Alexander BERNHUBER

Policy topics Alexander BERNHUBER is active on

What Alexander BERNHUBER has said (29)

• 2025-06-04 “E-002230/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Development costs to establish and maintain the Information System pursuant to Article 33 of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 1 are planned on an annual basis: EUR 26 400 (2022), EUR 270 000 (2023), EUR 585 000 (2024), and EUR 1 514 000 (2025). Incurred costs: EUR 43 431.04 (2022), EUR 480 265.07 (2023), EUR 1 318 099.46 (2024) 2 . Costs are estimated yearly in the frame of the annual management plan of Directorate-General (DG) for Environment (ENV) and provided after the annual exercise. Discrepancies between estimated and incurred costs are due to available volumetrics at the time of estimation and planning. Part of the EUDR system hosting 3 is provided by Commission Corporate Central services, under the responsibility of DG for Digital Services (DIGIT). The setup and configuration is directly under the responsibility of the DG on Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) 4 . The user support and training tasks for the Information System are also taken care by DG SANTE 5 . DG ENV uses the DIGIT-TMII framework contract for business analysis, development and maintenance. The Information System operates within a cloud environment operated within the European Union supplied by the contract DIGIT/2024/DPS-RP/0022, enhanced by an additional layer of security and corporate services of DG DIGIT. The overall operation, maintenance and support fall under the responsibility of the Commission. The Commission presented a proposal to amend the EUDR 6 in order to reduce the load on the EUDR Information System and ease the administrative burden for economic operators, while maintaining the Regulation’s environmental integrity. On 4 December 2025, the co-legislators agreed on the revised EUDR 7 . The new date of entry into application will be 30 December 2026 for all companies except for most micro- or small operators, for which it will be 30 June 2027. For micro- or small operators already covered by the EU Timber Regulation 8 , the entry 1 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 2 These costs cover business analysis, development, hosting, maintenance of the system and user support. 3 Limited to the usage of available services managed by DG DIGIT. 4 Supported by domain experts at DG SANTE via the contract DIGIT/2021/OP/0006 (DIGIT-TMII). 5 Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES) helpdesk, via the contract DIGIT/A3/PO/2018/015. 6 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 7 Regulation (EU) 2025/2650 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards certain obligations of operators and traders, OJ L, 2025/2650, 23.12.2025. 8 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market, OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, pp. 23– 34.”
  Trade impact on forests
• 2025-06-04 “E-002231/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The benchmarking system of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 1 is operated by the Commission with the support of a contract which has been subject to a call for tenders and Guidehouse Netherlands BV was awarded 2 . The contractor is supporting the Commission in fulfilling the tasks associated with the establishment and the operationalisation of a benchmarking system. The work is divided in two different parts. The first part consists of building the system, including the data and information gathering on the different criteria, designing of a methodology for an objective and transparent assessment and establishing the list of countries. The second part will consist of additional work on operating the system, including regular update of the key figures and modification of the classification list. The first part of the work has been completed with the publication of the methodology and the first list of countries 3 . The work is continuing in view of the revision of the benchmarking in 2026, following the updated version of the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Forest Resource Assessment dataset expected to be released in October 2025. The legislative financial statement supporting the Commission’s legislative proposal 4 of the EUDR revised upwards the estimated cost of the benchmarking system compared with the initial figures presented in the impact assessment to take account of subsequent changes in the assessment method. The financial statement estimated the cost at EUR 4.3 million for the period 2023–2027. To date, the actual expenditure on deploying the benchmarking system amounts to EUR 708,198, and the total required for 2023–2027 for this action is now projected to be lower than the legislative financial statement’s estimate. 1 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 2 In April 2024. 3 May 2025: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/env/items/884631/. 4 Page 71 of the Commission’s legislative proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the making available on the Union market as well as export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, COM/2021/706 final.”
