Sarah NELEN

Policy topics Sarah NELEN is active on

What Sarah NELEN has said (6)

• “Thank you. Chair. Honourable members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to allow us to exchange on the concerns raised in the draft motions for a resolution on the objection to the Implementing Act on Benchmarking. Before going into the detail of the draft motions. Just a brief word on the objectives of this implementing act that is. Supporting the UDR implementation. This Benchmarking Act is a legal obligation under the regulation, with a very strict legal deadline no later than the end of June, and the European Parliament and the Council urgently requested it last year from the Commission to commit to deliver in time. So we delivered in time. We adopted it in the Commission on 22nd of May, after a positive opinion by consensus of all EU member states in the EU ADR Committee, and it entered into force on 26th of May. This implementing act serves two purposes by defining the risk categories. First, it is on this basis that Member States know the minimum number of compliance checks for sourcing from those countries. They have to do minimum 1% of compliance checks for low risk countries, 3% for standard countries, and 9% of checks for high risk countries. But of course, this is a minimum. Member states can do more. Second, besides the compliance checks, this act is important because if a country is low risk, the due diligence obligations for economic actors are simplified. They need to collect information but not assess or mitigate risks. So this entails also for all EU member states in that category, a significant decline in total compliance costs. And I want to spell out that there is no difference in that sense between a country in being high risk or standard risk to countries in standard and high don't have that simplified due diligence.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights) · Trade impact on forests
• “The FAO Fraud Database is the only internationally recognized global inventory of forests. The data also match the definition used in the legislation, the UDR legislation, so all countries in the world have been analyzed on that basis. Basis of the same data set and have been subject to the same quantitative thresholds. This guarantees the objectivity and fairness of the process needed towards the third countries for fraud data. And many of you have mentioned are updated regularly every five years and to ensure that new data will be considered timely. We have a dynamic process with a first review scheduled already on the new data set that will be available later this year. So to take that into account for an update early 2026 on the basis of the new data, um, there have been also mentions of, uh, the fact that forest degradation is not taken into account, but currently available data are not yet sufficiently comprehensive to ensure an adequate and non-discriminatory representation. But this can be done in the next iteration, in the next update. We also did not include what was asked or mentioned in the, uh, motions, the subnational assessments. But this is not an obligation in the legal text. It can be done in the future. It is a may clause briefly on the thresholds. Um, any decision on thresholds would always generate comments for the low risk category. This methodology has set thresholds in a way that allows to focus collective efforts and resources on those geographic Area areas where deforestation challenges are more acute on qualitative criteria.”
  Trade impact on forests · Management of EU forests
• “Thank you, Chair, and I want to thank all the members who intervened and actually absolutely underlined what we as a Commission and EU in these negotiations find important. That is indeed the health aspects, the urgency of tackling the problem because it has, of course, effects on ecosystems, on nature, on oceans, but also on health. Therefore, I also want to put into perspective, if I made a reference to other negotiations that took longer, it's absolutely not to say let's take ten years. It's just to put things in perspective. But you can count on the determination of the Commission to hopefully find solutions as soon as possible. We don't count on years to go, absolutely not. Also, ready, of course, to—I think from the interventions from UNEP it is also clear that the EU is very much seen as a leader and taking high ambition in this process and that that will continue, that will not change. That means that indeed we're not fully aware and in line with EU strategies. We're not going to recycle ourselves out of the problem. We do absolutely recognize the importance of waste and we want ambitious provisions on that part in the treaty, including extended producers responsibility, etcetera, etcetera. We don't undervalue the importance of that; it is impactful. But we do absolutely believe that there are no real solutions without the solutions at the beginning of the pipe, not just the end of the pipe. So yes, we do put a lot of element, a lot of focus and efforts on the provisions in the text that deal with production, consumption, design of the products, and the article that deals with problematic products because indeed some products are just made to be littered or are made to be nonrecyclable. So we want to tackle that as well and that will stay at the heart of our negotiation mandate. Furthermore, on issues, there were several questions as well on the international or what do our partners do. It is not correct to say that the EU does everything and the rest of the world doesn't act. Some African countries, who are the first victims in terms of what is ending on their shores or in their rivers, are really taking very ambitious and radical measures on single-use plastic, for instance. There are others like China that also have actually national legislation that goes quite far in tackling a number of the issues that we discuss. So in light of indeed, I can confirm that the US position has not become easier. On the contrary, that is a much more difficult position than if we would have, well, than they had in Busan last year. That does complicate matters but we are there to find solutions, to be strong in terms of negotiations and find allies elsewhere. So China is a partner in these negotiations; they are not on the side of the well countries that have been named here like Gulf countries, Russia, etcetera. So that is also an important element in the dynamics of the negotiations, that the group of some producers that are really on the most difficult side of the spectrum, that they are played a part and that we can have allies that are perhaps now in between but that we want to prevent from siding with the most difficult countries for which this treaty is not an environment treaty but as they say themselves, this is our national security, this is linked to our energy ministries, etcetera. So we will do our utmost in terms of negotiation to have strong negotiation strategies that are also—we have also very close connections with the External Action Service in Europe. We have a team of negotiators that is composed of people with different backgrounds and my colleague in the team as well has the background of the chemical unit before in the Commission. So we have a strong team that can cover a lot of the full cycle of plastic pollution and will do our utmost to succeed. Thank you.”
  Circular economy · EU policy towards plastics
• “We can also be brief. The regulation states that quantitative criteria are the primary. Primary criteria, and that qualitative criteria may be taken into account. So as with regional assessments, this is not an obligation under this under UDR. There have been also some concerns on consultation and the transparency of the process there. I want to briefly refer to the Strategic Framework for International Cooperation Engagement, published in October last year. And in line with that engagement. We have intensified outreach and cooperation. Meetings are there with third countries and businesses and economic stakeholders, and we have increased the frequency and most of them take place really in a constructive atmosphere. Um, there have been last year around more or more than 300 Meetings only of the EU team, but many more at the level of commissioners and funders. So to conclude, this is an implementing act that fully respects the empowerment confirmed to the Commission by the co-legislators and backed unanimously by Member States in the EU, the Committee on 2nd of May. It already has its effect on the ground. It's in force. Operators are establishing their due diligence systems on this basis, and member states competent authorities are planning their enforcement efforts accordingly. So the requirement to publish the country classification list at least six months before the EU entry into application, which is end of the year, provides certainty and stability to companies and secures the investments that they are making. But the Commission is fully committed to maintaining an open and collaborative dialogue with the European Parliament on order to address all concerns that there are. Thank you.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights) · Trade impact on forests · Sustainable corporate governance
• “In short, with this benchmarking it is needed to provide clarity and certainty to business sectors and Member States. Enforce enforcing authorities that have been asking for it for a while. Then let me turn to the draft motions and the concerns expressed regarding the empowerment. Um, according to article 29 of the UDR. The commission was explicitly mandated to prepare this implementing act and we have been carefully preparing it in accordance with the empowerment granted under the UDR. We, uh, we consider that the draft motions fail to demonstrate where the commission could have exceeded the implementing powers. Um, there are even points that are addressed in the motions that if the Commission would have chosen this avenue, such as creating a new risk category, it would clearly have been exceeding the Uh, implementing powers um, on the points raised on methodology and FAO data. Um, the methodology for for the country benchmarking was published in a staff working document. So it is available transparently and setting out the approach very clearly. But let's be clear, one always needs to work with the data that are available. And the benchmarking is based on the latest publicly available data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO and their Global Forest Resources Assessment. This is what we use to assess deforestation levels across countries, and the act is based then therefore on the data published in 2020, which includes forest data up to that year. And they are the basis, um, they are in line with what the article 29 three of UDR requires us to do, namely to use sources internationally recognized.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights) · Trade impact on forests · Management of EU forests
• “Thank you Chair and thank you Jyoti. Good to see you after the first time after we spent a lot of time in Geneva this summer where, of course, it is unfortunate but it is a fact that despite the tireless efforts from the EU and its member states, supported by a very large cross-regional group of countries calling for an effective plastics treaty, that despite that the negotiations did not succeed and the meeting was adjourned. The dust has to settle. Jyoti mentioned it as well. We still have to see when exactly negotiations will resume and consultations and reflections are ongoing with UNEP but of course with all regions part of this treaty negotiations to look at the best way forward. But what to retain from Geneva is there perhaps it is always good to have a reflection on lessons learned and there like actually Jyoti I want to first refer to the limited time frame overall compared to other treaty processes that this one has taken so far. With the three years it remains a short period actually to agree on a multilateral agreement if you compare, for instance, to the Paris Agreement that took twenty years to negotiate or fifteen years for the recent BB and G treaty. So it is in that sense not, or it would be rather an exception to agree within three years' time. Next, if we look back at the process so far as witnessed in previous sessions, there are disagreements on the treaty scope that make an agreement difficult, particularly regarding the scope or the definition of the life cycle or the full life cycle and whether that begins with the production of plastics or the design of plastic products. That remains a sticky point. It's a debate that continues to generate tension. But the EU and its partners have insisted that a treaty covering only the so-called downstream part of the life cycle, so the elements related to the waste phase only, dealing and focusing on that would be ineffective in halting the plastic pollution treaty. Only in our view, decisive action at source to tackle unsustainable consumption and production of plastics and to prevent the release into the environment will bring plastic pollution under control. Besides those elements, we also left Geneva with a very clear vision that the working methods and the governance, that those have to change when we're talking next steps. The working methods did not generate a conducive environment to bridge the very diverging positions. After Busan and Geneva, we will surely need to look into it and adapt the way we negotiate and conduct the work. But of course not everything from this session in Geneva should be dismissed. There are a number of positive points as well to be drawn from the discussions to which we were able to contribute. First, we were not alone. More than one hundred countries around the table supported an effective global treaty and we can count on those countries to keep the momentum together with us to go towards or to negotiate a meaningful treaty. Second, there was also a common feeling that action and agreement would not have been impossible, that it was in the cards even if it was difficult. But the negotiations began to move in a more positive direction even if it was only at the end of the process in Geneva and so it was too late. But there were positive steps and definitely there was some convergence and a better understanding of each other's positions and the first real, we really saw for the first time a willingness to negotiate with many delegations. And last but not least, in terms of the format and the working methods, we also have seen elements that were useful and we might and that might be good to replicate in the future, such as the deployment of more shuttle diplomacy and consultations carried out one to one or in a regional setting. So for our continued EU engagement and next steps, it is a fact that multilateralism has its highs and lows and discussions are sometimes very challenging and views around the table differ but that is normal. Yet the stakes are too high and plastic pollution crisis is too big to let go and not overcome those differences. We need to go and evolve towards successful negotiations. We will therefore meet regularly with the EU member states in the EU councils to strategize more and look at the way forward and the best position for the EU as a leading actor in the process. We will also of course work with our close partners from all regions in order to identify together pathways for success and we believe that everybody will have to come to the table with new energy and a new willingness to compromise. Commissioner Roswell has been present in Geneva, has taken a very active interest and role in the process and she will meet during the UN General Assembly in New York with many partners as well where she will raise the topic. These are international opportunities to identify a way forward with all regions and there is of course after New York also the UN Environment Assembly UNEA 7 in December as another opportunity to do outreach. In sum, the EU is determined to continue showing its global leadership, its political will and we want to make sure that the plastics treaty remains high on the agenda in the months to come with a view to land as soon as possible in a resumed session. Thank you.”
  Sustainable packaging · Circular economy · EU policy towards plastics