Sander SMIT

Policy topics Sander SMIT is active on

What Sander SMIT has said (43)

• 2026-06-17 “(10:45:32 – 10:46:38): President commissioner. The Green Deal has left Europe reliant on Chinese technology and subsidized goods. That has cost our industry and strategic autonomy heavily. We need gas exploration and European nuclear energy. What will the council do? What about Chinese support for Russia and dual use goods? What about the situation in Ukraine? In The Middle East, we hope for peace. But what about fertilizers and their prices in the short term? How can we ensure affordable fertilizer for farmers? The talks on the MFF will be key. Let's stop attacking fishers and farmers. Commissioner, we also need progress on the returns regulation. It is time for action time for returns. We cannot waste another minute. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• 2026-06-17 “(10:13:24 – 10:14:46): That's all. I think we'll manage with Dutch. I was curious to hear you talk about our growing reliance on China, but the green deal is spearheaded by your group, the S and D, and that is what has led to our reliance on China. We have been flooded by Chinese technology. What is your thinking about this excess pace that has been forced by your group? You've not really considered strategic autonomy or getting our own house in order first.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2026-02-20 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question 1. The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) notification with regard to Brazilian beef contaminated with oestradiol-17β was registered and circulated on 14 November 2025. It was based on information collected by Commission auditors [1] on amounts of meat from animals treated with oestradiol mixed with that of non-treated animals, exported from Brazil to certain Member States accompanied by corresponding health certificates. An information notification was appropriate and allowed immediate follow-up by Member States. 2. Following the RASFF notification, Member States blocked or traced back imported consignments and withdrew them from the market. The Brazilian authorities suspended the farm where non-compliances were identified but also the farms controlled by the certification body which had certified the non-compliant farm, from the list of farms authorised for export of female bovine meat to the EU. The corrective actions to be implemented by Brazil will be closely monitored by the Commission in order to ensure and maintain the EU high food safety standards. 3. The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Members to its answer to written p riority Question P-000230/2026 [2] , which addresses the same issues. The RASFF notification was related to bovine meat, while, in contrast, Brazil received favourable audit reports (2024-8002 [3] and 2023-7857 [4] ) and compliant results in reinforced checks on poultry meat. Consequently, pre-listing of poultry and egg products establishments was resumed. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4975. [2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-10-2026-000230-ASW_EN.html. [3] https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4815. [4] https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4750.”
  Maximum residue levels · Import of agri-food products in the EU
• 2026-01-15 “Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission 16.3.2026 Written question The EU condemns the threats received by the Chaldean Patriarch of Baghdad following a homily delivered in Saint Joseph’s Cathedral in Baghdad. Iraq’s religious diversity is intrinsically linked to the country’s identity and cultural heritage. The EU expresses its unequivocal support to the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, with full respect to its ethnic and religious diversity. The EU Delegation is in regular contact with representatives of Iraqi religious communities, including the Chaldean Patriarch of Baghdad. Messages on respect of all minorities and protection of freedom of religion or belief are consistently conveyed by the EU in its exchanges with Iraqi officials at all levels and feature on the agenda of bilateral institutional bodies such as the EU-Iraq Subcommittee on Democracy and Human Rights. Moreover, the substantial EU support package for Iraq [1] — ranging from humanitarian assistance and development aid to a security mission on security sector reform- is designed to benefit all aspects of Iraqi society, including minorities. [1] https://north-africa-middle-east-gulf.ec.europa.eu/middle-east-gulf/iraq_en.”
  EU engagement with Christian communities inside and outside the EU
• 2025-10-13 “E-004017/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission Pursuant to Article 19(2)(d) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/996 1 , gaseous or liquid fuels that are introduced into an interconnected infrastructure can be considered part of a mixture if they belong to the same product group. The definition of a product group in Article 2 (21) of the same Act considers liquefied natural gas (LNG) and biomethane as part of the same product group. Therefore, this allows such fuels to be part of the same mass-balancing system within the integrated infrastructure. The transfer of sustainability attributes between biomethane and LNG would be possible if respective industry conversion factors are applied as well as if all the relevant live-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are allocated to the bio-LNG as per a physical liquefaction. If all these pre-conditions are fulfilled such consignments of fuels can be certified as sustainable. Member States are obliged to accept the proof of sustainability declarations that are issued on this basis, if the certification has been performed by certification schemes recognised by the Commission. The Commission may provide additional guidance for such cases to facilitate the calculation of the total of GHG emissions related to such a liquefaction process. In addition, the new EU traceability tool, the Union database, contains a functionality that would allow for tracing the allocation of GHG emissions and conversion factors in such liquefaction steps. The relevant Commission services are currently reviewing the implementation of these rules across the Member States, including in the Netherlands, as part of the verification of the transposition of the revised Renewable Energy Directive with the objective to ensure a comprehensive and harmonious implementation of the legal requirements. 1 OJ L 168, 27.6.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/996/oj.”
  EU Competition policy · Decarbonisation of maritime transport · Biofuels (RED II)
• 2025-10-03 “E-003900/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission does not intend to take on a coordinating role to allow or facilitate commercial fishing and cross-border trade in invasive alien species that are on the Union list, including the transport of live shellfish for consumption. Such a role would contradict both the objectives and the provisions of the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 1 , which expressly prohibits trade in species on the list of Union concern. As the Commission noted in its reply to written question E-003142/2025, any potential commercialisation of these species would require meeting all the conditions outlined in Article 19(2) of the Invasive Alien Species Regulation. Commercialisation within a Member State or among Member States of live specimens of invasive alien shellfish cannot be carried out in conditions that cannot rule out escape and further spread. 1 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species, OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35– 55.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries · EU ocean policy
• 2025-10-03 “P-003901/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The precautionary principle under Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) remains a cornerstone of EU environmental policy and guides the Union’s gradual approach to innovation. The Commission assesses risks and issues guidance to Member States to ensure compliance with EU law. However, imposing moratoria or halting projects falls mainly within national competence. Implementing rulings of the European Court of Justice requiring suspension of projects posing serious risks equally lies with Member States. The Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001 1 promotes innovative renewables, such as floating solar, wave and tidal energy while ensuring respect for the EU environmental acquis. The Commission has issued recommendations 2 and guidance 3 to Member States, among other actions, to promote continued research on their potential environmental impacts. The European Ocean Pact 4 announces a proposal for an ‘Ocean Act’ that will build on a revision of the Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) Directive 5 and aim at strengthening and modernising maritime spatial planning as a strategic tool. The Commission is currently working on an impact assessment and a call for evidence will be published in 2026. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/oj/eng. 2 https://energy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/fd9542e8-6eae-423a-a0edcc710a600473_en?filename=C_2025_4024_1_EN_ACT_part1_v7.pdf. 3 https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/communication-innovative-technologies-and-forms-renewableenergy-deployment_en. 4 https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/european-ocean-pact_en. 5 https://maritime-spatial-planning.ec.europa.eu/.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects · Off-shore renewables
• 2025-07-30 “E-003142/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission acknowledges that widely spread invasive alien species (IAS) often have significant cost implications and socio-economic consequences in Member States. The Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) and the American crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) are both listed as IAS of Union concern under the IAS Regulation 1 . As such, they are subject to all restrictions under Article 7 of the IAS Regulation. Article 19 of the IAS Regulation – rather than Article 9 – deals with the management of IAS that are widely spread in a Member State’s territory. While this Article imposes a management obligation, it is up to the Member State to select the measures appropriate to the local conditions among the several options listed in Article 19, on the basis of an analysis of costs and benefits. As regards the potential commercialisation of these species, Article 19(2) states that ‘The commercial use of already established invasive alien species may be temporarily allowed as part of the management measures aimed at their eradication, population control or containment, under strict justification and provided that all appropriate controls are in place to avoid any further spread’. If Member States introduce a specific management programme for widely spread IAS that are suitable for human consumption, export to other Member States of dead animals would be allowed provided all the conditions in Article 19(2) are met. 1 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species, OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35– 55.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries · EU policy on water management
• 2025-07-16 “E-002944/2025 E-002945/2025 E-002946/2025 E-002947/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Member States are free to adopt taxes which apply to waste management operations within their territory. Articles 5 and 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (including the proportionality principle) are applicable only to actions of the institutions of the Union and not those of its Member States. Article 193 TFEU allows Member States to maintain or introduce more stringent protective measures provided they are in line with the Treaty. Taxes on landfill and waste incineration can be used by Member States to support waste management higher up in the waste hierarchy, i.e. prevention, preparing for re-use and recycling 1 . EU law aims to reduce landfilling, in particular of waste that is suitable for recycling or other recovery and prevent negative effects on the environment and health 2 . The information about the proposed tax does not suggest that the Netherlands has failed to fulfil any EU legal requirements, including to establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal or recovery installations, as referred to by the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity 3 . The Commission has neither evidence of shortages in EU waste treatment capacities, nor that diverging national tax measures undermine the EU`s sustainability objectives. As regards packaging waste, the new EU Regulation 4 requires it is separately collected, recyclable as of 2030 and actually must go into recycling, with only few exemptions. Recycling infrastructure should be established within the EU based on economics and not be limited to national borders. 1 Article 4 and Annex IVA 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 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1–19, amended by Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 100–108. 3 Article 16 of the above Directive. 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.”
  Circular economy · EU policy towards plastics
• 2025-05-28 “E-002135/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission Following the fall of the Assad regime, the EU adopted a gradual and reversible approach in order to support Syria’s transition and economic recovery. On 24 February 2025, the EU suspended some of its economic sanctions and amended the humanitarian exceptions 1 . The EU has been assessing whether further suspensions could be made, based on close monitoring of the situation on the ground 2 . On 27 May 2025, the EU lifted all economic sanctions on Syria in order to support the country’s socio-economic recovery, with the exception of those based on security grounds. The EU maintained sanctions on Assad and his accomplices, in line with its call for accountability and its support to a peaceful transition 3 . While the humanitarian exceptions already ensured the continued provision of humanitarian assistance, the step of lifting of economic sanctions was broadly welcomed by the humanitarian community in Syria as a way to further enhance the delivery of critical assistance. The lifting of economic sanctions is vital for the swift socio-economic recovery of Syria that the EU is strongly supporting, including through its recent EUR 175 million package 4 . On 28 May 5 and 23 June 2025 6 , the EU introduced additional listings under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime, targeting several individuals and entities for serious human rights abuses in Syria, including in relation to the deadly violence and horrific crimes against civilians in the coastal areas in March 2025. The EU remains attentive to the actions of the new authorities in ensuring the protection of all Syrians without any kind of discrimination and continues to call for accountability, inclusivity and tolerance. It stands with the Syrian people and remains in close contact with partners in the region and key international partners. 1 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/02/24/syria-eu-suspends-restrictive-measureson-key-economic-sectors/. 2 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6227-2025-ADD-1/en/pdf. 3 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/05/28/syria-eu-adopts-legal-acts-to-lifteconomic-sanctions-on-syria-enacting-recent-political-agreement/. 4 https://north-africa-middle-east-gulf.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-announces-eu175-million-support-recovery-syria2025-06-04_en. 5 See footnote 3. 6 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/06/23/global-human-rights-sanctions-regime-euimposes-restrictive-measures-on-five-syrian-individuals-associated-with-the-former-assad-regime-forsupporting-crimes-against-humanity-and-for-fueling-sectarian-violence/.”
  EU-Syria relations · EU foreign policy approach
• 2025-05-27 “E-002120/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Nitrates Directive 1 limits the amount of livestock manure that can be spread on fields, as the spreading of livestock manure - an organic fertiliser - is associated with specific environmental risks. Since the adoption of the Directive, new forms of advanced industrial processing of livestock manure have emerged, such as RENURE. These new processing techniques result in materials that behave in a more similar way to chemical fertilisers, reducing risks to the environment under certain conditions 2 . Such materials, if they comply with the Fertilising Product Regulation 3 , can also be marketed in the internal market. Improving nutrients management, increasing circularity and addressing nutrient pollution hotpots is a priority of this Commission, as confirmed in the Vision for Agriculture and Food 4 and Water Resilience Strategy 5 . Both policy initiatives call for the management of nutrients from livestock farming to limit negative externalities, supporting extensification in regions with high livestock concentrations and promoting circularity which can help reduce dependencies on imported fertilisers, a win-win for the environment and climate. Nevertheless, the impacts in nitrates vulnerable zones require careful consideration. In April 2024, the Commission published for public feedback 6 a draft Commission Directive amending the Nitrates Directive to allow the use of certain types of processed livestock manure above the limit for land application of livestock manure, within certain limits and conditions. Discussions on the draft text are underway in the Nitrates Committee with the competent Member State authorities, in line with the legal comitology procedure. 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, p. 1–8. 2 Huygens, D., Orveillon, G., Lugato, E., Tavazzi, S., Comero, S., Jones, A., Gawlik, B. and Saveyn, H., Technical proposals for the safe use of processed manure above the threshold established for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones by the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC), EUR 30363 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-21539-4, doi:10.2760/373351, JRC121636. 3 Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003, OJ L 170, 25.6.2019, p. 1–114. 4 Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A Vision for Agriculture and Food Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations, COM/2025/75 final. 5 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en. 6 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14242-Nitrates-updated-rules-on-theuse-of-certain-fertilising-materials-from-livestock-manure-RENURE-_en.”
  Water pollution · Use of fertilisers
• 2025-05-27 “E-002119/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is currently carrying out an evaluation of the Nitrates Directive 1 and plans to finalise and publish the evaluation report by the end of 2025. The Water Resilience Strategy 2 , adopted on 4 June 2025, refers to the ongoing evaluation. The Commission will decide on the appropriate follow up to the evaluation in light of its findings which are based, inter alia, on extensive stakeholder consultations. The European Parliament resolution of 7 May 2025 on the European Water Resilience Strategy was also well noted. 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, p. 1–8. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en.”
  Water pollution · Use of fertilisers
• 2025-03-07 “E-001008/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission Detention issues, including the management of detention capacity and arrangements between EU countries in this regard, are a Member State competence. In the past, Norway and Belgium have rented detention spaces in the Netherlands to address overcrowding in their prisons. The experiment had mixed results 1 and ultimately neither Norway nor Belgium extended their contracts with the Netherlands 2 . The Commission adopted a Recommendation 3 that provides guidance to Member States on how to ensure, among other things, that detainees’ fundamental rights are respected and that they are treated with dignity. 1 See ‘Where Two ‘Exceptional’ Prison Cultures Meet: Negotiating Order in a Transnational Prison’ Alison Liebling, Berit Johnsen, Bethany E Schmidt, Tore Rokkan, Kristel Beyens, Miranda Boone, Mieke Kox, An-Sofie Vanhouche, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 61, Issue 1, January 2021, Pages 41–60. https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/61/1/41/5892706 2 https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/blog-renting-foreign-prison-places-the-unanswered-question. The Norwegian scheme ran for three years from 2015 to 2018 and the arrangements in Belgium for seven years from 2009 to 2016. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32023H0681”
  EU policy on criminal justice · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2025-02-19 “E-000760/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Code of Practice on general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models will set out commitments to which providers of such models may voluntarily adhere to demonstrate compliance with the relevant provisions under the AI Act 1 . The AI Office has facilitated the drawing-up of the Code, with working groups chaired by independent experts involving nearly 1 000 stakeholders, Member States representatives, and observers. As the main addressees of the Code, general-purpose AI model providers are invited to dedicated workshops with the chairs and vice-chairs. The European AI Office is supporting the appointed chairs and vice-chairs drafting a simple but effective Code at the current state of the art. An adequate Code, to be assessed by the AI Office and the AI Board, would cover the relevant obligations in the AI Act, without going beyond it. Signatories to the Code can benefit from reduced administrative burden and increased trust by the AI Office. Moreover, the AI Act as a product safety legislation is designed to complement and facilitate 2 the EU data protection law, while avoiding overlaps. When both apply 3 , market surveillance authorities should cooperate with authorities supervising fundamental rights legislation 4 . The Commission will issue guidelines on the interplay with other EU laws to ensure effective and consistent implementation across the EU 5 . The Commission aims to cooperate with the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) to help AI providers and deployers understand and comply with their obligations under both acts. The EDPB has adopted an opinion under the General Data Protection Regulation’s (GDPR) consistency mechanism, addressed to the data protection authorities, on the application of the GDPR to AI models 6 , thereby seeking EU-wide harmonised application. The Commission has also proposed GDPR procedural rules regulation 7 , which harmonises procedural rules in cross-border cases. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (AI Act), OJ L, 2024/1689. 2 Recitals (2), (10), 67 AI Act. 3 This is the case when personal data processing is involved in the development and use of AI systems subject to requirements under the AI Act. See Article 2(7) and Recital (10) AI Act. 4 See authorities designated under Article 77 AI Act that includes data protection authorities. 5 See Article 96(1)e) AI Act. 6 EDPB Opinion 28/2024, available at: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/opinionboard-art-64/opinion-282024-certain-data-protection-aspects_en. 7 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, COM/2023/348 final. Currently under negotiation.”
  GDPR · Artificial Intelligence
• 2025-02-05 “E-000529/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission adheres strictly to its transparency obligations as outlined in the Financial Regulation 1 , its Article 38 requires publishing information about recipients of funds financed from the EU budget. All required information on recipients of EU funding, including the names of recipients and amounts are already public and available in the Financial Transparency System 2 . The objectives and results of the projects may be found on the Funding and Tenders Portal 3 . Furthermore, interest representatives that register in the Transparency Register (TR) 4 as not representing commercial interests, which would typically include non-governmental organisations (NGOs), are required to report their lobbying activities and declare their main funding sources as well as the amount of each contribution above EUR 10 000 exceeding 10% of their total budget and the name of the contributor in their registrations in the TR. The Commission's assessment confirms that all ongoing grant agreements are in full compliance with the relevant legal framework, as adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission does not require NGOs to lobby against or to support specific EU policy initiatives. The existing regulatory framework already sets out clear obligations regarding ethics and integrity, both for Commissioners and staff members. Rules on the avoidance of conflicts of interest and the obligation to act with impartiality are well established, as is the reporting obligation for staff when their impartiality may be compromised. In such cases the institution may impose mitigating measures. In cases where there is evidence of a breach, the Commission has established clear procedures for internal administrative inquiries and disciplinary action and where necessary refers the matter for further examination to the competent investigative bodies and authorities. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202402509 2 https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/analysis.html Example: go to ‘Analyse’ and choose the criteria of interest (e.g. year, EU programme, type of contract, type of organisation). (The annual publications are based on Article 38 of the Financial Regulation whereby data on recipients is not disclosed for very low value contracts below EUR 15 000 and where disclosure risks threatening the rights and freedoms of the persons or entities). 3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/projectsresults?isExactMatch=true&order=DESC&pageNumber=1&pageSize=10&sortBy=title Example: go to Home>Projects & results>EU Funded projects>choose the project of interest. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021Q0611(01)”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups · Transparency requirements of EU institutions · EU engagement with civil society
• 2025-01-16 “E-000183/2025 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission The Political Guidelines for 2024-2029 express the Commission’s clear focus on making business easier and faster in Europe. Underlining this focus, the Commission set the goal to reduce reporting obligations by at least 25%, and 35% for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Reporting burdens are a subset of all administrative burdens. Thus, to further increase our ambition, the 25% and 35% targets will in the future refer to the costs of all administrative burdens, not only reporting requirements. Eurostat helped provide an approximation of the baseline for this, resulting in a goal of reducing around EUR 37.5 billion of recurring costs until the end of the mandate. Dedicated measures for SMEs will aim to meet the 35% target. The Commission will regularly report on the progress towards these targets. The information in annual burden surveys will also continue to be reported. Given the transition year, relevant information for 2023 and 2024 will be provided as part of the Commission’s reporting on implementation and simplification. The Commission is fully committed to the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, to deliver tailored, easy to implement and efficient legislation. A cost-benefit analysis underpins all impact assessments showing that benefits outweigh costs. New administrative costs are offset within the one-in one out approach. All legislative measures with significant impacts and policy options are accompanied by an impact assessment or, in case of urgency, a staff working document, analysing the most significant economic, social and environmental impacts and presenting a compulsory competitiveness check. This is the case for significant legislative initiatives included in the 2025 Commission Work Program.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU (free access) · Simplification measures (political compass)
• 2025-01-16 “E-000184/2025 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission’s Better Regulation system relies on a process, which encompasses the intervention of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB). The scores quoted in the question refer to the initial impact assessment reports as first submitted to the RSB. It shows that 60% of initial impact assessments have sufficient quality already at first submission. The remaining 40% require further work and will be resubmitted for another round of scrutiny. Once the recommendations of the RSB have been addressed, all final impact assessments have the necessary level of quality. 2. The Commission has developed appropriate guidance and training programmes for policy officers conducting impact assessments. The Commission’s ‘better regulation’ policy is one of the most comprehensive regulatory policy among the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and EU countries and it keeps expanding with new elements. Even in cases where the average score for initial impact assessments is not yet ‘acceptable’, once the RSB’s recommendations in their final positive opinion are addressed, the final impact assessments always have an ‘acceptable’ score. 3. The Commission seeks to continuously improve the quality of impact assessments supporting the political decision-making. This is why there is quality control carried out by the RSB. This quality control is successful, as between 2020 and 2023, all final impact assessments that accompany policy proposals have on average a quality score above ‘acceptable’. That is the only relevant ‘target’ for the Commission’s impact assessments.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Mr. Smith, please. Mr. president. Commissioner. It's not only the oceans that are across punt. It's also true for our fisheries. The Ocean Pact must recognise fisheries and aquaculture as a key to the blue economy. These are a key interest for our food. Food sovereignty and resilience of the EU. We have to ensure that fisheries don't come under additional pressure through the offshore wind industry. We need a fair maritime spatial planning. This is crucial, particularly to ensure continued protection for traditional fisheries. We need sufficient funding for innovation and modernisation of vessels. This is essential. We need to have energy efficient vehicles and make selective use of EU for fisheries, fisheries and this has to be done in an energy neutral manner. Many modern vessels of over 24m also have to be taken into account. We need concrete actions in order to ensure that our fishers can survive, and our coastal regions can help with the local societies.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture · Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think this is very important and timely report to tackle foreign information manipulation and interference. I fully support the recommendations outlined, but I would like to raise two remarks. First, regarding the enforcement of the DSA. I would like to draw our attention to making a careful balance between intervention and content, taking down on the one hand and safeguarding freedom of speech on the other. We already had some statements like from the Greens, from Mr. Van Attack, which do give serious reason for concern. We should not target certain political opinions in some countries. Also in the European Union, social media remained the only valid or Reliable source of information and censoring platforms is not a sustainable solution to this issue, in my opinion. Secondly, the report does not yet address the need for transparency within our own EU institutions. We should be very serious about defending democratic values both externally as well as internally. On April 1st, the Commission itself, in a declaration, finally admitted to having financed undue lobbying activities by NGOs and announced further safeguards within the life fund and other funds. A notorious example of Intransparent influencing of public opinion and instrumentalization was the attempt by the Commission to influence Dutch public opinion through Micro-targeted adverts on ex on the CSA proposal. Because of the positions taken by Dutch politicians and governments in council and Parliament, would it be a suggestion, Mr. Rapporteur to seriously address these matters before we proceed towards funding. Fact checkers. Because more transparency will strengthen our institutions, the institutional and democratic credibility against attacks and disinformation by foreign actors and hostile geopolitical competitors who do indeed try to discredit the EU and certain member states. But we have to show our credibility. Thank you very much.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “President. Commissioner. The commissioner has finally recognized the problems of our industry. The clean industrial deal must not be a clean out for our industrials. There's no proper proposals in this 90% reduction of carbon. That's not green growth. That is economic suicide. European energy prices will not be reduced in this way. They will continue to rise. The industrial spine of Europe are family companies will be drowned in red tape. Technology neutral technology. Technology and the combustion engine. Well, we need to revise the Green Deal. The reality should not adapt to Brussels. Brussels should adapt to the changed reality. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner, the Iran war is making the energy prices rise and it's stopping fertiliser production. We need to what we're seeing is that the ships are not going and the farmers are struggling. What is the commission doing? They're talking about transition. They're stopping use of fossil fuels. They've got subsidies for wind turbines that are only going to work in ten years time. That's not a solution. It means just waiting and waiting. You've had years. You've been looking at working against synthetic fertilizers and nuclear power and so on. Enough is enough. We need to be producing gas and nuclear power. We need to let the farmers farm, and we need to make sure that we don't have insecurity for food. We need to look at the synthetic fertilizers, not banning them. We don't want a green utopia. We want people to be able to warm their houses, and we want our farmers. We need to be able to do that this autumn and not in ten years time.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “I saw many excellent presentations and introductions about this entire question which I must say is quite sensitive. If we look at the balance between on the one hand freedom of religion in the European Union, on the other hand the diplomatic freedom of church communities and the danger of politicizing religion, which especially against so-called Union Catholic churches and the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine, the Kremlin has done. We as a European Union, I think, should be careful in this matter because we have to take into consideration the reality. Mr. Gorzatze mentioned the Armenian Apostolic Church. Obviously, Armenians live in Russia and they have to relate also diplomatically to the reality in Russia. So I think we should be very careful not to politicize religion because I've already seen how my voters are influenced. We're here in the EU instrumentalized because of certain measures in Ukraine as if Christianity were persecuted, etc. I also know of the particular situation since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine of Russian Orthodox parishes within the European Union, some which have very clearly distanced themselves from the criminal acts of war crimes and the stance of Russia which created the.”
  EU engagement with Christian communities inside and outside the EU
• “Thank you for the presentation. In the 2024 State of Water report, the IEA indicates that differences in reporting between member states can lead to a distorted picture. For example, the Netherlands has identified many river basin specific pollutants and has reported at least one exceedance in most surface water bodies, resulting in an overall failure of ecological status. How do you view these significant differences from a policy makers perspective when selecting relevant data? Which data should take precedence in your view? Could you also provide insight into the various measurement methods used across different member States, which widely differ? It's on page 49 of the report. Do you also agree that the European Commission and DG should take these differences into account when instructing Member States and whenever suggesting further measures, obligations or for certain Member States infringement procedures? Would it not otherwise jeopardise equitable treatment and present a true policy risk of the unity of European policy? Thank you very much.”
  Water pollution
• “Gracias, Senor president, thank you, Commissioner, for being here. Uh, following the recent scandals, Chinese poultry meat with failing traceability and hygiene. According to your own DG Sante audit of November 2025. Ukrainian acts with repeated salmonella and doxycycline contamination throughout 2025. Brazilian beef contaminated with the banned ursodiol hormone that still entered the EU market despite commitments, according to Audit City. 2020 502 for one and the crisis in infant formula caused by Ara oil from China. December 2025. Self-certification from third countries is clearly proven to be structurally ineffective. Do you share our and my concerns that imports from China, Ukraine and Brazil are undermining these food safety standards? Still, and despite the commitments you yourself have made. Made on December 9th of last year, what concrete additional controls you already mentioned a few. And audits have now been introduced for Chinese poultry products, Ukrainian eggs and this Brazilian beef. Are they announced 50% increase in audits in third countries and stricter border checks actually already being implemented, or will it remain on paper? Do you have an impact assessment that our national food agencies are truly capable of handling the promised higher frequency of controls? Have you received signals of overload, for instance, and how do you commissioners see the future role of Efsa? We had the director, Chris, here. Should Efsa not also proactively and unprompted advice on food safety threats from third countries. Even when this is politically inconvenient, maybe sometimes for the Commission exactly as independent Efsa does, and will continue to do for in reviews for active substances in plant protection products. Contrary. Contrary to what Mr. Gerbrandy of Renew seemed to suggest here. So what's your opinion on that? What's your vision for Efsa in these coming years with Mercosur being provisionally implemented, but also with other Uh, problems. I think parents were really concerned by this crisis. And European citizens want answers. Thank you very much.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner. The new fertiliser action plan from the commission shows how far they are from the general public and from farmers. So we're in the middle of a fertiliser crisis And rather than opening up the nitrate directive, they rather allow the cbam to remain in place. And the money that's being made is not going back to the farmers. And at the same time, farmers are being forced to reject using their own manure, their own animals manure, and have to buy expensive chemical fertiliser. More than half of this parliament was in favour of revising the nitrates directive to allow more manure use. It should be common sense. Stop attacking our farmers and animal husbandry. Make sure that we understand that we can use the circular economy, use our animals manure for our food security and for our farmers. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. Chair. I'll try to speak very slowly in Dutch. You will. Thank you. Thank you to the Commission for this exchange of views. Yes. There is disinformation. Yes. Geopolitical rivals of the EU try to destabilise the Union in this way. But what I'm hearing today about environment and climate information and policy. Has to do with freedom of science and the free scientific and political discussion about policy. We must be careful that we don't slip away towards intervening in the formation of opinion. There's been talk of NGOs during the European election campaign. I found that a lot of fact checkers have a tendency to make a certain type of discussion impossible. They cited professors from Sussex and Oxford of the cost benefit analysis of the new climate goals. Such facts must be able to be publicly debated. Without this being a without fact checkers funded by the Commission, disputing everything. There must be an open discussion. There's an open political democracy, and we have to respect the separation of powers, the determination of policy and the freedom to discuss it must be protected. If the Commission moves away for that and intervenes in the political and parliamentary debate by financing. Fact checkers who, uh, monitor. Elected officials. During political campaigns, electoral campaigns. That goes a step too far. Then we're moving towards Orwellian scenarios. Thank you. Chair.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you. That's costing me a few seconds. Thank you very much, Mr. Jensen, for your presence here in our committee. I was very pleased to see that you want to bring the NDP proposal forward. Thank you for that. And also for the many bioeconomy and bio based solutions. I think a quicker, faster approval for plant production products of low risk and biological origin is very important. But I'm also worried because I saw, and I read, that you will not shy away from debates over a shift towards a plant based diet. I think I think that's the wrong approach for our union. You're here in an environmental committee, but politically I think Parliament has shifted a bit. And, uh, would be better if you are. Danish presidency would also focus on helping our livestock farmers to produce in a more sustainable way. So I've got a few questions. Not on plant based food dietary shifts. Let's not open that debate here, but on circular agriculture. Are you looking into enabling the application of more organic manure Instead of highly fossil based chemical mineral fertilizers, and re-establishing grassland based livestock farming as a climate friendly, sustainable food solution. I think if we can find each other there, we're looking forward to a bright future for our farmers and for European food security. Thank you, president.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. Colleagues, my political party supports protection of our democracy against genuine foreign interference, cyberattacks, election interference, threats to our critical infrastructure. We need to be very, very vigilant, however, when it comes to this European democracy shield, because if we don't have a definition of interference, other vague definitions could be used in order to actually silence legitimate criticism of the EU Commission when it comes to farming, for instance. So, you know, we need to be careful the we're talking about checks, controls on social networks. They're not necessarily the right way forward. So, Commissioner, I ask you, do you intend to do anything about freedom of expression on social networks in order to strengthen our democracy? Is that the objective? I think democracy is really under threat. Look at green lobbies, green NGOs, the threat that they actually represent. So I think we need more transparency rather than more control. We need more accountability. And we also need a clear result. Listen to our farmers. Listen to our hunters. Listen to our fisher, fishermen and fisherwomen. We need to listen to them rather than stigmatising stigmatise them. We shouldn't be stigmatising certain customs, certain ways of life. Instead, what we should be doing is really looking at a review of the directive. If the commission doesn't do this, then I'm afraid there will be other rival powers, big powers that will no longer need disinformation campaigns going forward. So thank you very much.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you, Madam President. Mr. president. Commissioner, colleagues, finally good news. The European Commission has decided to remove the ban on the sales of internal combustion engines by 2035. This is a more realistic approach for the car sector, which accounts for 7% of GDP, and it's one of our great export successes. Look, look, the US and other partners are doing the same thing. They're abandoning electric vehicles and going for internal combustion engines and hybrids. This is what the market's asking for. Mr. Hoekstra, it's like an EU Trabant. This is a cuddly European idea for a small electric car. As if people need a car specially designed by government officials. Wouldn't it be better to give our entrepreneurs and car industry more scope to invent themselves, as they have in China, in the United States? Our share of the electric market is tiny. The Chinese are conquering the world, their electric vehicles. This underlines that the only way to win is to use technological new technology neutrality. Thank you, Andreas Glück.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Welcome to this particular committee. Now climate protection or pragmatic approaches. Realism. These are the questions that has to one has to ask with regard to CO2 limits, the ETS system, the taxonomy. All of this is quite clear. Now, madam von der Leyen has emphasized this particular issue as well. Also, with regard to natural gas, the use of natural gas, the. The European approach, the particular guidelines that will be sent there. The production of biogas as well. And of course, manure as well. And the role that that will play as. So indeed, because of all of these things, particularly the manure issue, as you understand, livestock raising has been demonized. And in the Netherlands, in the Netherlands, a number of different academic institutions have worked on this and have found very concrete solutions to provide for some sort of solution with regard to emissions from livestock raising. So I'm wondering, will we be able to work in a pragmatic fashion, in a realistic fashion as well, with regard to this particular environmental issue?”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Madam president. Commissioner. Finally, I've been given time to speak. Finally, the BBC can speak freely again on behalf of the ECR Group. This week, Ursula von der Leyen has finally had to admit that her green crusade against nuclear energy was a mistake. It lasted 15 years. The German atom was a mistake, but the European Green Deal is an even bigger mistake. We're stopping with, um, gas exploration in the North Sea, and that makes us dependent on China and others more than ever before. And this unilateral, um, hatred has also weakened us politically. Now we want wind farms, cement everywhere, and we're changing everything into an industrial parks. Four H's are being squeezed out. Fishing grounds are disappearing and everything is being hollowed out now. Taking apart these wind farms again is not affordable from a societal point of view either. We would need biogas from manure. We need to have oil from the North Sea and invest in smaller nuclear power plants. Now don't say that the BBC didn't warn you, but we will not be silenced any longer. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Well, water is life. Fresh water is something that is indispensable. But of course, we also need nitrogen are the cornerstones of plants and CO2 intensive production. Farmers wanted to save these nutrients by taking better uptake of these chemicals. But the water strategy talks about filter techniques and wastewater management, but does not talk this valuable. Resources to support the Agriculture Committee's proposals to keep CO2 in the land to use biogas for the emissions of cattle, and the EU is really not recognizing this situation. Let us take into account the shared interests of farmers and citizens, because after all, this is brown gold that we have in our hands.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “It's very positive that the Commission has finally had some insight into what's happening with the Green Deal, and that some elements of it have simply generated far too much bureaucracy, which is undermining our competitiveness. So it's good they've realised that. But these current proposals are just a first step. As other colleagues have emphasised, we do need to go a lot further. We're going to have to do a lot more revising. It's very necessary. We have to revise the nature directive and other pieces of legislation, not just the CEOs at triple D or all this other legislation which is hampering our farmers and our fisheries as well. So please commission, show some higher level of ambition in the future ahead. This is a good proposal for me. It doesn't go far enough, but we're at least now on the right track. And I think it's very much the case that we're on the right routes. Let's make more progress.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “(16:59:41 – 17:01:56): Merci president I'll speak in english i think because there's no dutch interpretation foreseen dear miss elfinger the eu spends more than seven hundred and one million on strategic life projects for nature and climate you would expect us to know whether that money is working yet the court of audited concludes in paragraph fifty two more than eleven years after strategic projects were introduced the monitoring and reporting system still fails to accurately reflect the contribution they make to the eu's environmental and climate objectives thirty three years ago we saw a similar statement that there should be more known more attention to the definite effects of the programs and actions so i really do want to ref would like a reflection from the court how you assess it after eleven years and after thirty two years of life fund still these effects are not really clear or cannot be really accurately reflected in their contribution and what are your expectations regarding the new mff and finally we had an objection here in the envy committee at least on the transparency and guarantees guarantee clause to prevent violation of the trias politica of the balance introduce inter institutional balance how does the court see this do you think that a future working program of the life fund should contain guarantees as pertains to as regards to transparency and guarantees that interintroduitional balance is not violated because the commission actually admitted in a declaration in the beginning of this year that undue lobbying activities were financed this is a statement from the from the europe european commission there was a dg klima official refusing to read it out but the statement was adopted by the college of commissioners so do you agree with the commission and with me that we should at least in the next working program have a transparency clause and a clause preventing abuse for lobbying activities directed towards us as members of the european of the european parliament thank you very much”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. Colleague. You said that the MFF F is will strengthen the social nature of Europe. But there are significant cuts in agriculture and to for farmers and for fisheries. So how can you say that the this MFF will reduce vulnerability in the EU if farmers and fishermen are going to be are going to see cuts, and so that will undermine our food security.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, Mr. Gerbrandy. You were talking about threats and lack of realism, but I think the biggest threat is the fact that some parties, including yours, don't want to get out of the labyrinth that you find yourself in. You need a compass to get out of this. In 2030, we're going to have to pay, uh, 50, 15 billion to, uh, implement the Green Deal. How can you explain that to the taxpayer? You are putting more pressure on on the taxpayer and you're creating more red tape. **Gerben-Jan GERBRANDYYes. I'm not surprised to hear that question. If anyone is lost in the labyrinth, it's you. Uh, you live as I do in a country that is actually below sea level in large swathes of its territory. What do you think it will cost if the sea levels rise? What are the investments that we need to keep our country safe? Uh. Ah, well worth the money to go to a cleaner and a safer world. That's what the investment we need to make. Keep Europe the best place to live.”
  Climate efforts
• “Mr. Vandenberg, thank you for presenting the 2040 Climate Target. I have a lot of questions. How do you consider the demanded investing of 1.6 billion per year after 2030 for the intermediate goals and from the Draghi report, and how does this going to affect the competition, competitiveness and the investing of defense? And in light of the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement, and in light of the Chinese behavior with regard to, uh, peak emissions, uh, against only 2035, what exactly is the temperature rise that will be measured? What is the exact temperature rise that's going to be measured? How will the commission under article two, subparagraph one of two of paragraph of the Paris Agreement that says that to food production must be protected in a climate policy. And finally, the EU is only responsible for 6% of the emissions. What about the responsibility around this, uh, paying tax? Isn't it true that all of the goals might just disappear into hot air if all of the other players in the world don't negotiate? Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you and thank you to the rapporteur for his presentation. This is not just one that needs an ambition. We need to have impact assessments, cost analysis. That is science as well. It needs to be empirical. Industry, government, food companies need to be monitored. You're looking at asking for spending of 16 billion per year. What are we looking at here? Well, there's this study here for the interim aims by Commissioner Hoekstra. And he said that it would lead to a reduction in the GDP. And that's in comparison with the scenario where you don't do anything. And we're already doing a lot here. And if you've got a 6% of emissions here and if we make our changes, we're still not going to be able to make a difference when it comes to the change in the temperature. And you can find that in the document as well. We need to think about looking at the increase in temperature. I am not naive. I am not convinced that there will be commitments made by our rivals or by China because they are continuing to use fossil fuels and they are doing this in a very tough geopolitical climate. So we need to think about our position at world level. We need to think about the competitors there. Just laughing at us. And BPB can not support this interim target. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes, a lot of this. So I would like to know how Mr. Gorzatze then would suggest that the Armenian Apostolic Church, and he mentioned a few hierarchs, should act in Russia because does he see this as real Russian influence or is this an attitude of this church to survive in Russia as well, this diplomatic solution? Because I can understand as a politician that we as politicians can confront the Kremlin and Russian Federation but that's not the case for all clergy. So how does he see this balance? Thank you very much, madam president.”
  EU engagement with Christian communities inside and outside the EU
• “President, Commissioner, there was a new. Tax introduced in the Netherlands, and it seems that this measure is disastrous. Industry is leaving and jobs are being lost. There's a lot of political objection to this gold plating, but are you not doing the same thing as the Netherlands? But between 2020 and 2022, the carbon footprint rose and only 4% came from own production. Most of the rest was from industry that had moved outside Europe. We're losing industry and jobs. Commissioner Draghi has warned against our competitiveness. Should we not think in terms of whether we can have a 90% objective, is that actually sustainable, or are you going to stick to the 90% just as the Netherlands has stuck to the CO2 tax? Can you promise that agriculture, which produces our food and binds carbon, is not going to be hit by carbon taxes, and that agriculture after protein production is not covered? Is it not time to have a technology neutrality and mobility with the Tz2 after 2026? It's going to be much more expensive to heat houses. Donald Trump has already warned about the consequences 10% of people in Europe cannot afford to buy sufficient protein food. Are you going? Are you aware that this is happening? Where's the reality in the Green Deal? Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “(16:10:05 – 16:11:59): Thank you very much indeed. I'll speak Dutch for you. Thank you. Commission, thanks for that presentation talking about simplification measures in the, EUDR. I'm happy that the commission has come forward this 2nd review simplification and that they're trying to deal with, getting rid of red tape, but realizing that it wasn't the case beforehand. The simplification measures hopefully will lead to, as I said, cutting in red tape. That's what it says. 75%. It sounds positive for companies, forest owners who for who've found these regulations to be, very difficult for the past few years. Why didn't they use these pragmatic solutions right from the beginning commission? So the regulation wasn't working 1st. And why are we only looking at this now? We're looking at this 75% reduction in rules. And what about proportionality here? The obligations that are still there on companies. I think are you listening to the regulatory scrutiny board? Since 2024, you've been trying to improve these rules. We're in mid June now, and you're putting forward a delegated act. Are you ready after this initial simplification round to continue to look at provisions that deal with the deforestation, but that still provide a massive burden on these small companies. So saying that you're not going to reopen the directive the regulation, I think, I don't think we can agree here, EEPP, ECR. I think there's still a huge amount of concern. I'm curious as to how you're going to reflect on this. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “(18:35:33 – 18:37:35): Thank you, madam chair. I'll speak in Dutch. Yeah. It's Well, It's quite worrying and peculiar to see that the people who normally attack AFSA now want to have an avalanche of reassessments heading to AFSA. I must say that I very much welcome this proposal from Commissioner Varelli. I think it contains a number of good proposals, and farmers and investors in the EU give people investment certainty again when it comes to plant protection products. And reassessment is not something that has to take place time and again. I think science is free to decide. Now, normally, I'm not someone who lets Commissioner Varelli or EFSA get off scot free, but we must accept that science can carry out a reassessment for active substances. Now swift authorization of green plant protection products with a low risk, fine, biocontrols and so on, but it's not enough to complete the toolkit. Well, let's keep what we have. How is the commission going to make sure that horticulturists and farmers can continue using what is in the toolkit currently? And let me nuance this somewhat. There's maximum residue limits. How is the commission going to make sure that lowering the detection limits and bringing them down to 0 will not lead to less availability of tropical fruit? How about seasonal fruit and its availability? Are you taking that into account in your impact assessment? So that's a nuance I'd like you to take into account because there are many products that we can't produce in the EU.”
  Maximum residue levels
• “Chair, Secretary of state. I've listened very closely to what you had to say. And you've really focused on competitiveness as part of your presidency. Of course, we have extremely high energy costs, which are worrying for industry and citizens are affected as well. Now I am from the B-b-b, the Farmers and Citizens Party in the Netherlands. And can I ask you about your priorities? Are you really trying to get to the root causes of pesticides? The pesticides issue and the fertilizers issue, which these fertilizers are of course based on fossil fuels. What are you going to do about that? And then do you intend to strengthen the role of family farms in Europe? Family farms throughout Europe and in the Netherlands are expecting a lot from you. They want a true overhaul of the nitrates directive, but they also want a revision of the status of large carnivore animals. What do you intend to do as Hungary, as a member state on that issue? You ought to make a major effort on those issues. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)