  Trade impact on forests
• 2025-02-26 “P-000848/25 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission There are two sets of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicators: those of the United Nations 1 (UN) and those of the EU. Both aim to measure progress towards achieving the SDGs, but differ in scope, focus, and application. Thus, the EU SDG indicator list 2 is tailored and coordinated but not fully aligned with the global indicator list. The UN SDG indicators are entirely managed by the UN, either countries produce the indicators and report directly to UN, i.e. not through the Commission, or the UN or its agencies (such as FAO) produce the data without intervention of the countries. In no case the Commission verifies those SDG data sent to the UN or produced by the UN. However, if the countries send the same data both to the Commission and UN, the Commission verifies the data received. This happens e.g. if there are EU regulations requiring the EU Member States to report such data to the statistical office of the EU (Eurostat). The European Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW) 3 data come from administrative sources. Eurostat receives ESAW data from national authorities based on the employers' declarations of accidents at work. As specified in the European reference metadata 4 , a significant issue for the accuracy of ESAW is assumed to be the under-reporting of accidents 5 . The incidence of fatal accidents at work is considered more accurate for cross-country comparisons than the non-fatal accident rate and hence used in the EU SDG indicator list. Data on accidents at work are produced using a common methodology 6 . Eurostat and Member States are working to address comparability issues in Commission expert groups. The Commission has no influence on national data submitted to international organizations such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the UN. 1 https://unstats.un.org/sdgs 2 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/overview 3 Based on https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/349/oj/eng 4 Further detailed in the reference metadata of the dataset https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/hsw_acc_work_esms.htm 5 It is possible that certain accidents that should have been reported were in fact not, e.g. if enterprises or workers are not aware of the obligation/possibility to notify or if they are afraid of the consequences of notification such as possible state investigations and requirements to invest in health and safety. 6 European Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW) - Summary methodology - 2013 edition - Products Manuals and Guidelines - Eurostat: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/ks-ra-12-102”
  EU rules on hazardous working conditions
• 2025-01-27 “E-000360/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission promotes the uptake of sustainability considerations in public procurement, including those related to the environmental and social impact of the services and products purchased by public buyers, in line with current EU public procurement rules. It does so through guidance, capacity building initiatives 1 , supporting Member State Joint Actions 2 and the EU green public procurement criteria, including specific criteria for the food and catering sector 3 . The Commission is also preparing criteria that could help contracting authorities to introduce, on a voluntary basis, sustainability aspects in the food and catering services that they are buying. The Political Guidelines 2024-2029 4 announced a revision of the 2014 EU public procurement Directives 5 . At the moment the Commission is carrying out an evaluation of these Directives 6 to assess whether EU public procurement rules work as intended. Once the evaluation is completed the Commission will consider concrete measures and options to shape the new proposal. It will notably seek to further support ‘best value’ purchases, to reward quality and sustainability as set forward in Vision for Agriculture and Food 7 . 1 https://public-buyers-community.ec.europa.eu/communities 2 https://bestremap.eu/procurement/; https://preventncd.eu/work-packages/wp-05/public-food-procurement-inpublic-settings-in-the-eu/ 3 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f8e9fe10-ff7d-11e9-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 4 https://commission.europa.eu/about/commission-2024-2029_en 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/23/oj/eng; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/24/oj/eng; https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/25/oj/eng 6 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14427-Public-procurement-directivesevaluation_en 7 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/vision-agriculture-food_en”
  EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
• 2024-11-07 “P-002460/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission’s Directorate-General Health and Food Safety’s audit 2024-8087 1 concluded that controls on residues of pharmacologically active substances in Brazil are overall implemented in line with EU requirements, but that the system to ensure that meat of bovine animals treated with 17beta (17β) oestradiol for therapeutic or zootechnical purposes is not exported to the EU should be improved. 1. The Commission requested Brazil to set up an effective system to verify that bovine animals treated with 17β-oestradiol are excluded from export to the EU. Upon receipt of the audit report, Brazil submitted an action plan and committed to suspend exports of meat from female bovine animals (males are not treated), pending implementation of a system providing the necessary guarantees. The action plan is published along the audit report. 2. There is no evidence that meat of animals treated with 17β-oestradiol has been placed on the EU market. The Commission considers that, once implemented, the actions planned by Brazil will address the weakness identified and will provide guarantees on the non-use of 17βoestradiol for therapeutic or zootechnical purposes for meat intended to the EU market. 3. The Commission is closely following up on the progress made by Brazil in implementing the action plan and will consider appropriate measure(s) where needed. The Commission also assesses and approves Brazil’s annual residue control plans, including for hormones, and the results of implementation of plans in the preceding year. In addition, Member States’ veterinary authorities carry out checks of food imported into the EU to assess its compliance with EU food safety rules, including the ban on import of meat from animals treated with hormones. 1 Food Audits and Analysis, Brazil 2024-8087 https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4804”
  GMOs
• 2024-08-07 “E-001486/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2023-2027 1 provides a range of tools to boost the uptake of sustainable farming practices across Member States through the combination of minimum obligations (enhanced conditionality) and voluntary interventions (e.g. ecoschemes, agri-environment management commitments…). In their national CAP Strategic Plans (CSP) Member States have opted to make use of such possibilities in many ways with a potential to reduce negative pressures and to benefit climate, natural resources, and biodiversity. 2. Via eco-schemes, the Austrian CSP 2 supports farmers to adopt sustainable farming practices such as catch crops, year-round soil cover on at least 85% of a farm's arable land and the greening of tramlines on vineyards, orchards and hop fields, which have a positive impact on soil fertility. Support is also foreseen for grassland management practices promoting animal welfare through grazing and the establishment of agro-forestry strips. The Plan also includes support for other environmentally sustainable practices, such as species-rich agricultural areas. 3. The CAP supports farmers in adopting more sustainable farming practices while ensuring their economic viability through direct payments (notably eco-schemes), market measures and rural development interventions. The latter also support investments beneficial for the environment and the climate as well as advisory services, training and knowledge exchange. The Commission promotes research and innovation in agriculture, notably through Horizon Europe 3 , to help develop new technologies and practices for farmers that are both environmentally friendly and economically viable. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R2115 2 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans/austria_en 3 Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination, and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1290/2013 and (EU) No 1291/2013 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0695&qid=1724174560865”
  GMOs
• 2024-08-07 “E-001488/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides support instruments for the promotion of regional products. Member States may, through their CAP Strategic Plans (CSPs), support investments in processing and marketing of agri-food products and non-agricultural activities. CAP supports cooperation for short supply chains or the participation in and promotion of quality schemes with links to the territory as well as to a traditional know-how. Similar tools could be also supported by LEADER 1 , on a territorial level through a bottom-up approach. Design and implementation of those tools is defined by Member States in their CSPs. Setting up an inducive framework for the development of short supply chains initiatives could be considered as part of further measures to strengthen the position of farmers in the supply chain, which the Commission announced in March 2024 2 . 2. There is no specific administrative burden for direct marketing and sale of products as they do not need any prior authorisation, and the Commission has no intention of changing this situation. 3. The CAP can help improve farmer’s competitiveness in the EU internal market, including vis-a-vis imported products, by better integrating them into the agri-food chain through quality schemes, adding value to agricultural products, promotion in local markets and short supply circuits, and supporting producer groups and inter-branch organisations. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/leader-clld_en.html 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1493”
  EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
• 2024-08-07 “E-001492/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission The Commission promotes agricultural research and innovation (R&I) in the Member States through the EU R&I framework programme (Horizon Europe (HE)) and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), working in synergy. Under HE, the Commission invests in R&I projects that involve beneficiaries to provide new knowledge and solutions for competitive and sustainable farming. The CAP 1 offers funding to strengthen the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) 2 in Member States across the EU. Under the HE (2021-2027) 3 , the Commission earmarked approximately EUR 3.3 billion for transnational R&I projects in agriculture, forestry and rural areas. Under the CAP 2023-2027, the Member States have planned around EUR 3.6 billion for EIP 4 -AGRI operational group projects (OGs) 5 and other knowledge sharing and creation activities. As regards security of data from EU farmers collected through public authorities, the Commission has strict procedures in place on data access, re-use, publication and anonymisation, which are defined in the regulation that mandates the data collection 6 . As regards data collected by R&I projects, the HE 7 requires it to be open access but allows for the exceptions when legitimate data security risks apply. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R2115 2 Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) are defined in the Regulation - 2021/2115 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R2115) as the combined organisation and knowledge flows between persons, organisations and institutions who use and produce knowledge for agriculture and interrelated fields. 3 Horizon Europe Cluster 6 ‘Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment’. 4 European Innovation Partnerships. 5 EIP-AGRI OGs are bottom-up interactive innovation projects at local/national level. 6 For example Regulation (EU) 2011/2115 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj, in particular Recital 128 and Articles 150 and 151. 7 Regulation (EU) 2021/695, Article 39, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0695”
  GMOs
• 2024-08-07 “E-001500/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission Union’s consumption is a considerable driver of deforestation and forest degradation on a global scale. An extensive review of scientific literature 1 estimating the impact of EU consumption on global deforestation and linking that footprint to specific commodities was carried out under the Impact Assessment 2 underpinning the Commission proposal for a regulation on deforestation-free products 3 . The Impact Assessment found that the main driver of global deforestation is the conversion of forests to agricultural land for the production of commodities such as cattle, palm oil, soy, timber, coffee, cocoa and rubber, and the EU, as a major consumer market of these commodities, has a responsibility to address deforestation driven by its consumption. The Deforestation Regulation 4 has a progressive scope that will be reviewed regularly pursuant to Article 34. Article 30 of the Regulation provides for a coordinated approach to the cooperation with third countries to jointly address the root causes of deforestation and forest degradation. The Commission stepped up engagement with producer countries through dialogue and partnerships since the entry into force of the EU Deforestation-free Regulation (EUDR), and will continue to do so, using existing and future cooperation mechanisms. The Union strategic framework for such engagement provided for in Article 30 is under finalisation. Partnerships and cooperation are notably intended to support inclusive and participatory dialogue towards governance reform processes to enhance forest governance and address domestic factors contributing to deforestation. Furthermore, the Commission engages in bilateral and multilateral discussions with other major consuming countries to raise environmental standards globally. 