Cristina GUARDA

Policy topics Cristina GUARDA is active on

What Cristina GUARDA has said (80)

• 2026-07-13 “(15:25:14 - 15:27:31): let me begin by thanking the rapporteur, Miss Walsh, on behalf of my colleague, Mister Holmgren, particularly when it comes to your focus on gender. That is a major issue which makes us understand how much working in agriculture means we have to take care of everything around the farming itself. There's the dignity of agricultural work, but it's also about guaranteeing services to make sure that there's credibility and to make sure that agriculture, be it male or female, can have sustainable work. It's an excellent initiative, and we must continue to push for assessment that is relevant to the different aspects of the CAP. But we, Greens, want to be very clear on 1 point. The problems are obvious. Access to land is increasingly difficult. There is an ever-increasing burden in terms of entry capital to even buy a farm and be able to farm. If there's no fair pay for farmers who are competing with lowered standards from imports, well, there's no way that can survive, and there's simply no perspective of being able to build a life in agriculture. And it's very important to focus in on that. We need to make sure that the sector is resilient, that it's able to adapt. So priority for us working on the resilience of the sector, food security, and protection for all those who are starting out in agriculture, making sure that there's fair pay for agricultural services. We want a new CAP with a specific focus on climate change. It's important to highlight that because those of us who are just starting out as farmers today need to have a long-term vision. And if we don't have the tools that we need to be resilient to climate change, well, that's going to make things considerably more difficult, and that's going to mean that stopping farming is going to be an even easier choice.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-07-08 “We're talking about a competitive bioeconomy in Europe, but then we make 1 of of most promising, sources. We've had a a growth. Hemp. Hemp is not just a really important plant. It gives us a lot of sources for textiles and for many other bio based products. It also gives agriculture of, sector diversification and more resilience to resist crisis. The new European strategy for bioeconomy needs to support those who work in this sector because there are still political obstacles which are preventing this from developing. We need clear rules and also incentives for bio based materials in the construction area and also in the 1st processing plants for this fiber. We have companies and farmers interested in this. So now we need a strategy to meet all these demands.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-03-18 “P-001121/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Environmental Crime Directive (ECD) 1 entered into force on 20 May 2024 and must be transposed in national law by 21 May 2026. All Member States bound by the Directive are obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure that its objectives are achieved. Article 3(1) last sub-paragraph of the ECD referred to by the Honourable Member is part of the definition of unlawful conduct under the Directive. Firstly, it clarifies that a conduct is considered unlawful if a relevant authorisation is obtained fraudulently, or by corruption, extortion or coercion. Secondly, it provides that where an authorisation is in manifest breach of relevant substantive legal requirements, the holder is not exempt from criminal liability. Operators who act in good faith are not covered by this provision. Only those who rely on manifestly unlawful authorisations and damage the environment or human health may be liable to criminal prosecution, if their breach is substantial and obvious. Recital 10 of the Directive clarifies that this provision is not intended to shift from the competent authorities to operators the burden to ensure legality of authorisations. In order to fully and correctly transpose the ECD, the Member States bound by it must ensure that their national law considers a conduct carried out under an authorisation unlawful, if such an authorisation is in manifest breach of substantive relevant legal requirements. 1 Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC, OJ L, 2024/1203, 30.4.2024.”
  Environmental crimes and justice · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-03-18 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 7.5.2026 Written question The Commission is not informed on whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was undertaken for the project at stake. The construction of cycling paths could fall within the scope of Annex II, point 10 (infrastructure projects), letter (b) of the EIA Directive [1] . Under Article 4(2) of this directive, ‘Subject to Article 2(4), for projects listed in Annex II, Member States shall determine whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 […]’. Furthermore, according to Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive [2] , any project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. According to Article 6.4, if, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. Italy has transposed these provisions in its legislation [3] and has adopted national guidelines [4] to improve their application across its regions. Veneto has also transposed such guidelines into its regional legal order [5] . It is for the Italian competent authorities to apply the above rules and procedures to this project and to ensure that, if damage to a protected sites has occurred, it is adequately restored. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission may decide to intervene if systemic issues with application of these provisions of EU law arise [6] . [1] Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codification) OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1-21; Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment Text with EEA relevance OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1-18. [2] 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. [3] https://www.mase.gov.it/pagina/la-valutazione-di-incidenza-vinca#:~:text=Si%20tratta%20del%20processo%20d,di%20significativit%C3%A0%20di%20tali%20incidenze . [4] https://www.mase.gov.it/pagina/linee-guida-nazionali-la-valutazione-di-incidenza-vinca-direttiva-92-43-cee-habitat-articolo . [5] Legge regionale della Regione Veneto n. 12 del 27 maggio 2024 — Disciplina regionale in materia di valutazione ambientale strategica (VAS), valutazione di impatto ambientale (VIA), valutazione d'incidenza ambientale (VINCA) e autorizzazione integrata ambientale (AIA). [6] 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.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• 2026-03-17 “E-001083/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Trade between the EU and Colombia is governed by the EU-Andeans trade agreement 1 , which includes monitoring mechanisms under its title IX on trade and sustainable development. To complement the annual institutional dialogue on Trade and Sustainable Development under the Trade Agreement between the EU and Andean countries, including Colombia, several tools and actions are in place to promote a transition towards sustainable value chains including human rights protection. Upon entry into application of the EU Deforestation Regulation 2 in December 2026, operators placing on the EU market products produced with commodities originating from Colombia 3 will have to carry out full due diligence to ensure that they are deforestation free and produced in line with the relevant legislation of the country of Colombia, including in terms of human rights protected under international law and the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), including as set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) 4 will require large companies to identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and in their (global) value chains. Non-compliance is subject to public and private enforcement. The Global Gateway supports sustainable and quality investments with high social, environmental and governance standards in full compliance with human rights obligations 5 . The Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe Regulation 6 ensures the systematic application of the Human Rights Based Approach in all EU funded external actions. 1 https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/andeancommunity_en. 2 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 3 Starting from the entry into application of the EU Deforestation Regulation at the end of 2026. 4 Enters into application mid-2029: Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859, OJ L, 2024/1760, 5.7.2024. 5 Including respect for territorial rights. 6 https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/funding-technical-assistance/neighbourhood-development-and-internationalcooperation-instrument-global-europe-ndici-global-europe_en.”
  EU policy on social & environmental impact of foreign investments · Trade impact on forests · Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• 2026-03-12 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 10.6.2026 Written question The Commission continuously monitors the animal health situation and recognises the economic impact of animal diseases on the livestock sector. Considering the impact and consequences of disease outbreaks, it supports Member States through financial and technical assistance, including under the Single Market Programme and measures within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) [1] , [2] [3] . The implementation of the measures for the control of avian influenza in the affected Member States is evaluated by the audits performed by the Commission. In the recent years, the Commission performed such audits in Italy in 2022 [4] and 2024 [5] . The conclusions of the audits are that the competent authorities took appropriate technical and supervisory measures to ensure the protection of animal welfare during depopulation of poultry establishments to control disease outbreaks. In addition to the findings and conclusions of the audits, the measures implemented by the competent authorities of Italy to manage the outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza are regularly discussed in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed ( PAFF Committee) [6] . While the Commission recognises that there is room for improvement, Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 [7] provides already sufficient provisions to ensure the protection of animals at the time of killing. As a result, the modernisation of the animal welfare legislation focuses on other areas. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R2115&qid=1757948393327. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0236. [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52025PC0560. [4] https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4602. [5] https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4899. [6] https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/committees/paff-committees/animal-health-and-welfare_en. [7] ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1099/oj.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers · Agricultural funding
• 2026-01-08 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 31.3.2026 Written question 1. The EU legislation on the protection of animals during transport is not applicable to transports between third countries and the Commission is not aware of any Member State or an EU operator involved in the case described by the Honourable Member. 2. Incidents related to the suitability of vessels may still occasionally occur. For this reason, in 2023, the Commission adopted tertiary legislation strengthening official controls on transports by livestock vessels [1] , [2] . In 2025-2026, the Commission is carrying out a series of audits on the implementation of this recent legislation. This will contribute to improving transports of animals by sea, as far as such transports departs from the EU. Furthermore, in its 2023 proposal for a new Regulation on animal transport [3] , the Commission proposed stricter rules at export, increasing space allowance, approval of feeding systems for unweaned animals, rules for livestock vessels, and certification bodies. 3. The above-mentioned Commission proposal is currently pending with the co-legislators. The proposal offers the opportunity to modernise technical requirements for animal transport, including transports by sea, to achieve concrete improvements for animals while maintaining the competitiveness of the EU livestock sector. The primary responsibility for the vessel, its safety and operations rests with the flag state. [1] COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2023/842 of 17 February 2023 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards rules for the performance of official controls to verify compliance with animal welfare requirements for the transport of animals by livestock vessels. [2] COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/372 of 17 February 2023 laying down rules on the recording, storing and sharing of written records of official controls performed on livestock vessels, on contingency plans for livestock vessels in the event of emergencies, on the approval of livestock vessels and on minimum requirements applicable to exit points. [3] COM(2023) 770 final.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2026-01-05 “P-000010/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The restriction dossier 1 submitted by five national authorities to restrict the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 2 includes the use of PFAS in construction products as one of the sectors assessed in detail. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is currently evaluating this restriction dossier. The work of ECHA’s Scientific Committees includes an evaluation of the assessment of the risk for the environment and public health of the use of PFAS in scope of the restriction proposal. The Commission will address the use of PFAS in construction and other sectors via the upcoming REACH restriction. This will ensure the protection of EU citizens, the environment, and a functional internal market. The Commission is committed to presenting a restriction proposal as soon as possible after the ECHA opinion is available. This will ensure that the decision-making process is based on a sound scientific assessment. In parallel, the Commission is working on the revision of the Public Procurement Directives 3 . Within this process, it is currently consulting stakeholders and developing the impact assessment. At this stage, different options are being considered. 1 Also referred to as ‘Universal PFAS restriction’ dossier. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20251023. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014L0023; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02014L0024-20260101; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014L0025.”
