Emma FOURREAU

Policy topics Emma FOURREAU is active on

What Emma FOURREAU has said (39)

• 2026-07-14 “(16:46:48 - 16:48:23): Albania is not for sale. I've come back from Albania, and I've met many residents who are affected by this. There are propositions from the Trump family who are going to destroy this area, and their concerns are very legitimate. Corrupted political system is also part of the cause here. So what they are doing is they're starting to build bridges and roads without any authorization or planning permission. So what they're going to create is a cement city in a protected landscape area. So this will create an artificial city in a protected environment. And this is something which we are firmly against as part of their accession process to the EU. Do you think that plundering the environment is something which the EU should promote or even allow to pass? There is anger all over the place with regards to environmental the lack of environmental action on over 2000 deaths in France in just 1 week. The fires which are ravaging through the Fontainebleau Forest at the moment. But we're too calm. We need to protest more. This is the only planet and the only ecosystem which we have. Thank you very much.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-03-23 “E-001188/2026 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The European Union attaches great importance to the protection of Antarctic krill and to its critical role in the Antarctic ecosystem. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has generally ensured that the krill fishery in Antarctica remains at sustainable levels 1 , in accordance with the precautionary principle and ecosystem approach. Following the lack of agreement during the 43 rd CCAMLR annual meeting to retain a catch limit distribution mechanism, catches are increasingly concentrated in specific areas of the Antarctic Peninsula region, thereby negatively affecting these marine ecosystems, including krill-dependent predators such as penguins, seals, and whales. For this reason, the EU has strongly advocated during the 44 th CCAMLR annual meeting for the reintroduction, as a matter of urgency, of a distribution of the krill catch limit in the Antarctic Peninsula region on smaller spatial and temporal scales. At the same time the EU promotes improvements to the krill fishery management approach including via regular biomass surveys, better data collection and enhanced ecosystem monitoring. The EU also supports the harmonisation of the revised krill management approach with spatial management measures through proposals to create marine protected areas, which would contribute to safeguarding key krill habitats and foraging grounds. 1 CCAMLR decided that the catch will be regulated within a 620 000 tonne ‘trigger’ level, which represents approximately 1% of the estimated 60 million tonnes of the unexploited biomass, or virgin size, of the krill population across four regions in the southwest Atlantic.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries · Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• 2026-03-03 “Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 6.5.2026 Written question In July 2025 the Commission adopted a report on the implementation of Directive 2012/34/EU [1] as amended by Directive (EU) 2016/2370, based among others, on market studies [2] requested by the Commission and official market data. Results show that, where passengers could choose between different operators, railway services became cheaper and more frequent. Market opening encouraged railway operators to become more responsive to customer needs and improve their cost-effectiveness, enhancing the role of rail in accelerating the reduction of transport emissions and congestion. The Commission has already provided comprehensive guidance on how to apply Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 [3] . In 2023, following extensive consultations with stakeholders, the Commission adopted revised interpretative guidelines to take account of the legislative changes introduced by the Fourth Railway Package, including exemptions from the obligation to tender competitively public service contracts in the railway sector. The Commission does not currently envisage the adoption of new interpretative guidelines concerning Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007. In 2016 the Fourth Railway Package completed the opening to competition of the rail services market by introducing mandatory tendering for public services and allowing commercial operators to offer domestic rail passenger services in other Member States. The Commission remains firmly committed to support the rail sector in reaching its growth potential working together with all the stakeholders. [1] Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (recast), OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, pp. 32-77. [2] Input study on vertically integrated rail undertakings in the European Union (2025) https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c503c1d2-5ba3-11f0-a9d0-01aa75ed71a1/language-en, Study on passenger and freight rail transport services’ prices for final customers (2024) https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4ea76998-7955-11ef-bbbe-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. [3] Commission notice on interpretative guidelines concerning Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road, OJ C 222, 26.6.2023, p. 1.”
  EU Competition policy · EU support of rail transport
• 2026-02-20 “E-000729/2026 Answer given by Mr Micallef on behalf of the European Commission The Commission condemns any form of violence, in sport or elsewhere. Under Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, the EU contributes to developing the European dimension in sport, including by protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the youngest. On 5 March 2026 the Commission adopted a new EU Gender Equality Strategy 2026-2030 1 that prioritises ending gender-based violence. It strengthens actions in prevention, protection of victims, and prosecution of perpetrators. The Directive on Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence 2 provides a strong EU-wide legal framework to fight genderbased violence and protect victims, including in sport. The EU Work Plan for Sport 3 (20242027) calls for prevention of harassment, abuse and violence in sport. Measures under this Plan aim to help Member States make the sport environment safer. The High-Level Group on Gender Equality in Sport 4 developed recommendations addressed to the Commission, Member States, international, national and grassroots sport organisations on how to effectively fight gender-based violence. Sport governing bodies have autonomy to independently govern their sport and are responsible for standard setting within the bounds of EU law and in compliance with EU fundamental rights. The EU-Council of Europe joint project All in Plus 5 reported that the proportion of sport federations with policies in place to combat gender-based violence increased from 25% in 2019 to 39% in 2023. Erasmus+ projects address safeguarding standards, such as training for sport leaders, reporting and victim-support mechanisms and guidance for clubs and federations. An example is the SAFE HARBOUR 6 project, which aims to develop a European safeguarding response framework for sport organisations. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/1f5fa936-9fba-4435-93f532fa220bac82_en?filename=gender-equality-strategy-2026-2030.pdf. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1385/oj/eng. 3 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9771-2024-INIT/en/pdf. 4 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/684ab3af-9f57-11ec-83e1-01aa75ed71a1. 5 https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/gender-equality-in-sport. 6 https://www.euoffice.eurolympic.org/safe-harbour/project/.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• 2026-02-20 “E-000727/2026 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission Short-term rentals (STR) offer many benefits, however in some cities and tourist hotspots, limited housing supply growth combined with the rapid expansion of STR as well as speculative investment practices may be intensifying competition for limited housing stock. While the shortage of affordable housing is mainly attributed to other structural factors, increases in STR activity have been associated with higher prices in several European cities 1 . Transparency requirements are already addressed by the STR Regulation 1 , which obliges platforms to provide Member States with data on STR. This regulation will enter into application on 20 May 2026. To complement it and as announced in the Affordable Housing Plan, the Commission will propose an Affordable Housing Act, which will include a new legislative initiative on short-term rentals to enable public authorities to take a set of justified and proportionate measures in particular in areas of housing stress. In drawing up the proposal, the Commission will respect the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. As announced in the Plan, the Commission will also promote greater transparency in the residential property market and will present in 2026 an analysis of housing price dynamics, including available evidence of speculation patterns, data gaps and economic consequences in full respect of the subsidiarity. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1028 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on data collection and sharing relating to short-term accommodation rental services and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 OJ L, 2024/1028, 29.4.2024.”
  EU housing policy · EU regulation of short-term rentals
• 2026-01-28 “E-000344/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Environmental defenders often represent a vulnerable group which plays an important role in environmental protection. Criminal prosecution of individuals for non-violent actions aimed at legitimately preventing environmental harm raises concerns. The EU Strategy for Civil Society 1 as well as the Anti-Strategic lawsuits against public participation Directive 2 reflect the Commission's commitment of fostering an enabling and safe environment for civil society. The Aarhus Convention 3 provides safeguards against penalisation, persecution or harassment for exercising rights in conformity with its provisions. At the same time, the Convention does not establish immunity from criminal or civil liability, nor a right to civil disobedience. The EU is firmly opposed to commercial whaling, as reflected in its adherence to the International Whaling Commission’s moratorium and its rules under the Habitats Directive 4 and Wildlife Trade Regulation 5 . In any event, the EU continues to advocate for an end to commercial whaling through diplomatic engagement and cooperation with Iceland. Under the 2025 EU-Iceland Memorandum of understanding on enhancing cooperation on fisheries and ocean affairs 6 , the annual high-level dialogue will allow for matters related to marine biodiversity including cetacean conservation and welfare to be raised. However, the Commission does not intervene in individual criminal cases before national courts or other national authorities, and Iceland’s decision to allow the hunting of whales falls outside the EU jurisdiction. 1 COM(2025) 790 final. 2 Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’), OJ L, 2024/1069, 16.4.2024. 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/aarhus_en. 4 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. 5 Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1–69. 6 https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/publications/eu-iceland-memorandum-understanding-enhancingcooperation-fisheries-and-ocean-affairs_en.”
  Environmental crimes and justice · Commercial whaling
• 2026-01-22 “E-000251/2026 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The EU has reacted to the situation concerning Greenland, and the related threat of tariffs on six Member States, with determination and unity. This response proved effective in defending European interests and de-escalating the situation. The EU expressed unequivocal solidarity with Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, it stood firmly with the six Member States threatened with tariffs; and it engaged actively with the US on multiple levels. The EU also signalled that it was well prepared to deploy trade countermeasures and non-tariff instruments if necessary. In sum, four key principles guided the response – firmness, outreach, preparedness and unity. This approach proved effective. Looking ahead, the Commission will be guided by these same principles. Going forward, the EU should continue cooperating with the US to advance the transatlantic trade relationship on all issues of common interest. The EU is fully committed to implementing in good faith the EU-US Joint Statement of 21 August 2025 1 . 1 https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/joint-statement-united-states-european-union-framework-agreementreciprocal-fair-and-balanced-trade-2025-08-21_en.”
  EU-US trade relations · EU-US relations
• 2026-01-13 “answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission 16.3.2026 Written questions E-10-2026-000115_EN E-10-2026-000116_EN Under the Critical Raw Materials Act [1] (CRMA), the Commission can recognise certain projects as Strategic Projects. This assessment does not result in automatic funding being granted from the EU and does not result in a permitting decision. Permitting remains a competence of authorities in the countries concerned following EU and national legislation, including public consultations, according to national rules. Under Article 7(j) of the CRMA, Strategic Projects that potentially affect indigenous peoples should contain a plan containing measures dedicated to a meaningful consultation of indigenous peoples and measures to address the outcome of such consultation. The Nussir project application included relevant information on these aspects. The Commission understands that competent authorities in Norway granted the necessary permits to the Nussir project, following an assessment based on applicable procedures. Projects can also focus on substitution of strategic raw materials. The Commission invites stakeholders to submit such proposals. Under the Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026-2027, the Commission will devote EUR 36 million for a topic on research and innovation projects focusing on substitution of strategic and critical raw materials under the topic HORIZON-CL4-2027-01-MAT-PROD-22 [2] . The Commission regularly engages with Sámi communities, notably through the ‘Filling the EU-Sápmi knowledge gaps’ project funded under Interreg [3] with around EUR 1 million budget. This initiative aims to enhance understanding and exchange of experience regarding the impact of EU laws on Sámi peoples and to have a stronger voice within the EU, including through Sámi weeks organised in Brussels or the Sámi-EU strategy. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02024R1252-20240503. [2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2026-2027/wp-7-digital-industry-and-space_horizon-2026-2027_en.pdf. [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32021R1059.”
  EU ocean policy · Sourcing of critical raw materials · EU policy on social & environmental impact of foreign investments
• 2026-01-13 “Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission 18.3.2026 Written question The Commission shares the view that these are very serious issues that need to be addressed in an effective way. On 26 January 2026, the Commission initiated proceedings against the provider of X for that provider’s suspected infringement of the Digital Services Act (DSA). The Commission will investigate if the provider of X diligently assessed and effectively mitigated systemic risks associated with the deployment in the EU of Grok’s functionalities into X, including risks related to the dissemination of illegal content, such as manipulated sexually explicit images and content that may amount to child sexual abuse material, and the actual or foreseeable negative effects in relation to gender-based violence and to the person’s physical and mental well-being [1] . Should the Commission conclude that the provider of X breaches the DSA, it may impose a fine of up to 6% of that provider’s total worldwide annual turnover. The 2024 Directive on combating violence against women criminalises different forms of cyber-violence offences, such as non-consensual sharing of intimate images and of material created or altered to falsely portray someone engaging in sexually explicit activities. Member States must transpose it by 14 June 2027 and ensure its enforcement [2] . The gender-based cyber-violence dimension is also addressed in the newly adopted action plan against cyberbullying [3] . The Commission is aware that Member States and Members of the European Parliament are proposing to strengthen the AI Act [4] to include explicit prohibitions of AI systems producing child sexual abuse material and non-consensual sexually explicit images in the context of the AI Omnibus negotiations. [1] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-investigates-grok-and-xs-recommender-systems-under-digital-services-act. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1385/oj/eng. [3] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/action-plan-against-cyberbullying. [4] 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, 12.7.2024.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion · Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content · Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• 2026-01-07 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 23.3.2026 Written question The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer to Question E-004688/2025 [1] , which outlines the robust framework for lumpy skin disease (LSD) control established by EU legislation, aligned with World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) standards and supported by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessments. Vaccination is an important complementary tool for disease control but does not replace stamping out once infection is confirmed in an establishment. The detection of LSD in a herd indicates that infection is already circulating within the epidemiological unit. In such circumstances, rapid culling of the entire affected herd remains the most effective measure to prevent further spread and to ensure swift containment and eradication of this highly contagious disease. The Commission continually evaluates these measures with the support of EFSA. The existing rules promote emergency protective vaccination while maintaining stamping out as an essential response where disease is confirmed. This balanced approach ensures effective disease control and the preservation of disease-free status in non-affected areas according to WOAH international standards. The Commission's response to P-004688/2025 also outlines the EU financial support available under the Single Market Programme and the measures under the Common Agricultural Policy. [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• 2025-11-11 “E-004457/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission 1. Under the Commission proposal for the EU budget 2028-2034, a new single Fund will finance the Member States’ National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRP Plans), covering different policy areas, including fisheries and aquaculture. In the future, there is a clear shift in the delivery model of the funding. Payments will be made conditional on the achievement of milestones and targets. The legal framework will no longer include detailed eligibility rules. Instead, it will be up to the Member States and regions to implement measures according to their needs and priorities. This should help maximise support for the sector across different funds. 2. The proposal for the new budget includes the principle of ‘do-no-significant-harm’ (DNSH) which will apply to the entire EU budget, in line with the EU Financial Regulation 1 . This principle mandates that all programmes and activities must fulfil their intended goals and set objectives according to sector-specific guidelines, ensuring they do not fund any activities that could cause considerable harm and hinder environmental objectives. 3. The EU strategic aquaculture guidelines 2 recommend that the Commission and Member States support diversification of EU aquaculture to types of aquacultures with better environmental performance and promote the use of sustainably sourced feed ingredients for fed aquaculture. The EU Reference Centre for the welfare of aquatic animals plays an important role to fulfil gaps in scientific knowledge. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/eu-financial-regulation_en. 2 The strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030 COM(2021)236 final.”
  GMOs
• 2025-09-16 “E-003568/2025 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission has taken note of the important matter the Honourable Member raises and acknowledges the related concerns. It is a national competency to prevent the harmful destruction of these contraceptives on the territory of a Member State. The Commission is monitoring the matter with Belgian and French authorities, who have initiated joint diplomatic efforts. Should a solution be found to make these commodities available to lower income countries, the Commission stands ready to explore ways together with partners to ensure that the supplies reach the intended beneficiaries as appropriate. 2. The Commission remains strongly committed to supporting women’s rights and sexual and reproductive health and rights, as recently reaffirmed in the Roadmap for Women’s Rights 1 adopted in March 2025. The EU commitments are supported through policy dialogue and programmes in partnership with different stakeholders to improve equitable access to services and information with a particular focus on women and young people. 3. This commitment also applies to Commission’s policies in the external and humanitarian field, as confirmed in for example the Gender Action Plan 2 , the EU Global Health Strategy 3 and the recent report on the implementation of the latter from July 2025 4 . Investment in this area is a key contributor to health, well-being, and ultimately to sustainable development. This includes supporting access to contraceptives, which has a significant impact and gives a high return on investment and empowers women and adolescents. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/document/0c3fe55d-9e4f-4377-9d14-93d03398b434_en 2 https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/policies/gender-equality/gender-equality-and-empoweringwomen-and-girls_en 3 https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/eu-global-health-strategy-better-health-all-changing-world_en 4 https://health.ec.europa.eu/latest-updates/report-implementation-eu-global-health-strategy-2025-07-10_en”
  EU-US relations · Gender roles, equality and inclusion · EU Development & Humanitarian Aid
• 2025-07-24 “E-003087/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission Glacier retreat is recognised as one of the major climate change impacts in Europe, affecting among others water resilience and biodiversity 1 . Slowing global warming through deep and sustained emission reductions with the objective for achieving climate neutrality by 2050 2 , remains the most effective measure to slow down a further deterioration of glaciers in the EU. Member States also need to ensure continuous progress in enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce their vulnerability to climate change 3 . Permanent glaciers are a protected habitat type of Community interest, listed in the EU Habitats Directive 4 . Member States must designate their most significant occurrences as Natura 2000 sites and take the necessary measures to protect them from any deterioration due to pressures under their control. The Commission considers that these Natura 2000 sitespecific legal requirements are met. Under the EU Nature Restoration Regulation 5 , the non-deterioration requirement for protected habitats (such as glaciers) has been extended to glaciers located outside Natura 2000. According to the Habitats Directive, Member States report every six years on their conservation status and trends. The Copernicus Programme also monitors glaciers through satellite observation 6 . EU provides support to mountainous regions to adapt to the melting of glaciers, among others through Climate ADAPT 7 , as well as EU funding opportunities such as the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the LIFE programme. Support is also given to transnational cooperation in the Alpine Region 8 , among others through the Alpine Convention 9 . 1 European Environment Agency, European climate risk assessment (2024). 2 The European Climate Law https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/european-climate-law_en. 3 See footnote 2. 4 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. 5 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-regulation_en. 6 https://www.copernicus.eu/en/news/news/observer-monitoring-glaciers-space. 7 https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en. 8 https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/countries-regions/transnational-regions/alpine-space. 9 https://www.alpconv.org.”
  Climate efforts
• 2025-06-04 “E-002263/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission 1. The roadmaps are a suggestion on how the Commission envisages that Member States could plan their activities with the objectives of the Marine Action Plan (MAP) in mind. Their submission by the Member States is not a legal requirement. Nevertheless, progress has been made by both Member States and Commission towards the objectives of the MAP. The Commission is in constant dialogue with the Member States to plan and adopt the most appropriate fisheries management measures for the sustainable use of marine resources, even in the absence of a national roadmap. 2. The Commission continuously works with Member States via the implementation of their European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) national programmes, where EUR 50 million has been committed to support gear innovation and bycatch reduction, promote energy efficiency and marine protected areas designation and management. In 2023, the Commission delivered a workshop on funding, and since then has made available over EUR 7.5 million under EMFAF for the development of blue economy skills and sustainable maritime careers. The Commission has also been supporting multi-stakeholder partnerships under the Smart Specialisation Sustainable Blue Economy Platform, developing innovative solutions and future careers in sectors such as the blue bio-economy and smart circular aquaculture. 3. The aim of the Ocean Pact is to bring together all ocean related policies, including the MAP. The implementation of the MAP continues notably through joint dialogue with Member States environment and fisheries ministries, as well as stakeholders, under the specifically established Joint Special Group.”
  EU ocean policy · Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2025-04-04 “P-001394/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission takes its obligations under international fisheries law, including Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) resolutions seriously. On the alleged non-compliance with fish aggregating devices (FADs) design rules by EU vessels in 2022 and 2023, the Commission formally requested further information (i.e. buoy identifiers) from the IOTC Contracting Party that made the claim in order to verify the origin of the FADs. Unfortunately, no response was received. In 2024, the IOTC adopted Resolution 24/02 1 , which significantly improves FAD traceability, assigns responsibility for deployment and strengthens marking requirements. These requirements will allow for the follow up on potential future allegations of noncompliance. On the issue of FAD closures, the EU is, in principle, not opposed to closures, provided they are based on robust scientific evidence. In the IOTC region, only about one-third of tropical tuna catches are made by purse seine vessels using FADs, with the remainder being caught by other gears. As such, a closure limited to FADs would have limited impact. The IOTC Scientific Committee has instead recommended broader closures across all gear types as more effective. Moreover, most other tuna regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) have scaled back their FAD closures due to limited effectiveness. At present, there is no conclusive scientific basis for imposing a FAD-specific closure in the IOTC area. 1 https://iotc.org/cmm/resolution-2402-management-drifting-fish-aggregating-devices-fads-iotc-area-competence”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2025-04-02 “E-001370/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission EU animal health rules for the management of infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) in bovine animals are laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 1 . These EU rules do not stipulate a ‘blanket slaughter’ of an entire establishment of bovine animals when one outbreak of infection with MTBC is confirmed among them. The EU rules provide for a proportionate approach, including derogations for the movement of animals and products from infected establishments. Implementation of those rules is the responsibility of the competent authority of the Member States. In case of confirmed outbreaks, the competent authority conducts an epidemiological enquiry and considers relevant factors to decide on the best way to deal with the situation. They have a margin of manoeuvre to choose from risk mitigating measures, including the slaughtering of animals. Diagnostic methods for infection with MTBC are laid down in Annex III, Section 2 of the same Regulation. Only those diagnostic methods can be used, and the Member States are supported by an EU Reference Laboratory 2 . The EU rules are based on up-to-date scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority, are in line with the international standards 3 , and have been duly discussed with the experts of the Member States, considering also decades of experience dealing with MTBC in the EU. The EU has been funding research on MTBC through its successive Framework Programmes. Under the on-going ICRAD ERA-NET 4 , two projects address respectively the host/pathogen interaction and diagnosis improvement through the use of new antigens and test platforms. The Horizon Europe partnership on animal health and welfare 5 is planning research activities on bovine tuberculosis in 2025. 1 These rules stem from Article 24 with further details in Articles 25-31 of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 of 17 December 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards rules for surveillance, eradication programmes, and disease-free status for certain listed and emerging diseases, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2020/689/2023-10-11. 2 More information at https://www.visavet.es/bovinetuberculosis/. 3 Those of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH): https://www.woah.org/en/home/. 4 https://www.icrad.eu/the-second-call-of-the-era-net-icrad/. 5 https://www.eupahw.eu/.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• 2025-01-10 “E-000081/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The sovereignty of states must be respected. Greenland is an ‘Overseas Territory associated with the EU’, a partnership that showcases Greenland’s importance to the EU. Denmark and the United States (US) have been strong allies for decades and the EU is confident this will continue. On the EU side, the EU will work towards a strong transatlantic agenda with the new US administration. EU-US cooperation and shared leadership is instrumental in addressing global challenges. Together, the EU and the US will address shared priorities for prosperity and international security, reaffirming the enduring strength of the transatlantic partnership.”
  EU-US relations
• 2024-12-09 “E-002835/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) 315/93 1 , the maximum levels (MLs) for contaminants in food are established on the basis of occurrence data, taking into account the ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ principle. In 2022, MLs for mercury in several fish species were revised based on the most recent occurrence data, which showed that there was no margin to further reduce the ML for tuna, which was maintained at 1.0 mg/kg 2 . Therefore, the Commission, while acknowledging that fish consumption has also beneficial health effects, has published on its website general consumption advice 3 related to fish contaminated with mercury and several Member States have issued further detailed consumption advice tailor made to the species which are consumed by their citizens. The Commission would like to recall that the enforcement of EU food safety rules is under Member States’ responsibility. In this context, the Commission has adopted Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/931 4 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/932 5 setting out rules on the combinations of contaminants and commodity groups (including mercury in fish) to be sampled by Member States and the sampling strategy, to ensure that official controls are efficiently targeted in all Member States. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/1993/315/oj 2 Regulation (EU) 2023/915 has codified all existing maximum levels including the one for mercury in fresh tuna. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/915/oj 3 https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/chemical-safety/contaminants/catalogue/mercury_en 4 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/931 of 23 March 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down rules for the performance of official controls as regards contaminants in food OJ L 162, 17.6.2022, p. 7–12 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2022/931/oj 5 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/932 of 9 June 2022 on uniform practical arrangements for the performance of official controls as regards contaminants in food, on specific additional content of multiannual national control plans and specific additional arrangements for their preparation. OJ L 162, 17.6.2022, p. 13–22. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/932/oj”
  GMOs
• 2024-11-14 “E-002534/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Article 20 of the Seveso-III Directive 1 requires Member States to establish an inspection system and a programme of inspections for all establishments. The Lubrizol factory qualifies as an upper-tier establishment under the Directive and must thus be inspected every 12 months. In addition, issues of Seveso inspections and accidents are regularly discussed with the Member States in the Seveso Expert Group to increase common knowledge on good practices 2 . As regards the polluter-pays principle, Article 28 of the Seveso III Directive provides for sanctions in case of non-compliance, by an operator, with the Directive as transposed into national law. The Environmental Liability Directive 3 also establishes an EU-wide liability regime for environmental damages based on the polluter-pays principle, in particular as regard cases of significant damage to species and sites protected under the EU legislation 4 as well as to water and land. This Directive does not address liability for damage to human health or compensations for economic losses resulting from the environmental contamination. The revised Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) 5 also enables citizens whose health is affected by breaches of national measures adopted pursuant to the IED, to claim compensation for such damage if some conditions are met. Member States’ authorities are primarily responsible to ensure compliance with the EU legislation mentioned above, and Commission enforcement action regarding incorrect implementation of EU law focuses mainly on systemic failures 6 . Currently, the Commission is not in possession of information which would point to systemic failures in this area 7 . 1 Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of majoraccident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC, OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 1–37. 2 https://minerva.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/content/minerva/4748cdf1-56be-44a1-9f3bc4e75f319fbc/technical_working_group_on_seveso_inspections_twg_2 3 Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56. 4 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (Codified version), OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7, and 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. 5 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17–119. 6 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. 7 Based on ongoing assessment of France’s national report on implementation of Seveso III Directive for the period 2019-2022.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-10-29 “E-002306/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Firstly, the EU is firmly opposed to commercial whaling, as reflected in its adherence to the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) moratorium and its strict regulations under the Habitats Directive 1 and Wildlife Trade Regulation 2 . Iceland’s decision to allow the hunting of whales falls outside the EU’s jurisdiction. Regardless, the EU continues to advocate for an end to commercial whaling through diplomatic engagement and cooperation with Iceland. While no commercial whaling appears to have occurred, the Commission regrets Iceland’s decision to issue a license to kill 128 fin whales for the 2024 hunting season, especially given their critical role in carbon sequestration and maintaining marine ecosystem health. Encouragingly, in February 2024, an independent review of Iceland’s whaling framework was initiated, and a working group was appointed to assess compliance with international obligations and present policy options. The Commission looks forward to its final report and will closely monitor developments within Iceland. Secondly, the EU is committed to achieving its legally binding climate targets. The climaterelated commitments taken by Iceland in the framework of cooperation with the EU are limited to the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals by sinks as defined under the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and thus do not include ocean-based carbon sinks and pools. 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1–69.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-09-02 “E-001578/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Fitness Check of the EU Regulation on Trade in Seal Products 1 and the EU Seal Pups Directive 2 has been launched to assess whether these instruments remain fit for purpose as to their effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, and EU added value. Such evaluations are common practice in the lifespan of any piece of EU legislation. A report of the Fitness Check performed by external contractors on behalf of the Commission, which is expected in January 2025, will integrate the results of the public consultation and the call for evidence, a factual summary of which is already available on the Have Your Say portal 3 , and of targeted consultations with key stakeholders, as well as own literature review/research to fill possible knowledge gaps. The report will serve as input to a Commission Staff Working Document to be published in the first quarter of 2025. On the basis of the Fitness Check findings, the Commission will consider whether further measures are needed. 1 Regulation (EU) 2015/1775 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 on trade in seal products and repealing Commission Regulation (EU) No 737/2010, OJ L 262, 7.10.2015, p. 1–6. 2 Council Directive 89/370/EEC of 8 June 1989 amending Directive 83/129/EEC concerning the importation into Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom, OJ L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 37–37. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14031-Trade-in-seal-products-fitnesscheck-of-EU-rules/public-consultation_en”
  Commercial whaling
• 2024-08-01 “P-001465/2024 Answer given by Mr Reynders on behalf of the European Commission The European Commission is aware of the case of Mr Watson but does not enjoy a general right of intervention in individual criminal, civil or administrative cases before national courts or other national authorities in the Member States. The Commission is also not competent to review and change the decisions of national authorities. Such powers lie exclusively with national justice systems. As regards the laws applicable to the potential extradition of Mr Watson, it should be noted that neither the EU nor Denmark 1 has concluded bilateral agreements on extradition with Japan. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (‘the Charter’ 2 ) is not applicable to the requested extradition. However, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR 3 ), which Denmark (including Greenland) has ratified, is applicable to extradition request from third countries. Therefore, the human rights regulated by the ECHR must be respected by the Danish authorities when assessing and subsequently deciding on an extradition. 1 Greenland is not part of the EU – it is one of the overseas countries and territories mentioned in Annex II of the Treaties 2 Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1–22. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12007P/TXT 3 https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention”
  EU competences on human rights
• “Putting an end to crime against crime by extending exceptional tech measures that have not proven efficient. We're trying to put an end to the problems by attacking things by the root. We need to put an end to rape culture because anything online hides realities offline. How can we not recall the impunity of the men involved in the Epstein affair, and a system organized by criminals who think they're beyond the law and think that within their rights to abuse children? How do we beat the silence of business managers who sell pornographic dolls? Violence sexual violence against children is endemic throughout society. It's in schools, in locker rooms, in homes. Millions of drummers are hidden and victims need to be heard, supported and followed up. Let us strengthen judicial means to put an end to these networks and let's finance prevention to combat rape culture. Let us stand by victims. You are not alone. We believe in you.”
  Privacy & detection of online child abuse
• “Commissioner, are you a seller of cancer? Last week, the European Parliament adopted the Chemical Products Omnibus with regard to health and the environment. And then the banning of PFAs and endocrine interrupters wasn't adopted because of the right and the far right. We're poisoning people. Cancer is a political disease. It's the disease of capitalism. Since the 90s, the number of people affected by cancer in France has doubled. That's the result of a deadly political choice refusing the ban of PFAs and endocrine disruptors in all kinds of products. You are making a choice. You're allowing industry to profit to the detriment of our health. Mr. Séjourné, when are you going to do away with the Macron ridiculous, ridiculous situation by saying that we need to treat the causes rather than the effects. You have the ability and the duty to do that. And we're going to do that if you don't next year.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you. Mr. Commissioner. So Mattel has done away with 600 600 jobs in Dunkirk. 600 wage earners are going to be losing their jobs. Not because they don't have the qualifications, not because the company is not realizing and achieving economic goals. But they're relocating to Indian. And they are not losing money and therefore they have spent $400 million in dividends. Now, you were in the Socialist Party when a Hollande promised to reopen the Fleur de range. So, Mr. Commissioner, if Mittal has been doing what they've been doing, it's thanks to the European trap you're preparing to prevent companies relocating where the rules are less ambitious. The European Union adopted a cbam regulation, and an hour ago you were going to push back on this. It is up to the EU to be vigilant. But this has brought orbital, uh, to, uh, send out, uh, more metal now to for the transition and steel. The Abi had wanted to lend €75 million to Arcelor, and the company only used a third of that to achieve these goals. And this is what's leading to the situation. There's no ecological transition, national dislocation and job elimination. The private aid for enterprises not being accompanied and there are no specific measures. How can we create 500,000 jobs when the automobile sector can do away with 1500, and ArcelorMittal does away with 600 jobs? Mr. Commissioner, will you finally start protecting jobs and planets rather than profit? Thank you. Would you please not speak so fast? Because the interpreters have asked me to slow down because it's very difficult to interpret.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you very much to the Commission for this presentation and for the publication of this evaluation. That gives us clear ideas about how to proceed in this decisive era before we have the Ocean Summit in June. And this Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which was adopted two years ago, foresaw that the European Union should reach a good ecological status of all of its seas by 2020. Spoiler alert two years after that, we are very far from that. Even though there has been improvement in certain areas, such as the marine litter management. It hasn't been enough to be able to deal with the crisis that the biodiversity crisis and the ecological crisis that we're having. We're at a breaking point in the European Union does not take enough work. Article 17 of the directives is that member states need to review their objectives, their programme and the measures taken every six years, with the goal to be able to obtain the objective of a good ecological state or good environmental status. The report today shows that the tendencies are quite concerning without all of the river basins in the European Union and the Baltic. For example, it talks about a sufficient improvement between 2016 and 2021 with an environmental status which is catastrophic, which is which is connected to eutrophication, pollution, etc. in the Mediterranean over fishing has gone down, but the number of or the most of commercial species are still overfished but.”
  Water pollution
• “Cop 30 is a real success, a real success, that is for multinationals and for fossil fuels. Whereas in actual fact, the world is ablaze. But we're looking to one side. We've got civil society being sidelined and no reference whatsoever to fossil fuels in the final text, and absolutely no progress on the deforestation front. So Cop 30 really has amounted to nothing. The EU has been humiliated. Our governments have refused to support Colombia's proposal to include in the final communique a reference to phasing out fossil fuels. And we now have the macho statements of those who are saying that they're not in the grip of lobbyists, they're just explaining what they do. Whereas in actual fact, for indigenous peoples, this is a matter of life and death. And that is why it was an affront to indigenous peoples that we were making decisions about them in their midst. We therefore have to move away from these negotiation rounds. Cop is no longer working. It's time to change the climate system. Thank you. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Merci. Sean. Kelly.”
  Fossil fuels
• “But as opposed to last centuries where scientific data have been manipulated. Today we know what is actually the truth, and we are just saying that the politicians are not responding as quickly as possible. We have to take the courage to take the decisions to guarantee the benefit of human beings in the future of the planet, and so just letting the multinationals do what they want to do with everything that we know today would be a criminal action. Likewise, the Commission needs to be on the on the side of European citizens and forbid PFAS as quickly as possible, with no exception. Thank you very much.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam rapporteur, I read your objection very carefully. And I think that your argument is bold, to say the least. The Nature Restoration Law was adopted in 2024, which was the result of a long struggle. And it led to a compromise text, which, yes, is imperfect, but is a first step. Its implementation in France is ongoing. And you are right, it's facing several problems. But as usual, you are targeting the wrong ones. The nature restoration plans should be able to rely more on state agencies such as the Ofb in France. You know, this is an organization that the Rassemblement National is calling to be an abolished. Now, the national plans also don't have enough funds. You talk about farmers as well. No, we do not need to increase agricultural productivity. We need to pay farmers more so that they can live a decent life and have agricultural production that respects their health and the environment. And to achieve this, the issue is not to weaken environmental regulations. No, it's to prevent competition with products that do not comply with these standards and to reject free trade agreements. And the left group in this regard, is the only one that has never, ever voted in favour of these agreements, which is not the case of your group, Mr. Rapporteur. So it's nice for you to call for support for farmers. But it's hypocrisy. You don't defend them. Now pitting ecology and agriculture against one another makes no sense. Farmers are the first victims of biodiversity loss and climate change. And we in this respect, payment for environmental services are absolutely essential to enable a green transition that does not harm farmers.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Definition simple A simple definition of the omnibus legislation. For the uninitiated, the European Commission simply bows to the cause of capital, giving in to the demands of the ecocidal multinationals and the far right. Miss von der Leyen will be remembered as the person who simply destroyed all the efforts to achieve environmental legislation worthy of the name, and abandoned good sense and abandoned people and the planet in the name of the market. Like the Argentine fascist Javier Milei and his chainsaw, you're simply unravelling the entirety of the Green Deal. The green taxonomy. Out obligation of transparency. Out due diligence. Out. Carbon border adjustment out. You're simply giving big business carte blanche to pollute and abuse their workers at will. Both in Europe and abroad. Because of your concessions, Sheen will simply be able to continue exploiting its employees with impunity. Lactalis, likewise, will continue to pollute water with complete oblivion.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Commissioner. The EU's position on Cop 30 is a failure. But your failure is a burden on us for the future generations. Your. Your failure to propose a climate law in line with the Paris Agreement. This means that the countries of the Global South assume their responsibility despite their more limited resources. Then you have the sponsors of the Cop total or Coca-Cola, who are grubbing water in Latin America. This is a slap in the face of those individuals who are living in precarious, precarious situations. You agreed with Mercosur. It just means more poverty for European people and devastation for the Amazonian forests. Your failure is condemning the entire world. Europe wanted to be a leader in the fight for the climate. Today, we are adding our voice to those who are afraid and will not stand up for what is right to do. Now the young people went out and came out onto the street to ask for social justice and to fossil fuels. Now, given your inaction, this is something that will, uh, will be seen once again. We'll see you at the People's Summit.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yesterday, a few kilometers from here in Alsace, the authorities stopped 3000 people drinking the water from the tap. Why? The level of PFAS forever. Chemicals which were four times above the maximum threshold. The A commissioner. It's fantastic. Here we have filtered water here in the parliament. But not everyone has this luxury. And if you were drinking tap water here in Strasbourg, you would also be contaminated. However, it's not only in your water, it's in your camera, in your rugs. Pfas are everywhere, and they're not called forever chemicals for nothing. They can take decades to disappear from your body, and they can lead to certain cancers and other illnesses. We need to ban them as soon as possible. It's clear, but the right and far right have tried in the committee to reduce the scope of the ban for PFAS. So I invite on all colleagues, those who really are interested in human health, those who are revolted by this vote, vote for a clear ban on PFAS. And a call on the commission to put forward a draft, a draft regulation to ban this across the EU.”
  PFAs
• “(16:14:02 – 16:15:56): Thank you much indeed, chair. Europe is about to offer an unexpected gift to an industry that relies on environmental destruction, animal exploitation, and colonization. According to the World Bank, more than 80% of deforestation in the Amazon is linked to cattle farming, of which leather is a major economic outlet. Every pair of shoes, every belt, every leather car seat feeds an industry responsible for 72% of deforestation in Brazil. And behind every leather product, there's also reality of an industry that's based on the violence against animals that treat us as made goods. There are energy intensive tanning processes and the use of chemicals that contaminate rivers and affect local communities. The EU can't fight deforestation while turning a blind eye to 1 of its main drivers, and it bears direct responsibility. Last year, it was the 2nd largest export market for Brazilian leather. Several NGO surveys have shown the links between, European leather supply chains, illegal deforestation, human rights violations, and expropriation of indigenous peoples in the Amazon. So def deforestation is ravaging the Amazon and the Gran Chaco, but scientists are warning that the environmental and climate crisis is accelerating. But Europe would like to weaken 1 of the most important laws of the green deal. Excluding leather from the regulation is a dangerous and unjustifiable right given to these operators in the beef sector. Why would we ban beef from a cattle linked deforestation, but also at the same time allow its skin to be marketed? Makes no sense whatsoever. Forests, animals, and the climate can't be sacrificed to preserve the profits of an industry that continues to thrive on their destruction. If we want to be credible in the fight against deforestation, we need to resist pressure from lobbies and keep level within the scope of the regulation. Thank you.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Commissioner. Last March, Brittany Ferries started a practice which had been stopped transporting a are fattening animals between Ireland and France to be sent to the Netherlands. It's animals that are piled up in cages on ferries. And this is against A European legislation which says that veal calves have to be fed after nine hours. I've seen this myself with my own eyes in Cherbourg, where I gave water to terrified, thirsty animals, which, um, um, hadn't been fed. And this was very distressing. Um. Now, I know you don't, uh, value human life, given the fascist regime that you represent in Hungary, but here you're representing the commission. Are you going to do something to protect these calves? Are you going to do something against this maritime company? And then the current reform on animal transport, I would ask you to put an end to, um, live animal transport. Thank you. Stefano. Your final speaker. Thank you chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for being here and coming to our committee. Thank you. Not just for being here, but also in Italy in a couple of weeks ago. And also, I'd like to thank you for your attention that you've paid to, um, of course, um, food and health safety. Um, but also the fact that wine production and wine is not damaging to health. Of course, wine has to be consumed in moderation. This is a very important topic because the wine production sector in our member states is extremely important, not just in terms of its production and for all the workers in the sector. But also culturally, it's important not just for Mediterranean Europe, but for Europe as a whole. So thank you for your attention to that. And we are open to any meetings that you want to have to show that wine does not damage health.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “I'm sorry. The marine habitats continue to be destroyed, and climate change as well has already dramatic effects on marine biodiversity. The lesson that we can draw from this report is that since 2020, member states have adopted two little new measures to obtain this good environmental status of the seas. In terms of marine biodiversity, the progress is much too limited. So what are the European governments doing to react to this and to re-establish or come up with new measures? I've got various questions for the Commission as well. First of all, I would like to know whether or not the the good environmental status is compatible with the use of PFAS and pesticides and more widely with industrial agricultural practices as they're done today in terms of marine biodiversity. The report from the commission also mentioned synergies between the implementation of the directive, as well as the Commission Action plan for the protection and restoration of marine Ecosystems. What does the European Commission plan do to push member States to publish ambitious national plans and propose new measures to protect the marine environments, and to protect as well vulnerable species? And how is the European Commission also going to fund these measures over the next few years, since data are showing that there is a systemic underfinancing of measures in favour of biodiversity, and above all, when will the European Commission stop the improper funding that is going to the marine environments, and how will this be included in the the pact for the oceans? The oceans pact also must make sure that this Marine Strategy Framework Directive is made is put at the very heart of its objectives. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you very much. Do you know the. Factory, or how the industrialists have been manipulating data for years to be. Able to continue to sell these products, which are dangerous both for the environment and human health, for example the tobacco industry, oil industry, or pesticides. For years, Philip Morris knew that nicotine was addictive, but they said the opposite and kept increasing the doses thereof for years. The tobacco cartel knew about the scientific evidence that proved that cigarettes were actually tied to lung cancer, but they hid that information. But with the PFAS, the situation is different because we know this industry has lost the cultural battle. They cannot hide the scientific data that is obvious to all of us. Pfas are everywhere and they are killing us. Bit by bit. And so they're changing their strategy. Now, what they want to do is just to try taking a different, uh, line of attack that we've seen in France, for example, that we have the introduction of the PFAS for certain countries that are producing the Teflon pans, the worst objects in terms of PFAS, because they can be found directly in contact with the food that we're eating. So those must be forbidden as quickly as possible. But in saying that the for that forbidding PFAS would sometimes hurt our companies and they have these absurd arguments because we can. These companies also produce plenty of objects which don't use PFAS in them as well, which shows that they that in the industry is already lying and putting their profit above the health of human beings and the environment.”
  PFAs
• “(11:01:04 – 11:02:32): Thank you very much to the speakers, particularly Jan Ubna, who talked about fish meal and the link to fisheries and the problems for people working at sea for coastal communities. It's a problem, but we continue to import these products to feed fish farms and other animals. Have you actually traced fish meal from illegal fisheries coming into the EU? You're saying that the tools exist and the question is whether they're used. Why do you think these tools are not being used at the moment? I also have a question from Ms. Rupert Russ. You talked about the need to reinforce traceability of fish oil and fish meal. How can that be done? And you also mentioned the reflagging issue, which is common with illegal fisheries. Do we know whether this affects a lot of beneficiaries based within the EU? Is there any way of having an estimate of this? And you also talked about vessels who fished illegally and then reflagged. We now see the krill fisheries is increasing, and it threatens ecosystem. Do we know what the situation is with legal fisheries in those areas?”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Your group voted against this in the National Assembly. Now, to respect farmers and the planet, we need the fast and fair implementation of national restoration plans. This is why you want to actually stop restoration of nature in, um, in the countries. So as I say, these national restoration plans need to be implemented fast and fairly. This is why we will vote against your objection. Thank you very much. I have listened to the political group. So now give the floor to the commission to Mr. Humberto Delgado. Rosa. Sorry. I'm sorry. There was another request for the floor. Sorry I didn't see you. What are we talking about here? Every day, 50 animal and plant species die. And butterflies that no longer fly. It's also about food security and about healthy soils. But what about the future? This is a waste of time from the populace. They just want the attention. So, colleagues. Really? We should be thanking this law. Europe must be a place where brave people make decisions, and this is what we need to do in the future as well. I would like to thank one person who really made a difference. I am from Austria. Leonore Gewessler, our former agricultural minister, did a huge amount of work on this and therefore helped the whole of Europe. We should need more people like Leonora and no more Le pens and no more Viktor Orban. We need to strengthen the future of Europe together.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Why bother watching a match? Why streaming with a pixelated image? Glitches? Spending an hour trying to find a site that actually works, and trying to shut down all the pop up ads when it's actually on TV? Well, perhaps because in France you have to spend €50 for French football every month, €35 for Champions Leagues, €30 for Grand Slam, 20 for rugby and 15 for handball, etc. for years now, we've seen a growth in pay for subscription TV and more and more TV rights, and this means that they're also dictating the sporting calendar. And sport has shifted Second Division matches to Friday night or hurting the sport. But instead of banning criminalising, we should promote accessibility. It works. M6 broadcast the finals of the African Cup of Nations, meaning that 3.5 million people tuned in live. And after we saw the Paralympics in Paris on TV, the number of licenses in para sports have increased 21%. That is a consequence. Tv has an impact on sports, so TV should encourage all sports also. Women's sports England invest ten times more than France in women's football. At matches are broadcast on free for free and they are two times European champions. We need visibility in order to make sports popular. We also need funding, so we must encourage sports, make it available instead of just fighting piracy. Thank you.”
  Broadcasting of sports events