make stronger use of regulations instead of directives. This is this is what the packaging and packaging waste regulation is about. The new rules will replace 27 national packaging laws and promote a single market for packaging. This can foster much needed investments in the packaging and recycling sector, and also support the issue that we have later on the agenda circular economy increasing it at scale. But this is, of course a big transformation for industry and for member states. And there is a lot of questions to be asked, clarifications that needs to be provided, and also unforeseen issues to solve. Together with my team. You know, we have been working, we are working very, very hard hand in hand with stakeholders to provide these clarifications. And I agree that we need clarity about the practical and consistent and also consistent implementation to avoid unnecessary fragmentation of the single market based on many, many trips across Europe and hundreds of stakeholders meetings in March 2026, the Commission provided a broad set of clarification to address these needs. And as you know, we are continuing this process. I think it's next week, the 1st of July, we are hosting a high level meeting on the Waste expert group to go through any remaining and outstanding issues going forward. The Commission commits to regularly update the frequently asked question to give more clarity.”
Sustainable packaging
- 2026-06-25 “Thank you. Maria. Um. Addressing desertification, land degradation, and droughts globally and in the EU is crucially important. I would like to thank the Cypriot presidency and member states for the ongoing preparations for the 17th Cop for the Convention on Combat Desertification. In our view, the conclusion adopted as a head of the Cop 16. Now we are heading for. 17 are still a good basis for Cop 17 for Cop 17. I see a number of priorities. First, we should maintain and increase momentum for implementation and stepping up action. Second, we should make progress on the strategic framework for the post 2030 period. The Cop needs to agree on a new mandate for continuing the process, and endorse the element elements identified by the current working group. Third Cop should adopt a meaningful decision to strengthen proactive drought management. Despite significant flexibility from the EU, negotiations at the Cop 16 failed, as we remember. We should remain open to discuss Non-legally binding options. Fourth, we should maximise synergies with other EU conventions. As I said earlier today, we have the biodiversity climate also coming up and also a. And we should cooperate this with other international water agenda. The Unccd is the kick off of a series of international events around water. To add on to the two cups is also the UN water Conference that we discussed also when we discussed water resilience.”
EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.)
- 2026-06-25 “And dear Sarah, Minister for Nevada, thank you very much for highlighting the Lives program, 34 years of success. And also thank you for all your contributions around the table. Of course, I have myself, as many of you visit a lot, have the opportunity to visit a lot of life projects in, in, in Spain. And I know that Nevada host a notable number of life projects. And I see, of course, how much this bring both to nature and biodiversity and climate, but also local benefits. So I can understand your concerns about life no longer being a distinct program. It is true our proposal brings significant change. The MFF proposal. But in my view it can lead to a simpler, more flexible and more impactful EU budget. Also for the environment, building on the life legacy, positive impact and adaptive adapting to growing needs. Just to say, Europe faces an annual €180 billion environmental investment gap. Our MFF proposal addresses exactly this. We have allocated 3,535% of our EU budget. That means €700 billion to climate and environmental goals, far exceeding the current life funding. And as you all know, earlier this month, the Council reached a partial general approach and confirm the overall structure of our proposal. Life activities will continue its role in environmental protection, climate resilience, clean energy and nature conservation, among many other topics, will be preserved and strengthened, building on several pillars. Member states will have the possibility to integrate actions into national and regional partnerships plans, while the Commission will support life activities through the EU facility and the European Competitiveness Fund. The Commission will be very attentive to these aspects when developing the plans with regions and with Member States and when choosing projects under the Competitiveness Fund. So just let me finish. To be very clear, the Commission is committed to protecting the environment, the biodiversity and combating climate change in its unwavering. And I think that together we can build on life success and driving even greater results. Thank you.”
EU industrial funding (mechanism level: EU-pooled vs nationally-financed)
- 2026-06-25 “Good afternoon. Or maybe good evening. And first of all, thank you for waiting for us for that long. It took longer than expected, but we are here. After the Lust Envy Council under the Cyprus presidency for our press conference. And today I'm joined by our Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment, Maria Panagiotou, and European Commissioner for Climate Net Zero and Clean Growth Wopke Hoekstra. I will now give the floor to Minister Panagiotou for her to briefly introduce you. What we have discussed today at the council. Minister, the floor is yours. Thank you, Bernard Kalispera. Good afternoon. I have just concluded the last council under the Cyprus presidency. I think the current heat wave highlights that climate change should remain very high in Europe's agenda. And let me start by sincerely thanking Commissioner Jessica Rozwell and Commissioner Hofstra, as well as my fellow ministers, for their excellent cooperation and continued engagement over these past months. I would also like to warmly thank our presidency teams in Brussels and Nicosia. Their dedication and teamwork were instrumental for our success. The Cyprus presidency has focused on strengthening Europe's leadership in addressing climate and environmental challenges, while safeguarding a resilient and competitive union. Over the six months, we delivered tangible progress on key environmental and climate files. We advanced work on the implementation of the Water Resilience Strategy. We also made progress on climate policy, including reaching agreements on MSR for ETS two and general approach on Cbam, and progressing the framework for CO2 standards for cars and vans. In parallel, we move forward on the circular economy and pollution agenda.”
Climate policy
- 2026-06-25 “Thank you very much. And thank you for for bringing drawing the attention to the critical ongoing negotiations on the plastic Treaty. Uh, as you all know, over the past four years of negotiations, we as the EU have been extremely clear in expressing our priorities for this treaty, and such priorities have always been grounded in science. So then, what does science tell us? That only a set of global and coordinated, coordinated measures across a full life cycle of plastic, including production, will be effective to end plastic pollution? From the commission side, let me reaffirm our shared commitment to ensuring that our approach remains firmly grounded in science and attentive to our citizens legitimate, legitimate expectations. We remain committed to an ambitious and effective agreement. However, this requires a balanced approach that includes global measures addressing the upstream part of the plastic life cycle, alongside with downstream solutions. A treaty focused solely on waste management would fall short of delivering the systematic change that is needed as the negotiations are progressing in a complex geopolitical context, the challenge is now to ensure that these priorities are reflected in an effective treaty provisions capable to delivering our revision for more sustainable plastic production and consumption consumption, but also gathering broad support around the globe. This means that we must be firm on our objective, yet pragmatic. We're hearing positive signs signals from certain partners, for example, on global measures and listing of some of the most harmful plastic products that still also mentioned, uh, or better product design requirements. We need to work closely with our negotiators to develop solutions that matches our ambition and gather broad support. We need to follow closely this process at political level, and I suggest also that we take stock later, again in the autumn. I myself are personally fully. I am mobilizing and mobilized on this matter. And I really hope and I count on your engagement as well. Thank you very much.”
EU policy towards plastics
- 2026-06-25 “Thank you very much. And thank you, France for for for recalling the importance of permitting in the EU while maintaining maintaining our environmental standards. This is what our leaders are asking us at the European Council level to accelerate permitting at EU level. And I also want to thank the Cypriot Cypriot presidency for moving forward with the environmental omnibus proposal. The permitting proposal still requires further discussions. I understand that before being ready to engage in negotiations with the European Parliament during the Irish Presidency, the momentum is there. I would encourage you to use it and close before the summer break. Accelerating permitting procedures is the political priority for many sectors of the economy in order to boost Europe's competitiveness and also support the clean transition to get there. I understand France rightly pointed out that we need to keep a horizontal approach and avoid fragmentation sector by sector, and this is exactly the objective of our environmental omnibus proposal. For the first time, we look at accelerating, accelerating, permitting across sectors, and I understand that the presidency is furthering developing this. At the same time, there are some specifics, some specificity, specificity in sectors like energy. So with Don Jorgensen, we developed the proposals on the grids package and the omnibus, which reflect the balance and work well together, using as much as possible a horizontal approach and the toolbox set out in by in the omnibus, I would call the council to be attentive to that balance and to maintain in both packages. On the one hand, the level of ambition and on the other hand, the level of protection of human health and environment. We need to get this right. On the commission side, we are certainly walking the talk. Since our omnibus, we have been working on sectoral proposals in areas like AI and others, and we have always built on the toolbox established in our in our omnibus. Before I conclude, I. I want to say thank you very much to you, Maria. Thank you for for your presidency and leadership and also, of course, to all of your team for a successful presidency and a really good cooperation. And good luck to Ireland.”
EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects · Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
- 2026-06-25 “Thank you very much, Maria and colleagues, but thank you very much for putting this important topic on today's agenda, which rightly highlights that biodiversity as both an urgent policy changer but also as a structural, structural opportunity for the EU. I have three points I want to mention today. The first point is the is to look at biodiversity not only as an environmental emergency, but also as an economic risk that can undermine our wealth and also our competitiveness. Nature is extraordinarily valuable to our economy. And as Maria said already said, 50% of global GDP depends on services provided by nature. This is according and also according to the World Economic Forum. And also nearly 75% of bank corporate lending within the EU goes to firms that are highly dependent on at least one ecosystem services, and that is according to the European Central Bank. So it's therefore no surprise that the biodiversity losses we are witnessing today are becoming a real risk factor for our businesses and for our society. The World Economic Forum has also rated biodiversity loss among the top ten risks for our businesses UK. They have a report from MI6 that has pointed that to the. The security impact and the European Central Bank confirms that the links between NATO degradation and economic stability. I can go on to.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- 2026-06-25 “Thank you. And Maria. Thank you. And France and Netherlands for for raising this crucial matter. We all know that just in a few years, the ultra fast fashion has profoundly transformed the textile market, flooding Europe with garments designed to be worn only a handful times, or even maybe not worn at all. Or, to state the obvious, maybe this model accelerates and increases waste generation and runs counter to the EU's sustainability transition for the textile sector. Since a lot of this fashion comes from third countries, it also raises questions around unfair competition and level playing field, undermining the sustainability efforts of our own sector. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet or a magic wand here. We need to work on different fronts at the same time. The good news is that we have some legislation in place that should help. We have worked closely with member states on the implementation of the Revised Waste Framework Directive, and we all agree that producers placing better designed and more sustainable textile products on the market and adapting to more sustainable practices should pay lower extended producer responsibility fees. So in this spirit, the Commission is advancing its work on the definition of the eco design requirements to make apparel textile products more sustainable and more circular. Once adopted, these requirements will make it possible to establish a union wide set of criteria for modulating EPR fees. A harmonised approach across member states should help here, and our eco design requirements are expected to be adopted 2027. Beyond eco design, there are a number of additional actions we are taking rapidly.”
Sustainable fashion
- 2026-06-25 “But still. Again, as Maria said, we are aware that public money finance cannot alone finance this biodiversity gap, so we. Much. For much we must focus on mobilising private capital for nature and biodiversity. And that is why the Commission has launched a roadmap towards nature. Credits. Nature credits aim to reward services which maintain our eco eco ecosystems, which also today remains largely unpaid. Our approach here is very clear it starts from the real projects. Keep the simple system as simple as possible, so we can include small operators that it can ensure high integrity and also transparency, and also build trust before scaling. If this works, if this works confirms that, then it will have an added value for EU nature. Credit could also become a practical tool for channel private finance into restoration and maintenance of ecosystems, including support to national restoration plans that. We also will discuss and reward those who deliver measurable benefits for nature and for society. So that is the second and my third point. Uh, we have a solid framework in place to restore biodiversity in nature. And that is the nature restoration regulation alongside, of course, with the EU biodiversity strategy targets. Uh, and also, as also mentioned by Maria, the, our international biodiversity, biodiversity commitments.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- 2026-06-25 “Moreover, to further accelerate the development of safer and more sustainable chemical solution, the Commission will establish EU chemical innovation and substitution hubs. And I'm trying to wrap up. So keep a little bit here and now more broadly on. We are providing clarity on PFAs, and it is my very, very big priority for the coming months. And this is one of the big pollution challenges of our time that is in our mind, in the minds of many, many citizens. So, dear colleagues, as much as we can do, we from from our side, from the commission side, we of course, need to continue working together as partners and hear your views. Of course, very valuable to us. And I just count on you on working with all our with all of you also on protecting our internal market, the competitiveness of our European industry and also the environment and the health of our citizens. But with that, I say, I really look forward to listen to your views. And of course, as always, I would appreciate if we can also have concrete suggestions on what type of measures we need to take and what we can achieve and how, without opening the reach regulation to. That will be my plea. So thank you very much.”
PFAs · Chemicals regulation
- 2026-06-25 “I would just say the prohibition of the destruction of unsold apparel and footwear will start to apply to large enterprises from the 19th 19th July this year. The commission will propose, you know this also a circular Economy Act after the summer break under the Digital Services Act, we are monitoring online marketplaces and enforcing compliance. Of course, I also think that there is a legitimate question that was asked by buy in the paper to whether the digital platforms needs to be asked to do more. Finally, market surveillance and customer enforcement are essential. The €150 duty free due to relief threshold will be abolished with a €3 interim interim flat rate duty on small packages, and this will apply from the 1st July this summer. And of course, market surveillance will be enforced in the product acts that I mentioned earlier today. On another agenda point, as a very final reflection, I think it's important also as a consumer and social angle on this in the sense of affordable fashion, we need to be mindful that some consumers don't have the choice to buy expensive clothes for the kids or for themselves. So we also need to promote regulatory ecosystems. That means that we we for sustainable fashion also is affordable. Just let me conclude by stating that I am concerned as you are about this matter. I will continue to work together with my colleagues in the College to try to address the different angles consumer protection, platform responsibility, market surveillance and customs. Thank you very much.”
Sustainable fashion
- 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
- 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.”
- 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
- 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 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 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
- 2026-05-08 “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 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
- 2026-05-07 “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 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 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.”
Circular economy
- 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 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 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
- 2026-05-06 “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
- 2026-05-06 “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
- 2026-05-04 “answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 4.5.2026 Written questions E-10-2026-000855_EN E-10-2026-000857_EN The Commission is not investigating the matter in question. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive [1] requires that projects likely to have significant environmental effects undergo an EIA prior to authorisation [2] . Under the Habitats Directive [3] , projects that are likely to have significant effects on Natura 2000 require an appropriate assessment; authorisation is possible only if it is ascertained that the project will not adversely affect the integrity of the sites concerned [4] . Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, Member States are primarily responsible for ensuring compliance with EU law. The EIA Directive establishes review procedures enabling the public concerned to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of relevant decisions, acts or omissions. The Commission regards national means of redress as the most effective means to address individual non-compliance cases, complementing its strategic enforcement focused on systemic issues [5] . According to the Spanish authorities, the project in question has not been supported by the European Regional Development Fund [6] . In any case, under the principle of shared management, the Commission entrusts tasks relating to the implementation of cohesion policy programmes, including project selection and day-to-day management, to the Member States. As regards the Recovery and Resilience Facility [7] , the Commission has not assessed any measure linked to the implementation of this project. Projects are only assessed in the context of a payment request and against the requirements set out in the Council Implementing Decision approving the national plan. All supported measures are required to comply with the principle of ‘do no significant harm’ [8] . [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 16 April 2014, OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1-18. [2] Solar plant projects are referred to in Annex II, 1 1) of the EIA Directive (Industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water). [3] 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. [4] Commission guidance document : https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/EN_art_6_guide_jun_2019.pdf. [5] 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. [6] https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/european-regional-development-fund-erdf_en. [7] https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en. [8] Within the meaning of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088, OJ L 198, 22.6.2020, pp. 13-43.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
- 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-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 · EU policy on water management · Groundwater Directive
- 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.)
- 2026-04-24 “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
- 2026-04-23 “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
- 2026-04-23 “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
- 2026-04-21 “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
- 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.”
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 “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