1 SWD/2021/326 final. 2 SWD/2021/327 final. 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-deforestation-free-products_en 4 Adopted by the European Parliament and Council: Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-08-07 “E-001496/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 1 , adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 9 June 2023 and entered into force on 29 June 2023. The EUDR is designed to apply in an even-handed and nondiscriminatory manner, i.e. to all commodities and products produced inside as well as outside the EU. All commodities and products covered by the EUDR will be subject to the same standards and definitions. As a regulation, the EUDR is binding and directly applicable in all Member States (Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). As an instrument of Union law, the EUDR prevails over Member States’ laws. This also applies to the definition of ‘forest’ in Article 2(4) of the EUDR. The EUDR does not aim to harmonise national legislation on forestry. There is no mechanism to resolve conflicts between the EUDR and national legislation on forestry foreseen, as the EUDR sets the ‘deforestation-free’ requirement for products placed on the Union market and national forestry law is still applicable pursuant to Article 2(40). The definitions used in the EUDR rely on the definitions of the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). These definitions are the basis for the obligations for competent authorities of the Member States, stakeholders in the EU and in third countries Pursuant to Recitals 36 and 37 of the EUDR, the Commission plans to adopt formal guidelines to provide guidance to all stakeholders. 1 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-08-07 “E-001494/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission While the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union does not explicitly mention ‘forest policy’, the EU has competences that may cover elements related to forests. These competences, such as environment 1 and agriculture, are areas of shared competence. The EU has exercised them through the adoption of different legal acts covering elements related to forests, in line with the subsidiarity principle. In accordance with established jurisprudence of the Court of the Justice of the European Union, the choice of the legal basis is made specifically for each legal act and is based on objective factors, such as the aim and content of the measure. In accordance with the Commission’s Better Regulation principles 2 , any legislative initiative proposed by the Commission is accompanied by a comprehensive impact assessment. A thorough analysis of subsidiarity is necessary for all impact assessments accompanying legislative initiatives in areas which do not fall under the exclusive competence of the EU. In addition, every politically sensitive or important legislative proposal accompanied by an impact assessment is accompanied by a subsidiarity assessment grid which is a special template for assessing whether EU action is justified in light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. 1 Court of Justice of the European Union judgement of 25 February 1999 in Joined Cases C-164/97 and C165/97, EU:C:1999:99. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation_en”
  Management of EU forests
• 2024-08-07 “E-001493/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission To attract and sustain young farmers, supporting generational renewal in agriculture, is a high priority under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with a number of tools and interventions available to achieve this objective. The legislation requires from Member States to dedicate an amount equal to at least 3% of their national direct payments envelope to supporting young farmers. Member States include in their CAP Strategic Plans (CSPs) different tools (called interventions) to encourage and support young people into farming, such as: complementary income support for young farmers; setting-up grants; investment support with higher intensity rates of up to 80%; support for intergenerational exchange. The conditions and criteria for support are defined at the national level. The CPSs reflect the different approaches of Member States in providing support to young farmers through the combination of available tools, dedicated resources and prioritisation of support. To improve the consistency of EU and national actions, the Member States provide in their CPSs an overview of all (EU and national) interventions and policies related to young farmers. Potential new actions at EU level, will be discussed when preparing the legislative proposals that will accompany the proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework in 2025. According to targets set currently in the Member States’ CPSs, the CAP aims to help around 377 000 young farmers start farming over the 2023-2027 period, with a total budget of EUR 8.5 billion. The Commission launched an online dashboard to show the targets set at national level approved in the CSPs, as well as targets at EU level 1 . 1 https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DataPortal/pmef_indicators.html”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
• 2024-08-07 “E-001490/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission Circularity and sustainability are key elements of the European Green Deal and of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as reflected in the CAP Strategic Plans Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 1 . With its specific objectives in Article 6(1) point(e) ‘to foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural resources such as water, soil and air, including by reducing chemical dependency’ and (h) ‘… including the circular bio-economy’, this regulation addresses key areas of support towards a more circular and sustainable agriculture. The EU Bioeconomy Strategy 2 (2018) recognizes that ‘a sustainable bioeconomy is the renewable segment of the circular economy’. The Commission is planning to update the Bioeconomy Strategy in 2025. This can offer concrete perspectives to agriculture and forestry and strengthen the competitiveness of rural areas. Concrete support for circular agriculture can be offered through e.g. rural development investment support (Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation 2021/2115) which could address measures to reduce waste, transform organic manure into organic fertilizer, provide efficient irrigation and water re-use facilities or investments in agricultural biogas or biomass facilities. The CAP – networks (Article 126) and European Innovation Partnerships (Article 127) also provide essential support for EU wide cooperation and knowledge exchange for innovation which is an important driver towards more circularity in agriculture and forestry. In its latest amendment to the CAP strategic plan, Austria has, amongst other incentives, introduced a support premium for circular economy activities for organic farmers from 2025 onwards. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj 2 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/environment/bioeconomy/bioeconomy-strategy_en”
  Agriculture (green) · Use of fertilisers
• 2024-08-07 “E-001489/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Vestager on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is committed to ensuring that everyone, everywhere in the EU has access to performing digital infrastructure and fast internet connections. The Digital Decade Policy Programme (DDPP) sets ambitious targets like gigabit connectivity for all EU households and 5G coverage across all populated areas by 2030 1 . The White Paper 2 presents the challenges and opportunities Europe faces in the rollout of future connectivity networks and proposed a series of scenarios to make the EU regulatory and investment frameworks fit to facilitate the achievement of EU digital objectives. According to the second annual report on the State of the Digital Decade 3 , which monitors the implementation of the DDPP, very high-capacity networks (VHCN) coverage in the EU’s rural areas at the end of 2023 reached 56% of households, while 5G coverage made it to 74%. Reaching the targets may require at least a total investment of EUR 148 billion 4 , including both private and public funding. The Commission supports the deployment of performing digital infrastructure through the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Digital with a budget of EUR 1.7 billion. CEF Digital inter alia supports 5G infrastructure for rural communities in sectors like smart farming. In addition, the allocation to digital connectivity under the recovery and resilience facility (RRF) reaches almost EUR 14 billion 5 . In Austria, the RRF provides support for the deployment of performing digital infrastructure and fast internet connections in rural areas through the Austrian federal state aid broadband scheme 6 approved by the Commission in March 2022. The Commission also supports the implementation of the Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite (IRIS²) programme 7 with a budget of EUR 2.4 billion, which will also ensure fast internet connections in rural areas, as satellite broadband can bring broadband services with up to 250 Mbps download speeds. Finally, the EU is also leveraging connectivity investments through cohesion funds, e.g. by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (about EUR 2.3 billion 8 ) and through InvestEU 9 . 1 The Digital Decade Decision sets out digital targets grouped into four cardinal points, which were first identified in the Digital Compass Communication (COM/2021/118 final) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0118 ) as key areas for the digital transformation of the EU: digital skills, digital infrastructures, the digitalisation of businesses and the digitalisation of public services. 2 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/white-paper-how-master-europes-digital-infrastructure-needs 3 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/second-report-state-digital-decade-calls-strengthened-collectiveaction-propel-eus-digital 4 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/investment-and-funding-needs-digital-decade-connectivitytargets 5 https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/recovery-and-resiliencescoreboard/assets/thematic_analysis/scoreboard_thematic_analysis_connectivity.pdf 6 ‘Broadband Austria 2030’ scheme is part of Austria’s strategy to address the needs of citizens and businesses in the context of digitalisation and focuses on rural areas first. 7 https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/iris2-secure-connectivity_en 8 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/available-budget_en 9 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/broadband-public-and-private-funds-financing-broadbanddeployments”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2024-08-07 “E-001497/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission 1. The EU forestry sector is in a good situation to implement the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 1 adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. The EU Timber Regulation 2 has been obliging the sector’s foresters to exercise due diligence since 2013. Given that in the EU the foresters are already complying with the highest legal standards, companies in the sector are well placed to meet the requirements of EUDR. The legislative process entailed a comprehensive Impact Assessment 3 of the different regulatory options. The Impact Assessment concluded that the preferred option means a oneoff cost for operators setting up their due diligence systems, and a small amount of annual cost for maintaining it. Operators sourcing from ‘low risk’ countries and short supply chains would benefit from higher demand of such products and are expected to increase their share in the EU market when producing legal and deforestation-free products. 2. The Commission has presented a comprehensive package to support the implementation of the EUDR, including the proposal 4 of a 12-month phasing-in period to allow companies more time to prepare. The Commission has also published a comprehensive guidance document and a third edition of Frequently Asked Questions 5 . These documents provide information for the implementation of the regulation. Capacity building and training of private sector stakeholders, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, in implementing the EUDR with a budget of EUR 1 million is also provided in the framework of the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action 6 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 2 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market, OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, p. 23– 34. 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/forests/deforestation/regulation-deforestation-free-products_en 4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_5009 5 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/34861680-e799-4d7c-bbad-da83c45da458/library/e126f816-844b-41a989ef-cb2a33b6aa56/details?download=true 6 LIFE programme in general, https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/life_en ; the call for proposals addressing policy and legislative priorities: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topicdetails/life-2024-plp-nat-env . The projects are at present under evaluation.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-08-07 “E-001498/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 1 , adopted by the European Parliament and Council, is designed to apply in an even-handed and non-discriminatory manner, i.e. to all commodities and products produced inside as well as outside the EU. All commodities and products covered by the EUDR will be subject to the same requirements. The Commission is aware that a majority of EU forest owners already live up to the highest global standards in terms of quality, safety and environmental sustainability of their produce – and hence are well-placed to meet the requirements of the EUDR. The Commission sees no indication that EUDR would create a competitive advantage for forest owners outside the EU vis a vis EU forest owner. The Commission’s legislative proposal for the EUDR was based on an Impact Assessment 2 which estimated that overall expected benefits of this Regulation outweigh the costs of compliance for companies. The EU recognises the importance of accompanying tools to support implementation of the EUDR. The Commission has developed frequently asked questions which are regularly updated and is working on additional formal guidelines for specific aspects. The Commission is also actively engaging in dialogue with producer countries and provides support to those with the weaker capacity, e.g. via the global Team Europe Initiative on Deforestation Free Value Chains. 1 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 2 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-deforestation-free-products_en”
  Management of EU forests · Trade impact on forests
• 2024-08-07 “E-001495/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The definitions in the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 1 , adopted by the European Parliament and Council, build on the work of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and other relevant international organisations (Recital 43 of the EUDR). The EUDR is designed to apply in an even-handed and non-discriminatory manner to comply with the EU’s international commitments. All commodities and products produced within or outside the EU covered by the EUDR will be subject to the same standards when they are placed on the EU market. Different levels of wood harvesting are allowed, provided that this does not result in a transformation falling under the definition of degradation. Sustainable forest management systems can be employed and encouraged, provided they do not lead to a conversion that meets the degradation definition. The Commission’s legislative proposal for the EUDR was based on an Impact Assessment 2 that estimated the costs and benefits of the proposed policy options, as well as a fitness check of the EU rules in place against illegal logging 3 , including the EU Timber Regulation 4 , which the EUDR is set to replace. The Impact Assessment backing the proposal estimated that the costs of compliance for companies are significantly lower than the expected benefits – i.e. improved market access and growing demand for sustainably sourced products worldwide. In addition, the EUDR lays down transition periods for enterprises, and longer periods specifically for small and microenterprises, to be able to adapt to the changes required. The cut-off date of 31 December 2020 aims to minimise the number of smallholders that are caught cultivating land whose produce cannot be sold on the EU market or exported from it. 1 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/forests/deforestation/regulation-deforestation-free-products_en 2 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-deforestation-free-products_en 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/forests/deforestation/eu-rules-against-illegal-logging_en#fitness-checkon-the-eu-timber-regulation-and-the-flegt-regulation 4 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/forests/deforestation/eu-rules-against-illegal-logging_en”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-08-07 “E-001499/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The assessment for the classification of countries will be based on criteria in Article 29(3) and (4) of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 1 , adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. The quantitative criteria are: (a) rate of deforestation and forest degradation, (b) rate of expansion of agriculture land for relevant commodities and (c) production trends of relevant commodities and of relevant products. The assessment may also take into account the provisions of Article 29(4) (a)-(e). In accordance with its obligations, the Commission is developing the methodology and conducting the assessment, considering latest scientific evidence and internationally recognised sources, in full respect of the principles of fairness, objectivity and transparency. Pursuant to Article 29(5), the Commission shall engage in a specific dialogue with all countries that are, or risk to be classified as high risk. Regular updates on the risk classification process and methodology take place in the Multistakeholder Platform on deforestation 2 , where many stakeholders take part, alongside with third countries and the 27 EU Member States. The list of the countries or parts thereof, that present a low or high risk shall be published by means of implementing act. The draft implementing act will be submitted to EU Member States as part of the comitology procedure in accordance with the examination procedure referred in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 3 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expertgroups/consult?lang=en&do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3282 3 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13–18.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-08-07 “E-001487/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission 1. One of the main priorities of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2021-2027 is to promote a more balanced distribution of income support to small and medium-sized holdings. To achieve this objective, Member States have at their disposal a varied set of tools defined in the CAP regulatory framework, as adopted by the co-legislators. This set includes, among others, capping and degressivity of the amount of the basic income support for sustainability (BISS), as well as interventions such as the complementary redistributive income support for sustainability (CRISS) and the payment for small farmers (PSF). Under the current CAP framework, Member States have also a greater flexibility as regards the choice of the mix of policy tools to achieve CAP objectives, including fairer distribution and more effective and efficient targeting of income support to those who need it most. Within their CAP Strategic Plans, Member States must provide an overview of their redistribution needs and explanation of how the chosen mix of CAP tools will address those needs, while taking into account country-specific farm structures. This information is presented under Section 3.4 of the CAP Strategic Plans entitled ‘Overview as regards the aim of fairer distribution and more effective and efficient targeting of income support’. 2. Member States’ financial allocations for the CAP have been defined in the framework of the 2021-2027 EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and are reflected in the CAP regulatory framework. The financial allocation that Member States have defined under their respective CAP Strategic plans can be amended by Member States in line with the flexibility offered by the regulatory framework and subject to approval by the Commission. The Commission will table its proposal for the MFF post-2027 in 2025, which will be followed by discussions between the Council and the European Parliament on the size and composition of the next MFF.”
  Agricultural funding · Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2024-08-07 “E-001491/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Common Agricultural Policy has a plethora of tools to support and improve the competitiveness of European farmers. Beyond direct income support with different complementary payments for farmers facing specific challenges, access to finance via financial instruments and support for innovation as well as farm advisory services. The Commission will continue its focus on strengthening the EU food system's competitiveness, resilience, and sustainability. In its first 100 days, the Commission will publish a Communication on a Vision for Agriculture and Food outlining a long-term perspective for the sector and addressing imbalances in the food chain. This Communication will take stock of the recommendations from the recent report of the Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU Agriculture 1 , present a first assessment of feasible proposals and build bridges with other policy areas, in order to ensure the long-term competitiveness and sustainability of EU agriculture, highlighting its strategic role in the new geopolitical context. 2. The enlargement process will need to be carefully managed so that the internal market and a common agricultural policy are maintained, avoiding undue shocks and with careful consideration of competitive pressure. It will therefore require a thorough impact assessment of its long-term effects on the viability of agriculture in the EU27 and in the acceding countries to properly address any identified challenges. The enlargement process will also take time and is merit-based, which will allow for gradual integration of Ukraine in order to mitigate any unwanted shocks Finally, as any candidate country, Ukraine will have to apply the EU acquis in full at accession. This includes all EU requirements in the area of agriculture in force at that time. 1 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/171329ff-0f50-4fa5-946faea11032172e_en?filename=strategic-dialogue-report-2024_en.pdf”
  GMOs
• “We already voted about this here in this Parliament of having a non risk category. So that if for countries where there is no deforestation happening. So that means that countries both within the EU are affected by this, but also countries outside the EU and these are countries that have no deforestation problems. Who is profiting profiting from this though? Big business? They have a market advantage and some colleagues seem to be on the side of big business. They are easy. They have an easy time dealing with all of these data systems and reference numbers, and it works against small and mid-sized companies. What we have here now is a chance to change the practical implementation to now is the time for that. What we specifically want from the Commission is, first of all, that they look, that they revise the the risk classifications and that they streamline the reference number obligations. Especially when it comes to bringing certain products to market. We want a zero risk category, and we also have the chance to make a change to what we have. Let's use that opportunity and send a clear message to the commission that not just us, but also most of our ministers support this demand to make to make significant changes. And therefore, in our vote today, we need to send a clear system. We need a clear signal, we need a change. And our commission president needs needs to know what she said in her own message was that we needed less bureaucracy, and we can make that possible if we demand changes. And if we do it in time, we have the opportunity. And that would mean that we can support this process. Thank you.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Thank you very much, doctor. I'd like to underscore what you said at the close there and maybe call on colleagues when we're looking at recommendations from the Efsa. We should recognise them. Very often we are looking at decisions which are supported by Efsa. And then suddenly a study is pulled out of a hat and questioned. You said at the end yourself that Efsa is an authority financed by public money. So I think if you start calling it a question, your work, even in this house. I think that's rather questionable actions from from members. But my question is looking at lab meta cell grown meat. We're seeing this as an issue. There's a question of what we're allowed to call it, what we're allowed to label it. I'd like to ask you what the state of play is in terms of requested procedures. I know that there's a scientific decision that you'll be issuing, but what about a political decision that we could take if we should take a decision, saying these cell cultures are ones that we don't want to see on our dinner plates and citizens dinner plates. How many? Staff would be freed up? Where you're currently bogged down in working on these approval procedures on recommendations. Thank you.”
  EU policy on lab-grown meat
• “Well, yes. Thank you very much. I perhaps want to, uh, say something about, uh, farmers. You say. And I'm talking about, uh, crop farmers. I mean, there are farmers who are going to suffer. There are many different kinds of farming. So you have to look very carefully at which kind of farming, which sector is going to be disadvantaged by this agreement, And I don't really understand why agriculture isn't simply taken out of the agreement, because that's the crucial sector, a crucial sector where there are massive concerns.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Yes. Thank you very much, chair. Dear colleagues I have this objection that I'd like to present to you. This is an objection that is not just about the methodological weaknesses of the regulation, but also about the implementation. Starting off with starting with the technical problems, the database that is used here is, in my opinion, obsolete. The Commission is using data mostly from 2020 or before, and that means that countries that have made a lot of progress in forestry, with satellite surveillance or other types of protection programmes, are not taken into account. Secondly, the Methodology is in is in transparent and contradictory. And the scientific basis is not sufficient. All you would need is to have a pest arrive in a country. And what would that mean? What would that mean? Though. As a result, the damage caused by that pest would would actually be attributed to deforestation. And the real important point here is about implementation. Well, regardless of the risk category that a country is in, it's still a massive administrative burden for everyone. This is for large and small holdings. If whether you're selling an entire forest worth of wood or a single tree, the reference number just to get the reference number. Is something that I couldn't even do in this system myself. It is made to in such a way that our farmers and foresters cannot implement it themselves. What we want is a sustainable forest law, but this is proportional. It means that for every tree that you fell or every pig that you slaughter, you have to enter in these reference numbers. And that is completely outside of the realm of proportionality that we hold dear here. And then there's also high risk countries. That is something where. This is.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you for your presentation. Nevertheless, reading this proposal with the changes, I don't see how I can answer. Sisters and Foresters and farmers about what's going on here, because most countries in the EU is seeing that forestry is not in, uh, is not in keeping with what is set out here.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Madam president, Commissioner, I am delighted that we at long last will be voting on simplifications to the cap. But I am worried about the year ahead, because the prospects of our Common Agricultural Policy is, for many colleagues, the be all and end all. So we've got fewer payments for our farmers, which doesn't take account of the high inflation in agricultural products and compensate for their losses in income. So the budget, as well as the proposal for our forthcoming cap, are such that they need urgently to be rethought and revised. The current model has to have a commensurate budget, one that takes account of inflation as well as increased production costs, must absolutely take account of both. Because our farmers don't want handouts, they want fair conditions to allow them to produce, as well as proper parameters in the cap to make that possible, to empower them. We need to allow our farmers to do their jobs. They are the specialists. They produce the best food products anywhere in the world. Let them do their jobs.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Well, colleague, thank you very much. You're saying that we need to move away from fossil fuels? I mean, I fully support you, but why is your group against though, using more wood rather than fossil fuels? Why is your group against using sustainable fuels from grain so that we can move away from fossil fuels? We have the technology. We can do that in Europe. But your group, your party, wants to prevent these possibilities. So why do you want to do that? I mean, we have the possibility to produce biofuels. We can use wood from our forests, but your group's against that. Why?”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “There is a law that we learn in school, which is. The way to make things grow. Europe seems to be saying that we can make things grow without these fertilizers. Millions of people, billions of people depend on the production that is dependent on mineral fertilizers. And that's a fact. So I don't I don't think we should, you know, talk down and just behave as if these weren't important at all. And we couldn't we could do without them. We can't do everything with with organic fertilizers.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much. We agree with this objective to protect European forests, and we know that there are many problems in terms of the various beetles and various pests that exist. We know that. We know climate change is there. We know all of that. We just wonder whether this is the best proposal. Do we really need a regulation rather than a directive? We know that the competency with regard to woods and forests, woodland and forests would be more in the remit of the member States, particularly when it comes to data collection. Colleagues have mentioned this before. The individual criteria that have to be assessed every two weeks, you need the leaf index or soil erosion. These are data that You just wonder whether this is really feasible is certainly not simplification. And then what about costs? These are difficult economic times that we're asking our member states to to make savings. And they are forced to do that. But then on the other hand, look at how much money this will take. There's a cost, an estimate of this in Austria that would cost about €1.5 million to do all of this, and I think it would be more useful to invest that money somewhere else. 1.5 million. We could buy 1 million trees, for example, for that, rather than carry out forestry monitoring with that money. And I'm also wondering how this will all fit in with the objectives of the president of our commission. -25%. Um, red tape, for example. And that was one of the objectives. Is this really cutting red tape? 25%? No, I don't think so. And the I mean, if we want to follow up the objectives put forward by the president of the commission, then perhaps this is not the best way of doing that. We have a lot of good forestry monitoring across the countries. And perhaps I mean, cooperation is a good idea, but I think that we we must be careful not to undermine the national systems that already exist. Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests