Maria OHISALO

Policy topics Maria OHISALO is active on

What Maria OHISALO has said (36)

• 2026-03-04 “Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission 8.5.2026 Written question While physically located only in Finland, Kemijoki hydro-pumped electricity storage project (Kemijoki PSP) fulfils the significant cross-border impact criteria under the Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E) Regulation [1] (Annex IV, point 1(b)): the project is planned to provide at least 225 MW installed capacity and has a storage capacity that allows a net annual electricity generation of 250 GW-hours/year. As per Annex IV point 1(b) of TEN-E Regulation, the size of the project is used as evidence of the cross-border impact. This is confirmed by the synchronisation of Finland’s grid with the Nordic and Baltic electricity markets and the project’s potential contribution to regional energy balancing, grid stability and cross-border electricity trade. The environmental and climate impacts, including the effects on Natura 2000 sites, biodiversity and water are not part of the cost-benefit analysis under the selection process of Projects of Common Interest (PCI) and Projects of Mutual Interest (PMI). These impacts are assessed as part of the environmental impact assessment and permitting process as mandated by both EU and national law . This process ensures that all legal criteria, including those pertaining to environmental sustainability and municipal governance, are evaluated before the development of the project proceeds. The fact that the project is included in the PCI/PMI list does not prejudge the results of the required environmental impact assessment or permitting process and does not automatically guarantee the project’s construction. The second Union list, which includes the Kemijoki PSP project, was adopted by the Commission on 1 December 2025 and published in the Official Journal of the EU on 9 April 2026 [2] . [1] Regulation (EU) 2022/869 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32022R0869). [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202600764.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects · EU energy infrastructure integration
• 2025-09-16 “E-003556/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Critical Raw Materials Act 1 (CRMA) sets out in Annex III the elements and evidence to assess the criteria laid down in Article 6(1). Specifically, the assessment of whether a project fulfils the criterion laid down in Article 6(1b), shall take into account the quality of the feasibility studies carried out on the potential of the development of the project and whether the intended technology has been demonstrated in the relevant environment. The Guide for Applicants 2 indicates project technical feasibility should include e.g. the technical readiness level of the foreseen processes and the risks related to the methods and technology used, including its scalability. The CRMA does not specifically require ‘a final profitability study for the project nor a report based on this study to assess the contribution to the CRMA benchmarks’. However, the information on the profitability is part of the mandatory project’s business plan. In fact, the CRMA sets out in Article 7 the information to be included in the application including a business plan evaluating the financial viability. In addition, Annex III sets out the project’s contribution to the relevant CRMA capacity benchmarks shall be assessed taking into account the business plan, supporting technical information and the estimated time to market. The Guide for Applicants indicates the specific aspects expected to be covered by the business plan. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02024R1252-20240503. 2 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/areas-specific-interest/critical-rawmaterials/strategic-projects-under-crma/guide-applicants_en.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials
• 2025-09-16 “P-003555/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission An up-to-date, officially approved environmental impact assessment (EIA) is not mandatory information to be included in an application for Strategic Project under the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA - Regulation 2024/1252 1 ). This is evident from Articles 11 and 12 of the CRMA, which include provisions related to the maximum duration of permit-granting processes for Strategic Processes, including processes related to EIAs. Nevertheless, the Commission recommends including, if already available, EIAs or extracts of the EIAs in the application as relevant evidence for the fulfilment of the sustainability criterion (Article 6(1)(c)). 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401252.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects · Sourcing of critical raw materials
• 2025-06-27 “E-002602/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Extractive Waste Directive (EWD) 1 sets an ambitious level of environmental and human health protection and contains distinct provisions for the after-closure phase of extractive waste facilities. Article 11 stipulates that already during the construction and management phase of the extractive waste facility, the competent authorities shall verify that the operator ensures that suitable arrangements are made for the rehabilitation of the land and the closure of the waste facility and for the after-closure phase of the waste facility. Article 12 lays down requirements for the start of the closure procedure. The operator shall also be responsible for the maintenance, monitoring, control and corrective measures in the after-closure phase for as long as may be required by the competent authority, taking into account the nature and duration of the hazard. Furthermore, the financial guarantee under Article 14 aims to secure the proper closure and rehabilitation of the affected land. There need to be funds readily available at any given time for the rehabilitation of the land affected by the waste facility. All Member States have transposed the Directive and there are no infringements pending. The Directive leaves a margin of appreciation to the competent authorities for the application of the provisions. It is the primary responsibility of the Finnish authorities to adequately enforce the national provisions transposing the EU environmental legislation on extractive waste. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue monitoring the situation and may decide to take appropriate action. In line with its strategic approach on enforcement action 2 , the Commission focuses on systemic non-compliance. 1 Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC - Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 15–34. 2 As set out in the Communication of 19 January 2017: EU law: Better results through better application C/2016/8600, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10–20 and in the Communication of 13 October 2022: COM(2022) 518 final - Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers.”
  Industrial emissions directive (IED) · Water pollution
• 2025-03-26 “E-001265/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission The Commission addresses marine pollution through Directive 2008/56/EC 1 which requires Member States to achieve good environmental status in marine waters. International standards under the MARPOL Convention 2 , particularly Annex II on noxious liquid substances, aim at preventing discharges of polluting substances and are implemented in the EU by Directive 2005/35/EC 3 . This Directive was recently amended 4 to enhance satellite surveillance, improve information exchange, and strengthen enforcement efforts. Member States are responsible for monitoring and penalising illegal discharges, and the Commission supports these efforts through fostering collaboration between them. At the International Maritime Organization, the Commission supports its Member States by coordinating the EU position in discussions to improve tank washing procedures globally and reduce the environmental impact of chemical discharges 5 as well as of Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems discharges 6 . Also, specifically for the Baltic Sea, the EU was involved in drafting HELCOM recommendations 7 for port reception facilities where noxious liquid substances are unloaded to receive the tank washings resulting from the application of pre-wash procedures. The Commission is pursuing broader measures to address marine pollution 8 and is planning new initiatives under the upcoming Ocean Pact strengthening inter alia the EU's commitment to protecting marine ecosystems 9 . The Commission recently evaluated the Directive 2008/56/EC 10 , regularly monitors its implementation 11 and is considering the need for additional measures to strengthen it. 1 Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Directive 2008/56/EC (OJ L 164 25.6.2008, p. 19). 2 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. 3 Directive 2005/35/EC as regards ship-source pollution and on the introduction of administrative penalties for infringements (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p.11). 4 Directive (EU) 2024/3101 as regards ship-source pollution (OJ L, 2024/3101, 16.12.2024). 5 12th session of the sub-committee on Pollution Prevention and Response. 27-31 January 2025. Amendments to MARPOL Annex II in order to improve the effectiveness of cargo tank stripping, tank washing operations and prewash procedures for products with a high melting point and/or high viscosity. Experience in Europe with regard to the effectiveness of MARPOL Annex II amendments for products with a high melting point and/or high viscosity (PPR 12/4). 6 The International Maritime Organization approved in 2019, a new item work-stream on the ‘Evaluation and harmonisation of rules and guidance on the discharge of liquid effluents from of Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (EGCS also known as scrubbers) into waters, including conditions and areas’. 2026 is the target completion year. 7 HELCOM Recommendation 10/5, Guidelines for the establishment of adequate reception facilities in ports. 8 Directive (EU) 2024/3019 concerning urban wastewater treatment (OJ L, 2024/3019, 12.12.2024); Directive (EU) 2024/1785 on industrial emissions (OJ L, 2024/1785, 15.7.2024); Directive (EU) 2016/802 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels (OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 58‐78). 9 Ocean Pact https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14474-The-EuropeanOceans-Pact_en. 10 Evaluation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (SWD(2025) 50 final). 11 Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Commission's assessment of the Member States’ programmes of measures as updated under Article 17 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) (COM/2025/3 final).”
  EU ocean policy · Water pollution
• 2025-03-25 “P-001239/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The EU Strategic Projects adopted on 25 March 2025 as part of the Critical Raw Materials (CRM) Act 1 help ensure that European extraction, processing and recycling of strategic raw materials meet 10%, 40% and 25% of EU’s demand by 2030. Independent experts assessed the applications against the criteria set in the Act, including environment, social and governance aspects. Should the Commission assess that a project no longer meets the criteria, the Commission could withdraw its status, taking into account the opinion of the CRM Board. The Commission provided the CRM Board with its assessment of the applications and the Board issued an opinion agreeing with the proposed selection of projects. Strategic project promotors are required to update the Commission regularly on the progress of the project and of any changes affecting their fulfilment of the applicable criteria. Strategic Projects in Natura 2000 2 sites are not per se prohibited. They must be screened and, where legally required, subject to an appropriate assessment in view of the site's conservation objectives. Competent national authorities can agree to the project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the site concerned. If, despite a negative assessment, and in the absence of alternative solutions, a project must be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, Member States must take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure the overall coherence of Natura 2000 and inform the Commission. If the site concerned hosts a priority habitat and/or a priority species, an opinion from the Commission may be required, in accordance with Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 3 . The Commission has adopted guidance on this matter 4 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1252 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1724 and (EU) 2019/1020. 2 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/natura-2000_en. 3 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 4 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/natura-2000/permitting-procedure_en.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2025-03-24 “E-001228/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The rules of the Social Climate Fund (SCF) and those concerning the use of the remaining Member State revenues under the new Emissions Trading System for buildings, road transport and additional sectors (ETS2) are different. SCF rules are more targeted and developed through the SCF Regulation 1 , the recently adopted Guidances on the Social Climate Plans 2 and on the do no significant harm (DNSH) principle 3 . Article 9 of the SCF Regulation allows support through intermediaries, if the entire benefit is passed on to the vulnerable and relevant safeguards are in place. Thus, the investments and measures carried out by the Finnish limited liability housing companies could be financed if they are included the Finnish Social Climate Plan and if a measure can be designed in such a way that the entire benefit is passed on to vulnerable households (homeowners, or renters), e.g. in the form of an improved building standard and reduced heating bills. Under the ETS Directive 4 , Member States must use the revenues for the purposes listed in Articles 10(3) and 30d(6), which include measures to improve energy efficiency and deep renovations. The decarbonisation of heating and cooling of buildings, the reduction of the energy needs of buildings and social aspects are mentioned especially when it comes to ETS2. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2023.130.01.0001.01.ENG. 2 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/document/download/9fbce2e3-5052-4d61-874a54af0c7dbf55_en?filename=c_2025_881_part_1_en.pdf. 3 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/document/download/2f3269ea-fb02-4481-a1d53453ba3172ea_en?filename=c_2025_880_part_1_en.pdf. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02003L0087-20240301.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme · Energy performance of buildings
• 2025-02-28 “E-000884/2025 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission The European Accessibility Act is a Directive with legal base Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Under this legal base, the legislator can adopt measures for the approximation of laws in the Member States, with the objective of the establishment and functioning of the internal market. The related Impact Assessment clarified that there was no national legislation on accessibility of domestic appliances. Hence no barriers in the market due to divergent legislation were identified, with domestic appliances falling outside the scope of the Commission proposal. Nevertheless, the Commission supports the accessibility of user interfaces including by the development of accessibility standards, such as those under standardisation request M587 regarding the accessibility requirements of products and services in support of the European Accessibility Act 1 . These could help manufacturers of domestic appliances to address accessibility of their products. In addition, through the AccessibleEU centre, the Commission supports capacity building and training on accessibility including for manufacturing industries. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/enorm/mandate/587_en”
  EU policy on disability inclusion & accessibility
• 2025-02-06 “E-000551/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission In February 2024, the Commission presented its assessment for a 2040 climate target for the EU and the 2040 climate target Communication where it recommended a 90% net greenhouse gas emission reduction compared to 1990 levels as the recommended target for 2040 1 . As announced in the Commission Work Programme 2025 2 , the Clean Industrial Deal will also go hand in hand with a proposed 90% emission-reduction target for 2040 to be enshrined in the European Climate Law. The indicative date for the adoption of the European Climate Law amendment proposal is the first quarter of 2025 3 . 1 COM(2024) 63 final. 2 COM(2025) 45 final. 3 Annex I to the Commission work programme 2025.”
  Climate efforts
• 2024-12-10 “P-002847/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act 1 aims to ensure a high level of fundamental rights protection and gives special consideration to the use of AI in relation to essential public services and benefits, acknowledging the vulnerability of those dependent on such services and benefits 2 . To that end, the AI Act prohibits 3 AI-enabled ‘social scoring’ practices that assess or classify individuals based on their social behaviour or personal characteristics and lead to detrimental or unfavourable outcomes for the affected persons, when the data comes from unrelated social contexts or the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the social behaviour. Moreover, AI used by public authorities to evaluate the eligibility of persons for essential public assistance benefits and services is deemed high-risk under the AI Act 4 . High-risk AI systems need to comply with strict requirements and public authorities who deploy them must conduct a fundamental rights impact assessment. The AI Act’s prohibitions apply as of 2 February 2025 and the rules for high-risk AI systems as of 2 August 2026. The supervision and enforcement of the prohibitions and rules for highrisk AI systems will be the responsibility of national market surveillance authorities, which Member States are required to designate by 2 August 2025. It will be the task of the competent Danish market surveillance authority to assess whether the system used by the Danish social security authority complies with the AI Act, once it applies. To provide guidance on the AI Act’s interpretation and to support its effective and uniform application, the Commission will adopt guidelines, including on the prohibitions and rules for high-risk AI systems. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act), OJ L, 2024/1689. 2 See recital 58 of the AI Act. 3 Point (c) of Article 5(1) of the AI Act. 4 Article 6(2) and point 5(a) of Annex III.”
  Privacy & law enforcement · Artificial Intelligence
• 2024-11-22 “E-002640/2024 Answer given by Mr Micallef on behalf of the European Commission There have been several efforts to collect data on loneliness in recent years. In 2022, the Commission conducted the first EU-wide survey on loneliness, with findings available on the Commission’s website 1 . In 2018 and 2022, the EU survey on income and living conditions included variables on quality of life, such as social contacts and the feeling of being left out. These variables will be included again in the 2028 survey, with results published on the online database of the Statistical Office of the EU (Eurostat) 2 . Additionally, under the current Horizon Europe framework programme for research and innovation 3 , the Commission is funding a coordination and support action dedicated to loneliness 4 . This project, set to launch in early 2025, aims to identify, organise, and integrate publicly accessible datasets on loneliness, contributing evidence on loneliness and effective interventions 5 . Loneliness significantly impacts mental health. The Commission, through its flagship initiatives of the Communication on a comprehensive approach to mental health 6 , supports Member States 7 in identifying best practices and improving prevention strategies for mental health issues, especially for vulnerable populations. Loneliness will also be an important angle considered in the elaboration of the intergenerational fairness strategy. Finally, in her political guidelines 8 for the new Commission mandate, the President of the Commission announced an EU-wide inquiry into how social media affects well-being. Loneliness is a critical factor in this context. To lay the groundwork for a future EU-wide longitudinal study on social media use, loneliness, and well-being, the Commission will conduct a pilot survey to explore social media's role in loneliness among adolescents. 1 https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/scientific-activities-z/survey-methods-and-analysis-centresmac/loneliness_en 2 Indicators on social contacts and feeling left out are published in the Eurostat Online Database: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database 3 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en 4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/horizon-cl22024-transformations-01-01 5 The project is entitled ‘The loneliness and social isolation in Europe Network: Evidence-based policy recommendation on its causes, consequences and monitoring’. 6 https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/comprehensive-approach-mental-health_en 7 https://mentalhealthandwellbeing.eu/the-joint-action/ 8 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf”
  EU competences on social policies · EU policy on mental health
• 2024-10-30 “E-0002311/2024 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the Commission The Commission acknowledges the concerns raised regarding the Finnish Government’s proposal for an Act on Mediation in Labour Disputes. Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex in matters of pay for the same work or work of equal value. This principle also applies to job classification systems used for determining pay. Directive 2006/54/EC 1 further sketches out the prohibition of direct or indirect discrimination between men and women among others in terms of pay. Prohibited indirect discrimination refers to any provision, criterion or practice which would put persons of one sex at a particular disadvantage compared with persons of the other sex, unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. The current state of the draft law does not allow to assess whether the EU rules on equal pay between women and men for equal work or work of equal value would apply in the current case. Nor does the draft law allow to assess, in case EU law would apply, whether the prohibition of discrimination would be breached. The Commission will closely monitor the developments on this draft law. 1 Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23.”
  EU competences on social policies · Gender pay transparency
• 2024-08-29 “E-001571/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is protected by the Habitats Directive 1 . It is listed in its Annex II as a species of Community interest whose conservation requires the designation of Natura 2000 sites and in Annex V as a species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures. In Natura 2000 sites, Member States must take appropriate steps to avoid deterioration of habitats and significant disturbance of species for which the sites have been designated. They may also decide on additional designation of protection zones alongside rivers and streams, outside Natura 2000 sites. There are 19 Natura 2000 sites designated for the protection of the freshwater pearl mussel in Finland, but none of these sites comprises the population of the freshwater pearl mussel at Hukkajoki river. In addition, the Regulation on Nature Restoration 2 requires Member States to put in place measures for restoration of terrestrial, coastal and freshwater habitats of species listed in Annex II, IV or V to the Habitats Directive, therefore including habitats of the freshwater pearl mussel, necessary to improve the quality and quantity of those habitats, including by reestablishing them and to enhance connectivity. Measures taken to comply with abovementioned legislation may include establishment of protection zones alongside rivers and streams. 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 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.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. Chair. I'm now speaking on behalf of the Greens shadow, Rasmus Nordqvist. Today the Greens will vote against these objections as they are not based on valid legal or scientific grounds to block the authorisation of horse cricket powder as a novel food. All novel food regulation requirements have actually been met. It is safe. European Food Safety Authority has conducted a thorough scientific assessment confirming that the product is safe for consumption. The product is not nutritionally disadvantages compared to conventional alternatives. It doesn't mislead consumers. The scientific name followed by the common name must be clearly indicated in the ingredients list and on the allergenic risks. The European Food Safety Authority has confirmed the likelihood of cross-reactivity with crustaceans, but also noted that there is no evidence to determine whether these products could cause primary sensitization or new allergies. The Commission has therefore introduced a balanced labelling approach Requiring this statement may cause allergic reactions in consumers with allergies to crustaceans and whites. This ensures that consumers are informed without over exaggerating the risk. And all this being said, the opposition to this authorisation is definitely much more political than scientific. Behind these weak and really false arguments, we can observe a strong agri lobby against alternative proteins. Because if you are truly concerned about health and environmental sustainability, you would shift your focus towards alternative and plant based proteins, which offer a much more sustainable future than meat. Thank you.”
  EU policy on novel foods
• “President. Commissioner. The far rise is on the rise and the conservative centre right is enabling this all over Europe. Nazi salutes a bizarre culture wars every day. They are not any accidents. They divert people's focus from painful political decisions restricting workers rights, making access to health care and education harder. Cutting from social security. Reducing the capacity of civil society. Science and arts. Feeding. Misogyny. Racism. Homophobia. Transphobia. And this in the name of freedom of speech. And this in the name of the of the richest getting even more richer. The economy and competitiveness. They also suffer from this kind of instability. They need certainty. So people, let's not be fooled. Let's not get numb and quiet. Let's raise our voices and let's fight back.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• “Commissioner. Colleagues, tonight, 1.3 million people in the European Union do not have a place to call home, not because they chose it, but because politics has failed to provide it. And home is a human right. Yet hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings are living in the streets of our union. The union that preaches about human rights and equality in its affordable housing plan. The Commission has acknowledged the graveness of the problem of homelessness, and I want to thank you for that. But it actually does not provide very concrete measures on how to solve it. So let me help a bit. Housing first principle must be implemented across the European Union, and for that we need a real shift in mindset. We need to put people in the centre, and we need to give them more control over their housing and related support. We need more housing counselling to prevent evictions, more coordinating policies across sectors and investment in professional expertise. And finally, we do need simply more affordable housing. Not speculation, but homes for human beings.”
  EU housing policy
• “Yes. Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your answer. One of the problems here is that by trying to modify something small and then coming to this house, there is a huge risk that these projects might be diluted a lot. And I want you to understand the risk and know that there is always the risk, for example, of the right to couple with the far right. And then a lot of the environmental and climate legislation might be in danger. Um, one big question is also regarding, uh, different, uh, strategic projects. The, the local people support here. So I want to ask you, Commissioner, how do you ensure the public support for the green transition in general and credibility of the union's environmental legislation when these strategic projects go clearly against the will of local governance and environmental concerns are not being addressed before the project selection.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you very much, chair. Dear Commissioner, I would like to start by expressing our strong concerns regarding the announcement in the resource EU Action Plan of a possible revision of the Water Framework Directive. We urge the Commission to refrain from reopening this cornerstone of European environmental legislation. Experience tells us that such a process would almost certainly lead to its weakening. I recognise Europe's strategic interest in advancing projects linked to critical raw materials and green transition. Of course, however, there is no evidence that the Water Framework Directive constitutes a structural barrier, as stated by the Commission's own review your reviews. On the contrary, delays are largely due to limited administrative capacity, insufficient Resources and fragmented implementation across member states, as highlighted by the European Court of Auditors. Lowering environmental standards will not accelerate projects. It will increase uncertainty, discourage investments and penalise responsible companies. Commissioner. As an MEP coming from Finland, I cannot leave the Critical Raw Materials Act unmentioned here. The inclusion of the society in the list of strategic projects is deeply troubling. The project is located in the protected area of the APA, part of the Natura 2000 network. Now. Also, the socially mining project raises significant concerns regarding water contamination of the North River. Which brings us back to the issue of the Water Framework Directive. This is not just about certain mining projects, but it is about the credibility of our whole nature conservation system. So, Commissioner, my question is how does the Commission justify reopening the Water Framework Directive when the real challenge challenge lies in the implementation, and when doing so, risks undermining both environmental protection and long term economic stability? Thank you.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials
• “Thank you. Chair. I would like to have Katrin Langensiepen to be on the third vice president. Chair?”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you to the Commission for the presentation and strong proposals. I would like to remind us all about the fact that our forests are in danger. Years of overlogging have left them in poor state while climate crisis and biodiversity crises are impacting forests in unpredictable ways. For instance, only 3% of the EU's old growth and primary forests remain. Forest monitoring is essential in achieving the EU's environmental objectives and climate targets, whereas updating the Standing Forestry Committee is needed to grasp all aspects of forest policy, including biodiversity and climate. Regarding forest monitoring, it's important that we have frequent and geographically explicit data, including, for example, the location of the old growth forests, for example in Finland. This mapping is far from complete. Lastly, on the Standing Forestry Committee, the Council general approach basically distorts the objective to update the composition and tasks of the committee. So my question is how does the commission see the way forward? And are we are you ready to withdraw the proposal in case your concerns cannot be resolved in the legislative procedure? Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you very much, Chair and dear panelists. Thank you very much for sharing all these good insights to the topic. We all know that much has already been achieved on EU OSH, but, however, there are still a lot of issues that, demand further attention, particularly AI management, psychosocial risks, and mental health at work, as well as climate change, induced impacts at work must be addressed in the new framework with a renewed vigor. And I'm happy to hear from so many panelists, many of these, already raised here. We already have recognition that digital transition and climate change, climate crisis, we can say, have a huge impact on how the world of work changes. But now it is time to go further. Occupational safety and health protections have struggled to keep up, with the evolving risks from climate change, and the severity of the magnitude of its effects on workers is not widely appreciated and understood. Higher temperatures, UV radiation, air pollution, and extreme weather events are impacting occupational safety and health across almost all economic sectors. And the way how EU member states address climate related OSH risks varies considerably. And, I think mere recommendations are not sufficient anymore. The risks must be addressed in a holistic manner. And we are, for example, preparing an EINI report here, regarding extreme temperature temperatures at work. And my question goes to the commission. Will you be using the Quality Jobs Act by the end of the year, to to better address climate change related OSH risks? And then how do these 2 processes also link together, this strategic strategical work and also the whole Quality Jobs act.”
  EU rules on hazardous working conditions
• “Thank you. Chair. I would like to have Katrin Langensiepen to be on the third vice president. Chair?”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much, dear Chair, dear colleagues. The upcoming COP20 meeting on Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, CIDES, will mark the 50th anniversary of this important convention. The meeting provides an opportunity to reflect on the future of CIDES and its capacity to address growing challenges. The Greens will work to strengthen the legal framework regulating wildlife trade and illegal trafficking of species. One clear example of this is to make the EU rules on ivory trade legally binding. The decisions by the CIDES should aim for conservation of species based on the best available scientific information and adopting the precautionary principle. I would like to remind the colleagues in this room today, especially after the recent unnecessary and non-scientific attack against wolves, that the precautionary principle is not just nice to have, but a key principle set out in the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU. The EU is still a major centre, transit point and destination for both legally and illegally sourced wild animals traded as pets. Therefore, we should urge the Commission and Member States to adopt strong measures to put an end to the exotic pet trade once and for all. This is not only a major ethical and moral question of animal rights, but also a question of public health and pandemic prevention. I'm looking forward to working on this resolution together with other political groups. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Dear chair. Commissioner. I will be speaking in Finnish today. Nothing else is as important as a viable planet. That is why it is crucial that the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework leads the way for disposing of all fossil fuels and environmentally harmful subsidies. This has been a clear and long standing objective of the Greens, which we have been fighting for in the recent months, including in this report. Moving away from the fossil fuel economy is central to climate change, but it is also a huge security issue. The EU cannot continue to cling on to fossil energy and put our security in the hands of dictators like Putin. I am looking forward to an ambitious presentation from the commission which shows that this necessary step is possible. Thank you.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you very much, chair. Commissioner Jorgensen, thank you very much for joining us today and for committee. Uh, the Parliament's report, uh, on housing that was just adopted last week, uh, really did fail on some of the major questions, uh, in the European housing crisis, such as the impact of short term rentals and housing speculation, which have a Huge, huge impact on on people and their everyday lives all across Europe. Whether it's Finnish Lapland or it's southern Spain, people are really pushed away to the borders of the cities. Regular people, police, teachers, nurses. They can't afford to live in the city centres anymore. And we cannot only look at this from the tourist tourism point of view. And that is why the word is failing on this part. And that's why I'm asking you, what are your commitments towards these people when you're now preparing for the legislation? And also, what are you ready to and willing to do in order for us to really tackle the speculation on housing market? It's not about people owning three or even more apartments or whatever, but it's about big companies coming to housing markets and really buying a lot from the share and then pushing up the prices. And then also one question was asked before I didn't yet hear the answer on the Affordable Housing Act. So if you could maybe shed a light on it a bit and tell us a bit more what's coming up. Thank you very much.”
  EU housing policy
• “Nature restoration and climate action is expensive, yes, but that is nothing compared to the costs of inaction. This is not an opinion. This is a scientific fact. I would kindly like to remind you, especially the right side of this house, we will not have competitiveness in a dead planet. Lastly, security has risen to the top of the EU's political agenda, and rightly so. The current geopolitical situation is well reflected in the MFF proposal, but one huge security aspect seems to be forgotten. The EU cannot continue relying on fossil fuels. Putting our security in the hands of dictators and funding Putins war on Ukraine. Climate and energy security are closely intertwined and they will continue to be so in the future. Therefore, it is crucial that the next MFF leads the way for phasing out all fossil fuel subsidies and environmentally harmful subsidies. The Parliament expects the Commission to come forward with its planned roadmap in this regard. Dear colleagues, I'm looking forward to the negotiations in good cooperation with colleagues from other political groups to ensure a strong and coherent envy opinion. Thank you very much.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you chair. Thank you to the Co-rapporteurs for for the draft. And I'm reading this short message on behalf of shadow rapporteurs Alan Murray, Peter Hansen. So it is clear that most of us working on this file agree on what is important for the social fund, creating a more just and equal European Union, where we help the most vulnerable and where we fight poverty and social exclusion. It has been a shame that we have spent so much time fighting over what a standalone fund means. We hope that we can find a way to fight for a social union, where the social fund is in central, but not the only idea in the system and economy of the EU where we fight for social justice and inequality. We do not always agree on what the root causes are and what needs to change. As Greens, we hope that we can cooperate in sending a strong signal about the need for a strong ESF regulation, where we secure funding for people in vulnerable situations, for gender equality, for children living in poverty, for lifelong learning, education, for a fair labour market, and for a just green and digital transition.”
  EU expenditure on social policy
• “Thank you very much, dear chair. Dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the team for the draft opinion. The draft opinion entails good elements on addressing the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, as well as water and food security and circular economy. We are in an early stage of drafting the amendments, but here are a few themes that the Greens EFA want to improve. We need an MFF that matches up to our climate ambitions and enables the EU to meet our global commitments. The Commission proposed 35% climate and environment spending, which is an increase from the last MFF. The Greens are ready to increase this percentage, but the most important thing is to ensure that the green spending target is followed through without greenwashing. This is why we need better climate and environment expenditure tracking and mainstreaming methodologies. The biodiversity crisis will only deepen as long as we don't take action. That is why we are calling for dedicated funding for nature to ensure that the EU and member States meet their key legislative commitments, such as the Nature Restoration Law. We also regret that in the commission proposal, the Life Programme for Environment and Climate Action is merged with other sectoral EU programmes and instruments without a dedicated ring fenced budget.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Thank you very much. I will be speaking in Finnish. I'm here. Here. I'll speak Finnish. I hope that people around Europe who are suffering from huge housing costs at the moment. I hope that millions of people around Europe who are suffering at the moment from high housing costs will read this report by Parliament and notice that the big problem in this report is that, according to the report, a greater right is to own a home rather than. Each person has a right To a home for every person. This is a huge problem. And this is all about the story here. That I don't understand why the Social Democrats are voting to support deregulation. More construction won't help.”
  EU housing policy
• “Thank you. Chair. I would like to have Katrin Langensiepen to be on the third vice president. Chair?”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Dear president, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, housing is a human right and we in this House have the responsibility to make sure every single person in the EU has a place to call home. The report we're going to vote on today fails to recognize this, right. Some of the solutions the report proposes are exactly those that have created the current housing crisis all across Europe. Instead, we must put an end to housing speculation. We must invest in public, green, safe and affordable housing. We must end homelessness by 2030, and we must stop short term rentals from pushing up rents. And we must make renovations fair and accessible to everyone. Homes should be for the people, not for profit.”
  EU housing policy · EU regulation of short-term rentals
• “I will be speaking in Finnish. Madam president. The housing committee, having to do with the housing crisis, has heard experts from many different regions and at not at any stage did we receive Information that markets have been able to solve housing crises. We need affordable housing everywhere in Europe now. The commission is actually doing something. It is not doing enough. We believe that we need more legislation. We need more concrete measures. But right wing conservatives are cutting from people's well-being and touching upon people's, uh, level of living. What are you ready to do to improve the situation of people in Europe?”
  EU housing policy
• “Thank you very much, chair. I will be speaking on behalf of our Shadow Kin, and I want to thank the rapporteur for the draft report that can serve as a solid basis for a good report on AI and algorithmic management at the workplace. I fully subscribe to the analysis that the AI act is not dealing with this and that. The GDR, GDPR, with its focus on individual rights, also needs to be complemented. I welcome the call to the Commission to propose a directive on algorithmic management in the workplace. The use of monitoring, surveillance, automated evaluation and other tools is spreading fast across a wide range of sectors. A clear regulatory framework is therefore needed to protect workers rights in the first place, build trust of workers and provide businesses with a fair and predictable environment. The draft directive builds clearly on the architecture of the Algorithmic Management chapter on the Platform Work directive, and this is very positive. We need, however, to ensure the same level of protection for other workers as for platform workers and therefore should avoid leaving crucial provisions out in a general directive on algorithmic management with the Platform Work Directive, an important principle was introduced which also provides more clarity than the GDPR regarding decisions impacting the employment and contractual relationship. These decisions need to be taken by a human being. The current proposal goes back to the status quo and explicitly foresees human review of these decisions, which means that these can be largely taken by an algorithm in the first place. This would be taking a step back on occupational health and safety. We should go beyond a risk assessment approach and make clear that putting undue pressure is not allowed. Regarding transparency, I would like to see a differentiation of the type information given to workers and workers representatives in order for the workers representatives to be able to have a more detailed understanding. The Greens look forward to working with the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs on delivering a solid report with a draft directive on algorithmic management.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you. Chair. I would like to have Katrin Langensiepen to be on the third vice president. Chair?”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you. Chair. Dear Commissioner, according to a summary of the prepared updates of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy, the EU should, and I now quote, aim to boost primary biomass production and its use in products. There seems to be a huge elephant in the room with the whole discussion around bioeconomy. That is the lack of political will to reduce the consumption of natural resources, because we will replace one crisis with another by replacing fossil fuels with biomass. If we don't change our wasteful and resource intensive economic model and move towards real circular Economy. Even today, the ecosystems from which these resources come from, notably the EU's forests, are dramatically overused and planetary boundaries are being exceeded. So my question is, how will the Commission ensure that sustainable use of natural resources within the planetary boundaries are at the core of the new EU bioeconomy strategy?”
  Management of EU forests
• “(17:13:05 – 17:15:38): Thank you, chair, dear colleagues, dear operator. Thank you very much for the draft report. I think this own initiative report comes at a crucial moment after the first challenging phase of implementing the markets in crypto assets regulation and ahead of its review in '27. We have a real opportunity to shape the future of crypto regulation in Europe. Because if we fail to implement our EU crypto assets legislation properly, I think we risk handing over parts of our financial system to unaccountable actors from foreign stablecoin issuers to big tech giants like Meta and Amazon. And this is not just a question about market stability. It is a question of democratic control over money in Europe. The green CFA amendments focus on 4 key priorities. First, enforcement of the existing framework. While MICA is a major step forward, there are clear gaps in the implementation. We need stronger action from the commission and supervisory authorities to ensure rules are properly enforced. This includes tackling circumvention by non EU actors, establishing a functional blacklist of noncompliant entities and addressing persistent anti money laundering risks, especially in stablecoins. Second, stablecoin multiissuance is a critical and unresolved issue. The commission has not addressed it adequately, despite clear risks to financial stability and EU sovereignty. Multi issuance schemes with third countries are not regulated under MICA as it stands. And from a precautionary perspective, they should not be authorized or should be suspended until a proper regulatory framework is in place. And third, we must recognize that the digital euro is a key part of Europe's response to the risks posed by private digital currencies and support parliament efforts in this direction. And fourth, regulatory gaps and the future MICA review. This report should clearly identify what needs to be addressed in the upcoming review to ensure the framework is comprehensive and really fit for purpose. And I'm looking forward to constructive and good cooperation with other political groups here. Thank you.”
  Regulation of crypto