Christine SCHNEIDER

Policy topics Christine SCHNEIDER is active on

What Christine SCHNEIDER has said (29)

• 2026-03-11 “P-001000/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission At this stage, the Commission does not have up-to-date cost estimates for implementing Articles 4 to 13 of the Nature Restoration Regulation 1 , broken down by Member State. The Nature Restoration Regulation includes a significant number of flexibilities for Member States and allows them to take into account also measures which are already ongoing and budgeted. Not least for that reason, exchanges with Member States have highlighted that estimates about costs and the related eventual funding gaps will depend significantly on how Member States implement the Nature Restoration Regulation and, therefore, on the content of the draft national restoration plans which Member States will finalise by September 2026. The Commission will continue to work with Member States on the matter going forward. The current Multiannual Financial Framework 2 provides a number of opportunities to fund nature restoration. In addition, the Commission has presented a number of measures to address possible funding gaps. First, the Commission proposal for the next EU long-term budget 3 sets an ambitious target of 35% of spending for climate and environment objectives, with the aim of mobilising over EUR 700 billion between 2028 and 2034. In particular, the national and regional partnership plans provide to consider the national restoration plans, as set out in Article 22(2)(a) of the proposal. Secondly, the Commission is also working to facilitate the mobilisation of complementary private investment, and has presented a Roadmap to develop nature credit schemes 4 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869, OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027_en. 3 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/env/items/892839/en.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Agricultural funding
• 2026-02-06 “P-000482/2026 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The European Parliament and the Council set out the obligation to record the use of plant protection products (PPP) by professional users and the scope of that information in Article 67(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 1 . Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/564 2 harmonises the content and format of those records, including the possibility that some information is not to be recorded if it is not relevant or applicable for a certain use. The objective of the record-keeping obligation is explained in recitals 44 and 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, i.e. to raise the level of protection of human health and the environment by ensuring the traceability of potential exposure, to increase the efficiency of monitoring and control and to reduce the costs of monitoring water quality. Thus, the purpose is not limited to agricultural statistics. According to Article 67(1), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, third parties, including residents and the public, have the right to request access to the information contained in the records, which is available to the national competent authorities. Access to that information must be granted by the national authorities in accordance with the applicable national or Union law, such as that on protection of personal data. Keeping records of use requires efforts from the professional users, but the European Parliament and the Council considered them justified when enacting Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj. 2 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/564/oj.”
  EU policy on pesticides · Reduction targets for pesticides
• 2025-08-04 “E-003172/25 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission EU social security coordination rules 1 ensure that the social security rights of EU citizens who are victim of an accident in a Member State other than the one where the person concerned is insured or resident are protected. In accordance with the principles of equal treatment (Article 4) and of assimilation of facts (Article 5), Member States cannot distinguish between accidents that occurred in its own territory and those that occurred in another Member State for the grant of social security benefits such as cash sickness benefits and invalidity benefits in case of temporary or permanent incapacity of work. EU legislation 2 ensures that a civil judgment awarding damages given in a Member State is recognised in the other Member States and that, where such a judgment is enforceable in the Member State where it was given, it is also enforceable in the other Member States. In addition, the Motor Insurance Directive 3 ensures that injured parties are covered for damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents, regardless of where in the EU the accidents occur. At the request of the competent institution, medical examinations can be conducted in the Member State of residence or stay and according to its own legislation. The competent institution is bound by the findings of the institution of the Member State where the examinations took place, such as medical reports regarding the probable duration of the incapacity for work 4 . Under the principle of good administration, institutions must promptly share information and issue necessary documents at the request of the competent Member State necessary for the implementation of EU social security law 5 . 1 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland) - https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/883/oj/eng and Consolidated text: Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland) - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/987/oj/eng. 2 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1215/oj/eng. 3 Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/103/oj/eng. 4 Article 87(2) Regulation 987/2009. 5 Article 76(4) Regulation 883/2004 juncto Article 3(4) Regulation 987/2009.”
  EU competences on social policies · EU regulation of cross-border and posted workers
• 2025-07-31 “E-003157/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission does not intend to develop an EU standard for the use of waste wood in the production of wood-based materials. However, assuming that the concerned waste wood falls within the scope of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) 1 (i.e., it is not exempted by Article (2)(1)(f)), Articles (5)(2) and (6)(2) enable the Commission to establish detailed criteria on the uniform application of the conditions laid down, respectively, in Articles (5)(1) or (6)(1) thereof). These are referred to respectively as end-of-waste or by-products criteria. Such criteria have not been laid down for wood waste, following a prioritisation based on the report by the Joint Research Centre of the Commission 2 . The Circular Economy Act 3 which the Commission intends to table by 2026 will look into possible improvements in the procedures of adoption of EU-wide end-of-waste and byproduct criteria to facilitate the establishment of a Single Market for secondary raw materials. More broadly, the Commission has promoted the application of the waste hierarchy and the implementation of circular economy principles through a wide range of political and legislative initiatives, including those listed in the European Green Deal 4 and the two Circular Economy Action Plans 5 . More recently, the Commission carried out a review of WFD, adopted the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation 6 , and issued recommendations to Member States based on the Early Warning Reports. 1 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3–30, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 109–140. 2 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC128647. 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-launches-consultation-upcoming-circular-economy-act2025-08-01_en. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en. 5 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy_en. 6 Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC, OJ L, 2024/1781, 28.6.2024.”
  Circular economy · Management of EU forests
• 2025-06-12 “E-002381/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The minimum requirements for water reuse set out in the Water Reuse Regulation 1 , were introduced with the objective to promote water reuse, including by reassuring end users and citizens of the safety of the practice for health and the environment. The minimum requirements, including the provisions on permitting and risk management, were introduced to overcome the reluctance of certain Member States to take up the practice. To date, the Commission has not been made aware of specific problems for smaller farmers and municipalities to access treated wastewater for irrigation in agriculture because of the Water Reuse Regulation requirements. The Regulation will be reviewed in 2028 based on data reported by the Member States and any other evidence brought to the Commission’s attention. Furthermore, the Commission, through its work with national experts and stakeholders in the framework of the Working Group Water Reuse 2 , supports the authorities in the application of the rules and maintains a dialogue with the authorities and stakeholders involved. Whether the objectives of the Regulation have been met will be part of the planned review. 1 Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and if the Council of 25 May 2020 on minimum requirements for water reuse, OJ L 177, 5.6.2020, p. 32–55. 2 Common Implementation Strategy for water policy - https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-43229aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/3eaafe7c-0857-47d4-a896-8022df48d3ba.”
  EU policy on water management
• 2025-06-11 “E-002350/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission As regards individual access of farmers to State aid provided by Member states under Articles 21 and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2472 1 , prior registration of the beneficiaries (agricultural holdings/farmers) is not a condition for receiving State aid contained in the EU State aid legislation in force. According to these articles, the aid shall be accessible to all eligible undertakings in the area concerned, based on objectively defined conditions. Moreover, where the provision of the relevant activities is undertaken by producer groups and organisations, membership of such groups or organisations shall not be a condition for access to those activities. Nevertheless, Member States shall ensure that actions supported under these articles are consistent with the description of the agricultural knowledge and innovation systems provided in the Member State common agricultural policy strategic plan. The choice of the modalities of implementation of additional requirements unrelated with EU legislation, for instance a prior registration of agricultural holdings/farmers mentioned in the question, is not excluded. It remains at the discretion of the Member States. However, caution is needed to avoid unnecessary administrative burden limiting access to consultancy services. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2022:327:TOC.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2025-06-02 “E-002192/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Under the EU animal health legislation 1 , it is up to the authorities of the Member States to decide on the use of vaccines for the prevention or control of certain animal diseases such as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and for the vaccination strategy most suited to the local epidemiological situation and industry needs. The residency period of 21 days set out in the EU rules regarding HPAI vaccination 2 is consistent with the monitoring period for HPAI as laid down in the EU disease prevention and control rules 3 . The length of the monitoring period, based on the time between virus introduction and outbreaks confirmation, is assessed by the European Food Safety Authority 4 as effective for gallinaceous poultry and for Anseriformes, and recommended to be maintained as such into the EU disease control rules. Nonetheless, the Commission is currently discussing with the Member States’ experts for animal health and exploring options to adapt the EU rules regarding HPAI vaccination to further facilitate the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of this disease by interested Member States and poultry sectors. 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’), OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1–208. 2 Annex XIII to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/361 of 28 November 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and the Council as regards rules for the use of certain veterinary medicinal products for the purpose of prevention and control of certain listed diseases (OJ L 52, 20.2.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/361/oj). 3 Annex II to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 of 17 December 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards rules for the prevention and control of certain listed diseases (OJ L 174, 3.6.2020, p. 64, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2020/687/oj). 4 Scientific Opinion on the assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, doi: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6372.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• 2025-05-27 “E-002112/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. With reference to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 1 , Annex X, Chapter II, Section 10, Black solder fly may be fed with several animal by-products and derived products. The Commission is aware that the International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) is developing new technological processes to ‘clean’ insects after having been fed with meat and fish, and to develop and validate analytical method to detect specific proteins from meat and fish in insect protein. In the future, this may enable the authorisation of a wider range of material of animal origin for insects feeding. 2. There are no EU rules that would allow the use of waste in feed, including petfood, as waste, as defined in Directive 2008/98/EC means a material that must be or is intended to be discarded 2 . As regards, animal by-products, Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 3 provides for rules on research projects concerning the use of animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption, such as pilot and demonstration projects. The authorisation of research projects is the responsibility of Member States’ competent authorities. 1 Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive (OJ L 54, 26.2.2011, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/142/2024-07-11). 2 Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/98/2024-02-18. 3 Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) (OJ L 300, 14/11/2009, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1069/oj).”
  EU policy on novel foods · Food waste
• 2025-05-07 “E-001850/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission Germany has not yet notified the measure indicated by the Honourable Member to the Commission. The Commission has two months after receipt of a complete notification from the Member State to render a decision on the measure’s compatibility with EU State aid rules. The Commission recalls the importance of ensuring that such support measures are fully aligned with relevant EU secondary legislation.”
  Energy transition (state support) · Biofuels (RED II)
• 2025-04-22 “E-001598/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission As regards individual aid awards, the publication thresholds for beneficiaries of State aid active in the primary agricultural production were modified as part of the general revision of the transparency rules. This revision concerned State aid in all sectors. The fitness check preceding the revision showed that only around 20-25% of State aid awards were subject to a publication obligation under the previous transparency rules 1 (which set the publication threshold at EUR 60 000 for the primary agricultural sector). In certain Member States with limited State aid spending capacity, this reporting was limited to only a very small fraction of the State aid granted. The low proportion of individual aid awards that were published undermined the transparency objective. Hence, the threshold for publication was lowered to EUR 10 000 for the primary agricultural sector 2 . The choice of the modalities of implementation of the transparency requirements, such as by means of a multi-page tax declaration mentioned in the question, remains at the discretion of the Member States. The thresholds for publishing individual aid awards were modified across sectors following the assessment of their appropriateness to achieve the relevant transparency objectives and are currently considered as fit for the purpose. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2014.204.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2014%3A204%3AFU LL and https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/702/oj/eng#:~:text=ELI%3A%20http%3A%2F%2Fdata.europa.eu%2Feli%2Freg%2F 2014%2F702%2Foj%20of%2025%20June%202014%20declaring%20certain,Treaty%20on%20the%20Function ing%20of%20the%20European%20Union. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2022:485:TOC and https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2022:327:TOC.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2025-04-17 “E-001574/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is not aware of any EU funding to the Animal rebellion group under its current name PLANT BASED CAMPAIGNS LTD 1 . A person or entity may be excluded from participating in award procedures or from implementing Union funds if they meet any of the situations outlined in Article 138 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast) 2 . This Regulation provides grounds for exclusion including grave professional misconduct by inciting discrimination, hatred or violence against individuals or groups that are engaging in activities that are contrary to the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union 3 . 1 https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12064173. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202402509. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012M002.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2025-04-17 “E-001573/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware that climate change can modify growing conditions and favour a geographical shift of certain varieties more adapted to forthcoming climatic conditions. According to Article 81 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 1 , it is for Member States to classify the wine grape varieties that may be used on their territories for wine production. Furthermore, grape varieties that can be used in each Geographical Indication (GI) are an element of the GI product specification. Product specifications can be modified and adapted to the specific production needs of each GI, in accordance to Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 2 . A change of grape varieties is possible and can be made through a ‘standard amendment’ to the product specification, subject to a national procedure followed by notification to the Commission, as provided for in particular by Articles 24(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 2025/27 3 and 12 of Regulation (EU) 2025/26 4 . The Commission is not planning changes to Annex IV, Part B of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 5 considering the sensitivity of this labelling issue. This Annex was the result of a compromise reached after a long debate in the context of the recast of EU labelling rules resulting in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33. While Article 50 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 does not allow the use of the name of the varieties Barbera or Sangiovese on the label of wines with GI in Germany, it does not preclude the use of those varieties and others to produce wine, provided that those varieties are listed in the national classification of varieties and, in the case of GIs, are set out in the product specification of the relevant protected GI. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj/eng. 2 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1143/oj. 3 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2025/27/oj. 4 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/26/oj. 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2019/33/oj/eng.”
  EU policy on country of origin food labelling
• 2025-03-06 “E-000974/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Diversifying export destinations reduces market risks. Emerging markets in Africa, Latin America and Asia offer growth opportunities. After a quick growth, uncertainty prevails on Asian markets. Africa and Latin America, representing only 2.9% of imports, show a significant potential linked to projected consumption and demographic growth 1 . The HighLevel Group on Wine Policy (HLG) 2 recommends maintaining an ambitious export strategy, expanding market access, addressing trade barriers, protecting wine products from unrelated trade disputes and encouraging innovation and adaptation to changing market and consumer trends. The Mercosur Agreement is expected to facilitate the entry of European wine in South American countries, in particular on the growing Brazilian market. The Indian market has a great potential, and a Free Trade Agreement is being negotiated to tackle barriers. The EU is also negotiating trade agreements with Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines to improve market access for EU wines. The EU only has unilateral arrangements 3 with the African countries mentioned in the question. Promotion measures 4 covering EU wine geographical indications and wines with indication of wine grape variety can already target the above-mentioned prospective export markets. The work programme for 2025 5 allocates EUR 132 million to co-fund promotion activities, of which EUR 63.4 million are earmarked for non-EU countries. A map displaying past and ongoing campaigns is available online 6 . The recently published Commission legislative proposal 7 to support the wine sector includes an amendment to increase the duration of support for promotion operations under wine sectorial interventions to allow for better market consolidation. 1 Prospects of the EU Wine Sector (https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/83588b14-0c75-43a4b8ab-c5718bee6b01_en?filename=future-prospects-of-the-eu-wine-sector-june-2024.pdf). 2 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/media/news/high-level-group-wine-outlines-policy-recommendations-futureeu-wine-sector-2024-12-17_en 3 Generalised Scheme of Preferences or Everything but Arms. 4 Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014, OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 56–70. 5 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/market-measures/promotion-eu-farmproducts_en#_blank 6 https://enjoy-its-from-europe.campaign.europa.eu/en#_blank 7 COM/2025/137 final.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs) · Export of EU agri-food products
• 2025-02-11 “E-000610/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Closer to Nature Forest Management as set out in the Commission guidelines published in July 2023 1 promotes biodiversity-friendly and adaptive forest management for forest multifunctionality and climate change resilience without neglecting socio-economic benefits. The guidelines were prepared with a broad consultation of all relevant stakeholders and are voluntary. Following the EU Forest Strategy for 2030 2 , the Commission has commissioned a study which includes a comparative analysis of existing and emerging forest certification schemes with the objectives and measures set out in the Commission guidelines on Closer to Nature Forest Management. A first presentation of the study has been made to Member States and stakeholders at a dedicated webinar on 14 March 2025 as a basis for discussion and assessment of further action. Aspects such as subsidiarity and proportionality, as well as existing certification schemes will be duly taken into consideration in this process, building on process and experience under the Carbon Removal and Carbon Farming Certification Framework 3 . It is on this basis that the Commission will decide on further action. 1 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2d1a6e8f-8cda-11ee-8aa6-01aa75ed71a1 2 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/forest-strategy_en 3 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/carbon-removals-and-carbon-farming_en”
  Management of EU forests
• 2025-02-06 “E-000557/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has set out a comprehensive organic action plan for the EU 1 . Through it, the Commission will aim to achieve the European Green Deal target of 25% of agricultural land under organic farming by 2030. Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production and labelling of organic products 2 sets the rules and the criteria under which organic production can be maintained and further developed. It also provides for a number of derogations that may be applied, such as the possibilities to derogate to the link to the soil to produce sprouted seeds 3 , chicory heads 4 , ornamentals plants and herbs in pots 5 , or crops in demarcated beds 6 . Additional derogations may also apply in case of catastrophic circumstances 7 . The criteria and procedure to authorise or not the use of potassium phosphonates in organic viticulture as an active substance to be used as a plant protection product are laid down in Article 24 of the same Regulation. Germany submitted a dossier asking for the re-examination of this active substance that will be assessed by the Expert Group on Organic Production (EGTOP) 8 in March 2025. Once the EGTOP recommendations are published, the reexamination of the potential authorisation of potassium phosphonates will be discussed with the Member States in the Organic Production Committee. 1 COM/2021/141 final/2. 2 Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/848/2024-12-01 3 Point 1.3 (a )of Annex II Part I of Regulation (EU) 2018/848. 4 Point 1.3 (b )of Annex II Part I of Regulation (EU) 2018/848. 5 Point 1.4 (a ) of Annex II Part I of Regulation (EU) 2018/848. 6 Point 1.5 of Annex II Part I of Regulation (EU) 2018/848. 7 Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2018/848. 8 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/organic-farming/co-operation-and-expert-advice_en”
  Agriculture (green) · EU policy on pesticides
• 2025-01-21 “E-000231/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has been in contact with the German authorities with regard to the Solar Package I amendments to the German Renewable Energy Law, EEG 2023. In this case, the Commission decision approving the EEG 2023 (SA. 102084) and the State aid guidelines are relevant for the assessment of the Solar package I amendments to ensure that they are in line with the important safeguards set out in State aid rules. In general, the duration of the contacts with the respective Member State usually depends on a number of factors, including the timing and quality of information submitted by the relevant Member State, or the complexity of the measure. Given the confidential nature of discussions between the Commission and the Member States, the Commission cannot comment on the details of any particular notification, nor predict the outcome or timing.”
  Energy transition (state support) · EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• 2024-10-30 “E-002312/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Court of Justice of the EU held that Member States cannot adopt national measures regulating or prohibiting the use of customary names or descriptive names for plant-based products other than legal names. It also held that, in the absence of a legal name indicating in close proximity to the name of the food - information relating to the replacement of an ingredient or of the sole ingredient of a food is sufficient to protect the consumer from the risk of being misled. This is however a presumption which can be rebutted and if a national authority considers on a case-by-case basis that the actual manner in which a food is sold or promoted misleads the consumer, it may take action against the food business operator concerned 1 . 2. The EU has a comprehensive legal framework to guarantee a high level of consumer protection in relation to food information. Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 2 enables consumers to make informed food choices, including on meat products and plant-based products. It sets out rules regarding the provision of mandatory food information, including the list of ingredients, and the requirements that food business operators need to respect when providing voluntary food information. The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of the current EU legal framework to ensure that consumers are properly informed and will reflect on appropriate solutions to address the scientific and ethical concerns of citizens. 3. In the absence of legal names, the Commission considers a case-by-case approach as appropriate for proper consumer information. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62023CJ0438 2 OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18.”
  GMOs
• 2024-10-16 “E-002118/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The provisional agreement on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation 1 provides for an increase in several transport packaging reuse targets for 2030, reflecting the ambition of the co-legislators to give strong incentives for developing and deploying reusable transport packaging solutions. It also extends the scope of the requirement to use only reusable transport packaging within the same company or between companies within the same Member State. At the same time, in Article 29(4) it provides for several derogations from the reuse targets, for example for cardboard boxes, flexible food contact packaging or packaging of large-scale machinery. Article 29(18) empowers the Commission to exempt packaging formats from the reuse targets in view of the latest scientific and economic data and developments. The obligation to completely replace single-use pallet wrappings and straps pursuant to Article 29(2) and (3) has raised particular concerns in terms of feasibility, transport efficiency and safety, as well as economic constraints and undesirable environmental impacts. In line with the commitment taken at the vote on the Regulation in the European Parliament plenary session of April 2024, the Commission has launched an assessment with a view to exempting pallet wrappings and straps from full reusability obligations and addressing this issue by means of a delegated act as a matter of priority upon the entry into force of the Regulation, provided that the conditions for exemption laid down therein are met. The timeline would allow adopting a delegated act in 2025, well before the application of the respective obligations, providing the necessary predictability to economic operators. 1 Approved by a very large majority in the European Parliament in April 2024, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-packaging-and-packaging-waste_en,”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-10-16 “E-002122/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are already regulated 1 , with discussions ongoing to add others via the Stockholm Convention and on a broad ban of all PFAS under the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 2 , with an ongoing scientific analysis by sector and lifecycle stage. Additional rules under the Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulation (POPs) 3 require waste containing PFAS above certain levels to be treated to destroy these substances. Other sector-specific legislative requirements exist, such as those in the Drinking Water Directive 4 (i.e. 0.5 μg/l limit for all PFAS) and maximum levels for PFAS in certain foods in the contaminants in food legislation 5 . The Commission addresses PFAS pollution in Horizon 2020 6 via four Green Deal Health Cluster projects focused on remediation and low-energy solutions. Horizon Europe 7 funds research on safe and sustainable by design PFAS alternatives, while the European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals 8 has over EUR 400 million on PFAS alternatives, environmental monitoring, and waste incineration impacts. The Innovative Health Initiative Joint Undertaking 9 considers PFAS end-of-life management in the health sector, in a future call for proposals. The Commission is aware of some sectors’ challenges to transition to safer alternatives and, thus, will ensure the continued use of PFAS in some industrial applications, under strictly controlled conditions, until acceptable substitutes are found. Rather than an alternative to a restriction, PFAS removal technologies will be needed to complement restriction measures, to treat the PFAS-containing waste and to remediate heavily contaminated sites. 1 Notably, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts and PFOA-related compounds, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (PFOSF) and PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid), its salts and PFHxS-related compounds are already subject to prohibitions in Annex I of the POPs Regulation. In addition, C9-C14 perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs), its salts and C9-C14 PFCA-related substances and perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), its salts and PFHxA-related substances are restricted by respectively entry 68 and entry 79 of Annex XVII of REACH. 2 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), OJ L 396, 30.12.2006. 3 Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants, OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 45–77. 4 Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast), OJ L 435, 23.12.2020, p. 1–62. 5 Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 OJ L 119, 5.5.2023, p. 103–157 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/915/oj 6 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-2020_en 7 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en 8 https://www.eu-parc.eu/ 9 https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/institutions-and-bodies/search-all-eu-institutions-andbodies/innovative-health-initiative-joint-undertaking-ihi-ju_en”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-10-16 “E-002110/2024 Answer given by Ms Kyriakides on behalf of the European Commission Directive 2009/128/EC 1 obliges Member States to ensure that professional pesticide users have access to appropriate training by designated bodies. Member States must establish certification systems that provide, as a minimum, evidence of sufficient knowledge of specific training subjects. Each Member State designs the training taking account of national conditions. Approaches vary across Member States on the minimum number of hours of training, how often certification must be renewed and the extent to which training courses are differentiated according to different target audiences. An EU-wide certificate of competence would require detailed harmonisation of approaches across Member States, including aspects of the required training subjects that have a local dimension, such as differing approaches to risk mitigation in national authorisations taking local variables into account. A professional pesticide user’s lack of fluency in a host Member State language may pose practical difficulties. User instructions and country-specific risk mitigation conditions and directions for use on pesticide labels are generally provided only in the official language of the host Member State. Related training materials are also usually only available in the language of the host Member State. A requirement to prove a level of linguistic competence in the language of the host Member State to ensure protection of human health and the environment may be proportionate if it is applied in a proportionate manner. Additional measures may also be possible, such as permitting auxiliary staff to carry out simpler tasks under the supervision of a qualified professional pesticide user. 1 Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• 2024-09-02 “E-001579/2024 Answer given by Vice-President Šuica on behalf of the European Commission The Brussels IIb Regulation 1 is the cornerstone of the judicial cooperation in family matters with cross-border implications in the EU. It provides that a court or authority planning to place a child in another EU country must obtain the consent of that country’s authorities before ordering or arranging the placement. Any type of placement, including for educational purpose and travel, of a child with someone other than a parent in another EU country falls under the scope of this Regulation. Whether prior agreement is needed, should be analysed on a case-by-case basis and the duration and purpose of the travel should be taken into account. When a child is travelling together with the holder of parental responsibility, it should not be considered as placement. Each EU country’s national law and procedure governs the procedure for obtaining consent for the placement. To establish when consultation is necessary, the Regulation refers to national law. It is not needed where the child is to be placed with a parent 2 . The European Judicial Network 3 holds regular discussions and sharing of best practices on placements. The Commission considers that the revised Brussels IIb Regulation which only entered into application in 2022, is fit for purpose. The Commission continues to work closely with Member States to ensure the correct application of the Regulation in the best interests of children. 1 Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction, OJ L 178, 2.7.2019. 2 Additionally, and pursuant to Article 82 of the Brussels IIb Regulation, Member States communicate those categories to the Commission in accordance with Article 103 of the same Regulation. The information communicated per Member State can be consulted on the e-justice portal: https://ejustice.europa.eu/37842/EN/brussels_iib_regulation__matrimonial_matters_and_matters_of_parental_responsibi lity_recast_?FRANCE&member=1 3 https://e-justice.europa.eu/438/EN/eventsnews.Some Member States opted out of this option including Germany.”
  Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Roosevelt. First of all, for being here and listening to the Parliament's points of criticism and to look into the nuts and bolts of this. You've recognized as the Commission that the deforestation regulation requires urgent changes. And this is an important step because I think we share the objective. It's just how we are to achieve that where we differ. Nevertheless, I think we need to make sure that the amendments might not be sufficient. We can see through the discussions in council, there's been a great deal that's changed over the last year, and many member states have recognized that the objective is not necessarily going to be achieved just through more documentation and bureaucracy. Postponement. So the commission is dealing with this postponement. It's a problem for the operators. Communication on this was not optimal. Secondly, cutting the burden for the smallest companies is insufficient. Despite the simplification you're announcing the bureaucratic burden is incredibly high, especially through the delocalization. Post codes and the other aspects that adding details here where we need simplification, the reference number doesn't seem to be something that's going to work in practice. It's going to generate a massive amount of bureaucracy. It's been announced at such short notice that the IT systems can't be adjusted in time. Fourthly, the exemption rules are far too tight. The threshold for the demands are too low. It's not clear either how we're going to deal with mixed market operators, for example, and we don't know how this will be covered by the UDR so urgently. We need a stop the clock process. That's the only way we can make this work. Get back confidence in the whole system and strike the necessary balance between competitiveness and nature protection, because we're only going to achieve this goal if we exploit the time at hand, rather than reflecting on how we can come up with more bureaucracy and more documentation to try and achieve the goal.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “We have also agreed in writing that we need not just clarification from the Commission, but also a streamlining of the regulation. The European Parliament agreed to that with the large majority, but. There has, while there has been a certain amount of clarification. Up until now, there has been very little streamlining. The geolocation issue is still unresolved, and that is why we do need a no risk category for countries that are is that are definitely forested sustainably. And that's why also we need a benchmarking system that. The the commission, the Commission right now with the benchmarking system, they say they have says that this is going to be a temporary measure. And then in a year they'll they'll get something better. But we cannot accept that. So I, I would urge everyone to agree with Mr. Barnabas. Objection. Thank you, Mr. Christine. Okay. Now, Mr. Weiner, for the socialists. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will be replacing my colleague who is on maternity leave. Now we have the green. We used to talk about green claims. Now we're talking about deforestation. We have objections to the deforestation regulation and the. It's interesting to see EPP in agreement with the Patriots here. Sadie will be rejecting both objections from both the right and the far right, because the commission has taken a big step in implementing the regulation. It focuses on risk. First of all, also this regulation or this rather this objection.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Generates a lot of uncertainty legally and and also operationally. Especially for third countries, among others. And then they they don't know when it will come into effect, at what point or whether it will be postponed. Businesses, as the PPE says, need they need clarity on the rules. They don't need more changes. Paradoxically, with this objection, the EP is increasing the administrative burden for European businesses at the moment where they are, these countries are considered to be low or low risk countries. But. But if there's a change, then all these countries will will all move into the standard category, which means that they will achieve exactly the opposite of what you claim to want to achieve. And also, there's another intent attempt by the right and the far right here to sabotage the deforestation regulation. And even though that damages European businesses, I have a few questions. First of all, previous data previous prior to 2020. These are essential indicators. And if you only use recent data you would be inconsistent. Secondly, if we what the commission is supposed to is supposed to periodically update its classification and we You need to make sure that they have complete data on deforestation. The commission is going to look into all of the country's systems. And so. This is why we will not be supporting this objection. This is a disaster and would not help us at all. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Luna. Mr. Inhofe, and not here. We move to renew.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will take heed of your warning words and speak slowly. It's going a bit far. If the main argument of the colleague is that if. We feel 2 to 3 years, we're going back 2 to 3 years, that's not true. Given the argument in the past from me as a shadow than my party, that, um, the law was rejected, there was an attempt. There wasn't a majority in parliament or in committee to reject the nature restoration law. At first sight, you might say that you can understand your arguments, but you come coming along at the wrong time because the points you've raised. Were tabled in part by my group in amendments, and the majority in Parliament adopted this, for example, in paragraph one of the law. Food security is included. That is that we have a high degree of flexibility for member states, and that's been successfully incorporated in the text. That's contrary to what you said. When it comes to rewetting of peatlands, that's a voluntary approach. We provide incentives. And that is the. That was the focus of our amendment. If this objective is. Is uniquely about national plans. It's about a technical document that we've called for from the commission because these plans are decisive for implementation in the member states. And for me, it seems a little bit as if the Patriots have suddenly woken up. A bit. They're coming along into a discussion about two and a half years late. Your predecessors? In negotiated one and a half or two years. The shadow. Rapporteur of your predecessor group was never present in the negotiations a single time. And now you're tabling objectives when it's about negotiating a law and taking it in the right direction. And you haven't been present. I think it shows that for the Patriots, it's not about the substance, but rather about headlines and grabbing attention, and therefore we will reject the objection.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you very much, chairman, and thank you very much, Commissioner, for being here today and for touching on the issue of food safety. Now, given the fact that we are losing more and more active ingredients for plant protection, there are fewer and fewer authorisations in Europe. There is an increase in diseases because of invasive species and climate change, and we need urgent measures as a result. And there is one point I would like to ask on. You did highlight this and this is about new techniques. These offer opportunities, of course. My question is. What? Techniques do you think could be used in the future in Europe? And what opportunities do you see for the use of drones in agriculture? In order to be very precise in applying pesticides and to combat pests as early as possible? Obviously there are hurdles, bureaucratic hurdles, but I would like to hear what you have to say on that issue. Thank you.”
  Digital and precision farming
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for I look to Alexander Huber for his objection because it really places the focus correctly. The focus here needs to be on people who on those who violate the rules. And that is something that is uncontroversial. We need to fight illegal deforestation. We're not talking about getting rid of the deforestation regulation. And when and focusing on what we want to do is see what we can achieve with the deforestation regulation. We need to stop deforestation, illegal deforestation in a way that is possible, achievable for our businesses and also sustainable. With the benchmark system in place now, the Commission is not going to do that. The implementing act for country classification does not meet that goal. It doesn't distinguish clearly between countries that are deforested illegally and unsustainably, and countries that are specifically trying to achieve sustainable forestry. It lumps them all together. And what we need to do is have a this negligible risk category. If we don't have that, we instead we instead encourage unsustainable Bureaucracy. And that is especially a problem for SMEs, for that is not something that we can defend. If on the one hand, we have countries where we are very well aware that there is illegal deforestation happening and they're not even in the highest risk category, and that if we continue to do that, we will lose trust in European politics. It also endangers the acceptance of a regulation that we actually, in principle, want. It also threatens people's confidence in European policymaking.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Thank you very much. You mentioned the issue of forest management and biodiversity. And that also touches on the issue as to whether the Council presidency takes the view that the best way to protect our forestry is by making use of them. No doubt you will have followed the discussion over recent weeks. As regards deforestation free supply chains, unfortunately, the council has refused to implement the mandate that was adopted in the parliament. But we understand that the points that we did adopt by a majority in Parliament may be taken up. So that's the goal of deforestation free supply chains, which should be supported. We want to end the deforestation in the Amazon, but we do not want to have unnecessary bureaucracy for our businesses. This should now be acted on. There should be an impact assessment of the legislation. And to what extent would the Council presidency support that?”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Thank you very much. And thank you for outlining the strategy today. It's an important step forward in promoting the sustainable economy, offering great possibilities for innovation and progress in the area of environmental friendliness. Firstly, coherence with biotech. One act. How will we achieve that? Um, perhaps particularly with a view to authorization periods and for our party, our group technology openness is also important and how the Commission is actively planning to make agricultural policy an integral part of all this. I'd also like to welcome the work on the environment omnibus. Very important step and signal that we want to simplify. But I want to say clearly that what's on the table at the moment isn't enough. Isn't going to be enough because there are still core issues which have not been resolved. So it won't be enough if we tinker here and there. We need to look at the system as a whole. In the past, we've always had the problem that we put new legislative instruments on top of old ones. So we have 23 different regulations for the recovery of nature, making the whole thing extremely complex and doesn't really lead us in the right direction. Same applies for the habitat and bird protection. As for Natura 2000. So my question is whether the Commission plans further steps beyond the omnibus. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU