Emma WIESNER

Policy topics Emma WIESNER is active on

What Emma WIESNER has said (53)

• 2026-06-17 “(15:03:30 – 15:05:00): I don't understand what we are waiting for. Of course, we need to electrify. That's what's needed for our job, economy, for climate. And, of course, we need electrification targets. Otherwise, Europe completely lags behind globally. But I have to address something very important. If we are to electrify the system completely, the system needs to work. And right now, the German electricity market is not working. This been going on for too long. The catastrophic situation on the German electricity market now impacts the Swedish consumers. The Swedes in the South ends up paying unacceptable high energy prices as a consequence of German energy policy. That ends up impacting the acceptance of EU's electrification. I beg to you, please take care of your problems. Split Germany into bidding zones so that electrification gets the chance to actually work. I'm referring to you, Germany. Please listen. Thank you very much, madam. $3,000 a 2nd. That is how much the fossil fuel companies earn. This is”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• 2026-06-17 “(15:13:36 – 15:14:11): Andrea, we share the same passion for electrification. I have no doubt. But the latest analysis from Acer is really showing that the German electricity market is not functioning well. The preferred design of the market would be to split Germany into 5 pricing zones so that we have proper pricing reflecting the actual situation in each of the different parts of Germany. Why is this not happening? Why is Germany not listening to the advice from the European agencies taking this into account so we have a functioning electricity market that we need in order to electrify?”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• 2026-06-15 “(19:20:57 – 19:27:38): Thank you, so much, Cher. And 1st of all, I also want to thank you for excellent cooperation, last week during the trial logs. So thank you so much for that. Colleagues, now we will discuss the proposal for a new regulation that touch upon something fundamental, how European Union gets things done. This regulation is covering actually most of the aspects that are interesting, permits, infrastructure, green transition, and competitiveness. And the Draghi report was clear. Lengthy and unpredictable permitting processes is a core obstacle for our transition and our competitiveness. And now we have the possibility to change that narrative. Often, the European Commission as well as us in this institution ask for shorter timelines for permits and faster permits. And it's easier to say that things, should be fast. It's harder to do something about it. And with this regulation, we actually have the chance to do something about it and speed things up. My draft report that you will consider today and that we will discuss, in this committee of speeding up environmental assessments build on 3 core principles. 1st of all, technology and sector neutrality because we should not build policy on political cherry picking. We need faster permits for all sectors. Secondly, adaptive timelines since 1 size does not fit all. And thirdly, digitalization, not for the sake of it, but for build the foundation for fully digitalized and interoperable systems that we believe that those simply are faster. So the most significant changes proposed in the draft report, it's the deletion of article 14 and annex 1. This is the 1st, major change and the 1st principle that I established in the draft report. This, this article and annex establishes a toolbox for strategic sectors that give them axe access to accelerated procedures. And the reasoning, behind why I'm doing this, deleting this is simple Because there is no established legal definition of what constitutes a strategic sector, and it's a borrowed concept for other legislations. I'm of the full belief that we need faster permitting in all sectors. All permits needs to be faster. And we have discussed it with several actors, and they mean that this article risks creating a 2 tier system, 1 fast track for the politically blessed sectors and 1 slow track for the rest. But as we all know, sectors and actors are not stand alone silos. They rely on output and input from each other. And with a 2 tier 2 tier system, that would undermine the integrity of our business ecosystem and opening the door for supply chains that risk breaking down due to political interference. Our position from Renew is that all projects should benefit from a uniformly faster, more predictable framework for environmental assessments. And that's exactly what the rest of the articles of this regulation establishes. So if we do a good job in the rest of the text, it should be no need for this strategic and or nonstrategic sectors. And that brings me to the next point, the smarter timelines. This is the 2nd item that we're considering in the draft report. Commission proposal introduces preset maximum deadlines at EU level to be applied in the same way across all member states in all industries in all projects. And this is a nice political message to send, but we doubt that it will give the attended out the intended outcome. Instead, we propose a more flexible system, which still would create the predictability that the actors, stakeholders, companies, industries, and businesses are asking for. So the competent authority should communicate a project specific timeline at the outset of the scoping phase calibrated against national standards from comparable projects in the past. This approach creates accountability as the authority commits to a specific timeline for a specific project, and it's based on the national administrative experience and does not risk leading to authorities declining an assessment just because they're running out of time. A number of days, 30 days, or 45 days, it sound good, but it's very, very hard to interpret equally for all type of projects. So we made sure that the request also for additional information in the process after the original opinion must be duly justified, ending a common practice that fragments the process and causes delays where authorities ask for more and more information and data. And lastly, the final, point is that we have strengthened the commission proposal on the digital aspects. We see that member states, should have the possibility to go fully digital when they're ready, not only to speed up processes, but to also, a way of making process more transparent and predictable. And for this to happen, we need to make sure that there's a standard for interoperability, and that information is produced in the same format, and it's machine readable to allow authorities to communicate better. We also propose that the single point of contact should include an advisory function to achieve support for the project developers. I know that there are other critical points in this report. We have to discuss the, in the upcoming months, not to lead to access to justice that is impacted by several measures and have I mean, environmental standards are impacted by others. However, I'm not worried. I know that we in this house, with the help of our shadow repertoires, will find a balanced compromise. And instead, I want us to focus on what's positive effects we can create with this regulation for industries, but also for a climate impact. Faster, more predictable, fair environmental assessments, upgrading the workings of authorities by helping them implement digital systems in the process becoming more efficient and strengthen competitiveness without political cherry picking. We can make sure that the European Union get things done. Thank you.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “I agree with President Macron. The energy transition is too slow. The pathway towards new mines is too slow. Reducing dependency on fossil fuels is too slow. Building Europe's competitiveness is too slow. And one of the reasons is because the lack of predictability that we are creating in this House, the political uncertainty, is actually influencing our businesses. But second of all, it's also because of costly, long and complicated, overdue permitting processes waiting several years for a no. It's not a reality that we should accept, not when we know that investments are needed to create change and growth that we very much need in Europe right now. So to all of you speaking and listening here today. As rapporteur for the commission proposal on speeding up environmental assessment. This is my invitation to you. Assessments that take too slow, too long. We can solve that regulatory overlaps. We can solve it all unclear rules. We can solve that too. Now we have the chance to do something about it. We should take it. I am ready to do the job. The question is, are you. Thank you.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “Thank you, Sharon, and thank you, Commissioner, for being with us here today. I would like to begin with the issue of animal welfare. And as you know, this is a topic that's been on the agenda for many years. We also raised this frequently during your hearing and during the last mandate. We were promised full revision of the animal welfare legislation. However, that did not materialize. And as far as we have heard from you up until now, the vast majority of the revisions will not take place until earliest the next year, which is, uh, and I think I speak for many in this House. Very disappointing. There are still many areas where we need to strengthen animal welfare in the EU. For example, when it comes to the unfair on farm animal welfare, the species specific legislation and also the labelling. So my question is what is the Commission roadmap for the animal welfare? What would it look like over the coming months and years? And which key initiatives will you actually propose and when? And I ask you by purpose, to be very specific and concrete on this one.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “Thank you so much. And I agree with previous colleagues that this is indeed a very worrying, uh, signal, not only for the sake of the climate that I'm worried, um, and the maritime emissions, but also this worry for the EU unity when it comes to to combating climate change, uh, jointly. So my first question is to the Into the commission. I mean, considering that the EU countries were divided and split on this, and that indeed also affects how strong and forcefully we can act in these negotiations, how are discussions going now with the EU member States not supporting the IMO agreement? Because I think that is a really important lesson to be learned. Second of all, I think it's really, really important to acknowledge the fact that we now have an emission trading scheme for the maritime sector and how important it is that we continue this phase in of maritime emissions in the EU, ETS. Um, my question is, how has that been reflected upon in the IMO discussions, that risk of fragmentation that there is because, I mean, we know it's not perfect when we Europe, one region in the world goes forward and puts emission trading on the table, whereas the rest of the world does not, has that the risk for fragmentation been touched upon in negotiations because, um, and I think that's also something can be used towards the member states that are questioning this. I mean, we put forward maritime in the ETS when there is a lack of a global system, and we want to see a global harmonized non-fragmented carbon pricing for for maritime. And as long as we don't have that, we in Europe feel really feel the need to do something about the maritime emissions. And that's why we have the ETS. Um, how is that seen upon in the IMO, um, discussions? Um, and also just a strong message and request from my demand to really, um, value the enforcement now of, of the ETS for the maritime. Thank you.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “Thank you. Chair. This summer not only brought us fire in France and alarming water scarcity in Stockholm, it also brought us new research papers on how the Gulf Stream is becoming weaker. The likelihood of change direction has increased, and the timing is so much sooner than we thought. These risks are fundamental to our way of living in Europe. That is change, And I don't understand how one can learn this without reacting at the same time as these reports are coming, we're discussing the new climate targets and preparing for the global climate conference. Cop 30, in Berlin. And we desperately need leadership. Us has left the table. It's time for EU to step up. So we need a 2040 target and industry needs a 2040 target. That's what they're asking for. But instead we're coming there empty handed. So how can we then also say Parliament should not have a role in this? It's our role as politicians to take responsibility. And for me, it's insane that these two things are happening at the same time. The conclusion is the Paris Agreement would not be possible today. This generation of political leaders does not have the boldness that it takes. And my encouragement to you, negotiators in this room, please prove me wrong. Thanks.”
  Climate efforts
• “So here we go again. I still don't understand. We have. Fertilizers are dependent on oil and gas. Oil and gas prices go up. Fertilizer prices go up. And what do you want to do? Continue using fertilizers from oil and gas. How will that solve Europe's fertilizing problem? How will that make fertilizer cheaper for our farmers? We need the green policies. We need the Green Deal to transition to the sustainable, the cheap fertilizers. But you are rejecting all of the alternatives. How will that lower the cost for fertilizers.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “But with your side of the house, this part of the house needs to understand. It's the dependency of coal, oil and gas that led us here. That's why we are in a situation where we are today. That's why the prices are skyrocketing. Coal will not be a nice teddy bear. You can go to whenever you have a problem. It is the actual problem. The coal, oil and gas is the main cause of the energy price problem that we are facing today.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Where is the climate leadership? I am genuinely worried that the Paris Agreement would not be possible today. The climate leadership has disappeared. Our next climate conference is approaching. But the EU is still empty handed. Where is our climate target? Where is our contribution to the global Cop agenda? And at the same time, country after country failed to reach their climate goals and they are all pretending that there is not a big deal. But the targets of Sweden or Denmark or France, Romania, Bulgaria and Germany, they sum up to the EU target and the EU target is aligned according to the Paris Agreement. So when your country fails on your national targets, you're failing on the EU target and you're betraying the Paris Agreement. I am going to Brazil with a clear message to Ulf Kristersson and the other heads of state and government, who avoids responsibility. It's time to wake up. It's time to show leadership and show that your supporting the Paris Agreement. And to you, Hoekstra, good luck in Berlin. And it doesn't make sense that the global stocktake only takes place every fifth year. This House demands more frequent follow up.”
  Climate efforts
• “Uh, deferring entirely to horizontal data legislation may leave gaps that open data directive was never designed to fill. That is why we have read the proposal carefully. Uh, we have, um, tried to identify room for improvement and see where simplification can take place and where we need to be more cautious and readdress some of these gaps. The draft report takes the following approach. Support simplification where is genuine but retain targeted, proportionate inspire specific requirements with nature of environmental. Spatial data demands it. This includes measures such as ensuring interoperability of data standards, the requirement of sharing data among public authorities as it is already done today. So we want to do simplification, but we don't want to disrupt the functioning of the inspire as it is operating today. And that is why we are reintroducing some of the measures. I look forward to working with this file. It's also linked to the other simplification packages in the omnibus. I look forward to working with the colleagues on this one, but also on the other file, and to a constructive dialogue on how we strike a balance between simplification, but also interoperability and well functioning of data sharing across the member states when it comes to environment. So thank you so much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Colleagues. We are facing a very serious situation. The war in Iran is sending shock waves into our energy system, causing prices to soar, and we need to be prepared. The petroleum populism isn't working. Our best way to prepare is finally phasing out fossil fuels for real. But we are not delivering. Renewable energy is taxed the same way as fossil energy in this union. Biofuels have the same tax as diesel and biogas is treated the same way as natural gas. This is not a bug. It's a feature in a system that we built. I'm ashamed that the energy tax directive is designed to lock us in into our fossil fuel dependencies. Totally irresponsible. The opposite of what we need to do right now. So thank you, Commission, for raising this issue. But it's now to the member states to finally do something about the energy tax issues. The farmers in the EU want to do more. The Swedish farmers are ready to make a difference. But for doing that, they really need a real market for biofuels. And we need to stop protecting the interests of the fossil fuel industry once and for all. Thank you.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Fertiliser prices went up because the street was closed, and we are dependent on oil and gas and this trade to produce the fertilisers. That's why the prices went up. The price went down during this time. This is why we have this crisis. Why don't you want to take us out of these dangerous dependencies? I don't understand that.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “I've got a message for you. The climate deniers and the climate delayers of this house. You who love to blame the electric vehicles for everything. You blame them on higher energy prices and lack of competitiveness. Well guess what? You are the ones to blame for the higher energy prices and the lack of competitiveness. You are so stubborn. But the logic isn't there. First you say it isn't true. Then science comes and proves you wrong. Then you say we can't fix it. There's no technical solutions. Then industry comes and gives you the technology and shows that it's possible. Then you say it costs too much. It will be too expensive. Then businesses come and show you the business case. They show you that it's done and it's possible that it is feasible. And then you say it's too risky. But you know what? You are? The ones hesitating. You are the one that creating this risk for industry. When you're drawing back on policy after policy, your dependence on dirty energy, your refusal to let go of old fossil energy. That's what driving up prices and that's what's causing us lack of competitiveness. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “You said me, right? Sorry. I listened to the translation. It was a bit late. Thank you so much, Commissioner, for being here. But thank you particularly for being in Santa Marta last week. I think it was incredibly valuable that we showed leadership that Europe sent you as our highest climate commissioner, really to be there. So thank you so much for there for that. And a big warm thanks. Uh, on ETS topic, I think we need to say it as it is, the ETS is under attack and messing with ETS. It's a little bit like peeing in your pants. Short term, it might be nice and warm, and you show industry and EPP that you are doing something about it long term. It risks creating a real mess because the whole benefit of ETS is it long term predictability. And I don't want to create a big mess for the future because we are the ones that need to clean up afterwards. When all of these short term fixes to ETS. The short term fix to MSR. A little bit of additions of allowances here. We don't do the benchmarks as we would have in in April. They're still delayed. All of these things, they bulk up and create this huge uncertainty and uncertainty. Stability was always the biggest benefit for industry when it comes to ETS. So my worry is and my question is, aren't you worried that all of these short term, quick fixes of ETS really disrupt this long term, robust, predictable system that we have built for years? **Pierfrancesco MARAN @Chair Thank you for Sandy Thomas.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “And my follow up is not really a question, but rather something to to food for thought. Also in the upcoming revision. And that is the the carbon contracts for difference where ETS is really linked also with industrial policy. And one of the difficulties we have in this union is how to support the green industry and the green transition. Um, we have a lot of investment support, but we don't really have operational support. So we are very CapEx heavy and opex not so much. So how can we work with that? And in the last ETS revision, carbon carbon contracts for difference was introduced as one of the measures to really support industries that are relying on the CO2 price to be, um, to be a driver for their sector. And that is something that not yet been implemented. European investment Bank would be a good consideration for. For introducing carbon contracts for difference. Um, I hope that that is something we can see in the coming um revision to use that as an instrument also in the industrial policy, much more so that we avoid ending up in this situation again.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “Will there be a review closer to 2036 to assess whether the credit system is robust enough to be included and in the 24 day target. As as we have seen, it's not included in the recommendation. Recommendations from the scientific advisory Board. And will the international credits be relying upon the certification framework that we in this House decided upon, together with the other two institutions, the Carbon Removal Certification framework, because now we're talking about international credits, but the criteria of those is yet very unclear. And the last question is, I'm sorry, I'm speaking too long, but the other speakers did the same earlier. In addition to the international credits to the ETS system, it's crashed the carbon price. For almost a decade. It slowed down in domestic climate action and investments. Why isn't it clearly stated in the recitals and the amendments that we will not repeat this mistake crashing the ETS system, making it collapse? Will the inclusion of the international credits in the 90% target affect the ETS system at all? And have you done any assessment of this? Have you had any Correspondence with expert on it. And could you, in that case, share it with us before the summer recess? Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you so much, sir. I'm speaking on behalf of John Gerbrandy that will be shadowing from our New Europe group. Uh, so I have his points, but I must say, I fully support, uh, my shadow on this because in renew, we welcome a science based target of 90% by 2040. We need much stronger policies to get there and keep working on emission reductions. Uh, and let us be clear. 85% of the citizens feel the same way, and they want us to do more climate action. And that is why, just as myself have a lot of questions regarding this proposal, and it can be summarized because you will hear he had quite many questions. But to summarize is basically why did you stop following the science? Why did you stop following the scientific advice? So first of all, the international credits. How did you reflect upon the report of your own scientific advisory board that states that we should have 90 to 95% domestic reduction goal in order to fulfill the Paris Agreement? And what reliance on the international carbon credits would be a good instrument to complement that goal? How did you decide upon doing that? Did you do an impact assessment on what the 3% of international credit means for the EU 2040 net emission reductions? And does it mean that the net emission reductions in 2040 will be 30% higher than this estimates suggest? Can you confirm that that in 2040 it will actually be an emission increase within the EU of more than 30%? Another question the criteria for international credits are not yet clear, and we have heard that also today.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you so much, colleagues, for all of your comments to answer. A few minutes from the Greens. We do see the same issues with article 11 and 17 on the interoperability and the framework for sharing of of data. And that's also what we target in this draft report. The same with the water resources and the sensitive data relating to our water and water infrastructure. The same goes for there for article 13. We also addressed that in the draft report. Um, other than that, I want to be very swift and just say I look forward to the future work. I'm glad that we're sharing the same Ave on providing good environmental data with good standards. Make it available, shareable and reliable. Thank you so much and I look forward to continue working on this.”
  EU policy on water management
• “Thank you so much for for this presentation and for being here. But I am quite astonishing what is actually being recommended here. I'm not questioning the science on which this is based, but it's just so evident that the science and the numbers that we are looking at here. It is not enough. It doesn't cover the complete situation of the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea. And as the Commission is underlining in your report and has been raised by science researchers and the scientific advice all across the Baltic Sea, the maximum sustainable yield does not cover the full stock condition of this Baltic Sea. We see that older individuals are much smaller, and that the only way of recovering to have decent fishing of herring in the Baltic is to put quotas to a bare minimum. This was also the Commission advice. The last time you were here gave us advice, and now it's not only race to quotas, it's actually been tripled, tripling the quotas for me. I just don't see how this sums up how that can be called the responsibility and taking responsibility of the fish stocks. So the conditions are are alarming Um, and we know that. I mean, for the last 30 years, the fish stocks have been under the minimum levels, and that the numbers since 2020 are hugely uncertain. How can we still then now recommend increasing quotas with a factor of 108% in the central for the central herring? Um, for me, for me, that's completely unreasonable. And I'm wondering, within the current framework, what can we do to better take all of the factors into consideration when recommending new quotas? Or is it only the review of the CFP? That's the only way forward here. But there must be something we can do when the numbers are so uncertain and when the scientific base is simply so uncertain. Um, that's my both remark and question. I also have a second question is regarding the Russian fishing in the Baltic Sea, and if the Commission has any way or estimate of the control of the outtake from the Baltic Sea, from Russia and what has been done there since the war in Ukraine. Thank you so much for being here. Very important discussion.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you so much. And thank you so much, Mr. Moolman. And, um, I'm very much emotional by your presentation. I'm much more touched than I thought I would be. I've heard this before over and over again, but thank you for putting it out there so much in black and white for everyone to hear it, because this is what we have seen, what we have witnessed, what we have said a thousand times this year only, but also last mandate in this committee. And I think your summary that the Baltic Sea map had largely failed. That's the key takeaway of today and that we all in this room are responsible for. So this is a crisis meeting for everyone. Welcome. This is a crisis call for the Baltic Sea. And I'm really glad that you are here and making this presentation. My questions are to you. Can you be as concrete with your three most critical recommendations on how to fix this? How we fix the Baltic Sea map in the future? What are the three measures we need the most? And now I'm looking at the commission behind me. I asked you already last mandate, when are you going to review the Baltic Sea map? And you never expressed a need for it. You never acknowledged the fact that the Baltic Sea map was not working. We asked also this year in several sessions and hearings, when are we reviewing the Baltic Sea map? And there is no response? Can we now at least agree, since we have a Baltic Sea map that largely failed, that we will now review it. Very clear, yes or no question.”
  Water pollution
• “Thank you so much. Coming from DG agri, you are fully aware of the challenges, the many challenges that farmers face in Sweden. Most of the farmers are also foresters and our forests are generally referred to as the farmers Bank. Without the income from the forest sector, a few major investments would be made in new stables, new techniques or increased animal welfare. It's essential for the farmers to also have the forest as a potential income stream. The current insecure global geopolitical situation. The trade wars, climate crisis are affecting our forest sector negatively and even more so in the longer term perspective. So how can the Commission help mitigate the long term risks risks facing foresters? But maybe more specifically, how will the upcoming bioeconomy strategy deliver on the promise of alternative income streams? How will you balance the increasing need for biomass, the income stream for the farmers and the other values that the forests and foresters have to produce? Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “(09:50:35 – 09:52:56): Thank you so much, chair. I think the greatest sign that the ETS is being successful is the fossil crisis that we are in and the report showing that if the ETS was not active these past 20 years, the situation would have been much worse and energy prices far higher in Europe. For more than 20 years, there has been a clear investment signal, a well-designed, transparent, clear system in place that has been driving investments in many industries. I'm really glad to have guests here representing those industries, cement, steel, mining, etc., where industries have been acting upon this signal. My worry and alarm bell goes off when people want to redesign the whole system or change its fundamental core. We saw on one of the slides that we should not have ETS; we should have a carbon tax instead. That was tried more than 20 years ago, but with the consensus in EU policies, it was found impossible. This was the system that we chose, and I think we should definitely stick to it and defend it because it's driving a lot of good change in Europe. My questions are to Mr. Tamcia from the chemical industry because you are one of the loudest industries right now in Brussels asking for redesign and reshaping of the industry. You say that you have a very hard challenge lying ahead. My questions are just to understand your perspectives better and to listen to your perspectives because I want to understand why just the chemical industry is so concerned at the moment. I have three questions. What has been done in terms of investments in the chemical industry since 2005 when this system was launched? What emissions are hardest to abate in the chemical industry and why? And how is the access to capital to reduce your emissions? How would you find that situation? Is it easy to access the capital to do the changes? Or is that also one of the reasons, of course, that changes have not been done? Because you have been living with this system for more than 20 years, and I'm wondering what has been done when now the time it's been in place.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you so much, chair. And thank you, Minister, for both being here, but also for hosting us in the Fisheries Committee in Denmark this spring. It was very much appreciated. I almost feel rude adding another question to the list, because I have no idea how you will answer all of them. But I still have to do it because the forest monitoring legislation, um, you presented a mandate in council, and the response from the commission was that a threat to withdraw the entire legislation based on what was decided in council? And to me, that kind of behaviour is quite unacceptable. You were there, Democratic leader. We are here as democratic parliament and we have to also work with the proposals, even though they're not going in the same direction as the Commission wants to. So my question is how will you defend your mandate in council when it comes to the forest monitoring law, making sure that the Commission do not withdraw the proposal because we need it, if we're going to make sure we have member state influence over the EU forest data, we need this directive to make sure that it's built on national competence and the national forest data, just like you are doing it in the Council mandate, just as we in this House are working on it in Parliament. Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you so much. Vice president for for being here for coming to this committee. And I also must say I appreciate this ping pong, even though it raises a lot of emotions. I think it's very useful to also get some answers. Colleagues before me have asked about the emission trading scheme and that is exactly what I also want to focus on, because it's heavily attacked right now by industry, by leaders of this union. Um, people that were supportive of the emission trading scheme are now backing down. And my question is then how how do you work to remain support of the ETS? Because I am very worried that we're making a big mistake here, shooting ourselves in the in the foot. If two large changes of the ETS are proposed is a little bit like peeing in the pants. Uh, it's short term. Uh, it could be a smoothing effect. And it feels very nice. But in the long term, I think we really risk creating a big mess and meaning that if we dismantle the ETS, we have no tools to get rid of our fossil dependencies. And we see now the result of being heavily addicted to fossil fuels for that, due to our industry, the vulnerabilities that are created. Um, and the price hikes and so on, So long term, we really risk locking ourselves into these dependencies for much longer than than needed. So increasing the support of the ETS is really something that that is needed. Um, so my first question is how do you work to, to remain that support? And secondly, other expectations that we can foresee on the coming revision in Q3 this, this year. If you have any more insights or you want to give us what to expect in the upcoming revision period.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you for sharing this evaluation. Very timely. Also in the start of the mandate to have an overview like this. And I mean, it also really shows the many challenges that we stand against as policy makers to better improve the state of our oceans and our fishing sector. But in regard to the policy recommendations, I clearly see a pattern is what being recommended on several occasions. The report mentioned the increase of economic support and especially the direct support for green transition and digital transition, so on within the Fisheries and Common Fisheries Policy. But also outside of that, and I know it's not very popular at this stage to be very frugal and careful with with the spending, especially of the EU budget. But I also think it's a risky approach to always count on budget support and and public money to support the sector. I would rather see a more market based approach where also the fishermen can stand, stand and be economically viable themselves, and that we need to improve the system so that they are financially stable, even without direct income support. Um, so I want to ask you about that in this regard, how can we ensure that the operators of the blue economy are economically viable long term without those investments? And if there are any specific policy advice that are not financial support that you would like to highlight or mention. You have several here, but is there something you see as most critical elements to have a financial viable situation for the fishermen across the EU? That would be very much appreciated. So thank you so much for this study. And I think we have a lot to to continue the work on.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• “Can we now agree that the Baltic Sea map should be reviewed. Second question to the commission what are you going to do with these results? Are you going to re-evaluate your proposal that came last week for the tax in the Baltic Sea? Because the central the central herring tax are unchanged. You listen to us. For many of the regions in the Baltic Sea and the herring quotas has been reduced, but not the central herring. And looking at the two tables we saw today, central herring is largely endangered and the stocks are worse off than ever, and we leave the quotas unchanged. So how are you going to take these new results and implement it in the work that we're doing today? Because quotas will be decided now in October, and we have a chance to actually use the results that were presented today. So that's the second question to the commission and then to my colleague in EPP. I'm really glad that you're here representing the right side of this Parliament. You asked who is not following the quotas. And I think this is not rocket science. This is not about quotas not being followed. This is not about the fishing sector doing wrong. It's the quota system that is creating this mess. It's the quotas that are wrong. So the problem is not that quotas aren't followed. The problems are the quotas. Thank you and sorry that I have to round, but I will listen to your answers. And my team is here and I will listen to them afterwards. But I have another meeting. I'm sorry.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Dear Vuk, I remember your first hearing. I was sitting over there where Lisa was sitting before, and you were here presenting your views for this Parliament, asking for our trust. And you said that you will deliver a minimum target of at least 90% reduction by 2040. Then we have your political guidelines again stating 90% emission reduction target for 2040. The Commission Work programme for this year says that the Commission shall propose 90% emission reduction target for 2040. Then we have your hearing for this year in November, where you again said a net 90% emission reduction target for 2040, in the climate law. And then the communication from February for the Commission that says that in line with the scientific advisory Board, the Commission will present a 90% emission reduction target. I don't know how to interpret this, because the Scientific Advisory Board says that the science based target is 90% domestic reductions. And then we have the climate law again stating 90% domestic reduction target. So I don't know how to interpret this or I know how I interpreted it then, and I know how this House interpreted it. Then when we had your first hearing and your second hearing, you got my trust, my trust to deliver a science based domestic reduction target of 90%. That's how I interpret it. So my question is very simple. Can I still trust you or have you fooled me?”
  Climate efforts
• “(11:56:57 – 11:57:23): Yes. Thank you, Sarah. I have a point of order because I just want to address that a colleague titled our speakers as lobbyists. And I wanna stress that questioning or mocking experts from organizations that we as a committee, our coordinators jointly invited, is really not appropriate behavior for this committee, and I want to apologize to the speaker, for questioning your, expertise. Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “The second topic is the topic of enforcement, which is a constant point of discussion where we can do much more while waiting for new regulation to come. We have heard from you previously that this is an area that you have, um, placed strong emphasis on. So until the revision of animal welfare is complete, what actions will you take in order to strengthen the enforcement of the existing animal welfare regulations? And finally, a topic related to this, which is the, uh, antibiotic resistance, um, and combating the, the Amr. Um, this is very much linked to the animal welfare issue. But as long as we're not strengthening and enforcement enforcing, but also improving the rules that we have when it comes to animal welfare, there is an overuse of of antibiotics. And as this regulation is delayed, what actions are you then planning to take when it comes to combating antimicrobial antibiotic resistance? Um, when you're not delivering, uh, on the animal welfare topics, what is the plan then to strengthening and get rid of of the issue of Amr. Thank you.”
  Antimicrobial resistance · EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “The EU is not fighting fossil fuels themselves, but the emissions they produce. That was Ursula von der Leyen said last week. I am sorry, honourable President, but I do not agree. We are fighting fossil fuels. They are the reason for the global warming and the climate crisis that we are in. And it's outrageous to state otherwise. More than 80% of the world's energy is still fossil. 68 of the energy in the European Union. Last week in Belgium was a disappointment, but we in the EU have a homework to be doing and a reason to be self-critical. We needed a good deal. Ten years after the Paris Agreement and what did we get instead? I am sorry, Commissioner, but I think the support for the fossil fuel roadmap was too weak and we were disorganized in the European Union at the table of the Cop. Or why else would EU countries sign different proposals at different times in the first call to end the era of fossil fuels? Italy and Poland was missing in the second call in the coalition of the willing. We are missing 18 countries. Where are Sweden? Where are Germany? There are so many EU states member states missing. We are completely disorganized. If Council had not focused only on our own 2040 target, maybe we could have prepared better for the most important climate conference since 2015. So I am disappointed, but I am most disappointed with our climate ministers and with the Commission president. Why would Ursula von der Leyen make such a statement undermining the negotiations on the spot in Belgium at the G20? That is, for me, completely Lately on not understandable and we elected from the lion with a promise to deliver on climate. I am still waiting for that promise to be delivered, and the next meeting in Colombia in April would be a good opportunity for our Commission president to do so. Thank you.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Here we go again. We have had another summer with record of forest and wildfires. Almost 1 million hectares have burned this year. At the same time, cities like Stockholm have faced severe water shortages. And this week, more regions in Sweden are hit by devastating floods. New studies from this summer also shows that the Gulf Stream might collapse within our lifetime. Climate change is here and now, but where is the political response? Where's the climate leadership? What are we doing in this House? We can't even agree on a 2040 target. A new climate target in between two existing targets. We don't even have the leadership for that. So I'm turning to you, EPP, the conservative group of this House. My very cynical conclusion is that with the current climate climate leadership, the parents agreement would not be possible today. We don't have leadership enough, but I'm looking to up. You can change this. Please show us leadership. Don't hesitate. Don't join forces with the climate skeptics. You see, it's expensive. But this change, this climate change, that is what will be expensive and that is what will ruin us. Please show us the leadership we need.”
  Climate efforts
• “(11:09:08 – 11:11:23): Thank you so much. Anyone believing that Europe will be competitive, that our industry will be competitive with the power plants and industries that we built in the 1950s and 1960s are fooling themselves. We will not compete with US and China with the old industry and the traditional industry we built up after the Second World War. Our industries also need investment to be modern and to develop, and to be competitive with the rest of the world. I just wanted to have that said, that competitiveness, well, it's really about modernizing industry and being in the forefront. And that's why I really like the intervention from LKAB hearing that the mining industry is really taking it seriously and how much a stable carbon price is needed for industry in order to do these investments and to have a clear signal to go ahead. Because I think that's the only way of our mining and steel industry, cement and chemicals, to be competitive with the rest of the world. So my question is first to LKAB. Can you elaborate a little bit on the contracts, the carbon contracts for difference that we introduced in the latest ETS reform and how such measures can help you to take these investment decisions? Because we have a carbon market and the market is volatile. How do you see that we can use instruments like the CACFDs to provide a stable investment tool for you? And my second question is to the ERCOSS Institute. I really appreciated your very clear recommendations and this message that we're so close to an oversupply of allowances and that we were in that situation for almost 10, 15 years before, and that was not a successful ETS. So I really like your recommendations, but I also appreciate what is not in your recommendations, and that's the international credits and the Article 6 credits. Can you elaborate on the risks that you see, including these international Article 6 credits in the emission trading schemes, that I know that you and ERCOSS have done studies on? What are the main risks and challenges with these types of inclusions? Because that was clearly not on your wish list, and I appreciate that you were very clear on your recommendations. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you so much, Sharon. Thank you to the Minister for Commission for for being here. I look forward in meeting you all in Santa Marta and discuss how we can make this a successful conference. Colleagues, this is it. This is the meeting where we finally can address the elephant in the room without worrying what the big countries will say about it, or veto any results of the conference. I think this is extremely important moment that we should seize the countries that want to take responsibility on global level, on phasing out fossil fuels. This is the time where we have the chance to be concrete and to be specific and to be ambitious. Things that we haven't seen much of in the last Cop meetings. So I am very Positive going there with a very positive feelings to Santa Marta. And I really hope we can make this a success together. But in order to do so, I have two questions to you. Dear Minister, how will you define successful outcome of this conference? How do we develop the Belém Declaration into a commitment into something that is more detailed, a roadmap that is clear and that has timelines? What's your position or what would you like to see? In order to, to measure this as a success? And how do we get there? And to the commission, the Belém Declaration on Transitioning away from fossil fuels was not signed by the EU.”
  Fossil fuels
• “But it also shows a bad signal to the EU citizens if we show up with the NDC that they have not approved, if you only do it, the only way of doing it is a fast track through this House, without the debate, without amendments that would also be really, really bad. And you put us in a very hot or difficult position here where we want to agree on something really fast, but we also don't want to show up empty handed. And I think that is the responsibility of the commission. And that is what I would like to hear. Also from Hoekstra. Why did you put us here in these shoes. Because we are a legal institutions, we are a part of the EU institutions and we should have a say and we should have a debate and compromises and discussions in this House. And we should go to trialogues and then negotiate with council. We should put that in a position where that's completely impossible if we don't want to show up empty handed in Belem, and I don't think that's fair.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “On behalf of Renew Europe Group, we also support the S&D request for a secret ballot. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: Since we have more than five members of the committee calling for a secret ballot, we will now proceed on this nomination. Giuseppe. We will proceed with the secret ballot. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: The Secretariat is telling me that each member has one vote and the distribution is seven for EP, five for PS, three for Patriots, three for ECR, three for renew, two for the Greens, one for ESPN, one for the Non-Aligned and two for the left. The NI candidate gaining the majority will be appointed, including only votes in favour or against, and. We will use the electronic voting system to proceed with our secret ballot. The green button means in favor of the candidate. The red button means that you are against the candidate. So please insert your cards in the voting machine and abstentions will not be taken into account for calculation of the majority. But if members Uh, wish to abstain. Nevertheless, they can use the white button. So the green button means that you are in favor of the candidate. The red button means you are against the candidate. So we are now voting on the nomination for the second vice chair. You may proceed to vote. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: EPP has one vote too many. So someone who is a substitute seems to be voting in addition. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: Right? Moving on then. Nominations for the post of third Vice chair.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “On behalf of Renew Europe Group, we also support the S&D request for a secret ballot. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: Since we have more than five members of the committee calling for a secret ballot, we will now proceed on this nomination. Giuseppe. We will proceed with the secret ballot. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: The Secretariat is telling me that each member has one vote and the distribution is seven for EP, five for PS, three for Patriots, three for ECR, three for renew, two for the Greens, one for ESPN, one for the Non-Aligned and two for the left. The NI candidate gaining the majority will be appointed, including only votes in favour or against, and. We will use the electronic voting system to proceed with our secret ballot. The green button means in favor of the candidate. The red button means that you are against the candidate. So please insert your cards in the voting machine and abstentions will not be taken into account for calculation of the majority. But if members Uh, wish to abstain. Nevertheless, they can use the white button. So the green button means that you are in favor of the candidate. The red button means you are against the candidate. So we are now voting on the nomination for the second vice chair. You may proceed to vote. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: EPP has one vote too many. So someone who is a substitute seems to be voting in addition. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: Right? Moving on then. Nominations for the post of third Vice chair.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “It was signed by individual member states, not even all member states. So my question is, what have how what was the preparations in working with Council going to this conference. How? What have you been done in the past weeks in order to ensure that the EU could go there with a strong message? And how will we stick the union together, the member States together in order for making EU been able to sign the outcome as the United Union. How do we get all the member states on board? I think it's very important. We didn't do it last time, but after this meeting, in this conference, we really need to stick together as a union if we want to send a strong message. Thank you.”
  EU foreign policy approach
• “Thank you. Well, it's evident that my colleagues from the far right sees everything in black and white. But the world is not circles and squares. The square of our industry exists, namely on the circle, and that circle being the sphere which is our planet. So indeed, you can't separate the two of them. And that's why your portfolio, dear Commissioner, is so important that we stick to the environment and climate agenda, which is so important for our industries. I have three questions to you. The first one being the water resilience strategy. We see many clear connections to the Cap, to the common agricultural policies. Many technical solutions are necessary and needed within our agricultural sector. How do you work with Commissioner Hansen to make sure that we also have the right funding and tools in order to be more water resilient in our agricultural sector? Because just pointing out that we need to save more resources will not do. We also need the funding and the tools, which I think can be found in the cap. The second question is PFAS and I think you are working on it. I think that answer is not good enough. I think this in this House, we will continue to ask until something is actually delivered. So I have to mention PFAS again. Some colleagues have raised it. Will you propose a ban on the forever chemicals And when can we expect you to doing so? Please give us more update than that. Not just that you're working on it. And then secondly, the Green claims and the forest monitoring framework. These are two proposals made before the simplification agenda. How are you working with your DGS in order to instruct them to also help on the simplification? These are two files I'm working and struggling with at the moment, and it's clear that we need also commission assistance in simplifying these two proposals. Thank you.”
  PFAs
• “On behalf of Renew Europe Group, we also support the S&D request for a secret ballot. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: Since we have more than five members of the committee calling for a secret ballot, we will now proceed on this nomination. Giuseppe. We will proceed with the secret ballot. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: The Secretariat is telling me that each member has one vote and the distribution is seven for EP, five for PS, three for Patriots, three for ECR, three for renew, two for the Greens, one for ESPN, one for the Non-Aligned and two for the left. The NI candidate gaining the majority will be appointed, including only votes in favour or against, and. We will use the electronic voting system to proceed with our secret ballot. The green button means in favor of the candidate. The red button means that you are against the candidate. So please insert your cards in the voting machine and abstentions will not be taken into account for calculation of the majority. But if members Uh, wish to abstain. Nevertheless, they can use the white button. So the green button means that you are in favor of the candidate. The red button means you are against the candidate. So we are now voting on the nomination for the second vice chair. You may proceed to vote. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: EPP has one vote too many. So someone who is a substitute seems to be voting in addition. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: Right? Moving on then. Nominations for the post of third Vice chair.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “This regulation will demand more robust inventories, more on the ground data collection to validate the data about our forests. So in order to comply with these new monitoring requests. What financial support or what support and technical support will be given to the Member States that need to update and develop strong, national, stronger national forest inventories? I think that's something that we will need to have in mind. And also regarding the trust of the Council in this process. The second topic I would like to bring your attention to is that the foreign forest monitoring law ties on to several other laws, such as the Nature Restoration Law, the Carbon Removal Certification Framework, Lulucf, and so on. And considering that similar indicators that are now mentioning in this forest monitoring law, we see them in other regulations with slight changes in definitions. And this may increase the regulatory and administrative burden, but it also doesn't create a level playing field and policy overlaps where different indicators are described in different regulations. So I think that's something we need to keep a very close eye to. And this Parliament try to improve in this law. And my question is then to the Commission why they have not chosen to harmonise the indicators in these related laws. And I think that's something that we in this House to keep an extra eye on. And I worry that the implementation may be unnecessarily difficult and costly because we are not streamlined ourselves. So lastly, I would like to thank the Commission for the preparation of the proposed amendment on the Standing Forest Forestry Committee, and I look so much forward working on this file to clarify and strengthen the governance of forest policy and work together with the other political groups. Thank you so much.”
  Management of EU forests
• “What is even happening here? Every day since the start of the war in Iran, Europe has been paying an extra half €1 billion for fossil fuels every day for nothing. That's €3.5 billion only for this week to fossil industry for nothing. They're robbing us. Without the emissions trading scheme, we would have been in a much worse situation. Report showing that without the ETS, we would have rationing fuels to European citizens by now. We would have had much more dependent on the fossil industry that is now robbing us. Ets is not the cause of the high energy prices is the way out of them. And this is what we need to do is not more of this nonsense criticising the ETS. We need a plan to phase out the fossil fuels. We need to stop subsidizing them, stop supporting the industry that is now holding a gun to our head, robbing us. We need to stop calling for the suspension of ETS. It applies in this House, but also to the various nervous governments around Europe right now to Austria, to Italy, to Germany. Enough is enough. Stop questioning the best climate tool, the best anti fossil tool that we are having. I had enough of it. You want to stop this, I say I want to stop you. Stop questioning the way out of this dangerous addiction. Stop holding the fossil industries back because they are robbing the citizens of Europe right now. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Dear. Uh, apologies for being late. Um, I had other commitments in this house, but I assure you that being co-rapporteur for these two very important files is top of my priority for this, for this fall and for the next coming year. And I look very much forward to working with the political groups in making this file the best that they can be. Because the European experience in forest monitoring is diverse and rich. Some parts of the Union um research has been collecting information on forest health, growth and coverage for more than 100 years, and in others, this fast developing sector provides new insights for both researchers and society. So this is a very varied field, but of a very large importance. So one thing is sure as forest researchers grow more important, and especially in the light of the green transition, but also climate changes, it is vital that we, as policymakers have access to information that can guide our decision making. And I think that's again underlining the importance of this file. First of its kind. The forest monitoring will provide us with more information, but we also need to make sure that that information is robust, that it is safe, it's secure and also do not add unnecessary administrative burden for our member States. We need to make sure that the information gathered is accurate, that it's validated, and that we have robust data that we truly can rely on. And I therefore would like to ask the Commission two specific questions on the content of the proposals, either to be answered today or later on in the process as we as Parliament move on, trying to put forward our amendments on this file and improving it from our perspectives. And the first one is the support given to member states that needs to update and develop stronger national forest inventory.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Soil and water. Some people think that's all you need to produce food, but you need to provide sustenance for the soil in the form of fertilisers. And that's incredibly expensive. Now, our farmers deserve a lot better than having their livelihoods. Uh, impinged on by dictators. We are still too dependent on fossil fuel dependent fertilizers. We're seeing that Russia is still providing the most ammonia and potassium. We cannot accept that our food production is so vulnerable to Russia. And it's not just an agriculture issue. It's a question of strategic resilience and food security. So where's Europe's production? I've talked about this issue so many times. Every day without sufficient production in Europe is a failure to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and imported fertilizers, not just a question between competitiveness and environment. Is that the solution to both of those? And that is to help farmers because they need it and they deserve it.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you very much. We cannot ignore the elephant in the room. The EU Commission is proposing real cuts in the budget for our farmers. Up to 30% could disappear. This is money that's really needed for the next generation of farmers. It's about putting food on our plates. It is about the economy and our farmers. We know that prices are going down. There's very bad competition conditions that farmers are dealing with. We're told that we need a self-sufficiency in food sovereignty. All of these buzzwords. But then we see all of these proposals that are going in the opposite direction. We had farmers protesting on the streets of Brussels. But where are the protests against the Swedish government? Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “So? So, do I understand you correctly? That we are in a situation where the oil and gas prices are skyrocketing because of the war in Iran and the situation in the Middle East. And what you want to do is to take all of the climate policies that are to take us out of this dependence on fossil fuel. You want to remove them and then continue using oil, gas and coal. How will that lower the energy prices for the European consumers? It's the dependency of oil, gas and coal that makes energy prices skyrocketing at the moment. I don't understand the logic here.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you so much, chair. And thank you so much to the rapporteur for the draft report. I really look forward to working together on this proposal. The Energy Taxation Directive is the last part of the Green Deal package. And it's about time we get some clarity, because to be honest, the energy taxation of the directive today really is a mess. Sending such a backward signal to also the agri farm sector that we are putting the same tax level of fossil fuels that we do with the sustainable alternatives that we do with the biofuels and and all of the alternatives that we have to fossil fuels, and that countries that want to go on lower tax level have to apply for Are exemptions and creating a very, very short term predictability and also a clear market risk for those producing the sustainable fuels. So today's energy taxation is absolutely not fit for purpose. How about the proposal? Well, I was a bit shocked when I see how the Commission clearly favours electrification, rather than looking at all possible alternatives to fossil fuels, creating bio fuel economy and the bio economy, a second class renewable source treating renewables from biomass and bioenergy differently than other renewable fuels.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Thank you so much. And I've been thinking a lot about the global competitiveness and the reason why EU is lagging behind and have less productivity. But at the same time, we also have higher environmental and social standards. And I was just wondering why why they're not label of origin is a part of the policy recommendations. And that would also give a clear understanding for the consumers that they are buying EU products, and also the benefits that that comes with that. Whereas now it's very unclear for the consumers or in the retail sector to actually know where the products is coming from. It's clearly within EU competence, the internal market and so on. So I'm just wondering maybe I missed it somewhere here, but I was wondering if that's something that you also assessed or if or if it was assessed, but it's not here for other reasons. I was wondering why. Why it was not part of the policy recommendations for us and for a new. That's one of the clear instruments that we want to see to really raise also the awareness and also increase incentives to buy European. So thank you so much.”
  EU policy on country of origin food labelling
• “On behalf of Renew Europe Group, we also support the S&D request for a secret ballot. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: Since we have more than five members of the committee calling for a secret ballot, we will now proceed on this nomination. Giuseppe. We will proceed with the secret ballot. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: The Secretariat is telling me that each member has one vote and the distribution is seven for EP, five for PS, three for Patriots, three for ECR, three for renew, two for the Greens, one for ESPN, one for the Non-Aligned and two for the left. The NI candidate gaining the majority will be appointed, including only votes in favour or against, and. We will use the electronic voting system to proceed with our secret ballot. The green button means in favor of the candidate. The red button means that you are against the candidate. So please insert your cards in the voting machine and abstentions will not be taken into account for calculation of the majority. But if members Uh, wish to abstain. Nevertheless, they can use the white button. So the green button means that you are in favor of the candidate. The red button means you are against the candidate. So we are now voting on the nomination for the second vice chair. You may proceed to vote. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: EPP has one vote too many. So someone who is a substitute seems to be voting in addition. **Carmen Crespo Díaz @Co-Chair: Right? Moving on then. Nominations for the post of third Vice chair.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you so much, Commissioner. And I will actually follow up on one of your last remarks that you did. Commissioner, it's time for you to give some real response about your plans on the updated animal welfare regulation. My party, the Centre Party, have asked for a regulation on updated animal welfare standards in the EU for more than 1015 years. The Swedish farmers have asked for this for more than 1015 years and December. You say you couldn't confirm any policy options considering the scope and content, and I applaud your DGs thorough job in preparing this regulation. But at this point, it's turning into a joke when year after year after year. He always says it comes next year. It comes in six months. It comes at the end of the year. The reason why we ask for this, it's not only that we have food that have been produced at the standards that consumers can feel comfortable about. It's also the unfair competition among the farmers across the member states, among the producers of food, but also the need to reduce antibiotics use. Increased animal welfare is strengthening the one health, reducing dependency on antibiotics. It's indeed a competence of this committee not only food safety but also the one health approach. So as it is now, I want to have some clear answers from you. Will you present a legislative proposal later this year? That's my first very clear question. Second of all, can we expect this proposal to include not only targeted amendments, but a comprehensive overview of the animal welfare standards in the union? Because that's what being asked for. Not only from the Swedish farmers, but also from the Swedish people. Thank you.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers · Antimicrobial resistance
• “Thank you so much, chair. I am very pleased to present my draft report on the Commission proposal to amend the inspire directive. Inspire has been a cornerstone of the European environment data governance since 2007. The directive was the first of its kind and have a great importance for the development of digital infrastructure, and for nearly two decades it has broken down barriers at national level, making sure environment data easier to find, share and use across the union. The commission proposal come as a part of the Environment Omnibus Simplification Package Omnibus number eight, and forms the legislative core of the Green Data for all initiative. The aim is to strengthen inspire by removing technical requirements that now overlap with the horizontal data framework and in particular, the overlaps with the Open Data Directive. As a rapporteur, I broadly welcome this direction to duplicate obligations. Serve no one, not the public authorities, not the data users, not the environment. So aligning inspire better with the Open Data Directive framework. Makes absolutely sense. Um, and so does the goal to reduce administrative burden across the union. We in renew our very supportive of of that overall. But on certain points the commission proposal goes too far and risk removing core instruments that ensures the inspires effectiveness.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Well thank you. We need to talk about PFAS. Those are forever chemicals created by human beings and impossible to eliminate. The unsustainable situation Is that substances of this nature are available in many of the products that we consume. It's negative for human beings, for animals, and they accumulate in nature. And we apparently can't do anything against this problem. About 30% of our lakes are affected, and more and more food contains PFAS. All of us sitting here in this hemicycle, and those of us listening to us, are also aware of the fact that they have PFAS in their blood. We need to really try and tackle this problem. We need to slowly eliminate PFAS. What we start need to start doing is a ban, a ban on PFAS, and we don't need to discuss whether there's any positive part to this PFAS. I think we need to put an end to this attitude and we need to act immediately. Thank you so much.”
  PFAs
• “(10:55:49 – 10:57:17): You very much. Thank you, chair. I would also like to thank the speakers. Thank you for coming today to talk to us about this essential topic. We all agree that IUU fishing is something that must be combated, but we do need to ask ourselves an uncomfortable question. When we look at the list of countries with red cards, we see there are small countries with limited control capacities. And behind many of these illegal fisheries activities, there are complex networks involving reflagging and shell companies, and often they don't reside in those small countries. For example, take Cambodia. There's an investigation or let's take Cameroon. It's very revealing. Fourteen vessels with Cameroon flags were actually owned by EU member states, and these vessels were involved in IUU fishing. This is something that we really need to underscore. If we want to fight IUU fishing, we shouldn't go just to the flagged vessels, but we should follow the trail to see how they are funded and get to the root cause. So my question, in addition to sanctioning flag states, what other measures are you taking to really persecute and to prosecute the real criminals who are behind these opaque networks? Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries