Michal WIEZIK

Policy topics Michal WIEZIK is active on

What Michal WIEZIK has said (25)

• 2025-11-25 “E-004682/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission agrees with the Honourable Members that the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 1 is a cornerstone of the EU’s water resilience agenda. It remains committed to its successful implementation. In line with its simplification objective, the Commission has put forward proposal for an environmental omnibus 2 . In this proposal the Commission presented a package of measures to simplify environmental legislation. The changes will contribute to reducing the administrative burden for businesses, while keeping the EU's ambitious objectives to protect the environment and human health. The WFD was not included in the scope of the omnibus. However, in the context of the RESourceEU Action Plan 3 , the Commission has announced that by the second quarter of 2026 it will review and revise the WFD. This exercise will build on stakeholders’ input and experiences in Member States. Particular attention will be paid to simplification and the need to address potential bottlenecks in order to promote circularity and access to critical raw materials in the EU, while protecting the environment and human health. As outlined in the Water Resilience Strategy 4 , a more effective implementation and enforcement of the EU water legislation, particularly the WFD, is a priority to ensure water security and resilience in the EU. The Commission has recently kicked off the announced Structured Dialogue with Member States to identify implementation gaps and priorities and to work jointly towards a reinforced implementation of the broader EU water acquis. 1 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 2 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/simplification-administrative-burdens-environmentallegislation_en. 3 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/01c448d6-dc93-40d7-9afe-4c2af448d00c_en. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU · EU policy on water management
• 2025-06-04 “P-002233/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission is currently assessing the recently adopted resolution 1 of the Slovak government on culling 350 bears. The Commission has been in contact with the Slovak authorities and asked for more information about the implementation of the resolution and the derogation decisions issued by Slovakia, and about the new methodology used by Slovakia to estimate its bear population. The Commission is closely following the situation and in case of an established breach will take any action deemed necessary. 2. The brown bear is listed in Annex A of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 2 , which means that international commercial trade is generally prohibited. Commercial activities involving specimens of species listed in Annex A within the EU are also generally prohibited except in situations described in Article 8(3) of the Regulation. An exemption can be granted by the Management Authority of a Member State on a case-by-case basis if the specimen originated in a Member State and was taken from the wild in accordance with the legislation in force in that Member State. Launching of an infringement case concerning the breach of the Habitats Directive would not impact the legality of proceeds and products based on this provision. 3. Under Regulation No 338/97, the Commission does not have a legal basis to impose interim measures preventing the Member State from issuing certificates pursuant to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 3 . 1 Slovak Government resolution 182/2025 of 2 April 2025: https://rokovania.gov.sk/RVL/Resolution/22363/1. 2 Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1–69. 3 https://cites.org/eng.”
  Large Carnivores
• 2024-11-06 “P-002440/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Following the entry into force of the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) 1 , the Commission services have started to work on the first deliverables for the implementation. The legislative financial statement accompanying the NRR proposal states that “The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if necessary with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints.” Therefore, to ensure the necessary capacity in terms of human resources necessary for the implementation of the NRR, a flexible structure has been put in place, with a mix of full-time and part-time allocations. More specifically, a core team in the Directorate for Biodiversity of the Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV), co-ordinates and leads the process. Staff members from several other Directorates in DG ENV contribute to the work to ensure full consistency and synergies with the implementation of other pieces of EU environmental legislation. The European Environment Agency 2 has received dedicated additional human resources as per legislative financial statement and supports DG ENV in this work. In addition, staff members in other Directorate-Generals 3 actively contribute to the work depending on the specific needs and tasks. These administrative arrangements will be regularly monitored and reviewed as needed to ensure that the necessary capacity is allocated to carry out all necessary tasks in an efficient and timely manner. 1 In August 2024, 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://www.eea.europa.eu/en 3 Eg Agriculture, Climate Action, Maritime Affairs, Joint Research Centre, Budget, Regional and Urban Policy, Research and Innovation.”
  Climate efforts
• 2024-09-04 “P-001613/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission 1. In order to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU in Case C-661/20, Slovakia must provide for appropriate assessment of inter alia sanitary logging to comply with Article 6(3) Habitats Directive 1 . It also must prevent forest management activities from deteriorating Capercaillie habitats and disturbing the species and adopt conservation measures for seven Natura 2000 bird sites designated for the Capercaillie. Slovakia informed the Commission about the measures taken, e.g. zonation of national parks Muránska Planina and Veľká Fatra and designation of Pralesy and Stolica nature areas, thus improving protection of Capercaillie habitats, and about the adoption of conservation measures for the Volovské vrchy site. Slovakia also informed about the envisaged measures, e.g. zonation of national parks Nízké Tatry, Vysoké Tatry and Malá Fatra and adoption of management plans for them. However, the Slovak legislation has not yet introduced sufficient legislation submitting sanitary logging to appropriate assessment. Slovakia has thus not yet taken all necessary measures to comply with the ruling. 2. If Slovakia does not make substantive progress to comply with the Court’s judgment, the Commission may initiate the infringement procedure under Article 260(2) 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and subsequently, refer Slovakia to Court of Justice of the EU for the second time while proposing financial penalties. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringementsproceedings/infringement_decisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byCase&page=1&size=10&or der=desc&sortColumns=refId&refId=INFR(2018)4076”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-09-04 “E-001620/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission Forests are indispensable for a climate-neutral Europe, resilient, and thriving environment, sustainable bioeconomy and healthy society. Many forests in the EU are not in a good state, they suffer heavily from biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and climate change, while there is surging demand for forest products and services. The EU has a variety of shared competences that concern forest protection and forestry to address these challenges. In line with the objective of the European Green Deal 1 to improve EU’s forested area, both in quality and quantity, in 2021 the Commission adopted the EU Forest Strategy for 2030 2 . Key actions under this strategy have already been delivered 3 , notably the Nature Restoration Law 4 and several guidelines to improve implementation 5 . The EU also adopted the Deforestation Regulation 6 . Furthermore, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 7 supports interventions that contribute to the achievement of the EU’s environmental and climate objectives such as afforestation, reforestation, fire prevention, and forest ecosystem improvement. Since the information available on the state of forests as ecosystems and of the use of forest resources is fragmented, incomparable, and not fit for policy making, resulting in important knowledge gaps, the Commission proposed a Forest Monitoring Law 8 , which is currently under examination by co-legislators. The Commission will continue to pursue the objectives of the EU Forest Strategy, and will assess progress and the need for further action in this area. The Commission is also tackling the threat of disinformation, for example through actions to counter foreign information manipulation and to build societal resilience against disinformation 9 . 1 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en 2 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/forest-strategy_en 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/forests_en 4 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. 5 Such as the the guidelines on biodiversity friendly afforestation and reforestation [SWD(2023)61], on closer to nature forestry [SWD(2023) 284], on old-growth forests [SWD(2023)62] and on payment for ecosystem services [SWD (2023)285] . 6 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. 7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj 8 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-forest-monitoring-framework_en 9 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/strategic-communication-and-tackling-disinformation_en”
  Energy (green transition)
• “(16:14:14 – 16:16:06): Yes. Thank you very much for the floor. Indeed, I'll be speaking on behalf of our shadow, Ana Vasconcelos. We debate the revision of the 10 e regulation at the moment of renewed pressure on European energy markets. Since February, gas prices went up to 70%, and the EU is paying roughly 500,000,000 more per day for fossil fuel imports. This gives an already crucial file a renewed urgency to deliver lasting results. This is about speed and coordination. Cross border infrastructure built fast enough to keep bills affordable, supply secure, and our industry competitive with the ultimate aim of completing the energy union. The numbers are clear. Electrification is just about 21% with 32% target by 2030. Renewables are scaling rapidly. Demand from transport, heating, industry and data centers is rising fast. Grids are not keeping the pace. Without serious grid expansion and modernization, we risk bottlenecks, higher prices and weaker security. Interconnectors are the backbone of a resilient European system, but infrastructure alone is not enough. We need flexibility, storage, and planning over 10 and 20 year horizons. In NV, 3 priorities should, come through clearly. First, digitalization and innovation second, climate resilience and third, adequate predictable financing, EU and private. Let's preserve the scope of 10E and keep it focused on what it is meant to deliver. This all said, Anna is looking forward to constructive cooperation with the rapporteur and the shadows. Thank you very much.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “(16:48:50 – 16:51:38): Thank you very much for the floor and for this meeting dear colleagues let us be very clear from the outset despite what we hear from ecr and patriots the report of the european court of auditors does not put into question the environmental impact of life strategic projects as such it does not conclude that life program fails to protect nature quite contrary what it highlights is actually a familiar problem that we see all around the project that are being financed by the european union if one would mention one that is really very much pronounced in this button it's it's actually the common agriculture policy but a huge money is being spent without any measurable outcomes or very very few measurable outcomes so so as i mentioned the problem is very familiar and widespread and it's the weakness in the monitoring reporting and verification framework the auditors themselves recognize that a live strategic projects help bridge the gap between strategy and implementation of support member states in delivering on the eu environmental and climate objectives that is very clear and this is really the european added value in practice and from this regard i really consider life project being a huge success story very cheap and very effective on on that regard so the core question for us in the con committee but also in the envy committee is not whether life works it is whether the current result based act architecture allows us to demonstrate convincingly how well it actually works and that is really a story to be told and here we must also look at ourselves the member of this very house this is not solely a commission's issue as legislators we have repeatedly endorsed ambitious performance based models without always ensuring that indicators are measurable harmonized and proportionate we saw this challenge in the recovery and resilience facility and we risk repeating it in the next multi financial multi annual financial framework in renewal that's why we are already started this transition within the new mmf to ensure eu money are spent in areas with real results but as you all know for sure it is a very long and thorny way to go i can tell you that and maybe to echo on the on the life itself i very much agree that it is very effective and very well established program and very successful in the sense and on behalf of the next mff i would definitely advise that it is not wise to change a winning team so let's stick to the live program because it's really a very well platform for protecting of nature climate and it's very well welcomed also by the public thank you very much”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you, Madam Chair, for the for the floor. Dear colleagues, I will continue in Slovak, so please put your headphones on. Colleagues. Aig's. Representatives of the commission. I am an MEP that comes from a landlocked country, and the Danube River is the biggest river that we have. It's a very long international river that goes through ten countries, and it shows us how difficult it is to protect an ecosystem. When several member states are responsible for it. And this is a complicated issue here. It's a large ecosystem that does not belong to anyone, but actually belongs to everyone. And it's our shared heritage. In 2004, the UN began a debate on the need to have a framework for biodiversity in seas which are beyond national jurisdictions. Now they represent almost two thirds of the world's seas, and they contain 95% of the seas constant. They cover the high seas and international sea beds. And there is an agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. And it was adopted in June 2023. The directive to implement that agreement was proposed by the Commission earlier this year, and then on the 18th of May, the agreement was ratified and thereby it made a commitment to respect the laws to protect the seas. And I welcome this as part of the pact to protect the oceans. It says that the directive should enter into force quickly and that there should be support for scientific research. And this should be done, uh, by looking at access to these marine resources beyond national jurisdictions.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you very much. When talking about the state of forest, we have the tendency to celebrate actually the increasing area of forests in Europe. But to me this is really an biased approach. It seems to me like we would celebrate the body mass gain of an obese person. It's not healthy at the end. The quality is what we need to actually assess. And there we are really failing our goals. The indications for that are very clear. We are losing carbon sinks. And that goes for countries which usually are very highly forested like Finland, Germany and now in Austria, they have lost their carbon sinks. That means their forests are in a desperate situation. In the last three years in Romania, 150,000 hectares of primary and old growth forests have been extracted and destroyed. This is a critical situation, and I think that in conditions like this, to propose that within the EU, the Europe should be marked as a no risk country is simply foolish and wrong. So I would wonder what the position of the commission is on this really foolish proposal. Thank you very much.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you very much. Wildlife crime is multifaceted. It involves wildlife trafficking, document fraud, tax evasion and money laundering. One can say that it is huge and everywhere. For instance, in 2023, over a million live eels were seized in European Union. Million live eels that did not reach the European rivers. Eels that never reproduced eels are missing in the ocean ecosystem. Eels out of the legal trade which normally would enrich European communities. That needs to stop. Cites is an important treaty. It covers roughly 40,000 species worldwide, yet countless others do not fall under this regulation. Therefore, we need strong sites and we need strong enforcement chain to tackle illegal trade with wildlife. We need the European Union to be strong and successful at Cop 20. Therefore, Renew Europe supports the final position. Text. We call for the review of Cites strategic vision to align with Economic Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and ask to strengthen legal frameworks against wildlife trafficking. If we need to stop wildlife crime, we simply need to act. The time is now. Thank you.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• “Right. You know that they actually are doing something wrong, and they actually dare to lobby the MEPs in order to somehow navigate them in relation to the Green Deal. Why shouldn't they do that? They are actually the bearers of the best practice. Why shouldn't I be talking to them and being lobbied by them? I think it's it's for the, for the, for the best of the, of the outcome of our policies. So, uh, I really I really appreciate the report. And I really have to stress that the claims that occurred in this House, I perceived them as a direct attack, a political and ideological attack on civil society. I'm not I'm not surprised that they are coming from the far right, but I'm concerned about is that they are coming also from the central part of this House. This is not the case that should happen in here. We really are playing with fire when attacking the very basic fundaments of the of the democracy in the European Union, and that's the civil society. The civil society has a role to play. Let's not jeopardise with it by by really spreading the false claims and beliefs that say actually and point to them that they are doing something wrong and this is not the case. That's that's my point. Thank you very much.”
  EU engagement with civil society
• “However, improving irrigation efficiency cannot lead to building new irrigation projects with no net reduction. Impact on water abstraction. The problem is far more complex than that. With rising pressure on finite freshwater resources and increasing demand for water also for use in industry, we must set the policies. So, to ensure that minimum water flow is not trespassed, adaptation is crucial, and the research confirms that a positive impact on increased water availability when applying low water. Intense management practices such as agro ecological, regenerative, organic or agroforestry systems and nature based solutions. This should be should be promoted and supported, having positive long term impact on water retention for agriculture. The qualitative status expressed in water pollution is another pressure factor. In order to sustain the agriculture sector, we must equally aim at maintaining the quality and fertility of agricultural land. This is becoming main concern along with recurring droughts. Therefore, focus on soil composition is important, along with support for management practices which can lower and pressure on agricultural soil. It is all related to water as well. This go hand in hand with reducing chemical pollution of the soils and groundwater. The most pressing problem gradually becomes PFAS pollution from pesticides and fertilizers. This adds another layer of pressure to agricultural productivity and human health, but also to rising costs of treating the pollution, which is estimated in billions euro per year.”
  EU policy on water management
• “For the floor. And thank you, Madam Anderson, for being with us here today. Over here, if you look straight forward. Okay. Thank you. I would have rather topical and maybe a technical question. Given the fairly recent entry into force of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreement and the third meeting of the Preparatory Commission to be held just a few days from now, I would like to address you with several questions related to this issue. So far, 86 parties have ratified the agreement with late 2025 ratification by China, for example. But year 2026 is rather calm in this regard. We know that there have been some negotiations being held in the UK, with the subsequently aim of ratifying the agreement. My question in this regard is whether, according to your knowledge, are there some other countries who are, so to say, in the pipeline and who are ready to ratify the agreement until the first meeting of the parties? In a few days, we will see the candidates bidding for the seat of the Secretariat. Will there be also a decision on the seat of the Secretariat being taken? And will the cop most likely decided by consensus or the two thirds majority? So technical won the bids from Belgium and Chile now have a competition from China, and all the candidates present a strong candidacy. Are you aware of any positioning of the parties already vis a vis disputes? And last but not least, is it realistic that already some proposals for area based management tools, namely marine protected areas, are going to be presented at the first Cop? Thank you very much for your response. Thanks.”
  EU ocean policy
• “Yes, thank you very much. When dealing with forests, we are dealing with a complex ecosystems. In order to properly understand the processes and problems related to these ecosystems, we need a monitoring or bio monitoring that is able to reflect this complexity. And this is not the case throughout Europe, despite 100 years of really tradition of monitoring. Because the monitoring we currently have in Europe is heavily based on quantitative data and forestry related data. What we miss are qualitative data on biodiversity resilience and simply aspects beyond the forestry. In this regard, I consider the proposal of commission to be a good one. It introduces a solid set of indicators and the position of this House should be and must be to improve this proposal, but not to backtrack on it or weaken it. Uh, what I want to ask. The commission is related to old growth forests and and primary forest. We still lack a lot of steps in order to properly protect them. I wonder what want you to do to to involve member states to be more on board in this very critical, critical role. Thank you very much.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you very much for the floor. And thank you very much for the report to Mr. Andrikiene. Uh, I was listening very carefully whether there will be some claim that the NGOs, the NGOs actually have done something wrong and that the assessment has proved that the European money have been misused by the NGOs. And I haven't seen I haven't heard the one, a single one. Quite contrary. The conclusion was really brilliant. Thank you for that. Uh, where it was seen that. Yeah, we, we we miss the transparency, but it's not the role of the NGOs to actually corroborate on that or improve that. It's it's our role, the role of the commission and the role of the member states who are actually granting the money to properly know who they grant the money to. It's not the role of the NGOs, and it's not the fault of the NGOs. Quite contrary. I'm quite convinced that the NGOs, if they do their work properly, they are the bearers of the best practice in the field. Uh, if you mentioned the program life, for instance, I think that this is a story of success, a huge success that really has delivered a lot of beautiful projects that helped really to, uh, reintroduce endangered species and recover nature in an unprecedented way. And exactly. This program has been targeted by false claims coming from far right up to the center.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Thank you very much, once again for the floor. And thank you very much for all of your intervention. I listened very carefully to them, and I can tell that I sense a solid majority in this House, uh, favoring the swift transposition of this treaty, which I'm very happy about. Uh, maybe. To conclude, I will have to stress that the principle of subsidiarity that some of you were concerned in this regard is complied with in this, in this, in this treaty and in this, in this, um, dossier. And, uh, it really allows the European Parliament to have a role. So I'm really looking forward, uh, to cooperate with all of you, uh, so that no player is sidelined. Uh, but, uh, let's let's be clear, this, this treaty and its transposition is really a necessity, as was already stressed. It's about a healthy and functioning ocean, which in effect, is the basis of global and European food security. So no time to no time to hesitate. Moreover, uh, I think that we might be really a decisive force in adopting this treaty on a global scale. Let's let's use the momentum that there is right now. Uh, right before the very first, uh, conference of the parties that will be held probably next year. Uh, we should be and might be the pulling force in the implementation of this landmark agreement. So the signal that we sent from this House to the Europe and to the world is very much, uh, very, very significant. So thank you once again for your remarks, introductions. Looking forward to cooperation. Thank you.”
  EU ocean policy
• “Thank you very much. I would like to speak about deep sea mining and deep sea mining. Precautionary pause is a conscious and responsible position over an issue which potentially involves impacts on a million year timescale. We do not know at this point what we could lose by looking at resources located in areas which belong to no one. Hence our common mankind heritage. What consequences are decisions to extract those resources might have, or what processes we could disrupt for this ecosystem? It took millions of years to evolve. Yet they can be destroyed in a blink of an eye for certain forms of deep sea mining. The negative effect would be forever. I therefore applaud the commission calling for a precautionary pause until sufficient scientific evidence is available to confirm that deep sea mining poses no substantive threat to marine ecosystems. From this place, as a member of the European Parliament and as a scientist, I also call on the Council to confirm the approach of the precautionary pause. Thank you very much.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials
• “The strategy must also efficiently address nutrient loss, nutrient pollution, and inefficiencies in the nutrient cycle resulting from excessive applications. Therefore, an integrated nutrient management action plan without further delay is needed. Also, it is important supporting new domestic resources pathways which can ensure critical material independence, such as phosphorus recovery from organic sources. Therefore, incentives to its recovery, reuse and recycling should be facilitated. Last but not least, it is essential that the fair transition is given priority and with it, adequate support and financial resources to support farmers. At the same time, we need to facilitate the access to market of new EU alternative plant protection products to ensure more tools available for farmers and EU production, as mentioned by the chair. Already, the deadline for amendment amendments is already on 20th of February. To conclude, the common goal is to secure water for the agricultural land, to make it available for the crops grown, and to sustain the agriculture as vital and future proof sector. So I am looking forward to the discussion and to the possible approaches that will prevail. Thank you very much.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “(16:47:35 – 16:49:53): Of all, thank you to the rapporteur for the opinion. As she has mentioned herself, the legislative framework put forward by the Commission reduces the proposed regulation to just a few pages literally. And, of course, there is worry emerging that some aspects might actually be skipped or omitted. Despite this fact, the Commission is giving us assurances that despite this reduction, there are measures aimed at environment and climate protection that they are still a vital part and priority of these funds also in the upcoming programming period. I trust, but I have to somehow check and make sure. And that's why as a shadow rapporteur for Renew, I will gladly focus on making sure that this is evident from the text. That is also clear that the Union funds are intended to contribute to the objectives of existing national nature restoration plans or the objectives of the urban wastewater treatment directive and to also help regions and urban areas adapt to climate change and increase their water resilience. These are all very important chapters which cannot be put aside. The sector regulations of other nature, which lay down the conditions of Union supports, for example, in fisheries or of the European Ocean Pact, explicitly exclude activities for which support cannot be drawn or will not be provided, and that's for right reasons, because they are counterproductive to the set objectives. To me, I kind of like this kind of approach in this proposal, and I will therefore on that in the negotiations. Of course, speaking on behalf of Renew, we support the principle of do no significant harm, which according to our principles and the way we approach this should be part of any legislation adopted in this area. So I will try to find some common ground and functional compromise. That's it on my behalf. Thank you very much, and I look forward to working with you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “And for. Otherwise, it would be not possible to have scientific research. And we would like the Parliament to be able to adopt its position in November. My report basically sticks to the text of the agreement and its intention. We'd like to avoid any new interpretations that could lead to delays, or which could be in contradiction with other international laws. And I have highlighted a few things in the report. We have looked at exchange of monitoring information. We have looked at delay implementation, the introduction of environmental projects and information about new protected marine areas. This should be done through a centralized platform. And that's something that was missing from the commission proposal. And in line with that agreement, we would also like to improve cooperation when it comes to adopting decisions on new protected areas. The BJ agreement would offer greater protection of biodiversity in the seas. We are the EU and we have made a commitment to respect international agreements and if we adopt this, we would implement the agreement properly and this is important for future generations. It's also important for guaranteeing the integrity of the marine ecosystems. We want to improve their resilience in light of climate change. And. We also want to protect the circulation of CO2 in the seas. And I'd like to thank the Commission for its proposal. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you very much for the floor and for this exchange. Let's talk about the duties for a moment. Uh, what has happened to cap pollinator indicator or so-called, uh, farmland pollinator indicator? There was an agreement, uh, of all three co-legislators to have an impact indicator on pollinators. But it seems that nothing is happening. It would be a performance check, a part of the evaluation of the cap. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the commission promised to launch it already in the first EU pollinators initiative, it never happened. In fact, we are not aware of any progress at all in this area. Dg agri never fought in favour of this, despite the fact that both Agricom and Agricom agreed in their positions that Cap pollinator indicator must become a part of the current cap uh. Also monitoring is a key, as was stressed already, so we cannot base policies of no data at all. So I would really stress that the EC should, uh, embed legislatively also the Embl, and especially in case where we see quite a risk that any sort of biodiversity related projects in the live program are at stake and at risk in the next MFF. So my real question is what's what's happening? How are you going to deliver in this regard? Thank you very much. Okay.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you. Thank you, chair, for the floor. And thank you, commissioners, for being with us here today. We appreciate it very much. A lot of crucial aspects has been already discussed. I have one that I would like to regard on and that is a life program actually which is the use only standalone program on climate action and environment. If we speak generally all the programs related to environment, in any case definitely contribute with a smaller portion to biodiversity compared to climate action. And as regards the current situation, the EU is not on track to meet its ambition of dedicating 10% of the 26 and 27 annual EU budget to protecting and enhancing biodiversity. So we are falling behind, our own goals. Now the problematic situation starts to develop. Given that the mainstreaming dilutes dedicated funding but spreads green objectives across many instruments, I'm afraid that there is a genuine risk that targeted projects and especially for biodiversity, might in a way lose visibility or prioritisation, especially if the coefficient based tracking does not reflect actual impact or fails to prevent harmful subsidies in the new MFF. The the the live program will probably discontinue will be discontinued. How can the commission ensure an adequate level of spending also for biodiversity, with a view of achieving an overall spending target at least of 35% for environment in the new MFF? I really can't see how, for instance. Restoration of a wetland can be done under the heading of agriculture or green transition. So where is the right space for that? And in general, how can the Commission ensure the continuity of level of climate and biodiversity spending ambition specifically to targeted projects of environmental conservation, which are uniquely finding through this current fund. Thank you very much.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you for being with us here today, Commissioner, as you know, I'm deeply concerned about European forests and protection of nature. And the situation is especially worrying in Carpathians only last three years in Romania, despite a infringement procedure, logging affected 138,000 of hectares of forest parcels, overlapping primary and old growth forests forest. About 71,000 hectares were located within Natura 2000 sites, from which two point 3,000,000m³ were extracted without appropriate assessment. This is a clear breach of European rules. Another situation in Slovakia. We see new logging operations in capercaillie habitats, despite the court judgment from June 2022. My question is hence, when will we see appropriate steps from the commission, including the referral to court? And what is the state of play in the issue of definitions and the strict protection of remaining and old growth forests and primary forests? We need to act fast because we are going to lose them. Last year, Slovakia adopted a law according to which bears can be killed indiscriminately without within zones where an emergency situation is declared. Last week, Slovak government established or declared an emergency situation in 55 out of 79 administrative Districts of Slovakia and set a quota for indiscriminate killing of 350 birds. I repeat a quota for species who, according to European rules, should be strictly protected. What steps do you plan to take in this case? And talking about habitat directive? What steps are you willing to take in case this House asks for downgrading of protection for more species than just the wolf who's downgrading of protection? The Commission has proposed. Thank you very much.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “(16:48:50 – 16:51:38): Thank you very much for the floor and for this meeting dear colleagues let us be very clear from the outset despite what we hear from ecr and patriots the report of the european court of auditors does not put into question the environmental impact of life strategic projects as such it does not conclude that life program fails to protect nature quite contrary what it highlights is actually a familiar problem that we see all around the project that are being financed by the european union if one would mention one that is really very much pronounced in this button it's it's actually the common agriculture policy but a huge money is being spent without any measurable outcomes or very very few measurable outcomes so so as i mentioned the problem is very familiar and widespread and it's the weakness in the monitoring reporting and verification framework the auditors themselves recognize that a live strategic projects help bridge the gap between strategy and implementation of support member states in delivering on the eu environmental and climate objectives that is very clear and this is really the european added value in practice and from this regard i really consider life project being a huge success story very cheap and very effective on on that regard so the core question for us in the con committee but also in the envy committee is not whether life works it is whether the current result based act architecture allows us to demonstrate convincingly how well it actually works and that is really a story to be told and here we must also look at ourselves the member of this very house this is not solely a commission's issue as legislators we have repeatedly endorsed ambitious performance based models without always ensuring that indicators are measurable harmonized and proportionate we saw this challenge in the recovery and resilience facility and we risk repeating it in the next multi financial multi annual financial framework in renewal that's why we are already started this transition within the new mmf to ensure eu money are spent in areas with real results but as you all know for sure it is a very long and thorny way to go i can tell you that and maybe to echo on the on the life itself i very much agree that it is very effective and very well established program and very successful in the sense and on behalf of the next mff i would definitely advise that it is not wise to change a winning team so let's stick to the live program because it's really a very well platform for protecting of nature climate and it's very well welcomed also by the public thank you very much”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Has this ongoing reorganization created any issues in the terms of business continuity since its beginning? Now, coming to Euro HPC, I would like also to first congratulate the undertaking on the inauguration of important supercomputers in 2023, as well as for the important procurement procedures launched. Furthermore, I welcome the launch of significant actions to support the development of HPC applications and uptake of HPC by new user communities, as well as the organization of first Euro HPC Summit in Gothenburg. And last but not least, the quantum computers. I like that a lot. As you know. So my first question, the two main issues identified in the IEA report are related to financing arrangements and payment appropriations. Your operational payment appropriations implementation rate was extremely low in 2023 at 19%. While there are clear explanations, it nevertheless results in excessive unused appropriations, in this case a cash surplus of 840.7 million. While the rules allow you to execute appropriations over three years, this is still a significant amount which shows clear cash planning shortcomings. Do you think that I will resolve this only now? The second question, how do you assess the lack of investment participation of private members? Why do you need to keep the financing arrangements that are the main cause of this problem? Are you going to revise your contribution targets? And last question, the court underlined that you face one difficult situation with the supplier, which could result in a potential impact ranging from €0 to €88 million on the Euro HPC joint undertaking with the Atos Group. How has the situation? Well, since and what is the most likely eventual impact? Thank you. Once again, that's all.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget