Rasmus NORDQVIST

Policy topics Rasmus NORDQVIST is active on

What Rasmus NORDQVIST has said (57)

• 2026-06-17 “(09:53:08 – 09:54:45): Thank you. Dear colleagues, commissioner, counsel, The multi-annual financial framework is a political statement about what kind of Europe we want. It's up to the pro-European groups in this parliament to ensure that we live up to this responsibility. When it comes to the green transition, we cannot afford to go backwards. What's proposed by the council with a 35% climate spending target across the MFF, it's not ambitious for the sake of the ambitions. It's a bare minimum. We already see communities and citizens paying a very high price for the climate crisis, led with this coming budget limits further cost for humans and economy. The same goes for the do no significant harm. Let's make sure it's not just a little box we tick, but actually a tool to ensure the money goes in the right direction. Same goes for rule of law for our fundamental values. Let's make it count. The overall size of the MFF must be ambitious. A weak budget delivers weak policies. And we cannot cut back when it comes to the green action or when it comes to our most vulnerable citizens and community. They depend on EU investments. Finally, council, when you sit around the table and negotiate the coming MFF in the meeting, don't forget you have to agree with us in this house. And that also comes on our shoulders, dear colleagues, that we actually look at each other, the pro-European parties, and live up to the ambitions we have for a strong Europe and a strong budget. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts · Size of EU budget
• 2026-03-04 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 21.5.2026 Written question The Commission monitors Member States’ transposition of the Single-Use Plastic Directive (SUPD) [1] , including on extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, and takes appropriate action. Enforcement of EPR under the SUPD lies with Member States. The SUPD does not set requirements for ‘legacy gear’. The Commission's evaluation of the SUPD, due by 3 July 2027, will assess, inter alia , EPR schemes for fishing gear containing plastic and their impact on collection rates, and also if EU policies outside of the SUPD (e.g., the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF) [2] , the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) [3] and the Port Reception Facilities [4] ) provide incentives for the collection of waste fishing gear containing plastic. The Commission has no plans to mandate financial contributions for proactively retrieving ‘ghost gear’. The EU does address marine litter resulting from the fisheries sector through targeted actions funded by the EMFF and EMFAF, as shown by a recent report [5] . The EU fisheries control framework does not mandate digital marking/GPS tracking of fishing gear, and the Commission has no current plans to establish such requirements. Vessel-based obligations, including specific requirements to report and, if feasible, retrieve lost gear, and the obligation to carry retrieval equipment ensure control and traceability. Vessels must report gear info at departure, during fishing, and upon return to port. Fishing gear must be visibly marked for inspection. Digital solutions can complement visible gear marking but are not required. Non-compliance, especially concerning gear marking and illegal disposal, can lead to infringement proceedings. [1] Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, OJ L 155, 12.6.2019, p. 1-19. [2] https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-investment/european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund-emff_en. [3] https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-investment/emfaf_en. [4] https://www.emsa.europa.eu/sustainable-ports/port-reception-facilities.html. [5] Report on marine litter actions funded under the EMFF and EMFAF — Oceans and fisheries (2026), https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/publications/report-marine-litter-actions-funded-under-emff-and-emfaf_en.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries · EU policy towards plastics · Circular economy
• 2026-01-08 “E-000036/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Danish report under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive 1 submitted to the Commission 2 and covering the 2019-2024 period indicated, for the harbour porpoise, a favourable conservation status with a stable trend in the marine Atlantic region, and an unfavourable-bad conservation status with a declining trend in the marine Baltic region. The report indicates bycatch and incidental killing as high pressures for the species in both marine biogeographical regions. By-catch of harbour porpoises has been monitored electronically with cameras on a number of Danish commercial gillnet fishing vessels since 2010 3 . Recent estimates indicate that by-catch in Danish and Swedish fisheries may exceed sustainability thresholds in parts of the western Baltic Sea 4 . Certain mitigation measures to limit by-catch are applied in Danish waters, such as the use of acoustic deterrent devices (‘pingers’) on bottom-set gillnets and entangling net vessels equal or above 12 meters in the North Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat (only from 1 August to 31 October) and parts of the Baltic Sea, as well as seasonal closures of static net fishing in the Natura 2000 area ‘Adler Grund and Rønne Banke’ 5 in the Baltic Sea. The Commission is currently carefully monitoring the situation in Denmark in relation to Article 12(4) of the Habitats Directive and may consider taking further steps if the measures taken by Denmark are deemed insufficient. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 2 https://reportnet.europa.eu/public/dataflow/1525. 3 Kindt-Larsen L., Brooks M. E., & Glemarec G., (2025). Nye estimater for bifangst af marsvin i dansk garnfiskeri, No. 25/1002606, 5 p., Feb 28, 2025, https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/nye-estimater-for-bifangstaf-marsvin-i-dansk-garnfiskeri/. 4 Kindt-Larsen L., Glemarec G., Berg C.W., Königson S., Kroner A.-M., Søgaard M., Lusseau D., 2023 Knowing the fishery to know the bycatch: bias-corrected estimates of harbour porpoise bycatch in gillnet fisheries. Proc. R. Soc. B 290: 20222570, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.2570. 5 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/303 of 15 December 2021 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 as regards measures to reduce incidental catches of the resident population of the Baltic Proper harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea, OJ L 46, 25.2.2022, p. 67–80.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2026-01-08 “E-000035/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Danish report under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive 1 has been submitted to the Commission, indicating an overall favourable conservation status for the wolf in both continental and Atlantic biogeographic regions 2 . The Danish authorities are primarily responsible for assessing the conservation status of the wolf in their territory. It is important that the conclusion on the conservation status of the wolf is based on the best available scientific data obtained through the surveillance to be carried out by Member States under Article 11 of the Habitats Directive following the agreed guidelines and the precautionary principle. The European Environment Agency 3 and the Commission are currently assessing the reports submitted by Member States, including the one submitted by Denmark. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 2 https://reportnet.europa.eu/public/dataflow/1525. 3 https://www.eea.europa.eu/en.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Large Carnivores
• 2025-07-16 “E-002920/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The current water legislation requires Member State authorities to assess surface water pollution against environmental quality standards (EQS) set for ‘priority substances’ at EU level, or equivalently protective EQS set for them at national level in another matrix, and against nationally set EQS for pollutants of national, regional or local concern, i.e. river-basin specific pollutants. In addition, for certain priority substances that tend to accumulate in biota and sediment, a trend assessment in those matrices is required, whether or not a EU-wide (or equivalent) EQS applies in them. Gaps in these assessments may lead to an overly optimistic view of water quality. In 2021, in the context of the Commission’s assessment of the 2 nd River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs), Denmark confirmed gaps in its waterbody status classifications and indicated that some quality standards would not be established in time for the 3 rd RBMPs. Therefore, the Commission’s assessment of the 3 rd RBMPs has again resulted in a recommendation 1 to ‘step up the efforts to meet the requirements set out in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2 as regards monitoring, assessment, data management and reporting’. As set out in the Water Resilience Strategy 3 , the Commission intends to hold structured dialogues on the implementation of the WFD and Floods Directive 4 , to take place in 2025 and 2026, during which the necessary measures to comply with the Commission’s recommendations will be discussed. This is without prejudice to further enforcement action at EU or national level. 1 SWD(2025) 34, 4 February 2025, recommendation 6 on page 40. 2 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 3 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en. 4 Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood, OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27–34.”
  Water pollution · EU policy on water management
• 2025-07-10 “E-002831/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Under Article 25 of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation 1 the Commission is required to adopt a delegated act on derogations from the prohibition of destruction of certain unsold consumer products, specifically apparel and clothing accessories and footwear. The co-legislator included these derogations as product destruction might be necessary for a number of reasons set out in paragraph 5 of Article 25: health, hygiene and safety reasons; damage caused to products as a result of their handling, or detected after products have been returned, which cannot be repaired in a cost-effective manner; unfitness of products for the purpose for which they are intended; non-acceptance of products offered for donation; unsuitability of products for preparing for reuse or for remanufacturing; unsaleability of products due to infringement of intellectual property rights, including counterfeit products. The draft derogations have been based on these reasons. They have been formulated in such a way to ensure that the prohibition applies in so far as it is needed and proportionate, and thereby minimising negative effects on businesses, while at the same time preventing possible loopholes to circumvent the prohibition. At the same time, in order to prevent abuse and to ensure that destruction remains a measure of last resort, the draft delegated act includes provisions setting out how national competent authorities must verify how operators use these derogations. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC, OJ L, 2024/1781, 28.6.2024.”
  Ecodesign & durability · Circular economy
• 2025-06-06 “E-002292/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is at the beginning of developing the Circular Economy Act (CEA), which will ensure the fair and free movement of circular materials, products and services in the single market. Tackling supply and demand side bottlenecks will be crucial for boosting investor confidence for increasing recycling capacity. The Commission is also exploring best ways to channel financing to scale up circular solutions and looking at how to support this under the next multiannual financial framework (MFF). Existing EU instruments already contribute significantly. The Innovation Fund 1 supports circular economy (CE) projects that reduce emissions, rewarding circularity and recyclability under the ‘Replicability’ criterion. InvestEU 2 sustainable infrastructure policy window helps mobilising private capital for circular investments. Since 2021, Horizon Europe 3 has allocated over EUR 3 billion to CE-related Research & Innovation, addressing issues like e-waste, extended producer responsibility, and sustainable product design. The Clean Industrial Deal (CID) 4 calls for a coherent use of financial tools to de-risk and scale-up circular infrastructure and value chains. It proposes reviewing Value Added Tax rules on the second-hand goods 5 . It is also accompanied by the new Clean Industrial Deal State aid framework 6 which sets out how Member States can design State aid measures to support their objectives related to the CID. The upcoming Advanced Materials Act, the CEA and the revision of EU procurement rules will further integrate circularity from design to deployment. In the Commission’s next MFF proposal 7 , circularity will be supported through the European Competitiveness Fund Clean Transition and Industrial Decarbonisation window. 1 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-funding-climate-action/innovation-fund_en. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02021R0523-20240301. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02021R0695-20240301. 4 Commission Communication of 26 February 2025 on The Clean Industrial Deal: A joint roadmap for competitiveness and decarbonisation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0085). 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02006L0112-20250414. 6 Commission Communication of 4 July 2025 on Framework for State Aid measures to support the Clean Industrial Deal (Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3602/oj). 7 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/multiannual-financial-framework_en.”
  Circular economy · EU industrial funding
• 2025-04-28 “E-001693/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission fully supports the need for a high level of protection of the environment and human health. Gender equality and vulnerable groups receive particular attention during scientific assessments. Regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) 1 ensures a high level of protection from chemical substances. If a substance poses a risk to consumers, such as in menstrual products, a restriction dossier that considers this risk is prepared. For instance, an existing restriction under REACH bans the use of certain hazardous substances (e.g. dioctyltin compounds), in female hygiene products. As regards per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a restriction dossier is currently under assessment by the European Chemicals Agency 2 . The Scientific Committees of the Agency must finalise their opinions before the Commission can decide on restricting PFAS. The Commission aims to tackle PFAS pollution and protect citizens’ health, and the Commission is in favour of banning PFAS in consumer articles. Moreover, in 2023, criteria to identify endocrine disruptors (EDs) were added to the regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures 3 . Therefore, industry shall classify substances as EDs, where needed. Furthermore, PFAS and EDs are restricted under the EU Ecolabel criteria for products like absorbent hygiene products and reusable menstrual cups 4 . Several Horizon 2020 5 and Horizon Europe 6 projects are addressing PFAS pollution through monitoring, detection, and remediation. Complementing these efforts, the Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals 7 funded by Horizon Europe will launch a pilot project focused on monitoring PFAS and EDs. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006. 2 See https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18663449b. 3 Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, OJ L 353, 31.12.2008. 4 Commission Decision (EU) 2023/1809 of 14 September 2023 establishing the EU Ecolabel criteria for absorbent hygiene products and for reusable menstrual cups, OJ L 234, 22.99.2023. 5 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-2020_en. 6 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en. 7 https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101057014.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion · PFAs
• “Good to see you again. Um, and thank you to Olaf. I mean, we have had a few meetings already, and I highly appreciate the work. Work you're doing. I have I have two, two questions I want to put forward, and it's very much on the lesson learned and looking into the coming MFF. And the first would actually be, I mean, if you could or you would see a middle line between the cost control and the performance measures. I mean, this middle line between I think it would be nice if you could try and draw this up for us. Uh, the second is, I mean, as far as I can also hear what you're saying, a lot of the problems here has to do with, uh, the time that it was really stressed, period. Is that also your your your perspective in this, that the time was actually really a problem when we look into the RF and this change of course looking forward.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you. Chair. I will speak in Danish. Thank you for coming here today, Minister. My question is about one of the key challenges. So the 2040 agreements. And the Paris Agreement. You mentioned the Remembrance Day for victims of climate change. And the climate crisis is very real already today here in Europe. What I'm concerned about is whether the level of our ambition will be high enough, and whether we'll incorporate enough flexibility. I was wondering, how will you tackle this issue in your negotiations and the council? I'm very familiar with the situation in Denmark, and what we're seeing there is that flexibility is very important that you can't just use international markets to offset things that you need to focus on. That. So flexibility is not something you can just multiply by 27. You can't just shift flexibilities from one sector to another. So how can we avoid. This flexibility to just be a stopgap that just addresses the symptoms and not the route. And how can we ensure that all of this is science based on us?”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes. Thank you. I'm very grateful to the EPP for us having this debate in the committee today, but I'm equally shocked of how easily some members disregard science and EU legislation and instead just falling for the crying wolf of parts of the industry. There is an important difference between hazard based classification on the one hand and risk management and socioeconomics on the other hand. And this distinction is clearly established in EU law. So please let us not mix it up. Ethanol is a clear substance when it's drunk, but not when it's put on the skin. I do not know. I would like to think that ethanol is not a killer when used on the skin, but this needs to be assessed and especially because it's so widely used. But what we should also not suggest is that such a classification would mean an automatic ban of it in biocides. The legislature legislation clearly foresaw the possibilities of derogations in biocides law, when the active substance is essential to prevention of serious danger to health, or when not approving the substance, would have disproportionate negative impacts as compared to the risk. So colleagues, let not false jump to false conclusions, accept science and call on industry to actually play by the rules. I have a few questions to the Commission. First of all, can you reassure me that you will follow a hazard based approach for the classification of ethanol? Which exposure routes will you consider in that context? Has the industry provided studies on CMR properties of ethanol when used on the skin? And if yes, what do these do? These studies shows. And then finally, last week, ex Biocide Products Committee postponed the adoption of the opinion due to the lack of consensus. So could we have some information about this disagreement? What's it about? Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Yes, thank you very much. And thank you to the commissioners for for being here on this very important topic. And, and, um, we really have an issue where, where, where I'm a bit puzzled about the reaction coming also in this room, because I mean, to fight wildfires, there's one thing we can do and that is having healthy ecosystems. It's only through nature based solutions that we can actually, for real fighting this on the on the long term and make a resilient Europe. And, and I think my intervention here should be perhaps as much to my colleagues as to the commissioners that when we're cutting down on our green action when it comes to the climate action. We are not answering this threat of wildfires. We are just pushing it even further. So, so so a question to and that's perhaps mostly to to Commissioner Roosevelt should be I mean, one thing is the communication. But but how do we actually see this work on nature based solutions in the coming work from the Commission? I think specifically about the MFF, because when we look at the the cap, I don't see it as really present there. The work on having resilient ecosystem and nature based solution against wildfires. And when we see the specific, uh, financing of nature restoration law and also the eco based, the ecosystems, I mean, we don't see the live program present in, in the MFF proposal from the commission. So so so will we see more action from the Commission also on more real tools and not communication when it comes to restoring nature, creating the nature based solution against these wildfires? Thank you.”
  EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.)
• “Thank you. And thank you, Vice President. I'm very happy to hear your ambitions and intentions when it comes to the clean industrial deal. And I really tried when I read through the plan to be as positive and pragmatic as I could be, and still I have some critique and quite a few questions, and I'm going to focus on on circular economy in these questions here today. And first and foremost, there is this, this point in time where you're coming with the clean industrial deal now and then we have to wait 21 months for the for for, for circular economy Act and and I'm pretty scared that it's going to be a very small circle because a lot have been put in place, especially when we talk about the whole financing part. Is it going to be actually also financed, geared for circular economy when the clear focus right now is something else? Secondly, and another member of the were asking about this before was the secondary raw material market which is crucial to create. It's not there right now. We are exporting really critical raw materials outside of Europe. Other countries have export restrictions and we don't see that. So how are you intending to create this internal market here and now and not wait another 21 months on that? And my last question is also to to really create a circular economy we look to we have to look into regulation of materials coming into the value chain. Specifically when I think about plastic textiles, if it's not regulated, right? We cannot use it within the circular economy. And these steps also was really lacking even the intention. Even though you mentioned circular economy 36 times in the paper, the concrete actions is not there. Thank you.”
  Circular economy
• “Thank you very much. And thank you, Commissioner, for coming here today. Um, last week we were discussing expectations from the Parliament's side, and today we discussed on, on on the basis of PowerPoint. And of course, it's the details we want to know about, because what is actually the direction we are taking with this MFF. I'm going to ask you a question I think will not surprise you. And that is about the green spending target. How do we make sure that there's money across the MFF for climate mitigation, climate adaptation, environmental work and so forth? Then in line with with my good colleague Keller, I want to ask about the nature funding because, I mean, with with life not being present on its own. Where is the funding, direct funding for nature? How do we make sure to, to to be able to fund actually the legislation we have decided in EU. And here I think about the nature restoration law. Um, then I have a question about the competitiveness fund because, I mean, the idea can be good. Of course it's about what's in it. How is it, how is the governance behind it, how to to, to, to, to, to access the money. And I could see in the graphics you showed us that that actually decarbonization and clean transition wasn't that big. So So is that what there is of money for this big task of making a transition for, for for European industries? Is that also funding for, for for the Circular Economy Act, which we expect a lot from, from the commission. Um, so that should be the questions on this. And then my last question is about the rule of law. You mentioned it in a headline, and I was happy that it was one of the first things you actually came up with. And I just want to to, to hear as well about the democratic involvement of NGOs, civil society, if that is part of your understanding of also the rule of law. We see the the space for civil society is shrinking in many member states. So is that also present in the MFF? Thank you.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Yes, thank you. And thank you to the Commission for for the proposal, not least for the explanation today. Um, I mean, ultimately, what we're seeing here is a bit simplification in action. Now, we've been talking about it and using smart words about it. And now we try to see what does it mean actually when you go in and work on it. So so so thank you for this. And overall I mean we are very positive. And we also think it's good with a quick adaptation of it because we need to see it in action. It needs to be clarity about it. Um we have one doubt, however, um, in it, uh, and that is, is around the, uh, one of the changes you proposed to the mission calculation methodology, where you propose to make it easier to use default values when operators cannot account for real emissions. And, um, we are a bit perplexed about this as as operators should be able to measure their scope one emissions. Um, and we really think it's important not to, to all of a sudden make this, this, uh, to facilitate too much use of the default values. We need real emissions on the table. So so that should be our own concern. We have it. But overall we are very positive and has heard from both Sad and renew. We think it's very important with a with a quick adaptation of it. So so so we can move forward with Cbam. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “And then also that the commission actually rightly target project with no significant environmental impact. So I really want these proportional safeguards to, to, to align with the precautionary principles, not to block, but to balance the proposal from the commission. And I want to highlight three points, uh, from from the draft, uh, today, first of all, it is on the designation of renewable acceleration areas here. I think we can all see that it has been rather chaotic with the implementation at national levels. Um. And this is why we suggest mapping to be science based and transparent. And for the environmental consideration to be proportional and well justified. Again, slightly safeguard to put in the next point would be the overriding public interest. A very important point in this proposal from the commission. Uh, and there we add nuances in safeguards aligned with, again, a principle of proportionality, and not least also case laws from the EU Court of Justice so that environmental impact assessment still will happen. And then my my third point would be that the commission widens the exemptions from from environmental assessments, especially, for example, for repowering or small scale solar installations.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “Yes. Thank you. Um, and thank you, Vice President. Last time we we had an exchange. Where? In Strasbourg. I made it clear that I saw a big mismatch between in the timeline between circular circular economy act coming in one and a half years and the clean industrial deal here now. And I still see this problem, but I want to thank you, first of all, by being more concrete today on the Circular Economy Act and what we can expect, I think it's important to be more concrete than what we've heard before from the commission. So thank you for that. Um, I want to ask a question in, in, in this regard again. And that is really how we link it, because we see right now a discussion starting up on several tools and frameworks when it comes to the clean industrial deal, we see the decarbonisation accelerator, contracts for difference, hydrogen auctions, state aid questions, but also public procurement is in place. And what I'm curious about is how much is this also going to work for the Circular Economy Act and the circular economy business models? Because you can design this changes in rules in many ways. So is that on top of your agenda that it works for both the decarbonization and the circular economy? And also if you're looking into financing tools actually for for also scaling up what we see in the circular economy, I think fiber to fiber, textile recycling, battery recycling. So we actually get a scale up of the industry in Europe. And then my, my my third question would be that we're not going to do this only by public investments. We need the private investments into the circular economy if we want to succeed. So so what is on the table right now in order to actually accelerate also private investments in circular economy. How do we send this clear message to the private investors, to the financial institutions that this is the direction to go? Um, so so it's linked in the same way as we're doing right now with the clean industrial deal. Thank you.”
  Circular economy
• “Yes. Thank you. And so fun. We sit and talk simplification when it is. Actually deregulation or toxic greenwashing. And I would like to raise the point of the changes you proposed to the do no significant harm criteria for pollution prevention and control, in particular to chemicals. I raised this question this morning with Commissioner Roosevelt, and the answer is somehow vague or unclear still. So I look forward to your answer, because under the current rules, companies who manufacture or use any substance of high, very high concern will not be able to to claim compliance with the do no significant harm principle. And that is approximately 4300 substances, which is not qualifying as sustainable investments. But with the changes you propose, the number of substances will decrease extremely under option one by 90%, under option two with 70%. And I just want to make clear that this is in contradiction with the criteria. We have very clear on the reach, and it's in contradiction as well with your toxic free strategy, which the Commission is standing on. So the question I have for you, and I know you called it an exchange of views, I think you can understand my view. So now the question and that is, if you could explain us how investments into substances of very high concern. We're talking about cancer causing substances. How can that possibly be considered as a sustainable investment?”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you chair. And I think it's clear to everybody today that we we have an issue when it comes to the need of accelerating when it comes to to grids, when it comes for our electrification, for renewables, especially if we want to meet both our climate and energy goals. And we can clearly see that we have a problem. Um, in my opinion, though, I, I state, I mean, the starting point is also that many of these obstacles to the fast renewable deployment, they actually come from poor implementation of existing EU rules as one hand. And on the other hand, that we see that there is an Administrative and governance bottleneck of national and local level when it comes to the rollout of, of, of this. But that said, I think it's, it's important, uh, proposal we have from the commission. Uh, we do have, I do, however, in the, in the draft opinion propose, uh, a few safeguards because I think when we see the proposal from the commission, it's, it's clear that what they are doing is, is, is, uh, looking into, to, to, to especially environmental and nature protection and how we can, we can move faster there. And when I have this very constructive approach, I first of all, it is because renewables replace fossil fuels and that is net positive for environment and for biodiversity.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “Yes. Thank you very much. I have one question a bit because we talk about the investment a bit like it's a silo of its own, but it's very much linked as well to legislation and regulation, especially, I think about when we talk about the the clean transition and under this also circular economy where we know there is a real investment need and and where especially also, I mean, investment from from invest, EU and other EU investment can really gear and mobilize the private investment. But how much is that linked also to having the right regulation? Because one thing is having the money without regulation as well, setting the course and the direction for. The the industries. I mean, how much is it worth then? And that would be a bit my, my question to, to to your presentation. Thank you.”
  Circular economy
• “Yes. Thank you, chair. And thank you, Commissioner, for being here today. Um, I want to raise a point where the commission and you are going from or risking going from simplification to deregulation or actually all the way to toxic greenwashing. And what I'm talking about is the changes you've proposed to do no significant harm. The criteria for pollution prevention and control, in particular when it comes to chemicals, under the current rules, companies who want to manufacture any of the substance of very high concern will of course not be able to claim compliance with the do no significant harm principles and do not qualify as a sustainable investment. But with the change you proposed, the number of substances of very high concern that cannot be used to comply with the do no significant harm criteria would be reduced in in the option one you put forward with almost 90%, which means we will come down from 4300 substances to only 493 or in the option two, you want to reduce it from 4300 substance to only 1340. That would be disqualified. In my opinion, this is not simplification, but severe deregulation and a contradiction with the clear criteria already established in the Reach regulation. And also it contradicts as well the Commission's objectives under the toxic free strategy. So can you explain why and how investments into substance of high concern, such as cancer causing substances, could possibly be considered as sustainable investment?”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Thank you. And thank you for the introductory remarks where you talk about the priorities for the Danish presidency. I will ask about two of them. One will, of course, be water. Because, dear Minister for the environment, you also call yourself the Minister for oceans. And that is something that we will see as a commitment. I'm not really thinking of the negotiations that are going on at the moment, but what about the legislation that is not being taken up in the member countries? When we look at surface water in the EU? It is in a critical condition. Only 40% is in a good ecological state, and less than 30% is in a good chemical status. The numbers for Denmark are even worse. Um, where it's 29% in the first category and 1.7 in the second. When we've had a systematic lack of implementation of EU legislation, and it's not just a Danish situation, it's something that goes across all of the countries. So what I'm interested in is how we can have good legislation, how we can act in the trilogues. How will you, during the Danish presidency, ensure that the legislation is also implemented by the government? Because otherwise we'll all be thinking, well, what now? The other question I wanted to address were the priorities about competitiveness. And I would like to look at circular economy. That might be the new industrial revolution if we're successful, but only if we have the right focus. We can't do it just sector by sector. We need to have it as a way of thinking about industrial policy in our finance policy. And Mr. Bruce, you talked about the Multiannual Financial framework. So when the green ministers look at this, the ministers for green transition, will they make sure that the circular economy is not just part of the package, but that it's behind all of it? When they talk about policy and finance, because the Danish presidency will be the ones to give the first directions here. Thank you.”
  Water pollution
• “I mean, we know from IPCC that should be the ones we rely on when it comes to some kind of how do we measure this When I look through all the annexes, I was a bit puzzled to to to say it really mildly, and I would actually it could be nice and to have some, some, some real explanations on some of these points. And I don't expect the commission to do that in orally now in, in, in a few minutes. But, but we need an explanation. And then my last question would be that, I mean it's with both the green spending target. They do no significant harm, which is really good. But then we exclude all of security. But security is also understood quite broadly in other parts of the MFF. I mean, energy efficiency, energy security, that is security. Okay. Are we then excluding do no significant harm here or or others. So so I think we need some kind of explanation and also some kind of clear line in this performance regulations. And at least that's what we're going to push for when we then have the legislative part of of the work to be done? Thank you.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Uh, and I'm thinking specifically outside of the EU, if all of a sudden it's no longer waste, are we then going to see it being shipped to to countries we shouldn't ship it to? So, so so that would be a risk. I would like the commission to just comment on. Um, and then really, um, I mean, as my colleague also said, I mean, this is also a stepping stone for the circular economy are coming. I mean, and we're looking much forward to that. Um, but just to make a point that we need to focus really sharply on the environmental protection also when we do these things. Uh, and I think the questions in the first round were actually quite good at focusing exactly on that. So I hope that was listened to by the committee commission. And then finally, that we really need the political decisiveness to push the plastic industry as well for this transition. We can do something politically, but we can also demand that the industry take up their part of the job. And that would be nice to see now.”
  EU policy towards plastics
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you to ECR for, for for the report. I have a deja vu and it's only my first term here in this Parliament. We had a discussion on an ICA report when it comes to the RF exactly on the question of output versus impact. And there we didn't really get any replies of any content from, from, from the commission. And now we don't really hear again, I mean, this is the essential critique is I mean, how are we measuring this? So, so, so I think it would be be nice this time around. So I don't need a third and fourth view in these discussions, but actually that we move on and become better and better. And I think there are also good things in this performance regulations that we should work on. So so I would like to just hear some kind of feedback from the Commission specifically on this point. I don't think you really touched, uh, actually on it when, when we when we had the discussion, uh, when you had the reply first, then then I also I mean, uh, my colleague from from renew was touching upon it. I mean, how are some of these indicators come, I mean, airport terminals, motorways.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Uh, and I'm thinking specifically outside of the EU, if all of a sudden it's no longer waste, are we then going to see it being shipped to to countries we shouldn't ship it to? So, so so that would be a risk. I would like the commission to just comment on. Um, and then really, um, I mean, as my colleague also said, I mean, this is also a stepping stone for the circular economy are coming. I mean, and we're looking much forward to that. Um, but just to make a point that we need to focus really sharply on the environmental protection also when we do these things. Uh, and I think the questions in the first round were actually quite good at focusing exactly on that. So I hope that was listened to by the committee commission. And then finally, that we really need the political decisiveness to push the plastic industry as well for this transition. We can do something politically, but we can also demand that the industry take up their part of the job. And that would be nice to see now.”
  Own resources (plastics)
• “Yes. Thank you. And thank you very much for the two presentations. I have some questions for the last one, because when we look at the discussion right now on on the current proposal that's there, we can see that parts of it is already been been criticized heavily by, by, by by some. So my question would be a bit you had a list of ideas for, for for for post 34 and what, What could be discussed? Uh, both the taxation on the crypto, the financial transition, the the wealth tax. Could you perhaps point a bit in the direction of, I mean, if we need to find something else to put instead of some of what we have in the in the basket right now, that could be discussed already for the for the MF 28 through to 34. Um, in my opinion, I can say that the wealth tax of course could be very good to get, but perhaps need more discussion. But which of the other ideas could you see as valuable solutions for for the MF we're discussing right now? Thank you.”
  Wealth taxation
• “Yes. Thank you. And you couldn't be here. So. So I will speak for her. Um, first of all, I mean, we, we, we, we do agree with the approach from the rapporteur because we have to understand this revision. I mean, it's not just technical housekeeping. It actually goes to the heart of how we actually, uh, follow what we're doing on the environmental and infrastructure risk in a really coherent way across the union. Um, and we should be very careful not to just use simplification here, but actually to see how do we have stronger and better interoperability standards, not weaker ones. And that is, is really key here. Um, we have however two issues that we are a bit, uh, curious about and that is, is um, because the commission is proposing to deleting many articles, but also the article 11 on network services, article 17 on data sharing. Uh, and we are a bit curious to know whether this is actually totally covered now by the open data directive. And, and really curious to see how the commission is seeing that. Uh, the second point we have, however, is on, um, spatial data, where article 13 deals with the possibilities of member states to limit public access to spatial data in certain cases. Um, and, and we have been contacted by some water service providers who propose that this possibility should actually be turned into an obligation. So that's also something we want to to question some more in the work on, on, on, on this file. But, but we, uh, very much welcome the approach by, by the rapporteur. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “We have proposed another number that the Co-rapporteur we proposed 1.5, including the next generation. Um, and it's basically also in the light of what we've seen from the commission until now, how they're eating into the flexibility. We say, okay. Then we also need a budget answering to to to to what they're doing. And and we also have of course amendments and proposals on own resources. My, my colleague Rasmus Andreasen is uh is heading that work for us. Then when it comes to priorities, I'm not going to give you the entire list. We try to be both technically in the in the detailing of budget lines and also in the text. But I have to mention the green transition. I have to mention that what we are facing right now, the challenges we are facing with with extreme weather occurs. What we the everyday life of farmers. What's happening in our cities demand that we take the green transition serious, and we try to really incorporate that across the headings, across across the answers from the from the Parliament in this interim, but also in the numbers and specifically when it comes to biodiversity and nature. I mean, we have a program which has been a great success in the EU with life. And to see that disappear, to see the dedicated funding disappear for biodiversity, we can look and see we need nature, we need biodiversity. If we want a thriving agricultural production, if we want to have a beautiful and nice Europe to live in, and if we want to be able to stand against the climate change that we are facing.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you very much. And thank you to the Commissioner for, for for this exchange. I would just invite that we could actually go a bit more in detail and not stay on headlines. I mean, we all read the performance regulations and we see the fault there is when it comes to what is actually a fossil free MFF, what is we actually counting as green spending? We all know that by now from the from what come from the commission. And I must say, this is not good enough. Um, my point is really on, on life and and and biodiversity as well. And I think, Commissioner Roosevelt, you need to come with up with some more concrete answers because you, you, you heard here in the house, you've heard it from the regions, you heard it from ministers, you heard it from NGOs, you heard it from businesses. We need to see where is the dedicated funding when it comes to nature and biodiversity, because it is in an overall target. But it's not there. We don't see it in the MFF and it's nature and biodiversity which is going to lose. So. So we need more concrete answers from you when it comes to this. Uh, you said in your beginning that you you that the MFF proposal will respond to the EPP in your report when it comes to financing green transition. I think you should read it again because we mentioning life specifically in the report. I was sitting there negotiating it. I know every single word in that report, and I think you and your office should read it again. Thank you.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Thank you very much. And thank you to to the rapporteur. Um, it's very well written, the opinion, I think. I mean, we have some amendments we're going to put forward, especially on the EIB. I mean, we have to remember that EIB is Europe's climate bank, and we should protect the investments we want to do in the green transition. We can learn from EIB and we can do other structures. But but we we need to to emphasize the need of continuous investment in the green transition. So I will put forward some some amendments and look forward to to discussing with my colleagues. Thank you.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “I mean, we know from IPCC that should be the ones we rely on when it comes to some kind of how do we measure this When I look through all the annexes, I was a bit puzzled to to to say it really mildly, and I would actually it could be nice and to have some, some, some real explanations on some of these points. And I don't expect the commission to do that in orally now in, in, in a few minutes. But, but we need an explanation. And then my last question would be that, I mean it's with both the green spending target. They do no significant harm, which is really good. But then we exclude all of security. But security is also understood quite broadly in other parts of the MFF. I mean, energy efficiency, energy security, that is security. Okay. Are we then excluding do no significant harm here or or others. So so I think we need some kind of explanation and also some kind of clear line in this performance regulations. And at least that's what we're going to push for when we then have the legislative part of of the work to be done? Thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Yes. And I shall be very short because my colleague Mohsen already asked some of the questions I had on my notepad. But, but, but thank you very much for for the study and not least also the recommendations. It's always nice to get. I have a question on those. Is it if you see it as possible to also mirror of these recommendations to to some of the agencies. For example, we have a huge problem with with the with inflation we have had in the, in the, in the budgets in the last few years, but also a program, for example, as Erasmus, where it's not really salary cost driven or input cost driven, it's something else. Could we use the same kind of tools you are recommending on a program like this? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Yes. Thank you. And thank you, Vice President. I will leave the courtesy for some other day in view of the time constraint and go straight to the question. Um, we know after the stakeholder dialogue you hosted last week on the Circular Economy Act, that the message from from stakeholders really are consistent, that the Circular Economy Act is the most ambitious and positive industrial and environmental promise of this mandate. That also means we need to get it right. And we heard a fear from them that it would be a bit the low hanging fruit and just waste regulation that we will see in it. So I want to hear from you today that you keep the high level of ambitions that you are not trimming back already, and also that you're using not just low hanging fruit, but actually go and use trade measures. Uh, so we get also virgin material cost up, uh, and so forth. So really, uh, reiterate your promise that this will be ambitious.”
  Circular economy
• “Thank you very Much. And thank you, Commissioner, for coming here for this timely exchange. Um, we really take note of this of the Commission's expressed willingness to secure strong and clear involvement of Parliament, both in the overall MFF and in the EAA. But but more description and guarantees are needed, uh, for us to really be able to stand behind this as we're really not convinced that at this stage that this is going to be the case. And that's why I'm saying expressed willingness is because we hear the right expressions from you. But but I find it still hard to find in, in the regulation. How is this secured? Um, and this is is, uh, the proposed text on the steering mechanism? Uh, it's insufficient as we see it. And we haven't really received any clear explanations from from the commission. Um, especially I want to point to the role of the annual budget procedure, which will be very significant. Um, so when I look at the proposal, I'm quite concerned because there is the what we welcome as well, simplification, flexibility. But basically it comes without the involvement of Parliament as I read it. Um, so, so we need more answers from you. Also in line with what my colleague Keller was, was saying just before. And then also, I want to take the chance sitting with you in this room to to to mention that flexibility also comes with a cost. Of course there is the predictability and we know that. But but something very important for this Parliament that was very important in the own initiative report from this spring is, is the focus on on biodiversity funding. I know you received letters from from 35 regions, 105 municipalities, companies, universities, NGOs and that is about the Life programme. So, so when we talk about this flexibility, there is still a need to live up to to what we need to do from the institution and especially with the involvement from from our side. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you. Vice president. Thank you. Commissioner. The Ocean Pact is and should be about international ocean governance and protection. And what better way to evaluate what the pact can deliver than looking at the UN Conference on Oceans last week? A moratorium on deep sea mining announced by President Costas. With growing numbers of countries supporting and a helpful push once more to finally secure an ambitious plastic treaty with 95 countries calling for a comprehensive binding treaty covering the full life cycle of plastics. This call includes a proposal to phase out harmful chemicals and represent a critical move away from the downstream clean up to actually an upstream control. But what we also saw in the same way as in the proposed Ocean Pact, is a lot of declaratory quick fixes to measure or target that should have been implemented years ago. Something as simple as forbidding one of the most obvious negative activities in our ocean bottom trawling. Yes, even on this, we don't see any meaningful action that marine targets in the marine target areas where bottom trawling is actually existing. So what we need now is actually shared accountability on the issues of ocean protection and much less declarations. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Equality is a core value of the European Union. We say it, we repeat it, but we do not enforce it. We all know that it is both unacceptable and undeniably wrong to discriminate people because of their gender, sexuality, sexual orientation, religion, gender expression, or any other reason. And yet it continues for far too many people every day. And that is why this debate is not only about anti-discrimination. It is not only about economy, as some colleagues also have brought up, but it's about common sense and it's about equality for Europeans. The continuous absence of the horizontal anti-discrimination directive leaves measurable gaps in equal treatment and the protection of fundamental rights. So that is why we are here today. And Parliament has been quite clear for years and years. We need the council to start the work and we need to close this gap. We need to do this for all Europeans.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• “So, so of course, I think we should follow that through, but we will put forward some amendments on this. And that's also a bit the way I think we should approach some of these things is also by looking a bit at what is the EU policies, and is this budget actually answering these policies we have and I think, I mean, we can go through the social agenda, we go through the green agenda. And I think we still from from Parliament side should push on the Commission and here come into the question of the size, because we have some policies we have to live up to. And that also means there have to be a budget behind it. And we have both international agreements, we have our own agreements and for the spending, for the green transition in a social, balanced manner. It needs the budgetary weight behind and and there still we have we have a way to go. But I look forward to to the coming weeks and months work on this. And not least, of course, that we secure a strong position. And in the coming negotiations with, with, uh, the other institutions from Parliament side. So thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Discussing our expectations for the long term budget. And to be honest, my expectations are actually pretty low. But my hope is very high. It is high because they need to be. We are standing at a crossroad. The climate crisis is no longer a distant threat. It is here and it demands action now And at the same time, we're in the middle of a biodiversity crisis economic and social insecurity and geopolitical instability. All this we need to tackle in the long term budget. It means, of course, that we should not just tweak a little on what we have today. We have to rebuild it. We need to be serious about the green industrial policy. We need to be bold. We need to be smart. We cannot do this budget without having a strong green spending target. It's needed for the environment, for the climate, for the nature. We need to work actively with the principles of do no significant harm. And of course, we need to create a standalone nature fund to invest in the biodiversity. And at the same time, we need social conditionality to meet the citizens of Europe. So perhaps my expectations are not that high, but I actually think Europeans expectations are and they should be, because we need every euro in the coming budget to move us closer to a climate neutral, competitive and adjust economy. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you. Um, first, a question on the digital service tax because, I mean, uh, of course there's the OCD track, but I'm just a bit curious if there's any place in the world where we see some solutions. We could also copy so we can use it fast. And then a question, because you were mentioning a bit this problem that might be be be put over to, to, to the consumer, uh, the higher prices. But isn't it more or less what we know from, from digital services that basically they take the price that people have the ability and will to pay? I mean, we see some services that is great differences in prices across Europe because there's different, uh, abilities in the different member states of and will of how much to pay. And then question to Oxfam because I mean great ideas and, and uh, and also explanations you come with. Is there any of the solution that you see valuable to, to actually push the first because it's easiest to put forward. Um, so we take it in the right order. Thank you.”
  Priorities of taxation policy in the EU
• “Yes. Thank you chair and thank you to the Commission. I mean, this upcoming IMO session is is a defining moment not only for shipping industry but for international climate governance. I mean, are we moving ahead together or are we letting a few countries blocking us? We have seen. I mean, we know how important the shipping international shipping is for for, for, for the emissions, the global emissions, something that's just going to be increasing. So that's why we need we need to act. And I think what's what's important to say is that that EU should. First of all, I mean, get member states, of course, in line with what we already agreed upon. I mean, that's what's so, so strange now is that just because the US started this pressure, all of a sudden member states start as well. So I hope the commission will be very clear towards the member states. I also hope that we are as active as we have seen the US being already now trying to push other countries in the the emo to, to, to to step back from, from what was on the table. We need to be very explicit that the proposal which is pushed from Argentina, Panama, Liberia and Japan to remove the greenhouse gas pricing mechanisms is totally unacceptable. And, and, and this is so important also when you talk to the shipping industry, they're asking for this because they also want clear investment signals. So, so, so I think we need to be very active, very strong. And I want to really echo the speech from from my colleague from EPP, Peter. Lisa. I mean, what we have seen in the IMO talks is unacceptable when it comes to international politics. And we need to be very active on this matter and saying that the net zero framework that was actually agreed upon needs to be pushed through, but also that a bad deal is not an option. It's not an option to step down ambitions that we need to move ahead. Thank you.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “Thank you the EU single market is without question one of Europe's greatest achievement the foundation of sheer prosperity and it could be an engine for real change. So the crucial question is why are we not using this massive asset better to reach our core objectives and specifically our green industrial and circular economy goals. The single market is not just about moving goods it's about optimizing the future talking circular economy that means removing barriers so that the circulation of products and materials can be smart fast so they can be repaired remanufactured and recycled. Commissioner was talking about waste definition but also when it comes to for example the the the extended produce responsibilities how can that be better aligned between the member states. Right now the reality for businesses is discouraging when it comes to circular economy and we need to fix that we need to fix that to create jobs for our competitiveness our security and not least for our planet thank you.”
  Circular economy
• “Yes. Thank you. Um, I think always it's important when we try out something new, is to learn from it and see how can we do it better. And I actually think the report from the Court of Auditors on the RF is, is very clear. There's three points where we should do better. And the first one is, of course, to look into more the output, the the impact than output when we work on green transition. It should have been obvious from the beginning, and some groups mentioned it when it was negotiated. And after the report from the Court of Auditors. I think that's the learning we can take with us. Look at the impact of the investment instead of just solely the output. The second is the indicators, and I think that's an important point that I actually think the commission should have taken up. Uh, much more positively is what kind of indicators do we use? We know from other work, like for example, the SDGs, that with the right indicators we can actually follow progress. And that's a big problem when we come to the ref, is that the indicators are too weak. And then the last point also again we can learn from somewhere else. And that's the level of detailing in the reporting because we know for example from, from from development aid that you can actually report back in details on how green is a certain investment, instead of just going to to to 40 or 100%, we can actually go down in details. And the member states are used to this because we do it with development aid when that is reported back. So so I think instead of just being a harsh critique of the ref, I think we should actually, from this committee take the learnings to how can we do this much better in the future, because investments, it's needed in the Green Deal and most probably as well. It is also that we do an MFF where we do borrowing together because we need a larger FMF. We need own resources of course, as well. So let's learn instead of just criticize. Exercise.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Yes. And I shall be very short because my colleague Mohsen already asked some of the questions I had on my notepad. But, but, but thank you very much for for the study and not least also the recommendations. It's always nice to get. I have a question on those. Is it if you see it as possible to also mirror of these recommendations to to some of the agencies. For example, we have a huge problem with with the with inflation we have had in the, in the, in the budgets in the last few years, but also a program, for example, as Erasmus, where it's not really salary cost driven or input cost driven, it's something else. Could we use the same kind of tools you are recommending on a program like this? Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you chair. And first and foremost, thank you for for for the draft. I think, uh, it's it's really going in the right direction. And you will see that as well in the amendments I'm going to propose. It is in the line of, of the, um, the proposal from, from, from, from you. Um, let me start by saying I think we have the task here and envy when it comes to, to to this opinion to actually help along the proposal from the commission, because the big mistake from the commission is they talk about being strategic without being strategic. I mean, strategy is not just done by saying something is strategic. It's actually about making choices. And there we see a big mistake in the proposal when it comes to window one. If we reflect that into the report, I know I have to quote Draghi to get through with anything in this House at the moment. But there's an investment gap when it comes to decarbonisation. And decarbonisation is our competitive Advantage in the future. Therefore, we need to put the money where the choices are being made. So. So that should be my first point. Then of course, as you mentioned.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, and and thank you to the commission. It's sometimes interesting to read a report, and you think you've seen it all before, because, I mean, it just tells us again what we were told more than five years ago by the European Environmental Agency and by the Court of Auditors, that fishing continues to be a key pressure on the EU seas, that we see rising eutrophication, we see contamination by by substances and decline in marine biodiversity. So so we've seen it before. We know the facts already. That was in this report. We clearly don't have sufficient or clear governance structures in place where this can continues. We don't also see the concrete links between the strategy and other related policies as the fishery policy, Water Framework Directive, the nature restoration law. So, so, so actually we see agriculture, we see shipping, we see fishery, we see seabed mining continue to contradict the strategy and the goals within it. And we don't see enough enforcement measures despite the goals that has been set. And I would really love this report to not just be another case of where we do speeches and then we go on and then in five years we can see the same report again, but actually that it ends up in concrete measures. So a question to the Commission would be how will you ensure a holistic source to sea approach in the upcoming Ocean Pact? And what concrete measures will you propose in this regard? Because we need to see concrete action and not another report in five years.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Now then, do no significant harm. As my colleague from renew also mentioned. I mean, we need to have actually teeth there. It needs to be something that can work. Therefore, we need guidance to be be very clear and we need a clear deadline as well for the commission to come out so we can get into force at the same time as the MFF regulation. Um, again, we don't think there should be exemptions unless it's generally emergencies. I mean natural catastrophes or armed conflicts, not just overall exemptions as we're seeing. Um, and then thirdly, it's about transparency and accountability and tracking. And here, um, we suggest that we add dedicated biodiversity column to the annex one so we can actually track the money. We also think that it's very important that we get the evaluation from the member states in good time for the for the mid-term evaluation, so we can actually move on on where it doesn't work. So so I mean, I look very much forward to this very important piece of the MFF work. I'm following it both here in envy and in, in body as well. So I'll be sure also to take good envy opinions with me to the table in the budgetary committee. Thank you.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Thank you chair. And it's always nice sometimes to be in the second round because all the critical questions can be put in the first round. And then I can be the happy camper coming in second with some of the positive things. And I like that role just sometimes. So, so so I want to to compliment that. We now see this proposal on on the EU wide standards for for end of waste criteria when it comes to mechanical recycled plastic. It's something we really need, not just here but also in other industries. I'm thinking specifically on textiles. So hope that's on the table in the commission. So we get the same kind of standards there. Um, it's also because we need this in order to be able to actually develop a single market for, for the remanufactured products and, and, uh, and reuse products. It's something we hear from businesses they need as well to develop the circular economy. So so happy about that. What I am though a bit the C one risk here, and that is if we put the end of waste statutes too easily, that we allow plastic waste a bit unjustifiable to to escape the more strict regime when it comes to shipping of waste.”
  Circular economy
• “Yes. Thank you, Chair and Rapporteur. I mean, this is a key part of the MFF discussion because this is actually where we're going to decide How do we spend the money in the right way? So even when it comes to the Competitiveness Fund, it also is actually spent to to make a better world and a better Europe. We have proposed a number of of amendments, of course, across the entire legislation. Um, first and foremost, on the green spending target proposed by the Commission at 35%. Uh, as we have said a number of times in these discussions, we think it has to be at least 50% going as a green spending target. Uh, and with a ring fence, 10% for biodiversity. So we can actually spend the money on doing good things. Um, we also really think that we should be careful not to carve out these green spending targets, especially that the targets must apply to the whole budget and not being carved out when it comes to defence and security. Uh, and then of course, we want the commission to actually act when we don't see that the target is met. So? So they come with corrective measures without delay and not just consult, as it says in their thing, in their papers.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to to the shadows and the Commission. Um, it looks rather good that we agree on, on, on, on the whole idea that we need to, to, to speed up the process. And also, as the commission says, it's really central to, to get out of our dependency on fossil fuels. So, so, so, so far, so good. I heard comments that I think we can easily work together on both on, on, on, on the question of nitrogen from, from, from, uh, renew the important point on the Habitats directive as well. Uh, and not least also some of, of, of, um, the social question raised by, by, by, uh, s and d and then I, I look forward to, to work with you all to, to have a clear opinion on from the committee and, and where, whereas CBP said they found some of my proposal a bit too complex. I mean, simplify is a key word in this time. So I'll be happy, of course, to work constructively with everybody to to get something simple and good, but also which is actually giving clarity and legal certainty because that's also what we need in this. So, so there is this balance we need to do. And, and what I hear from everybody, I think we can live up to this very strict timeline we have in order to, to be able to, to get the opinion out to, to the work in the committee. So thank you to everybody.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. Chair. What we have here is a legal necessity, a necessity to transpose an EU law, the rules to protect our high seas. The bag was is an international agreement with over ten years in the making. It was finally adopted by consensus two years ago. And up until the eunuch in NIS in June, there was still questionable whether enough countries were actually going to ratify it. The treaty is a critical next step to protect our high seas, because it helps to share the benefits of marine genetic resources, development area based management tools, specifically in the marine protected areas, and it ensures environmental impact assessments are made when activities are happening in the high seas. The directive proposed by the Commission is here to allow the EU and its Member States to actually ratify and then properly implement and enforce the objectives in the treaty. The directive is not introducing new obligations in any way, and it builds on existing EU environmental and maritime policies, existing best practices and is here to ensure consistency and legal clarity. And this is why we really look forward for smooth and quick process for the adaptation of the directive.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, it's a bit extreme to sit and listen to this debate and the answers coming from the commission, because it's like it's it's history repeating itself. We hear it over and over again. We could almost write down the script before we actually come here. Um, and we keep on talking about the exemptions. I mean, yes, it's important in this medical device or the other, but I mean, why not ban PFAS and then make exceptions where you can use it instead of the other way around, as we're doing right now? I really don't understand the approach. So I want to be more concrete this time in my questions to the commission, because it looks like we need to push in a more concrete measure to manage to to actually get some action. So what do we need to do in order to speed up and accelerate the process concretely, very concretely, what is needed to do in order to speed up this process? Because apparently there's always an excuse for not making any kind of action today. We can always wait for tomorrow. And as my colleague said, I mean, there's so many areas where we could just ban it without any problems, pesticides. I mean, let's go ahead. We know it's dangerous. It goes directly into our groundwater and still we just looking because maybe it's not that dangerous, but I'm seeing the cost already for health, for the environmental cleanup. I mean, I'm sorry the action had to be now. So how do we accelerate?”
  PFAs
• “When I was young. Gay was a cuss word. That was something that young people didn't understand. But it affected you more if you were gay yourself. When it happened in the schoolyard. When I was young, there were no smartphones, Tik Tok or Snapchat. Today, bullying takes goes home with young people all day and all night. It's important that the commission says that we need to tackle online bullying. We have to do that for all young people and children. But we have to recognise that young people, young LGBT people, are the most exposed. They are more hit by anxiety and depression and even thoughts of suicide. We must make sure that we get initiatives that affect transphobia and hate speech. In these times where we hear that hate speech and bullying is freedom of speech. We have a responsibility to protect those who are most exposed. Thank you.”
  LGBTIQ+
• “Thank you chair. And it's always nice sometimes to be in the second round because all the critical questions can be put in the first round. And then I can be the happy camper coming in second with some of the positive things. And I like that role just sometimes. So, so so I want to to compliment that. We now see this proposal on on the EU wide standards for for end of waste criteria when it comes to mechanical recycled plastic. It's something we really need, not just here but also in other industries. I'm thinking specifically on textiles. So hope that's on the table in the commission. So we get the same kind of standards there. Um, it's also because we need this in order to be able to actually develop a single market for, for the remanufactured products and, and, uh, and reuse products. It's something we hear from businesses they need as well to develop the circular economy. So so happy about that. What I am though a bit the C one risk here, and that is if we put the end of waste statutes too easily, that we allow plastic waste a bit unjustifiable to to escape the more strict regime when it comes to shipping of waste.”
  Own resources (plastics)
• “Yes, thank you, chair, and thank you to the minister and to the commission. I think with what we are facing right now in the world with with escalating regional violence, that really exposes the fragility of the fossil fuel economy. I mean, to imagine world peace in this economy is truly difficult. So let's hope that this conference will actually mark the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel economy. And I hope that we will really push from the EU side that that that this end will be through a really a fair and people centered transition grounded in international law, because this is what we need. And it's also one thing is, is to talk about this, but there's some, some details which are going to be important. And first of all, we need to be able to to to tackle the legal barriers in all these investor state dispute settlement clauses. There is in deals around if we don't tackle those, how do we get rid of this? And the other thing I actually and that's also a question to the commission. If something we bring up from from the EU side, and that is how we tackle the debt burden that trapped the developing countries in the fossil fuel production. So we actually make also this a push towards a dev convention. In UN level instead. And then, of course, we need to preach and and act at the same time. So the plan for the total phase out of coal in 2030, as we should gas by 35 and have 100% renewable in 2040, should be the roadmap we present from the EU side. I want to also ask about the position from EU because we've heard a lot from the commission about fossil free MFF. We are debating at the moment. So, so are we going to champion actually a binding framework to end fossil fuel subsidies and perhaps even introduce EU wide fossil fuel profit tax? So, so one thing is to make the the deal of moving on to another economy, but also all the other steps that goes along. Could be interesting to see addressed by the EU at this conference. Thank you.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you very much. And thank you to the rapporteur. I will just make two points that the rapporteur also did, which I think is very important. And that is first and foremost That we need really better breakdown of spending within the program, and that will be useful. So, so great support for this. And then also want to stress the scrutiny of the European Parliament should increase as well, like we are demanding across a lot of programs, but that would be be the two most important points from, from from from our side. I know our shadow is in contact with you already. And then I also just want to, to, uh, apologize for, for Rapporteur and Yuri. I will report back to her what is being said here. Uh, just as she's one of my group colleagues. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Yes. Thank you. And thank you to to the Co-rapporteurs for for a good report. Actually I think the discussion today is, is making clear why we have to discuss this and why we need good legislation. It's because of of what we've heard from the far right here today. Instead of actually looking at the work we have on the table. Um, but really, I think it it's the draft report is a very good base for the for the work, and it goes in, in the right directions. We will, of course, table some amendments, uh, for some details and positions on the more descriptive part of it. Um, but also, I mean, I think we share, um, the key element of the recommendation that we don't really need to revise a regulation, but we it should be used more proactively and it to link it with the, the annual rule of law reports. So it's systematic. It's in dialogue and it's done timely and done more. Yeah. Uh systematic. We also share this whole uh, point on transparency. Indeed. Um, and then there's this point about recommendation. And looking further. I mean, I know the report was done before the the presentation from the Commission on the coming MFF, which was the 16th of July. But I think that we need to examine a bit more what what kind of recommendations we need to come with. In that sense, actually, I would like if we could even have a technical briefing from the commission before actually the deadline of amendments on some of these issues with the rule of law in the MFF. So we could really do a strong report with recommendations going further and keeping in mind the discussion today, we need strong rules that is actually used, uh, time and time again. So we keep up the common rules we have in our union. Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law