- 2025-04-24 “The current regulatory framework allows our, uh, your constituents, member states, authorities, interest parties to take action and claim rights and showcases also sometimes positive stories of the contamination. So just to say what will come out of the process of EPA will be done under the current reach regulation. And of course, at the same time, we reaffirm our determination to present a revision of the Reach regulation according to the timetable which has been officially announced, which is Q4 2025. Wish us luck! There is still a lot of work ahead for PFAS pesticides. We are dramatically aware and this is the reason why. Also, this European Parliament is called to please agree on pretty high level of restrictions in the ongoing trilogues on the water pollutants, surface and ground waters. These type of PFAS often come from the use of pesticides. And this is why when we looked when I presented to you this slide on the plant protection products legislation, I forgot to mention, but it is a fact that is known to you that the Commission has proposed recently to renew the authorisation not to renew the authorisation of some PFAS pesticides. And we only achieved the agreement by member states on two of our proposals. So I think this matter needs some understanding as well. The awareness of the gravity of the problem is maybe not yet as fully understood as it should. I leave the floor to my colleague Kristin Schreiber for a few more comments. Thank you.”
EU policy on pesticides · PFAs · Water pollution
- 2025-04-24 “This stems times. From the report of the agency published last December 2024. It's called PFAS pollution in European waters, in case the honourable members would like to get an even deeper insight, a country level. Our analysis are showing that there is some variability, of course, across the different European regions. In 2022, 14 countries reported monitoring data for PFAS in surface water. And we note, for example, that both in Belgium and France, 100% of the reported water bodies have exceeded the relevant environmental quality standards. In the Netherlands, the figure amounted to 96%, in Germany to 83%, and in Italy 54%. Just to give you some examples, on the other hand, five countries reported that less than 20% Of their sites exceeded these environmental quality standards. Example Spain 18%, Ireland 6%, Poland 5%. Only of water reported to be in exceedance of these standards. Same for Croatia 5% and Estonia 2% only. These different results, of course, have to be weighted against the fact that there are also still different monitoring efforts in place in the different countries. So in a nutshell, our current understanding of the real geographical distribution of PFAS contamination is not complete. We have also to remember that the cost of pollution for the environment are huge in economic terms. Health costs alone have been estimated in 2019 to range between 52 and €84 billion per year for the entire European Economic Area. The Commission has launched a study to update these numbers, but the results of the study should be available by the end of the year and will certainly further inform the ongoing discussions.”
PFAs · Water pollution
- 2025-04-24 “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Happy belated Easter. For those of you who could have a bit of a spring break. And many, many thanks, dear president. So I have the pleasure this morning to give you a little bit of a state of play of where we are in EU policy and legislative making on PFAS. We are all very acutely aware of how much PFAS and their health impacts in particular, really a topic of great concern. And they are increasingly better documented with confirmed impacts on kidney, liver, but also on immune and endocrine system, which is all the more worrying when we know that, for instance, in Belgium alone, more than 15% of teenagers present levels of some PFAS above the standards recommended by the European Food Safety Agency. And from an environmental perspective, unfortunately, we know that PFAS are a little bit everywhere pollution sites are Are identified in all Member states. Some are well known, some somewhat less. But what we see, for example, is that our waters are widely polluted with these forever chemicals. A recent report by the European Environment Agency has shown that during the 2018 2022 period, 50 to 60% of European rivers have exceeded the environmental quality standards. As you know, those are the standards set by the Environmental Quality Standards Directive for our surface water, notably for the indicator P force, one of the historical. By now members of the PFAS family. So not notwithstanding the fact that this substance is now forbidden, we still find it, of course, in our waters.”
Chemicals regulation · PFAs · Water pollution
- 2025-04-24 “Many thanks. Honourable members, the commission report that we will be discussing in a moment is actually based on the assessment by the European Commission of the Member States. Third River Basin Management Plans and second flood risk management plans. These plans were drawn by the Member states based on information collected between 2016 and 2021, and they all contain measures which the member states are progressively taking throughout the years 2022 2027. As you know, we have a deadline under the Water Framework Directive for Member States to achieve good status, good ecological and chemical status of the water by 2027. This report, which was published on the 4th of February, 2025, is accompanied by a series of staff working documents which provide both a European Union overview and individual member state assessments and country specific recommendations. While this report is a legal obligation for the Commission, it is also a moment of truth when we expose our strengths and weaknesses in water management. This year, we decided to publish it together with the report on Programmes of measures which the Member States must take under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Because we wished to demonstrate the absolute need to manage freshwater and marine waters in an integrated manner following a true source to sea approach. So relevant also for the previous debate on forever chemicals, of course. So what do we find out? Well, when we look at Fresh waters, the Commission in-depth assessment shows that although some progress has been made, what you see on the slide on the left is the ecological status between the first and the second, and on top the third River basin management plans.”
Water pollution · EU policy on water management
- 2025-04-24 “Essentially, in many, many instances, member states are asked to decrease nutrient pollution from agriculture and from urban wastewater, increase investment based on long term plans. Because we have found out that no less than 86% of these third river basin management plans point to the fact that there is insufficient funding for the identified programmes of measures as identified as a key barrier for their effective implementation. Also, we are encouraging, of course, more measures to reduce persistent challenges such as chemical pollution, which is a little bit. The point I was making before and so much more could be enforced nationally and locally, there is scope for stepping up action to tackle water scarcity and drought by preventing overexploitation of the aquifers. There is scope for untapping water use. Two 4% of the waters that we are treating at quite some price across our urban wastewater plants is currently reused. The recommendations include also the combating of illegal obstructions still in place in quite a number of member states. And finally, strengthening transboundary cooperation and invoking exemptions from achieving compliance only in very well justified and exceptional cases is another important cluster. If we dive for a moment into the flood dimension, we can see that key findings are that there is a need for much clearer, objective and also better setting of priorities, with specific timelines in the plans that are often not accurately done.”
EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.) · Water pollution · EU policy on water management
- 2025-04-24 “Many thanks. Today is really a big show. I must say, apologies that you have to listen to my voice again and again. Um, well, it's nonetheless a big pleasure to present to you this, uh, report published jointly. As I said in my previous presentation with the one on Fresh Waters, and which is all disciplined by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which requires member states to take all necessary measures to achieve or maintain the good environmental status of the marine waters. The Commission report we are discussing today more specifically analyzes the programmes of measures adopted by the Member States from 2021 to 2027 under this directive. They include a wide range of topics, from marine litter to chemical contamination, from underwater noise pollution to biodiversity protection, and many others. The purpose is always the same. The one of trying to tackle the triple planetary crisis, climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss in an integrated and comprehensive manner. What we do to lessen pollution indeed will positively impact on the state of our fresh waters. Cleaner waters flowing into the sea will improve the quality of marine waters, and this in turn will improve the marine habitats that allows species to thrive, thus sustaining our economy. Overall, I must say our take is member States have done a good job in addressing in a better integrated manner the complex and diverse marine pressures, so as to deliver on the directives of objectives. In particular, I would like to underline apologies for that. In particular, I would like to underline that when we look into marine litter, a very interesting example, we observe a almost 30% reduction of beach litter between 2016 and 2021 across all EU sea basin.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Water pollution · EU ocean policy
- 2025-04-24 “Many thanks. Chair. So maybe let's start from the last two questions, which go really to the core of the issue. We share your frustration. We face, once again, a case of insufficient implementation of a regulatory framework that is in place since a number of years. At the same time, I must say that I'm encouraged by the fact that, again, especially in the past, mandate, we have put in place additional measures that should, if properly implemented, lead us a little bit better. Uh, further, the interplay in particular between the the, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Nature Restoration Regulation and of course, measures that we are discussing with colleagues in DG mare on fishery are very, very, very important. You may recall that in the past mandate, we spent quite some time at the time of the adoption of the then called Ocean Pact on the Marine Action Plan that states something that I think should be of common sense across all member states. We should progressively ban bottom trawling in marine protected areas to start with. This continues to be an important goal to be achieved. I listen to the comments of the honourable member from Ireland mentioned in the fact that there are, and he said it himself, insufficient capacity to inspect and control.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Environmental regulation of fisheries · EU ocean policy
- 2025-04-24 “In the past, the programming period, we have been spending €13 billion of cohesion policy in water management issues, water services, water use and so on. And here the colleague from Ireland saying we don't have enough money in Ireland. Well, we still have unspent money under cohesion policy. I admit I don't have the figure in front of me. I don't know whether this applies to Ireland as well, but I'm certainly very grateful to Vice President Fitto and the college who has decided recently in the mid-term review of cohesion policy to secure that all the unspent money of that important part of the EU budget is actually devoted on five main priorities water being one of those and water investment are therefore, throughout the next three four years, eligible for up to 100% cofinancing. If there is a will, there is a way. Member states have been devoting around €12 billion out of their national recovery and resilience plans for water. Maybe more could have been done. Let's salute at least those investments. And when it comes to agriculture, three comma €3 billion co-funding for more efficient irrigation system. Maybe a little bit more could have been done. Did the Commission recommend to the member States to invest more on water management from a quality and quantity perspective in the strategic plans? Yes we did.”
EU policy on water management · Cohesion and rural funding · Agricultural funding
- 2025-04-24 “So what we are discussing is not a lack of regulatory instrument, but possibly a lack of administrative capacity across a number of member states, and sometimes maybe a lack of will to take actions that are actually allowed out of the interplay between the fishery acquis. And the marine aqui. On these measures we continue to be united and I do. Expect that the water resilience strategy in its interplay with the Ocean Pact. Will provide a number of paths to secure that. We work together with our member States to secure better administrative capacity, to secure a good and a better implementation of the Aqui that we have. Also, the implementation of the Nature Restoration Regulation will be a core element of two of the two. We cannot achieve water resilience without restoring the broken water cycle and the broken. The broken water cycle will continue to be broken unless we also restore the ocean cycle. 97% of our blue planet surface, 97% of the type of evapotranspiration. We need to secure that the rain cycle restart working properly. Is it at all compatible to have FAS and other forever chemicals in our oceans and achieve good status? The reply scientifically is very easy.”
EU policy on water management · Environmental regulation of fisheries
- 2025-04-24 “We published it last 6th of March, and we have found out that the directive has been overall partially effective, effective to the extent that it is put in place, a holistic framework for the protection of the Member States marine waters. But definitely we have not achieved good status. We should have achieved it back in 2020. We have found out that the directive offers potential, which is significant for simplification and administrative burden reduction, for better integration and coherence with other parts of the environmental acquis, which is also enlarged, as you know. In particular, I want to mention the relationship, which is very close with the recently adopted Nature Restoration regulation. There is also scope for better integrating the effects of climate change. We see that to achieve the full potential of the directive. We need to better address challenges linked to the complex by now. Legislative framework. The insufficient implementation, the at times and certainly in certain sea basins, more than in other insufficient regional cooperation, at times insufficient policy coherence. Some of you were mentioning this and also the data management problem on which we are working hand in hand, also with colleagues in DG mare. We are currently discussing how to best address the the results of this evaluation, and we will certainly be very pleased to report back to the European Parliament as soon as the political deliberations will be available. Expect, of course, both the Water resilience Strategy and the upcoming Ocean Pact to be an important frame for announcing the Commission's views on the topic. Thank you so much.”
EU policy on water management · EU ocean policy
- 2025-04-24 “I think that the graph is essentially giving you a very important and key message. We have a policy of either trying to restrict PFAS at source, and this happens primarily via the vehicle of the rich regulation. But this is also flagged indeed by the very important revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive when it comes to the biggest, largest industrial users and of course, the specific regulation adopted some time ago. Then we move to our improved way of monitoring presence of PFAS across the environment. Here I must mention the recast Drinking Water Directive, which will, as from January next year, require all member states to monitor PFAS in drinking water and in order to accelerate their actions and prepare them at best. The commission has adopted already back in August 2024, and a dog technical guidance to secure better uniformity of methods of analysis and monitoring. Also, the Just recast Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive requires member states to monitor PFAS in urban wastewater discharge into drinking water catchment areas for agglomerations above 10,000 people. The Commission will also adopt, by January 2027, implementing acts to establish a better uniform methodology for measuring PFAS in urban wastewater. As you know very well, Trialogues are right now ongoing to revise also the list of pollutants for surface and groundwater, including the environmental quality standards, including for certain PFAS. And we count very much on the continued support of the European Parliament to prevent PFAS emissions in our water bodies. A number of steps have also been taken, and we would like to thank very much the European Parliament for its efforts there in order to achieve some limitation in the newly agreed soil monitoring law.”
PFAs · Water pollution · Industrial emissions directive (IED)
- 2025-04-24 “Where where you see the red. It's bad when you see the orange is poor status, and when you see the yellow is moderate status. But you know, what we see is that there is still a lot to be done to properly protect our fresh waters, but also to better manage the risk of floods. Essentially, we have found out that less than 40% of the surface water achieve good ecological status and around a quarter achieve good chemical status. You see it on the right. The slide is interesting because in the second column shows where the member states would be if we could get rid of ubiquitous persistent substances. So exactly the kind of forever chemicals next to PFAS that we've been discussing a moment ago. However, I also want to highlight a few more positive trends. For example, the member states have generally improved the knowledge and the monitoring of both surface and groundwater bodies, and also generally increase the spending for water management. And also, we found out that most groundwater bodies continue to achieve good quantitative and chemical status.”
Water pollution · EU policy on water management · PFAs
- 2025-04-24 “The CAP strategic Plans analysis of the commission are publicly available and have been scrutinised by the Court of Auditors. More than one €3 billion has been committed in water research and innovation projects under horizon 2020. Again, I think much more will be done and count on the water resilience strategies to stress the importance to accelerate this, because essentially we have also to secure a much faster uptake of the fantastic innovative technologies and also nature based solutions that are being deployed at large scale. So, yes, we are essentially in front of a problem, which is a problem of poor implementation, poor political will, in at least in the past, to put this matter really at the center stage. What could the Commission do out of its own enforcement tool? It was a question by one of you. Well, the commission has launched a number of infringement procedures. Uh, if you're following a little bit what's happening on that side, we are going ahead vis a vis a number of member states who have even failed up until now, to secure regular controls on Overabstraction. A few of them didn't even have yet a register of abstraction in place. And more will come. Certainly, the engagement of Commissioner Roosevelt is to sit with each of the member states, as I said, in the context of politically structured dialogues, very much inspired by the model we followed in dealing with clean air problems, to secure that the overarching political awareness of the need to act not just from an environment perspective, but from an agriculture perspective transport perspective, generally across all ministers for water matters, gets spread.”
Water pollution · EU policy on water management
- 2025-04-24 “But as you know, in the meantime, the commission is trying to do a lot to prevent to remedy the situation. First of all, under the chemical legislation, as you know, several PFAS are by now banned in the EU, but also internationally, for example, as I mentioned the case of PFOA. But I would also add PFOA. Environmental concentration of these PFAS are declining progressively globally. But what we notice is that regrettably, this has led to situations of sometimes unsuitable substitutions were banned. Pfas have been replaced by others, which are just as harmful. These therefore calls for wider restrictions. The first of the kind concern all PFAS used in firefighting foams. And I'm happy to inform you that we are going to soon have a vote on these important restrictions in the context of the research committee process I will give later on the floor to my colleague, Director Christine Schreiber from DG grow, to inform your father on the so-called pending universal restriction on PFAS. Before Echa, the implementation of the revised Industrial Emissions Directive will also ensure that PFAS emissions are increasingly monitored and reported under the Industrial Emission Portal regulation. Actually, by the end of this very year, the Commission will adopt a delegated act Reviewing the list of substances and thresholds that all industrial agro industrial plants covered under the scope of the revised Industrial Emissions Directive will have to comply with.”
Chemicals regulation · PFAs · Industrial emissions directive (IED)
- 2025-04-24 “Finally, we would like them to better allocate time for public feedback to enhance preparedness and general awareness, to keep communities truly informed and resilient. Right now, a lot, unfortunately stemming directly from flood news. Um, and this should not be the case. We should all be prepared also well before any flood strike us to conclude. Dear members, the reports have been written also in as a layman language as possible, because we are trying to push for a goal of securing, indeed, that as many people as possible become better aware. Our citizen surveys carried out just a few months ago, I showed that over 50% of the population consider that they are not yet well informed about water management as such, and this is unacceptable. After over 20 years of implementation of a sound strong water act to reduce the implementation gap that is exposed in this report, Commissioner Roosevelt has committed, on the day of publication of this package to secure that she will use the second half of the year and throughout the next one to engage in politically steered, structural dialogues with each of the Member States to harness the sufficient political will to change water management and national level, while supporting them on all the challenges and opportunities that they face. Thank you very much for your attention.”
Water pollution · EU policy on water management
- 2025-04-24 “I don't know why we are already here. We should not. This was the right slide. Sorry for that. Um, our assessment of the, um, third River basin management plans find that there are many pressures threatening the health of water bodies, as I was saying. And what we see when we look at the top pressures. Uh, the first is pollution from agriculture. This is mainly due to unsustainable land management practices and excessive and improper use of both fertilizers and pesticides. When we look in Looking in particular into what? What is polluting most surface water bodies. We see that the main pressure remains atmospheric pollution from burning fossil fuels. And this explains why we continue to spot so much mercury and other substances that cause widespread and hard to remediate pollution. Second largest and most significant pressure are morphological changes such as dams straightening the water courses because they disrupt the natural flow of water and cause widespread habitat degradation. When we zoom into the groundwaters, we see that Overabstraction scores as the second most important pressure after pollution from agriculture once again. So clearly, if we continue on this path, we will not achieve the water protection objectives which are set in EU laws. For that reason, the Commission has set out several key overarching recommendations to improve the situation across the EU. In many instances, and you see some of them displayed in this slide, regrouped in the recommendation clusters.”
Water pollution · EU policy on water management
- 2025-04-24 “Intensive agriculture, also mentioned by one of you in the past mandate under the European Green Deal mandate. We had, for example, tabled a proposal to capture, under the scope of the revised Industrial Emissions Directive, not just chicken and pigs farms responsible for quite a number of the nitrous pollution that we are aware, but also cattle farms. The European Parliament and the Council have decided not to cover those farms under the scope of that directive. So it's true that we have a certain gap. Nonetheless, I'm happy to say that I'm sure that also that new instrument capturing a bigger number of intensive agricultural plants will be able to display tangible results also in terms of capping nitrate pollution. And this is, of course, combined with the constant monitoring of nitrates in water that is done under the Nitrates Directive and whose reports whose results are monitored in an increasingly regional manner under the broader Zero Pollution Monitoring and Outlook framework. Thank you so much.”
Use of fertilisers · Water pollution · Industrial emissions directive (IED)
- 2025-04-24 “Many thanks. Many thanks. Honourable member again. For me it is encouraging to hear the degree of commitment that this committee is showing to the matter. I want to stress that I don't think we would even be there where we are, without the push that the European Green Deal has been giving through the past Monday. So yes, you will hear from me the word European green deal, because I think that we will never get that where we need to go without having a holistic approach in tackling water matters. When I became the director in charge of water management in 2018, what struck me was the very poor sense of urgency around water matters, to be honest with you. And I think that together with all the institutions and the member States, we are eventually bringing water topics to much higher in the agenda there where they need to be with the first ever commissioner in charge with water resilience. It's in the context also of the water resilience strategy that you will see replies to some of the very legitimate questions that you are asking. Floods and nature based solutions. Better uptake, for example. Already today it's possible to do so much. But let me give you some figures. Sometimes I think it's useful to see where, beyond the lip service we put the hand on the wallet in order to achieve the goals that we state.”
EU policy on water management
- 2025-04-24 “And I want to stress this, this data because I am personally convinced that this positive result is not just the result of regulatory action, but of very large awareness raising and therefore then also citizens civil society action. Plastic litter has really become something that many citizens no longer want. And this allowed me actually to reply to the question of the honourable member You speak from Lithuania? I do not know whether it is any longer in the room or cigarette butts coming from Russia and Belorussia and so on. I'm very sensitive to these type of topics, and I must say that we see that if there is a possibility to really bring to the broader citizens attention the importance also to prevent that source and take clean up action, this does deliver very tangible results. And we have seen improved cooperation at regional sea conventions levels. We are also pleased to see that member states are starting, are starting to take more specific measures against climate change impacts on the seas, although they are not formally required to do so under the directives. Nonetheless, there are disparities in the qualities of the measures which are undertaken also in this area, very much like for fresh water. More investments are needed to achieve a sustained reduction of other types of pollution, in particular the chemical contaminants and underwater noise. So we continue very much to count on the support of this committee. Also to get there where we need to be.”
Water pollution · EU policy towards plastics · EU ocean policy
- 2025-04-24 “Um, what we what we see overall is that, um, there is an increasing competition on the use of the seas. So, um, on the one hand, we need our seas for fishery. We want to use it more for energy production. Apologies, because I seem to have an issue of a technical nature with my PowerPoint presentation. I hope I can go back to the right slide. No, there seems to be an issue. Well, you will bear with me without the PowerPoint if there is an issue right now. Um, yes. Thank you. You should go to the previous one for the colleague with kindly Dennis the next. You are right. It's the next one. Then I'm sorry. Next one, next one. Let's leave it like that. It's okay. So what we see is that an increasing competition to use this is on the one hand, fisheries needs energy needs with a significant expanded production of renewable energy offshore. So we need really to carefully plan the way in which we use our seas. Taking a better holistic approach. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive addresses all these pressures and requires the strategic approach by aiming to achieve clean, healthy, productive and resilient marine ecosystems. This is this notion of sustainable use is what it's embedded in the notion of good environmental status, which is really at the heart of this directive. So, um, maybe we can move to the next slide. What I wanted to present you briefly. What are the key findings of the recently concluded evaluation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.”
Off-shore renewables · Environmental regulation of fisheries · EU ocean policy
- 2025-04-24 “Many thanks. First of all, I'm truly delighted and grateful to see the continued, extremely strong sense of urgency around this matter. This is what animates our activities as well. And this is what we need from the European Parliament as a whole. The Commission is convinced that the most important thing to do is indeed to secure not only an increasingly more accurate monitoring. As you have heard from my presentation, there are certain fields and maybe, shall we mention the one of drinking water as the first one where the Co-legislator agreed on only starting to monitor presence of PFAS in drinking water as from January 2026. It is because we share your sense of urgency and we need to see clearer into which drinking water, concretely, are polluted by PFAS that actually, already two years ago, we have adopted guidance to urge our member states to go faster. So first of all, I would say let's keep collectively a sense of urgency. Let's continue to display, at best, the data. This matter is fully encapsulated into the broader agenda of zero pollution across air, water and soil and agenda of One Health, to which the European Commission remains very committed. Commissioner Roosevelt has published no later than last 6th of March. The second Integrated Report on Monitoring the State of pollution, and I would really appreciate keen attention by the European Parliament on this type of regular report. The next one will be in just two years, because it increasingly gives a regional based and urban based understanding of where we are going.”
Drinking regulation · Water pollution
- 2025-04-24 “Very recently, also for PFAS in toys, and this means we are in these areas really going into the right direction. While prevention at source remains key and PFAS pollution needs to be avoided from as many sources as possible, we also need to take care of the pollution that has already been emitted, and remediation of existing pollution is an avenue that Commissioner Roosevelt is keen to explore further. When it comes to remediation, the basis is remains the polluter pays principle as enshrined in the treaty. When the polluter is known, it has to pay for its pollution, and this is the foundation also of the extended producer responsibility scheme. As you see in the slide, you see a number of product legislation that we have adopted with your support. I mentioned the packaging and packaging waste regulation, um, and so many other, of course, the safety of toy regulation and others that of course have this product based approach, um, that needs to be taken into account. Unfortunately, I have we have to be realistic. Pfas pollution sometimes dates back several decades ago. And so the commission is currently exploring how to enhance remediation action through several instruments. As I said, a very important topic for Commissioner Roosevelt. I'm happy now to pass the floor to my colleague Kristin Schreiber for an intervention from your perspective.”
Circular economy · PFAs
- “You have just heard from my colleague. About the current assessment of ethanol under the Biocidal Products Regulation. And indeed, the process under the CLP regulation is a separate and independent one currently under that regulation. Ethanol has a harmonised classification as a highly flammable liquid and vapour. The hazard classes for carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity were not part of the original hazard assessment performed under the predecessor of the current CLP regulation. As you may know, Greece has indicated to the European Chemicals Agency that it plans to submit a harmonised classification dossier for ethanol by December 2026. From a regulatory point of view, until the dossier is formally submitted to and evaluated by the Chemicals Agency, the Commission has no obligation to act. Only once Greece submits the dossier, the Echa's Risk Assessment Committee will be able to launch a scientific assessment process in line with the CLP procedures, and shall adopt an opinion within 18 months from the date of receipt of the proposal. So this brings us roughly to not before mid 2028. The Commission will then have to decide whether, based on this opinion, the harmonisation of ethanol classification is appropriate. This typically takes about one year. As you know, if the harmonised classification of ethanol as carcinogenic or reprotoxic category one is adopted, it will trigger downstream consequences in several pieces of legislation. But it can, of course, be linked to specific routes of exposure, for example, oral ingestion versus inhalation. If sufficient evidence is available to exclude others. So generally, let me stress that the Commission is aware of the critical status of ethanol and will carefully evaluate all possible and needed specific derogation based on safety and socioeconomic considerations. In all cases, the Commission has the tool it needs to handle this dossier appropriately. At the risk management phase, given that for the moment, any changes to the CLP status are speculative, I will not go into further details about what might or might not be necessary in case the dossier is deposed. Thank you.”
Chemicals regulation · Biofuels (RED II) · Classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals
- “The CAP strategic Plans analysis of the commission are publicly available and have been scrutinised by the Court of Auditors. More than one €3 billion has been committed in water research and innovation projects under horizon 2020. Again, I think much more will be done and count on the water resilience strategies to stress the importance to accelerate this, because essentially we have also to secure a much faster uptake of the fantastic innovative technologies and also nature based solutions that are being deployed at large scale. So, yes, we are essentially in front of a problem, which is a problem of poor implementation, poor political will, in at least in the past, to put this matter really at the center stage. What could the Commission do out of its own enforcement tool? It was a question by one of you. Well, the commission has launched a number of infringement procedures. Uh, if you're following a little bit what's happening on that side, we are going ahead vis a vis a number of member states who have even failed up until now, to secure regular controls on Overabstraction. A few of them didn't even have yet a register of abstraction in place. And more will come. Certainly, the engagement of Commissioner Roosevelt is to sit with each of the member states, as I said, in the context of politically structured dialogues, very much inspired by the model we followed in dealing with clean air problems, to secure that the overarching political awareness of the need to act not just from an environment perspective, but from an agriculture perspective transport perspective, generally across all ministers for water matters, gets spread.”
Water pollution · EU policy on water management
- “So what we are discussing is not a lack of regulatory instrument, but possibly a lack of administrative capacity across a number of member states, and sometimes maybe a lack of will to take actions that are actually allowed out of the interplay between the fishery acquis. And the marine aqui. On these measures we continue to be united and I do. Expect that the water resilience strategy in its interplay with the Ocean Pact. Will provide a number of paths to secure that. We work together with our member States to secure better administrative capacity, to secure a good and a better implementation of the Aqui that we have. Also, the implementation of the Nature Restoration Regulation will be a core element of two of the two. We cannot achieve water resilience without restoring the broken water cycle and the broken. The broken water cycle will continue to be broken unless we also restore the ocean cycle. 97% of our blue planet surface, 97% of the type of evapotranspiration. We need to secure that the rain cycle restart working properly. Is it at all compatible to have FAS and other forever chemicals in our oceans and achieve good status? The reply scientifically is very easy.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU policy on water management · Environmental regulation of fisheries
- “Buongiorno, president. Good morning to all honourable members. I would like really to express our strong gratitude to honourable member Baixada for his excellent report, but also the very timely character of this report that will enable the European Commission to take note of what I sense is a very strong cross-party consensus. First of all, on the need. Secondly, on the urgency to act. And I would say also to have this very holistic approach. At the same time as I heard it from a number of you, an approach which is attentive to the fact that we are going to operate in an area where really the one size fits all solution cannot work. We are in a Europe all facing an accelerating climate change, but admittedly with different impacts in different regions. Um, many of you have been strongly calling for water efficiency, even binding targets. All I want to recall is the fact that already in the past mandate, we have introduced some water efficient binding targets. And clearly this is the case now for industry. Although there will be a trajectory to secure that all our largest industrial processes abide to it. At the same time, clearly there are areas where more needs to be done when it comes to agriculture. We note with regret the fact that notwithstanding the existing Cap provisions that do facilitate or aim to, to make it easier for farmers to have more resource to precision farming and precise, precise irrigation.”
Digital and precision farming · EU policy on water management
- “This is the effort that we are leading. So we have also to be able to tell stories of successes progressively in decontaminating. Second point is indeed decontamination. Do we have the possibility to decontaminate? Well, this is an area which is at the heart of the research and innovation agenda. And you can count on Commissioner Roosevelt and Vice President Séjourné to secure that. We are really very active in that area throughout this mandate. Both the water resilience strategy and I hope and trust the Ocean Pact, because what contaminates water enters in sea, will offer opportunities to Display the political commitment of our masters on the decontamination agenda, as well on the polluter pays principle. Extended producer responsibility can be one of the tools, one of the tools in order to secure that those who pollute also pay. We are certainly worried to see some reactions of some part of industries having regard to the recently adopted Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. We count on the wise and sound judgment of the Court of Justice, and we are certainly considering ways to secure that. The protection afforded by the Drinking Water directive stay as high as it should be. Now that we are aware of a new opinion of the European Food Safety Agency, that had it been available at the time of the adoption of the Drinking Water Directive, possibly could have led the Co-legislator to have even more stringent standards. I would like to stop here to give the possibility to Mrs. Schreiber to complement my statement.”
Water pollution · Circular economy · EU policy on water management
- “Um, what we what we see overall is that, um, there is an increasing competition on the use of the seas. So, um, on the one hand, we need our seas for fishery. We want to use it more for energy production. Apologies, because I seem to have an issue of a technical nature with my PowerPoint presentation. I hope I can go back to the right slide. No, there seems to be an issue. Well, you will bear with me without the PowerPoint if there is an issue right now. Um, yes. Thank you. You should go to the previous one for the colleague with kindly Dennis the next. You are right. It's the next one. Then I'm sorry. Next one, next one. Let's leave it like that. It's okay. So what we see is that an increasing competition to use this is on the one hand, fisheries needs energy needs with a significant expanded production of renewable energy offshore. So we need really to carefully plan the way in which we use our seas. Taking a better holistic approach. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive addresses all these pressures and requires the strategic approach by aiming to achieve clean, healthy, productive and resilient marine ecosystems. This is this notion of sustainable use is what it's embedded in the notion of good environmental status, which is really at the heart of this directive. So, um, maybe we can move to the next slide. What I wanted to present you briefly. What are the key findings of the recently concluded evaluation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.”
Off-shore renewables · Environmental regulation of fisheries · EU ocean policy
- “I don't know why we are already here. We should not. This was the right slide. Sorry for that. Um, our assessment of the, um, third River basin management plans find that there are many pressures threatening the health of water bodies, as I was saying. And what we see when we look at the top pressures. Uh, the first is pollution from agriculture. This is mainly due to unsustainable land management practices and excessive and improper use of both fertilizers and pesticides. When we look in Looking in particular into what? What is polluting most surface water bodies. We see that the main pressure remains atmospheric pollution from burning fossil fuels. And this explains why we continue to spot so much mercury and other substances that cause widespread and hard to remediate pollution. Second largest and most significant pressure are morphological changes such as dams straightening the water courses because they disrupt the natural flow of water and cause widespread habitat degradation. When we zoom into the groundwaters, we see that Overabstraction scores as the second most important pressure after pollution from agriculture once again. So clearly, if we continue on this path, we will not achieve the water protection objectives which are set in EU laws. For that reason, the Commission has set out several key overarching recommendations to improve the situation across the EU. In many instances, and you see some of them displayed in this slide, regrouped in the recommendation clusters.”
Water pollution · EU policy on water management
- “A water efficiency first approach. This is particularly needed in the agricultural sector. That represents 51% of the total consumption of the European Union. We do believe that it is important that we start thinking about whether also in the area of water, there is a need for stimulating across the Europe, a sort of hierarchical approach, notably being attentive to first try to reduce the demand. Secondly, consider more circular management of water as such and only as a last resort ever resort to desalination, which is the reference in the equation. I heard honourable member asking for question around that. But we consider that this needs to be done in a way that is truly as sustainable as possible. Digitalisation and innovation, therefore, starting with smart metering as well, are at the heart of our preoccupation and will have a prominent role in the strategy that is in the making. There is time until 4th of March for all stakeholders to contribute to the call of evidence, which has been launched by Commissioner Roosevelt when presenting the entire assessment of the state of waters across the EU last February. The fourth, and we invite you also to please participate in this stakeholder conference that will take place next March the 6th. Thank you so much.”
Digital and precision farming · Circular economy · EU policy on water management
- “This practice is still not so much uptaken as it could. We also note an insufficient resource to water reuse. So expect all these areas to be clearly highlighted in this strategy, which is now in the making. From our side. At the same time, it is my duty to recall that if we were to go ahead with any more binding targets in this area, we have to be aware of article 192 of the treaty that would require any legislative action on binding targets for water use to be agreed at unanimity by the Council as well. Now, at the same time, we really want to march together towards this way, and we are therefore considering Hypotheses of also having a recommendation to be addressed to all the Member States, but with some time bound character, in order also to measure within a not too distant future the progress which will have been made across all sectors where so much needs to be done for water efficiency. And there I particularly salute the fact that the report of of this Parliament is looking at digitalisation and smart metering for water as well. Without measuring the quantities, we will not be able to drive this agenda further. Generally, we really would like to underline that it is quintessential also to work on restoring the broken water cycle. I've heard suggestions to also revamp existing grey water storage infrastructure. This is certainly part of the equation, and we see this as a very important part, but we equally will insist the need to work more together on nature based solutions so indispensable at the same time for climate adaptation and green water storage, whilst of course, continuing to have a very deep attention to the state and health of our oceans.”
Circular economy · EU policy on water management · EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.)
- “When it comes to the next Multiannual Financial framework, um, we plead for securing that water is seen as a joint responsibility by member states, companies and everyone around the board. So we see this as a very cross-cutting matter that needs to be tackled in a very cross-cutting way, also in the next MFF. And in that respect, it's absolutely true that given the very significant expenditure that will be linked to adjusting our infrastructures, Church, starting with problems linked to leakages. Well, we need to achieve by 2030. Uh, clarity. Absolute clarity about the maximum absolute limits that can be allowed. But more importantly. Have plans across all member states to tackle leakages. Well, the strategy will certainly help in driving investments where they are most needed. We thank you very much for this excellent basis. That will feed our preparation. And we recall all of you that we have a call for evidence ongoing until 4th of March. We invite all your stakeholders to please help the Commission in designing a strategy. That is the one that Europe needs. Thank you.”
Size of EU budget · EU policy on water management
- “Many thanks chair. It has been a pleasure this morning to run from the Secretariat of the envy to the one of the agri. I apologize that I can only join you later, but I'm briefed by my excellent colleagues. And I hear that also in this committee, there is a strong cross-cutting support for what the European Commission is trying to put forward, notably a strategy for water that is indeed holistic, fair, and of course takes the specific situation of agriculture into account. We are very grateful for the excellent report tabled by honourable members. We find it balanced very much in line with the current thinking of the European Commission. We would like to once again seize this opportunity to seek your support, to make a better use of the existing Cap provisions that already are crafted in such a manner as to stimulate the uptake of more precision farming and precision irrigation practices. That is certainly a margin for doing better. Also, water reuse practices across agriculture are not yet at the level where they should be. Um, all in all, when it comes to management of water expected in water resilience, to be super attentive at both aspects, the quantity and the quality. The two go hand in hand and there is no way to get resilient without looking both at the pollution impacts and the quantity management as such. And as I was saying, when it comes particularly to the quantity. My key messages today are very important for us to stimulate in the most appropriate manner that takes into account the diversities of the regions of the European Union and the diversity of practices.”
Use of fertilisers · EU policy on water management
- “The number, however, of the proposed and completed measures has risen compared to the first cycle, and we also welcome the fact that all member States by now include some nature based solutions in their plans. However, we still have no evidence that there is a notable change in terms of larger scale uptake of this nature based solution to fight floods. Also, climate change considerations are by now better integrated into the flood risk management plans of the member states. But there is scope for better integrating longer term climate scenarios and a better integration with the national climate adaptation strategies. So in a way, here, the key recommendations to the member states can be clustered as follows. We are asking our Member States to become more specific and use more quantitative indicators to establish clearer links between the objectives and the measures, and provide information on the methods that they use in order to prioritize action. We ask them to provide more detailed timelines to specify the cost and the funding sources. Also, to ensure better transparency and more effective monitoring, we are asking our Member States to include insurance as a tool for climate adaptation. To consider this longer term climate scenarios and clearly define their own international cooperation efforts that, of course, we strongly support.”
EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.)
- “In the past, the programming period, we have been spending €13 billion of cohesion policy in water management issues, water services, water use and so on. And here the colleague from Ireland saying we don't have enough money in Ireland. Well, we still have unspent money under cohesion policy. I admit I don't have the figure in front of me. I don't know whether this applies to Ireland as well, but I'm certainly very grateful to Vice President Fitto and the college who has decided recently in the mid-term review of cohesion policy to secure that all the unspent money of that important part of the EU budget is actually devoted on five main priorities water being one of those and water investment are therefore, throughout the next three four years, eligible for up to 100% cofinancing. If there is a will, there is a way. Member states have been devoting around €12 billion out of their national recovery and resilience plans for water. Maybe more could have been done. Let's salute at least those investments. And when it comes to agriculture, three comma €3 billion co-funding for more efficient irrigation system. Maybe a little bit more could have been done. Did the Commission recommend to the member States to invest more on water management from a quality and quantity perspective in the strategic plans? Yes we did.”
EU policy on water management · Cohesion and rural funding · Agricultural funding
- “Intensive agriculture, also mentioned by one of you in the past mandate under the European Green Deal mandate. We had, for example, tabled a proposal to capture, under the scope of the revised Industrial Emissions Directive, not just chicken and pigs farms responsible for quite a number of the nitrous pollution that we are aware, but also cattle farms. The European Parliament and the Council have decided not to cover those farms under the scope of that directive. So it's true that we have a certain gap. Nonetheless, I'm happy to say that I'm sure that also that new instrument capturing a bigger number of intensive agricultural plants will be able to display tangible results also in terms of capping nitrate pollution. And this is, of course, combined with the constant monitoring of nitrates in water that is done under the Nitrates Directive and whose reports whose results are monitored in an increasingly regional manner under the broader Zero Pollution Monitoring and Outlook framework. Thank you so much.”
Use of fertilisers · Water pollution · Industrial emissions directive (IED)
- “Many thanks. Chair. So maybe let's start from the last two questions, which go really to the core of the issue. We share your frustration. We face, once again, a case of insufficient implementation of a regulatory framework that is in place since a number of years. At the same time, I must say that I'm encouraged by the fact that, again, especially in the past, mandate, we have put in place additional measures that should, if properly implemented, lead us a little bit better. Uh, further, the interplay in particular between the the, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Nature Restoration Regulation and of course, measures that we are discussing with colleagues in DG mare on fishery are very, very, very important. You may recall that in the past mandate, we spent quite some time at the time of the adoption of the then called Ocean Pact on the Marine Action Plan that states something that I think should be of common sense across all member states. We should progressively ban bottom trawling in marine protected areas to start with. This continues to be an important goal to be achieved. I listen to the comments of the honourable member from Ireland mentioned in the fact that there are, and he said it himself, insufficient capacity to inspect and control.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Environmental regulation of fisheries · EU ocean policy
- “We published it last 6th of March, and we have found out that the directive has been overall partially effective, effective to the extent that it is put in place, a holistic framework for the protection of the Member States marine waters. But definitely we have not achieved good status. We should have achieved it back in 2020. We have found out that the directive offers potential, which is significant for simplification and administrative burden reduction, for better integration and coherence with other parts of the environmental acquis, which is also enlarged, as you know. In particular, I want to mention the relationship, which is very close with the recently adopted Nature Restoration regulation. There is also scope for better integrating the effects of climate change. We see that to achieve the full potential of the directive. We need to better address challenges linked to the complex by now. Legislative framework. The insufficient implementation, the at times and certainly in certain sea basins, more than in other insufficient regional cooperation, at times insufficient policy coherence. Some of you were mentioning this and also the data management problem on which we are working hand in hand, also with colleagues in DG mare. We are currently discussing how to best address the the results of this evaluation, and we will certainly be very pleased to report back to the European Parliament as soon as the political deliberations will be available. Expect, of course, both the Water resilience Strategy and the upcoming Ocean Pact to be an important frame for announcing the Commission's views on the topic. Thank you so much.”
EU policy on water management · EU ocean policy
- “Many thanks. Today is really a big show. I must say, apologies that you have to listen to my voice again and again. Um, well, it's nonetheless a big pleasure to present to you this, uh, report published jointly. As I said in my previous presentation with the one on Fresh Waters, and which is all disciplined by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which requires member states to take all necessary measures to achieve or maintain the good environmental status of the marine waters. The Commission report we are discussing today more specifically analyzes the programmes of measures adopted by the Member States from 2021 to 2027 under this directive. They include a wide range of topics, from marine litter to chemical contamination, from underwater noise pollution to biodiversity protection, and many others. The purpose is always the same. The one of trying to tackle the triple planetary crisis, climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss in an integrated and comprehensive manner. What we do to lessen pollution indeed will positively impact on the state of our fresh waters. Cleaner waters flowing into the sea will improve the quality of marine waters, and this in turn will improve the marine habitats that allows species to thrive, thus sustaining our economy. Overall, I must say our take is member States have done a good job in addressing in a better integrated manner the complex and diverse marine pressures, so as to deliver on the directives of objectives. In particular, I would like to underline apologies for that. In particular, I would like to underline that when we look into marine litter, a very interesting example, we observe a almost 30% reduction of beach litter between 2016 and 2021 across all EU sea basin.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Water pollution · EU ocean policy
- “No it's not. So we need indeed to work in a very holistic manner from both zero pollution, biodiversity protection and of course climate change perspective. In order to secure that, we bring eventually our oceans that there would need to be. But I would also like to once again underline that although I share the frustration, I'm very, very deeply conscious that we could be in even worse status had we not agreed back in 2008 on a legislation called the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. What I can witness firsthand having the honor and pleasure of working hand in hand with marine and water directors across the European Union and of course, all relevant stakeholders and bodies, is that there is an understanding, there is a capacity to monitor things. And in particular there is a cooperation at regional level, which would have been unthinkable 20, 25 years ago. So we need certainly to accelerate action. And in this respect, the upcoming United Nations Ocean Conference will certainly provide yet another moment of unity and, I hope, determination. But again, also in this area, a lot is about awareness and enforcement and better administrative capacity at national and local level. Thank you.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Climate efforts · EU ocean policy
- “And I want to stress this, this data because I am personally convinced that this positive result is not just the result of regulatory action, but of very large awareness raising and therefore then also citizens civil society action. Plastic litter has really become something that many citizens no longer want. And this allowed me actually to reply to the question of the honourable member You speak from Lithuania? I do not know whether it is any longer in the room or cigarette butts coming from Russia and Belorussia and so on. I'm very sensitive to these type of topics, and I must say that we see that if there is a possibility to really bring to the broader citizens attention the importance also to prevent that source and take clean up action, this does deliver very tangible results. And we have seen improved cooperation at regional sea conventions levels. We are also pleased to see that member states are starting, are starting to take more specific measures against climate change impacts on the seas, although they are not formally required to do so under the directives. Nonetheless, there are disparities in the qualities of the measures which are undertaken also in this area, very much like for fresh water. More investments are needed to achieve a sustained reduction of other types of pollution, in particular the chemical contaminants and underwater noise. So we continue very much to count on the support of this committee. Also to get there where we need to be.”
Water pollution · EU policy towards plastics · EU ocean policy