  Construction products · Environmental crimes and justice
• 2025-11-25 “E-004679/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom 1 requires Member States to have in place a management system and adequate relevant administrative provisions for nuclear and radiological emergencies. It also requires them to establish in advance response plans for such emergencies, which must be tested, reviewed and revised regularly. While the Directive requires that national emergency plans or management systems include public information arrangements on the health protection measures and on the actions the members of the public likely or to be actually affected in the event of an emergency should take, the publication of the emergency plans is not a requirement under the Directive. The obligation only concerns the provision of appropriate information to the public, not the disclosure of entire operational emergency plans, which remains the responsibility of national authorities. The Euratom Treaty and the Euratom-based secondary legislation are only applicable to peaceful uses of nuclear energy and not to its military applications. According to EU case-law [Case 65/04 of 9 March 2006 Commission v United Kingdom; C-61/03 of 12 April 2005 Commission v United Kingdom], the use of nuclear energy for military purposes falls outside the scope of the Euratom Treaty and its secondary legislation. Therefore, the Commission has no mandate to address nuclear warheads or nuclear-powered military vessels. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013L0059.”
  EU competences on defence · Disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons
• 2025-11-13 “E-004512/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The ‘Construction of roads […]’ is included in point 10(e) of Annex II of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 1 Directive. Under Article 4(2) of the EIA Directive, ‘Subject to Article 2(4), for projects listed in Annex II, Member States shall determine whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Member States shall make that determination through: (a) a case-by-case examination; or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State’. Flood risk management is addressed at EU level by the Floods Directive (FD) 2 . The FD establishes a framework to reduce flood risks via the elaboration of Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) 3 by the Member States 4 . Flood risk management objectives and measures are determined at national level based on local or regional circumstances 5 . Under Article 3(4) of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 6 , ‘Member States shall determine whether plans and programmes, other than those referred to in paragraph 2, which set the framework for future development consent of projects, are likely to have significant environmental effects’. FRMPs fall within the scope of this provision. In addition, when assessing the environmental impact of a new project under the EIA Directive, the competent national authorities may also assess the compatibility of the project with the FRMP adopted for that district. Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, it is for the Italian competent authorities to apply the above rules and procedures to this project. The Commission may decide to intervene if systemic issues with the application of these provisions of EU law arise 7 . 1 Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codification), OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1– 21; Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1–18. 2 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. 3 The FD does not address individual projects as such. 4 SWD(2005) 18 final. 5 Even where an area is labelled as a potentially significant flood risk area in the FRMPs drawn up under the FD, national authorities are responsible for deciding whether an activity should take place in that area, based for example on costs and benefits and/or town planning rules. 6 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, pp. 30–37. 7 As set out in Communication of 19 January 2017 “EU law: Better results through better application”, C/2016/8600, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, and in Communication of 13 October 2022 ‘Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers’, COM(2022) 518 final.”
  EU policy on water management
• 2025-09-18 “E-003622/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission recalls that the precautionary principle informs the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) 1 and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 2 Directives. The two Directives aim to ensure that the potential negative effects of plans, programmes and projects are assessed and adequately addressed and provide for public information and participation. In addition, the EIA Directive also includes access to justice provisions. Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, the obligation to ensure compliance with EU law lies primarily with the administrative and judicial authorities of the Member States. The Commission notes that national judicial proceedings have been initiated on the matter in question. The Commission also notes that Article 32 of Directive 2014/24/EU 3 sets out the conditions for the use of the negotiated procedure without prior publication. However, the implementation of acts of EU law is in the first place the responsibility of the Member States, that shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the relevant fields 4 . It is therefore for national courts and review bodies, as laid down under the Directives on remedies in public procurement 5 , to assess according to the legal and factual circumstances of each case, whether these requirements are met, and therefore whether contracting authorities and entities complied with their obligations under EU law. 1 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30–37. 2 Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codification), OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1– 21; Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1–18. 3 Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, pp. 65–242. 4 Article 291(1), Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 173–173 read in conjunction with Article 19(1), Treaty on European Union, OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 27–27. 5 Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, pp. 33–35; Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, pp. 14–20.”
  EU Competition policy
• 2025-09-03 “E-003372/2025 Answer given by Mr Síkela on behalf of the European Commission The EU’s cooperation with Colombia, guided by the 2021-2027 multiannual indicative programme 1 (MIP), extensively supports Colombia's peace efforts, particularly the implementation of the 2016 peace accords. Many sectors where the EU is active include elements of the women, peace and security (WPS) agenda, addressing issues like sexual and gender-based violence, women's participation in peace processes, the reintegration of female ex-combatants, and the impact of peace agreements on women's socio-economic opportunities. The portfolio integrates actions with gender markers one (gender equality as a significant objective) and two (gender equality as a principal objective). This support aims to strengthen state institutions responsible for the peace agreements, such as the National Agency for Reincorporation, the Directorate for Rural Women, and the Special Jurisdiction for Peace 2 . Notably the ‘Project Future: private sector and communities in action for peace’ from Annual Action Plan 2024 has gender equality among its objectives, focusing on employability of women ex-combatants in urban areas. Colombia’s MIP aligns with the Gender Action Plan (GAP III) 3 objectives. The WPS agenda is a priority in the country level implementation plan. The European Fund for Peace has developed indicators to measure outcomes like the number of women-led initiatives, support for women's organisations, women's civic participation, and improvements in gender-based violence prevention. Regular monitoring, such as reports, results oriented monitoring exercises, evaluations, and internal data collection efforts, ensures accountability and reports to the External Annual Management Review. 1 https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/document/download/247ac3ef-31b6-4b41-82784a112c456039_en. 2 The EU supports access to justice for women and Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer populations victims of sexual and gender-based violence during the conflict, accompanying victims’ organisations in dialogue spaces with ex-combatants; capacity building, to enhance their opportunities for political participation, support to women human rights defenders and for economic initiatives of women’s rights organisations. 3 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/gender-action-plan-iii-its-key-areas-eu-engagement_en.”
  EU development policy (gender conditionality) · Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• 2025-08-28 “E-003322/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Under the Schengen Borders Code 1 (SBC), Member States are allowed to reintroduce internal border control as a temporary measure of last resort to address serious threats to public policy or internal security. The Commission is currently assessing Italy’s notification from June 2025 prolonging the border control with Slovenia. Pursuant to Article 27a(3) of the SBC, the Commission has notably initiated a consultation process with Italy and Slovenia. In this context, the Commission continues to stress the importance of both mitigating and alternative measures that should ensure that checks are necessary and proportionate and have limited impact on cross-border traffic. The Commission considers that the above-mentioned consultation process is an important step aimed to encourage Member States to take alternative measures with the objective to progressively lift internal border control. 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 77, 23/03/2016, p. 1–52, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/1717, OJ L, 2024/1717, 20.6.2024.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2025-07-24 “E-003082/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission Under Article 62(4) of the second Payment Services Directive (PSD2) 1 , Member States must ensure that payees do not request charges for the use of payment instruments for which interchange fees are regulated under the Interchange Fees Regulation (IFR) 2 . The IFR sets caps for interchange fees for debit and credit card transactions, which are not applicable, among other things, to transactions with commercial cards or with cards issued by three party payment card schemes. The Commission does not have enough information to evaluate if the situation described by the Honourable Member is compatible with PSD2. Whether or not any fees levied via the Italian pagoPA platform for card payments is compliant with PSD2 can only be established in full knowledge of the facts of the case. The Italian national authority designated to enforce PSD2 and the IFR – the Italian Central Bank - is responsible to enforce the PSD2 provisions on surcharging. Member States have a primary responsibility to monitor the application of the relevant legal provisions and to take the necessary steps for their enforcement. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission monitors the situation and may decide to take appropriate action. 1 OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35–127. 2 OJ L 123, 19.05.2015, p. 1–15.”
  Means of payment (cash vs digital) · Financial regulation
• 2025-07-02 “E-002701/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission does not have any specific information about any damages to pastures in the Special Protection Area of Magredi del Cellina, beyond the information provided by the Honourable Member. In the case of damages to Natura 2000 site, it would be for the national or regional Italian authorities responsible for the protection of the site to carry out an investigation and, depending on the findings of that investigation, to initiate legal procedures, impose sanctions and/or impose measures to reverse the damage to the site.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Environmental crimes and justice
• 2025-05-26 “P-002102/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Member States must ensure compliance with EU law, including verifying if assessments under Directives 2000/60/EC 1 , 2011/92/EU 2 , 92/43/EEC 3 and 2009/147/EC 4 are required for a project and, if so, assessing if they were performed in accordance with that legislation. Based on the information provided, the Commission cannot establish a breach of these EU Directives at this point in time. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission monitors Member States' compliance with EU law, focusing its enforcement action on systemic issues of non-compliance 5 . National courts are competent to verify compliance with EU law for individual cases. Investment 4.1 ‘Primary water infrastructure for the security of water supply’ of the national recovery and resilience plan 6 (RRP) aims to ensure security of water supply and increase network resilience 7 . The Commission does not participate to the selection of projects, which falls under the remit of the Member State, but assesses the implementation of measures on the basis of the Annex to the Council Implementing Decision on the Italian RRP 8 . Member States’ authorities, including the judiciary, are primarily responsible to ensure compliance with EU law, including verifying compliance of the specific projects undertaken in the context of the RRP. 1 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000. 2 Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU. 3 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. 4 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010. 5 As set out in Communication of 19 January 2017 ‘EU law: Better results through better application’, C/2016/8600, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, and in Communication of 13 October 2022 ‘Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers’, COM(2022) 518 final. 6 https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resiliencefacility/country-pages/italys-recovery-and-resilience-plan_en. 7 Target M2C4-29 envisages increasing security of water supply and resilience of 50 water systems. 8 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/10d790a3-f955-4377-aa97b3f74d3d179d_en?filename=COM_2025_285_1_EN_annexe_proposition_cp_part1_v3.pdf.”
  EU policy on water management
• 2025-05-13 “E-001891/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. Legislative Decree No 155 of 13 August 2010 transposes into the Italian legal order Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air 1 . This Directive and Directive 2004/107/EC 2 , has recently been revised by Directive (EU) 2024/2881 of 23 October 2024 3 , which Member States must transpose by 11 December 2026. Until 11 December 2026, Directives 2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC remain in force. The Commission will assess the transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/2881 by all Member States, including Italy. Article 18 of Directive 2010/75/EU 4 (the ‘Industrial Emissions Directive’ – ‘IED’) refers to ‘environmental quality standards’ (EQS), defined in Article 3(6) IED as the set of requirements which must be fulfilled at a given time by a given environment or particular part thereof, as set out in Union law. The requirements laid down in Directive 2008/50/EC, Directive 2004/107/EC and Directive (EU) 2024/2881 constitute such EQS. As confirmed by the Court of Justice of the EU 5 , when compliance with EQS requires that an installation abides by stricter conditions than those achievable by the use of the best available techniques, additional measures shall be included in the IED permit of this installation 6 . Consistency between the two Directives is thus ensured; stricter conditions should be included in an IED permit where required under Article 18 IED in light of a case-by-case assessment. The reference in Legislative Decree No 155 to Directive 2008/50/EC is thus valid until 11 December 2026, without prejudice to Article 18 IED. 2. In the context of infringement procedure INFR(2013)2177 7 , the Commission sent a second additional letter of formal notice to Italy on 7 May 2025. Upon Italy’s reply, the Commission will assess it and decide how to follow up. 1 Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe - OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1–44. 2 Directive 2004/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air; OJ L 23, 26.1.2005, p. 3–16. 3 Directive (EU) 2024/2881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (recast), OJ L, 2024/2881, 20.11.2024. 4 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial and livestock rearing emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), (OJ L 334 17.12.2010, p. 17); as revised by Directive (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 amending Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste; OJ L, 2024/1785, 15.7.2024. 5 In its judgment in Case C‑626/22; https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-626/22. 6 Cf. Article 18 of the IED. 7 https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringementdecisions/?version=v1&typeOfSearch=byCase&activeCase=true&page=1&size=10&order=desc&sortColumns= refId&memberState=IT&dg=ENV&langCode=EN&refId=INFR(2013)2177.”
  Air quality policy
• 2025-05-12 “E-001875/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Article 24 of Directive 2010/75/EU 1 regulates public participation and access to information in permit granting and review procedures, and provides that the competent authority must i) consult the public concerned in cases where a new or updated permit is being granted; and ii) make available to the public several types of information, such as the content and copy of the decision; the reasons on which it was based; and the results of the consultations held and how these were taken into consideration. This obligation may apply to some of the documents mentioned by the Honourable Members. However, the Directive requires that such information is made available to the public, including via the internet, ‘[w]hen a decision on granting or the reconsideration or updating of a permit has been taken’. To the Commission’s knowledge, the process for the renewal of the permit of the Acciaierie d’Italia (former ILVA) steel plant in Taranto is ongoing and no decision has been taken yet. In accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2003/4/EC 2 , Member States may be required to make available upon request other environmental information that does not fall within the above-mentioned obligation. Based on the information provided, the Commission cannot establish that this obligation has been breached in the case at hand. The Commission notes that several issues of non-conformity of the Italian legislation with Directive 2010/75/EU and of its bad application have been raised in the additional letter of formal notice sent to Italy on 7 May 2025 3 in the context of the ongoing infringement procedure INFR(2013)2177. 1 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial and livestock rearing emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010. 2 Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, OJ L 41, 14.2.2003. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_25_982.”
  Air quality policy
• 2025-05-02 “E-001786/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the concerns being raised about the widespread occurrence of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) in European waters and drinking water. The European Chemicals Agency recently launched a public consultation 1 on the classification of TFA, and the European Food Safety Authority is reviewing the toxicological reference values for TFA 2 . The conclusions will influence how the Commission acts on TFA and substances known to degrade to it. The Commission has restricted some groups of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals 3 , and additional restrictions on the whole PFAS family are under consideration 4 , including for PFAS that degrade to TFA. The Commission has already removed a number of PFAS pesticides that degrade to TFA from the EU market. Most others are under re-evaluation. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 5 does not currently allow approval or renewal of an active substance to be refused solely because it is a PFAS, but other grounds may apply 6 . The Water Resilience Strategy 7 emphasises the need to tackle PFAS at source and commits to partnering efforts to find remediation solutions. The recast Drinking Water Directive 8 includes standards for ‘Sum of PFAS’ and ‘PFAS Total’. Neither explicitly includes TFA, but the Commission 9 recommends measuring TFA separately if the latter is applied. The Commission has asked the World Health Organization to recommend health-based values for relevant PFAS in drinking water based on the latest science. Under the Water Framework Directive 10 , negotiations on the Commission’s 2022 proposal to revise the lists of pollutants in surface and groundwaters, including to add several PFAS, are continuing. 1 https://echa.europa.eu/harmonised-classification-and-labelling-consultation/-/substance-rev/80001/term. 2 https://open.efsa.europa.eu/study-inventory/EFSA-Q-2024-00502. 3 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. 4 https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas. 5 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/2022-11-21. 6 As stated in its reply to written question to E-000268/2024. 7 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/1c566741-ee2f-41e7-a915-7bd88bae7c03/library/b560bc22-6a61-4b63b62b-a7fe890ea177/details. 8 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2020/2184/oj. 9 Commission Notice establishing technical guidelines for methods of analysis for PFAS in drinking water: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4910. 10 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/60/2014-11-20.”
  PFAs · Water pollution · EU policy on pesticides
• 2025-04-16 “E-0001559/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission In 2024, the Commission received, also in the context of parliamentary question E-000814/2024, information on possible widespread illegal fishing and commercialisation of juvenile species in Italy, including sardina pilchardus. Consequently, the Commission contacted the Italian authorities to obtain information on the control and enforcement of such non-compliances, including on seizures. The Commission also received recently a complaint on the same issue, which is being analysed. The application of the European and national rules on sanctioning, including administrative actions or criminal proceedings, is an important contribution to sustainable fishing. Article 89 of Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 1 requires Member States, inter alia, to ensure that sanctions are ‘capable of producing results proportionate to the seriousness of such infringements, thereby effectively discouraging further offences […].’ The Commission considers as serious issue any failure to implement the Common Fisheries Policy and would act fittingly upon evidence that sanctions do not meet the requirements set out in the legislation. This includes ensuring the application of the new and strengthened sanctioning rules recently introduced by Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 2 that will apply from January 2026. 1 OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2009.343.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2009%3A343%3ATO C. 2 Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 November 2023 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006 and (EC) No 1005/2008 and Regulations (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2017/2403 and (EU) 2019/473 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards fisheries control.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2025-04-16 “E-001560/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is committed to preserving and improving the road safety performance of motorcycles through the enforcement and constant update of the requirements of the motorcycle type approval framework (Regulation (EU) 168/2013) 1 in line with the development of international standards at United Nation’s (UN) level and technological advancements. Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 168/2013 allows motorcycle manufacturers to apply for an EU type-approval in respect of a type of vehicle, system, component or separate technical unit that incorporates new technologies that are incompatible with one or more of the legal technical requirements but contribute to the safety performance of the vehicle. This has been recently used by the Commission to approve a motorcycle system with advanced braking and distance control capabilities that are not yet subject to UN Regulations. According to our knowledge, the motorcycle airbag is a technology in its early stages of development. The Commission does not yet have sufficient evidence of the road-safety benefits related to this new technology to consider a mandatory requirement. The Commission promotes the safety of vulnerable road users, including riders of powered two-wheelers, through all available means. These include networks of Member State officials and of stakeholders in the sector, EU road safety conferences, twinning programmes between responsible authorities and awards schemes. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/168/2024-11-27.”
  Driving licences
• 2025-03-24 “E-001222/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission Directive (EU) 2018/2001 1 (RED II) and Directive (EU) 2024/1711 2 amending Directive (EU) 2019/944 as regards improving the Union’s electricity market design create a comprehensive legal framework for renewables self-consumption, energy sharing and energy communities. Member States had until 30 June 2021 to transpose RED II into their national legislations. The deadline to transpose the relevant provisions on energy sharing of Directive (EU) 2024/1711, which give final customers engaged in energy sharing the right to have the shared electricity deducted from their total consumption to reduce the customer’s bill, is 17 July 2026. The infringement proceeding against Italy for partial transposition of RED II (INFR(2021)0266) was closed in February 2025 3 . The conformity of the transposition will be investigated in a second phase. In addition, Directive (EU) 2023/2413 amending RED II 4 introduced shorter deadlines for the permit-granting procedure of renewable energy projects, which do also apply to renewables self-consumers and renewable energy communities. Member States had until 1 July 2024 to transpose these rules. The Commission is currently checking whether the provisions of the Directive have been fully transposed and has opened infringement proceedings against a number of Member States, including Italy 5 , for failing to transpose into national law the EU permit-granting procedures rules from the Directive (EU) 2023/2413. The conformity of the transposition will be investigated in a second phase. The Commission is working with Member States through e.g. the Concerted Action on the RED to ensure that the provisions are completely and correctly transposed and facilitate selfconsumption and renewable energy communities. 1 Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 82–209. 2 Directive (EU) 2024/1711 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 amending Directives (EU) 2018/2001 and (EU) 2019/944 as regards improving the Union’s electricity market design, OJ L, 2024/1711, 26.6.2024. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringementsproceedings/infringement_decisions/?lang_code=en&langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&r efId=INFR(2021)0266 4 Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652 (OJ L, 2023/24, 31.10.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/2413/oj). 5 INFR(2024)0232), September infringement package (https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/septemberinfringement-package-key-decisions-energy-2024-09-26_en) and February infringement package (https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/february-infringement-package-key-decisions-energy-2025-02-12_en).”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• 2025-02-05 “E-000514/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission would like to recall that, in light of the limited resources available to the Commission and to the Member States, it had to prioritise the various activities required for the full implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 1 on plant protection products. The highest priority has been given to the implementation of actions related to the approval and renewal of approval of active substances, followed by actions related to the identification of co-formulants that are unacceptable in plant protection products (Article 27 of the Regulation) and, most recently, the development of a work programme for the assessment of safeners and synergists (Article 26 of the Regulation). At present a significant amount of available resources must be dedicated to responding to requests for internal review of its decisions related to active substances submitted under the provisions of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 2 on the application of the Aarhus Convention and subsequent cases in Court, for which tight legal deadlines apply. Article 58 of the Regulation does not set a deadline for the development of detailed rules for the authorisation of adjuvants at EU level and at this stage a timeline for such procedure is not available. In the meantime, in accordance with Article 81(3) of the Regulation, Member States may apply national provisions for their authorisation in their territories. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1–50. 2 Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies. OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p. 13–19.”
  Maximum residue levels · EU policy on pesticides
• 2025-02-05 “E-000543/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission does not undertake impact assessments of plans and projects on the environment, as Member States are primarily responsible to ensure implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law. According to information provided by the Italian authorities, the construction of a weir-bridge in Pinzano for the creation of a detention basin is a measure aimed at mitigating flood risk in Italy’s Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP). Following technical assessments and studies carried out by competent authorities and discussions with stakeholders, a set of interventions was identified to achieve the mitigation effect proposed by this measure 1 . The possible environmental impacts resulting from the measure are reported in the first FRMP, which underwent a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) 2 . The measure is also included in the current FRMP. Having been the subject of an SEA already, the assessment of actual impacts requires a more defined project design of the interventions, to be evaluated through an Environmental Impact Assessment 3 and the appropriate assessment required under Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 4 . It must also be assessed whether these interventions would have an adverse effect on the status of the body of water concerned, and, if so, whether they would be covered by a derogation under Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive 5 . 2. Based on the information above, the Commission has no evidence that the measure infringes EU law. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue monitoring the situation and may decide to take appropriate action. 1 The set of interventions includes: i) a weir with an in-line detention basin in the river reach crossed by the Dignano bridge; ii) a weir with an off-line detention basin, close to the Madrisio bridge, and iii) adjustments to enhance and/or retrofit levees, overflow channels, and the drainage network. The residual risk would be managed through the two non-structural measures: i) the Citizen Observatory (Osservatorio dei Cittadini) and ii) the update of Civil Protection Plans. 2 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30–37. 3 Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 026 28.1.2012, p. 1. 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. 5 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.”
  EU policy on water management · Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.)
• 2025-01-17 “E-000197/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The United Nations resolution mentioned by the Honourable Member is not anymore applicable. The current status of Trieste is determined by the Treaty between the Italian Republic and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, adopted in Osimo on 10 November 1975 1 . It should be underlined that the regulation of military transit and port operations remains the exclusive prerogative of the Member States. 1 Gazzetta Ufficiale of Italian Republic No 77 of 21 March 1977.”
  Disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons
• 2025-01-17 “E-000204/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission is not aware of the situation mentioned by the Honourable Members. The EU legislation covering food products designated as protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI) provides a high level of protection for European quality products, thus safeguarding consumers’ confidence and enabling them to make more informed purchasing choices. 2. According to the applicable rules 1 , controls on production of PDO or PGI products are carried out by the competent authorities of the Member States. It is therefore for the national authorities to perform the controls at all stages of production, processing and distribution and possibly intervene in case of non-compliance with the product specification. Each operator should be subject to such controls. 3. The Commission, as guardian of the Treaty monitors Member States’ application of EU law in their territories. It aims to swiftly follow up on systemic issues involving the application of EU law in EU countries. The Commission takes note of the situation reported in the Honourable Members’ question and is in regular contact with the competent Italian authorities. 1 See art. 39 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, as well as traditional specialities guaranteed and optional quality terms for agricultural products, amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2019/787 and (EU) 2019/1753 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (OJ L 23.4.2024, p.76).”
  EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing · EU policy on country of origin food labelling
• 2024-12-13 “E-002947/2024 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis On behalf of the European Commission Italy’s Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP) includes Investment 4.1 on the construction of cycling lanes in metropolitan areas and of tourist cycle paths (M2C2), which aligns with the scope of the Garda cycle path project. The compliance of M2C2 Investment 4.1 was assessed with the do no significant harm (DNSH) principle and was concluded positive, as endorsed by the Council Implementing Decision (CID) 1 . The compliance check is conducted at the investment level, and not at the specific project level. This is a primary responsibility of the Member States, which are requested to ensure that projects financed by the investment: 1. fully respect DNSH conditions; 2. comply with EU and national law, including the environmental acquis. As regards the environmental acquis, the Member State would have to ensure that, in line with Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive 2 , any project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site shall be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. The Commission has no information about the alleged impacts of the project mentioned by the Honourable Member on any Natura 2000 site. As regards Directive 2008/96/EC 3 on road infrastructure safety management, as amended in 2019, this Directive applies to roads which are part of the trans-European road network, to motorways and to primary roads connecting cities and regions. According to its Article 1(3), it also applies to extra-urban EU funded roads, but with the express exception of ‘roads that are not open to general motor vehicle traffic such as bicycle paths’. The Commission maintains a continuous dialogue with Italy to ensure that the national implementation complies with the provisions of the CID. 1 Council Implementing Decision on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Italy, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15114-2024-INIT/en/pdf 2 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. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/96/oj/eng”
  Road transport environmental policy
• 2024-11-14 “E-002539/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Member States have a primary responsibility to monitor the application of the Regulation on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) 1 and ensure the compliance with EU law. The recast Drinking Water Directive (DWD) 2 , transposed into national law by January 2023, sets two different limits for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): 0.50 μg/l for ‘PFAS Total’ and 0.10 μg/l for 20 PFAS 3 , including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Member States can apply one or both of these limits, which must be met at the point of compliance, often the tap, by 12 January 2026 4 . Stricter values or additional parameters may also be adopted at national level. While the precautionary principle is indeed central to EU policies, related decisions are taken through an evidence-based process, ensuring the balance between precaution and the broader socio-economic and regulatory context. PFAS C6O4 5 as well as other per- and polyfluorinated compounds fall under the broad PFAS restriction proposal submitted under the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 6 , by Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden public authorities in 2023. The European Chemicals Agency’s scientific committees are evaluating the proposal, including emissions of PFAS during fluoropolymers manufacturing. Their final opinion 7 will guide the Commission’s next steps 8 . A targeted revision of REACH, aiming to address both the simplification and modernisation of the Regulation, is still ongoing. Therefore, it cannot yet be confirmed whether an obligation to provide reference standards for registered substances, including potentially polluting intermediates generated during synthesis, will be included. 1 Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants (recast), OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 45–77. 2 Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast), OJ L 435, 23.12.2020, p. 1–62. 3 The list of parameters and parametric values for PFAS is included in part B of Annexe I. The list of PFAS included in ‘Sum of PFAS’ is provided in paragraph 3 of Annex III of the DWD. 4 Article 25 of the recast DWD. 5 Perfluoro ([5-methoxy-1,3-dioxolan-4-yl]oxy) acetic acid, CAS no. 1190931-41-9. 6 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), OJ L 396, 30.12.2006. 7 Informed by over 5 600 comments received during a first public consultation. 8 https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18663449b”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-09-11 “E-001677/2024 Answer given by Ms Kyriakides on behalf of the European Commission The European Commission has received complaints against the Decree of the Italian Ministry of Health of 27 June 2024 and is currently analysing its compliance with Union law. In this context it will assess its compliance also under Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU 1 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT”
  Cannabis consumption
• “Thank you. Colleagues. Will I come from one part of the European Union that is very polluted. And I am a farmer. I'm a farmer of resilience. Water resilience is so important. The protection of this resource is so important. That is why reading the words of this own initiative report, I must say that it was not with great pleasure to see that you only talk to large, general solutions, but you seem to leave it up to give false promises, technological promises to solve a necessity for farmers, for drinking water, that is, to use the very best solutions, taking account of what our experiences have shown us from the past to reduce the use of resources. You don't really understand how difficult it is to see that there are still reticences in this, going along with all productive solutions and for the use of PFAS and to find solutions to these PFAS. But these solutions don't seem to give us any commitments.”
  Water pollution
• “Thank you very much. I will speak Italian again. I must admit, I'm a little bit pessimistic when I hear about new markets for bio. I think about financialization of nature, and the risk is to reduce public investments. And then basically it will be large companies that come into play again. And so I'm just a bit concerned. What about the costs, the management costs, all this, the technical aspects basically that will need studies and people will will we need to look at what is the value of all of this. And we need to be careful that the the burden doesn't fall again on the shoulders of our farmers. And then I admit, I must say that working for sustainability. Okay, that's one thing of course. But companies other way, other in other places are not doing that. And they can continue to do what they're doing. So that doesn't help the ecosystem. So we want to make sure that we haven't got very complicated credits. We need to be more pragmatic. In my region, for example, when you think about companies such as Coca-Cola, they extract water a huge quantities from our water sources. And? Do they actually do anything to ensure water preservation? I mean, this is something that might happen. We need to, of course, come up with innovation, but we want to make sure that we're not paying for expensive consultants to work out all the the amounts concerned here, the figures concerned. We need to help our farmers. I mean, what about the non-productive areas? They actually do produce biodiversity. We shouldn't sacrifice them in the name of simplification. So we want a target for biodiversity, of course. Yes. We know that there are companies that can also come into play for biodiversity. It's not just farmers, so let's talk about nature credits, but make sure that they are dealt with in the correct manner and properly.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Not only would I like to thank the representatives of the Citizens Initiative, but I would also like to thank all colleagues who've participated in this for the debate, and also thank you to the representatives of the other European institutions who have also made valuable contributions that can help to feed into the Commission's work. And hopefully into some kind of legislative follow up, as well as one with financial support in order to respond to this urgent need. Regardless of positions expressed. Today's discussion has shown how European citizens initiatives can lead to serious, transparent, interinstitutional dialogue on complex topics and also enhance the democratic legitimacy of the EU. And I'm saying this on behalf of my whole committee. The eyes are one of the clearest expressions of participatory democracy within the EU, and any civic mobilisation should help to feed into public debate and strengthen the European project, one that will involve all generations, particularly those who will build Europe in the future. And they are requesting that from us in Europe. And if I may, chair, I would just like to add a personal note. I would like to thank you for teaching us about democracy and values, as you have done today. I'm saying that as a woman, as a mother, and also because it's very important that we hear messages from the new generation and that they you help us to understand that we all have a responsibility when that will respect dignity, young generations and those values that are all too easy to forget sometime values of respect, mutual respect, dignity in this House, anyone who embraces European democratic values. Is someone who has to fight for the rights of everyone in their own countries, everywhere, and they should not feel disrespected or estranged from their society. If people's rights aren't respected, this should be recognised as an act of torture. And we need to have a proper tools to respond to it. Thank you very much.”
  EU engagement with citizens
• “Not only would I like to thank the representatives of the Citizens Initiative, but I would also like to thank all colleagues who've participated in this for the debate, and also thank you to the representatives of the other European institutions who have also made valuable contributions that can help to feed into the Commission's work. And hopefully into some kind of legislative follow up, as well as one with financial support in order to respond to this urgent need. Regardless of positions expressed. Today's discussion has shown how European citizens initiatives can lead to serious, transparent, interinstitutional dialogue on complex topics and also enhance the democratic legitimacy of the EU. And I'm saying this on behalf of my whole committee. The eyes are one of the clearest expressions of participatory democracy within the EU, and any civic mobilisation should help to feed into public debate and strengthen the European project, one that will involve all generations, particularly those who will build Europe in the future. And they are requesting that from us in Europe. And if I may, chair, I would just like to add a personal note. I would like to thank you for teaching us about democracy and values, as you have done today. I'm saying that as a woman, as a mother, and also because it's very important that we hear messages from the new generation and that they you help us to understand that we all have a responsibility when that will respect dignity, young generations and those values that are all too easy to forget sometime values of respect, mutual respect, dignity in this House, anyone who embraces European democratic values. Is someone who has to fight for the rights of everyone in their own countries, everywhere, and they should not feel disrespected or estranged from their society. If people's rights aren't respected, this should be recognised as an act of torture. And we need to have a proper tools to respond to it. Thank you very much.”
  EU engagement with citizens
• “Do we realize that president von der Leyen today didn't even mention agriculture? I understand why, because for some people, industry compared to small farmers such as me is, uh, obvious. But to ignore the issue, not to admit the effects of her strategy based on importing fertilizer and low cost food will not save anyone. Not farmers and not families. A packet of pasta at $0.90 by the summer could be over a euro. An increase of 10% because of the increase in the cost of fossil fuel created fertilizer that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the prices we are paying for our reliance. While Africa is facing famine in Iran and in Lebanon, people are dying for a pointless war based on diabolical economic interests by of men who many of you consider allies. So I'd like to ask the Commission to do the only sensible thing. Create a European strategy so that agriculture is no longer reliant on external forces. Invest in circular economy for small families and farmers. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “I'd really like to thank you for the presentation. And I have a specific question about the future of the debates that we have in this committee, in this Parliament, and that's on the basis of a concept that's very close to my heart. I feel that agriculture is an enormous engine for social inclusion. And I'd really like to thank you for showing us through your experience that this is possible. I am close to a project in my local region of Veneto that tries to bring together food production and inclusion. To try and give opportunities for people to realize their potential. That's to say people with disabilities. So I'd really like to thank you. The project that I am working closely with has worked through support from European funding, such as the European Social Fund, and I'm sure that your project is similar. Now we're rather concerned about what's going to happen to the projects that depend on these funds. The Commission, through its new budget proposals, seems to be dismantling this kind of funding, the very projects that promote social inclusion. There's also programs through the Common Agricultural Policy, such as the Leader program, and there's also cohesion policy that all seem to be endangered. So to what extent has your project benefited from these kinds of funds, and are you concerned about the possibility of upcoming cuts or possible watering down of the funding available? So as I go into debates on this with my colleagues, how do you think we can expand opportunities for people with disabilities if we limit the very instruments that make it possible, and that have given form to European solidarity on the basis of the experience of Le Canapé. I think it's very important that we learn lessons that can we can take forward over the next two years.”
  EU policy on disability inclusion & accessibility
• “Thank you very much indeed for sharing your points with us. And congratulations on your work on the Food and Feed Omnibus. I'd like to briefly try and understand what kind of implications this will have for your work. This is introducing the possibility of unlimited authorisation for some active substances rather than every ten years. That means that there could be for FAS and neonicotinoids included in that system, including Acetamide. And we've just talked about how that's going to affect pollinators. Then there's the self mandate of Efsa. And that becomes extremely crucial in this system, because then you would need to be able to react to emerging scientific evidence as you would do for the P-fas. I'm wondering how Efsa can give itself a self mandate, and what guarantees can we have to make sure that this is used in a timely and systematic way compared with the current system? Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Today is an important step in this procedure, because it ensures that citizens voices will be heard within the institutional framework. This citizens initiative, a ban on conversion practices mean that the signatories of the petition will ask the commission to look at legislation or acts to ban conversion therapy based on person's sexuality or gender identity. It also means that we have to look at possible legislative tools, as well as legislation on equality, as well as strengthening recourse for victims. Any action that's taken at European level will have to be looked at in view of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Petitions Committee regularly receives petitions on fundamental rights, non-discrimination and protection of LGBTQ+ people. The significant number of signatories to this initiative shows how issues of dignity and equality are so important to so many European citizens, and these should be discussed in a dignified and attentive manner. I'd like to thank all of the participants for the correct term with which they will participate, and all of the contributions that they are going to make today. And now, on behalf of the Commissioner for Equality and Crisis Management, Labib, I'll give the floor to her. Representative. Thank you.”
  LGBTIQ+
• “Thanks a lot for this meaningful debate, and thank you for the suggestions. And to make clear the necessities that you are putting thanks to these democratic initiatives. So I will continue in Italian.”
  EU engagement with citizens
• “Thank you very much, chair. And I will speak in my mother tongue. I'd like to focus on proposals five and six in this study. I think it's an excellent study, but I would take those two proposals together. There's no point paying young people to stay on the land if they don't have the essential services when they're there. And women know this better than anyone. Only 26% of farmers are women under 40. They're hit by double whammy. Faced with the territorial challenges and gender challenges, to the right to stay Is the crucial issue here. So on the basis of performance based indicators, we could be looking at ways to ensure that governments have to provide funding for rural inland areas and their services with a percentage figure, which is very clear, so that young people can see that and see what will be spent. We don't have that in the commission proposal at the moment, and we really need to include this. It's not just me saying it. It's what young people are saying, what women farmers are saying. What precisely are people who came here to talk to us at the recent hearing said. I think this is the vital thing. So Commission, what do you think? Expenditure indicators for rural areas for health. Transport, housing, water. Having that in the next MFF. What do you think? Follow up question could we E enter into a collective commitment to focus not only on generational renewal as a concept, but as an aspect of our financial practice.”
  Cohesion and rural funding · EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you. Chairman. Well, obviously, this review proposal or of the CMO is interesting from various points of view. Um, hemp, uh, protein crops, strategic stocks, or we've heard all about that already from our colleague. And the CMO is a fundamental tool in order to get around crises, to prevent crises, and to give farmers a proper income and have a balanced situation in the market. So yes, we can have direct aid, But it's a waste of money. It's not an efficient use of money. We only have a few products involved, and this happens only when it's too late anyway. So increasing reference prices and managing things better in terms of supply and demand is good. And not just to restrict ourselves. And we have a crisis in Italy, and it's for these reasons. So we have to look at a sectoral intervention for wine, for oil, and we have to reinforce cooperation. We can't just have the actual countries managing this at that level. We know that we are very dependent on protein crops and that will continue with Mercosur. So what we have to do is have a plus value plus For farmers at European level, we have to give them safe food and in particular for young children, but also for European farmers. Turning now to hemp, which I'm very interested in, the proposal is finally consistent with the proposed initiative report put forward by the European Parliament on the cap, and I hope that it's going to be able to reinforce this sector because we have here a real industrial opportunity, a real environmental opportunity. And it's something that I'm sure we're going to be discussing in the future.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Today is an important step in this procedure, because it ensures that citizens voices will be heard within the institutional framework. This citizens initiative, a ban on conversion practices mean that the signatories of the petition will ask the commission to look at legislation or acts to ban conversion therapy based on person's sexuality or gender identity. It also means that we have to look at possible legislative tools, as well as legislation on equality, as well as strengthening recourse for victims. Any action that's taken at European level will have to be looked at in view of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Petitions Committee regularly receives petitions on fundamental rights, non-discrimination and protection of LGBTQ+ people. The significant number of signatories to this initiative shows how issues of dignity and equality are so important to so many European citizens, and these should be discussed in a dignified and attentive manner. I'd like to thank all of the participants for the correct term with which they will participate, and all of the contributions that they are going to make today. And now, on behalf of the Commissioner for Equality and Crisis Management, Labib, I'll give the floor to her. Representative. Thank you.”
  LGBTIQ+
• “Yes. Wholehearted. Thanks to the court, the European Court of Auditors for this work. The report confirms one aspect which sadly, no longer makes the news. That is oil imported from third countries. There are virtually no controls on pesticides and other things. This is a structural weakness in the EU, which threatens the consumers health and brings in unfair competition towards our own producers. So the court doesn't spare my own country, Italy, either in 2022 2023. The main points of entry. No sample of oil was checked. Now it's obvious that a country which produces 17% of this cannot allow itself to be so negligent. So we need to strengthen our customs officials and make up for our own shortfalls. But let's not forget that we need to have a broader perspective. It's quite right that we tighten up quality controls, particularly for products which generate unfair competition. But in general, in our field, we have to think about climate change, according to the Italian Council for Agricultural Research. This, likely to be a fall by the third in production of various products by the middle part of the century. We need to be careful. We need to think about these problems. And at the same time, we must remember olive groves because we do everything we like at the borders. But if European production crumbles, then that will affect others as well.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “And so I think that we've got to really consider all these other aspects. There is a hazard problem which cannot be looked at just by individual companies. But there has got to be. You've got to have a look at the bioaccumulation of these substances, including the products which are the, um, which are the half life products, and you've got these studies which shed light on what I'm saying here. So I think that we've got to have a holistic approach, and I think that we've got to have a limit. If you ask for a limited waiver, this will suggest to legislators that you don't really want to you don't really want to take this seriously. And there's a big risk, which was mentioned by my colleague, uh, before. And that is that we will be we will not be competitive, uh, compared with the rest of the world, if we're talking about competition, we've got to have regulatory certainty. We've got to have investment in European solution, we've got to have innovation, and we've got to respect all the needs social, economic and health needs. And we've got to, uh, We've got to bear in mind the economic aspect. So thank you very much for producing this study. And I think that, uh, this has got to, um, this has got to be enlarged. And I think that other industries have got to be consulted to.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you very much. I'm really happy to be here with you. And I hope that this discussion will be fair and clear and positive as I as all we are. Hope. In the meantime, I will continue speaking Italian. I'm sorry. And it's a pleasure to be able to welcome you to this public hearing on the European Citizens Initiative, a ban on conversion practices in the EU, and on behalf of the Petitions Committee to be able to contribute to this dialogue. I'd like to thank the chair and the members of the committee for their leadership, as well as the committee for their participation as well. The topic that we're looking at affects fundamental rights, human dignity and equality. These are values that are very much at the heart of the EU. As Vice president of the Petitions Committee, I would like to warmly thank the organizers for having collected this number of signatures from European citizens. We know how difficult it is. This is not just a procedural step. It's a very clear step of civil mobilisation, of citizen participation. Seeing the number of people involved in this issue, the citizens initiative is one of the key features of participative democracy democracy across Europe. It allows citizens to. Send in proposals to the Commission and ask them to respond. When it comes to areas that are of union competency. So it enhances the link between the institutions and citizens. And it means that the EU has to be more conscious and aware of citizens desires.”
  LGBTIQ+
• “Sorry. I request that we proceed to a secret vote. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: Are there any other members who support Cristina Guardia? In order to meet the conditions, we need nine members in order to hold a secret vote. I request the Secretariat to count. I don't know if we have reached the nine members necessary. Yes we do. We have at least nine members. And so we can proceed to a secret vote. Each member of our committee may vote only once, obviously. And here is the distribution of votes by political group. Ep 11 S&D eight. Patriots four Europe five ECR four. For Renew Europe for the Greens and EFA three left three ESN one and unaffiliated to. I would also like to remind you that the election is won at any round if an absolute majority is reached, which includes only the votes for and against. I would also like to inform you that this election will be held using electronic voting. I assume that everyone has their voting cards. I sure hope so. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: So once again, we are having a secret vote and I would like to remind you of the names of the candidates. Francesco Ventola is the one who is nominated for this position. We will first do a test vote. The green button is a vote in favor. The red button is a vote against this candidate. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: We will proceed to the vote. The test vote. Okay. Okay. And now. Now. Thank you. I would just like to remind you that abstentions are not included in calculating an absolute majority. So it's an absolute majority of votes cast. Could I also remind you that if you have made a mistake, you can actually change your vote? As long as the vote remains open by voting on the correct button? The vote is now open. The vote is now closed. 21 in favour, 11 against. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: Thank you. So we now move on to the election of the fourth vice chairman for this committee. Could I ask for nominations? Garcia. For the Renew.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Micro, small and medium sized enterprises. Services of general interest must continue to be at the heart of this, and we should reinforce at local sectors and high quality jobs. We shouldn't concentrate resources in the hands of a few, which are often bigger companies that also have access to other instruments. We can't have competitiveness without social justice, however, and that's why we propose that 20% of resources for the cohesion policy should be for goals of the social policy. The same goes for the climate and environmental policy. This is a bit controversial, but to faced with the climate crisis and my area of Sicily is experiencing the results of that, the 35% target is not enough. We need at least 50% of resources with credible instruments. That can reduce the impact of human activity and delay the increase in temperatures. We need to preserve public safety and it's really being threatened at the moment. Life program should remain independent. And that's a clear responsibility for this committee, because regions and local authorities are some of the biggest beneficiaries of that programme. And they're asking they're requesting a commitment in this direction. And they've signed a petition asking that cash for reform as a an approach is incompatible with cohesion. It punishes the most fragile regions. It marginalises local authorities. We have to all focus on a bottom up approach, a multi-level approach. One that brings together all of the actors, even in a European semester. And I would add, we want to the rule of law to be applied rigorously. We need to end the option of mixing frozen funds. We have to have a clear idea of Europe, one that invests in territories, strengthens local democracy and doesn't leave anybody behind. Thank you very much.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you very much. I'm really happy to be here with you. And I hope that this discussion will be fair and clear and positive as I as all we are. Hope. In the meantime, I will continue speaking Italian. I'm sorry. And it's a pleasure to be able to welcome you to this public hearing on the European Citizens Initiative, a ban on conversion practices in the EU, and on behalf of the Petitions Committee to be able to contribute to this dialogue. I'd like to thank the chair and the members of the committee for their leadership, as well as the committee for their participation as well. The topic that we're looking at affects fundamental rights, human dignity and equality. These are values that are very much at the heart of the EU. As Vice president of the Petitions Committee, I would like to warmly thank the organizers for having collected this number of signatures from European citizens. We know how difficult it is. This is not just a procedural step. It's a very clear step of civil mobilisation, of citizen participation. Seeing the number of people involved in this issue, the citizens initiative is one of the key features of participative democracy democracy across Europe. It allows citizens to. Send in proposals to the Commission and ask them to respond. When it comes to areas that are of union competency. So it enhances the link between the institutions and citizens. And it means that the EU has to be more conscious and aware of citizens desires.”
  LGBTIQ+
• “We can't have our poorest paying the price for our re-arming. Colleagues. Commissioner. Cohesion policy is the heart of the European Union. It is there to innovate, making sure that our mountain areas, country areas and those that are hardest hit by the climate crisis, those who live in polluted areas. We need to provide them with solutions. But we are now gutting cohesion policy in order to boost our defence spending. We're going backwards, but we need networks, we need services. And that is why the mid-term review should serve to overhaul our Caucasian policy, not to reduce it. We should not be sacrificing millions of people to fund just a few of the actors in the military industrial complex. And that is why I appeal to you, Vice President Fitto. Defend cohesion, defend your portfolio, your mandate. Don't now use fine words to disguise what is a policy to rearm. We want a just and dignified and fair European Union.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I will speak in my mother tongue. Thank you very much indeed. To the court. The opinion confirms what we've already said several times as a group. Thank you also to our colleagues for their input on climate and biodiversity. I. Would share our thoughts about the 30%. But basically it undermines a specific objective. The solution is not to limit the word biodiversity from the text. If anything, it's the exact opposite to have a specific target with dedicated coefficients. Now for the climate and environment coefficients, the court once again has said that we're correct. The risk of overestimation is documented. It's a problem also for interventions under the cap. Now they do no significant harm. States need guidelines as soon as possible in order to be able to plan. And so the deadline is not negotiable. Let's be honest, we cannot accept that sectors which have such an influence on the budget, as does agriculture, should be affected by this principle, as some are calling for on gender equality. Disaggregation of the indicators should apply to all the pertinent fields of intervention, particularly for the cap, because historically it's been blind to gender. Now for the results indicator. How can we justify the fact that the proposal gets rid of what already exists for the cap? We can't simply limit expenditure without qualifying it. And a question which is also up for discussion, basically because the technical meetings are going on, aren't they do no significant harm. Has the ECA significant assessed the risk for member states in terms of delays for the guidelines beyond January 2027, according to you, how long in advance will they be needed? Thank you.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Thank you very much. I will speak Italian. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you, chairman, and thank you for those who have submitted this initiative. It's a very interesting topic, Regenerative agriculture is something which we need to recognize formally. It's very important to farmers that we do this, but it's important also for politicians to commit to it and to make available public funding, where necessary, to support the farmers who are seeking to produce as high quality as they can, but also to protect and improve the quality of the air, the soil, our waters and therefore regenerative agriculture is not a completely different entity from traditional agriculture, but it's something that is more future orientated and has a different focus. It is, of course, an area where greenwashing on the part of industry could easily creep in. We've seen reports from an NGO recently saying that 93% of the regenerative agricultural area in America has been threatened with this. Therefore, we need to focus properly on making sure that regenerative agriculture is a proper transitional. Change and this will deliver the change that we need to our stores and our farms. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “On the contrary, we need to be giving support where it is best needed. There are a number of areas where it is not possible to cultivate vines properly anymore. And there again, we need to find an alternative. In the Veneto, for example, where I come from, we need to recognize that there are vineyards which are part of the history and culture of the area, and yet they are not sustainable. Looking to the future. There are a lot of small and independent producers. There are a lot of small family and cooperative Producers, as Mr. Dorfman has rightly said. So any support measures need to be accessible to all these people who need to be involved in the decision making procedure, as well as able to obtain the support for changes which they may need to introduce. We could be looking at different wine making procedures. We could look at changing the processes. We could look at changing the labelling. But it's imperative that if we have labelling, the labelling is clear and that it is uniform and that it is understandable to consumers. Thank you.”
  Food labelling harmonisation at EU level
• “Yeah. Thank you very much. I would like to greet you on behalf of the rapporteur Vladimir. Bielik, who couldn't make it today to be with us as Slovenia celebrates its Independence Day today. Thus, I will read out the speech on his behalf regarding the report. So first and foremost, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, advisor and secretariat for the hard work and devotion that made this text substantially better. Any simplification of cohesion funds comes in at a crucial juncture, as we must ensure that efforts to simplify do not unintentionally undermine the very foundations that make cohesion effective. Simplification is urgently needed, but it must be the right kind of simplification, one that reduced the burden on beneficiaries, facilitate access to funding and eliminates unnecessary duplication of processes. Too many local actors are deterred by administrative complexity. If we want more accessible, responsive cohesion policy, we must put the needs of beneficiaries, particularly those at the local and regional level, at the centre. However, simplification cannot come at the cost of centralisation. Cohesion policy must continue to be guided by the principle of shared management, multi-level governance and place based approach. These principles ensure that funding reflects real needs on the ground and delivers meaningful, region specific impact. So colleagues, let us ensure that the simplification serves the European citizens. Please vote for this report. In order to protect cohesion mission and strengthen its capacity to deliver where it matters most on the ground. Thank you very much.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Now, I'll admit, I'm not entirely convinced that the commission. Really believes that these proposals on the safeguard clause will put out the fire. They're very fervent reactions that you're seeing at the European level in the agricultural world. I don't know if the Commission really believed that this would calm the flames, because it seems that this is all something of a fig leaf. It seems that the conditions are almost impossible to demonstrate. The Commission's proposal does not even guarantee that these measures are legally sound. Do they have any legal value in the countries of Mercosur? They're temporary measures, limited in time, and they can only be used in extreme circumstances, in cases of serious damage or in that state of exception. So. Improving the activation mechanism and the monitoring linked to it is going to be key. But no, it seems that without blinking an eye, the commissioner simply moved forward. You can see in the reactions in this house, and you could see in the reaction from the Italian government that at the moment this is an agreement, that is competition, that feed, that feeds the race to the bottom, that could it will be bad for our consumers, damaging the environment and indigenous populations. So it's not just damaging, but it's actually an insult. So we really need to raise our voices. And that's why I think this committee needs to be a very strong in its language.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Sorry. I request that we proceed to a secret vote. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: Are there any other members who support Cristina Guardia? In order to meet the conditions, we need nine members in order to hold a secret vote. I request the Secretariat to count. I don't know if we have reached the nine members necessary. Yes we do. We have at least nine members. And so we can proceed to a secret vote. Each member of our committee may vote only once, obviously. And here is the distribution of votes by political group. Ep 11 S&D eight. Patriots four Europe five ECR four. For Renew Europe for the Greens and EFA three left three ESN one and unaffiliated to. I would also like to remind you that the election is won at any round if an absolute majority is reached, which includes only the votes for and against. I would also like to inform you that this election will be held using electronic voting. I assume that everyone has their voting cards. I sure hope so. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: So once again, we are having a secret vote and I would like to remind you of the names of the candidates. Francesco Ventola is the one who is nominated for this position. We will first do a test vote. The green button is a vote in favor. The red button is a vote against this candidate. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: We will proceed to the vote. The test vote. Okay. Okay. And now. Now. Thank you. I would just like to remind you that abstentions are not included in calculating an absolute majority. So it's an absolute majority of votes cast. Could I also remind you that if you have made a mistake, you can actually change your vote? As long as the vote remains open by voting on the correct button? The vote is now open. The vote is now closed. 21 in favour, 11 against. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: Thank you. So we now move on to the election of the fourth vice chairman for this committee. Could I ask for nominations? Garcia. For the Renew. **Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle: On behalf of Renew, I would like to, um, to introduce my colleague, um, on behalf of renew, Lupita Cavazos to be the fourth vice president of of this commission. Mrs. Cavazos is an experience has been an experienced Slovak diplomat who has worked very hard to put cohesion policy and regional policy at the core of the political priorities, not only of her group back home, but also of renew. We are very happy to have seen the inclusion of a strong cohesion policy with cooperation with regions and municipalities in the speech of Mrs. von der Leyen, and we are sure that Mrs. Karasova, with her team player skills and her focus on putting cohesion policy at the top of all priorities, will be a great addition to the presidency of this group. So I ask you on behalf of Renew for your trust. For Mrs. Krasova as fourth Vice President. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: Thank you to Garcia Hermida. Thank you very much indeed. I wonder whether Mr. Krasova is prepared to accept this nomination for the position of fourth vice chair. **Ľubica Karvašová Yes, Mr. President, I do accept. Thank you. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: And I have ascertained that you have met all the conditions required, and therefore we can proceed to vote by acclamation if there are no other nominations forthcoming. **André Rougé: Mr. Chairman, Colleagues. Thank you on behalf of the patriots group, I would like to put forward the nomination of my colleague Mr. Rudi. He was elected in Guadeloupe, which is one of the overseas French territories, and he obviously represents the ultra peripheral regions regions and therefore the Patriots group representatives feel that it is very important that these ultra peripheral regions are represented properly within the bureau of the committee. I would like to put his name forward as a result. Thank you. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: I'd like to ask whether Mr. is prepared to accept the nomination.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “12 hours a day with no protection, with no contact contracts. Invisible. 2000 workers are in those conditions in Treviso, in just one province of Veneto, which is my region. And just in the agriculture sector, 500 subcontracting agencies are under control. And this is an inhumane system against human rights, against the qualities that we spout so often while we are crushing the weakest. This is not good. Europe, social, Christian Europe. We want European rules that are binding two levels of subcontracting maximum, no subcontracting in core business and no more abuse. Colleagues, we need a directive to make the invisible visible. Those people who die on the job degrading housing. They're not a coincidence that the results of a system that we have the moral obligation to dismantle. Thank you.”
  EU policy on employment subcontracting
• “Good afternoon. The cohesion policy has a problem in terms of utilization of funds. But rather than correcting the errors made here in these great institutions and the bureaucracy, and so come a cash machine for larger companies, for mega infrastructure with the excuse of defense. And to then use the billions, for example, to build a bridge across a strait with these funds, or just giving these funds to a few large defense companies. So this is much easier, of course, than giving these to so many SMEs. And this is being done with little transparency because we know how these funds are really used. And I'm really sorry about this. Um, we need to respect the fundamentals of cohesion policy. What will be there to defend us against climate change, to defend our social policies? Smes or local health services or rural areas and urban well, thank you. Because with this vote, he'll be able to continue to seize funds to violate fundamental rights. We will continue to combat that. However. Thank you.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Not only would I like to thank the representatives of the Citizens Initiative, but I would also like to thank all colleagues who've participated in this for the debate, and also thank you to the representatives of the other European institutions who have also made valuable contributions that can help to feed into the Commission's work. And hopefully into some kind of legislative follow up, as well as one with financial support in order to respond to this urgent need. Regardless of positions expressed. Today's discussion has shown how European citizens initiatives can lead to serious, transparent, interinstitutional dialogue on complex topics and also enhance the democratic legitimacy of the EU. And I'm saying this on behalf of my whole committee. The eyes are one of the clearest expressions of participatory democracy within the EU, and any civic mobilisation should help to feed into public debate and strengthen the European project, one that will involve all generations, particularly those who will build Europe in the future. And they are requesting that from us in Europe. And if I may, chair, I would just like to add a personal note. I would like to thank you for teaching us about democracy and values, as you have done today. I'm saying that as a woman, as a mother, and also because it's very important that we hear messages from the new generation and that they you help us to understand that we all have a responsibility when that will respect dignity, young generations and those values that are all too easy to forget sometime values of respect, mutual respect, dignity in this House, anyone who embraces European democratic values. Is someone who has to fight for the rights of everyone in their own countries, everywhere, and they should not feel disrespected or estranged from their society. If people's rights aren't respected, this should be recognised as an act of torture. And we need to have a proper tools to respond to it. Thank you very much.”
  EU engagement with citizens
• “Yes.Thank you very much to all of you. And thank you for sharing this study. I will speak Italian if it doesn't bother you. Thank you. Um. Thank you. I'm happy to be able to participate in this discussion. I've been dealing with PFAS since for the last 11 years. Let me just say something about what we've experienced in our territory, where the consequences of PFAS contamination has been felt more than anywhere else. And, uh, there's now finally, we've got real clarity about the health impact. Not just long chains, not just long chain FAS, but other heart products and their half lives and so on. And it's not just a question of the health impact, but it's also a question of the costs for industry. We've also got to have a look at the impact on sectors which pay the consequences. I'm talking about the farming sector or water management or textiles or consumer goods where they have got to manage. Fas are phasing out now and they have got to bear very high costs because managing this is very expensive. So you've got to approach this issue from many points of view. I know that, um, Uh. This study was limited in time, and so it could only clarify certain points. But for example, if. Well, there's a whole coalition of companies which is working hard to substitute f-gas with green F-gas, there are many companies which have done this already, and some which are asking for help from European funds to be able to do this. And then regarding electronic components, uh, PV cells, batteries, solar panels, even fuel cells and electrolyzers, which in this study are identified as critical sectors.”
  PFAs
• “We have to look at reality as a parliament. It is embarrassing, truly embarrassing to see that we have to vote on a report that, for fully ideological reasons, has moved far beyond what the whole point was. We should have been discussing the substance of the inquiries carried out by the ombudsperson in 2024 that brought forth huge issues of non-compliance in terms of participation of civil society. Managing Frontex, Frontex and managing migration and in many cases, maladministration. The report, unfortunately, has been instrumentalized manipulated by you, the groups on the right and on the hard right to promote your agenda, to deregulate the climate and the environment to fight those who are dying at sea. To accuse NGOs and in favour of Lobbyism. And rather than looking at what the Ombudsman has been able to achieve. Now the inquiries actually focused on the opposite. The fact that industry is well represented, that civil society is excluded from decision making processes. This are not these are not opinions. These are facts. In the course, over the course of these months, I have worked very hard with colleagues, and I'd like to thank them, for them for that, because we wanted very much this text to show exactly what the Ombudsman was doing via her inquiries. And here we're talking about a question of professional ism, but where is the professionalism in rewriting what the ombudsperson has written in her very report? Therefore, it is unacceptable that there is a complete lack of the institutions. This sets a very dangerous precedent between the European Parliament and the Ombudsperson's office, and I hope that next year we will be able to act more respectfully, and we will be honest about the objective work that has been carried out by this office. Thank you.”
  Activities of EU Ombudsman
• “Thank you. I'd like to congratulate you, too. And I'd like to congratulate the vice chairs who have been elected as well. I don't want to make any assumptions in terms of any political difficulties that we might encounter. And I absolutely understand the situation, but Francesco Ventola is actually under investigation by the prosecutors for corruption in the context of an election. Now, I do, of course, subscribe to the principle of innocence prior to there being any evidence that a conviction is appropriate. But I do think the Parliament needs to take this fact into account. This is an important role in an important, very substantive committee which is highly significant to economic and social policy in the European Union, and therefore, I think in terms of respect for the institutions, irrespective of political conviction. We therefore need to recognise that it is inappropriate for this institution to allow this candidature to go forward. I would therefore please ask you not to accede to this request for this nomination. Thank you for this. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: I would like to know if Mr. Francesco Ventola accepts to be a candidate.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you very much. I'm really happy to be here with you. And I hope that this discussion will be fair and clear and positive as I as all we are. Hope. In the meantime, I will continue speaking Italian. I'm sorry. And it's a pleasure to be able to welcome you to this public hearing on the European Citizens Initiative, a ban on conversion practices in the EU, and on behalf of the Petitions Committee to be able to contribute to this dialogue. I'd like to thank the chair and the members of the committee for their leadership, as well as the committee for their participation as well. The topic that we're looking at affects fundamental rights, human dignity and equality. These are values that are very much at the heart of the EU. As Vice president of the Petitions Committee, I would like to warmly thank the organizers for having collected this number of signatures from European citizens. We know how difficult it is. This is not just a procedural step. It's a very clear step of civil mobilisation, of citizen participation. Seeing the number of people involved in this issue, the citizens initiative is one of the key features of participative democracy democracy across Europe. It allows citizens to. Send in proposals to the Commission and ask them to respond. When it comes to areas that are of union competency. So it enhances the link between the institutions and citizens. And it means that the EU has to be more conscious and aware of citizens desires.”
  LGBTIQ+
• “Good afternoon everyone. I'm sorry for the delay and problems. I'd like to speak in Italian and grazie infinito. Thank you very much. Even though the market situation seems to be stabilizing, there are certain concerns for key sectors such as Italy, the wine, olives and others. This is all due to extreme drought or too much rain, where we've got a split between north and south in Italy. The. This will have an impact on our farmers' capability of working in the markets. It damages the whole chains and annexed sectors. Climate crisis is the risk factor for this and this has become a geopolitical fact and we need to maintain our productive capacity that comes from our national resources. In addition to reinforcing market measures to reinforce our approach, we need to talk about resilience. And this will also help increase the economy in the holdings. We need to reduce the cost of fertilizers as well. So what sort of response other than crisis response can the commission think about? We want to increase our resilience for our farmers to work with nature and not against it. These are strategic challenges. Can we get answers to this? But in addition to the cap, I'm wondering about the protein strategy because cereal production is insufficient, insufficient to provide enough for human consumption. So what can we do about this? Thank you..”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Oh yeah. I've got two questions for you. First of all, on the targets and diversification. First of all, on the need to introduce Objective for targeted expenditure. Well, what are the targets beyond the targets for the young farmers? What do you think are needed to support generational renewal? What structural measures are function best from your point of view? So my question is what did the green measures have to do with food production? I'll remind you that without the environment you can't produce food. So given the climate crisis and the damage that that's causing. Surely we need to ensure that there is adaptation and mitigation for climate measures. This also has to go into the work with new farmers, whether whatever kind of tradition that they come from, but they are on the front line. They need to have the right strategies to stay on the market. And as for diversification, I was wondering what is really the right thing to do? What is the right kind of diversification?”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you. I'd like to congratulate you, too. And I'd like to congratulate the vice chairs who have been elected as well. I don't want to make any assumptions in terms of any political difficulties that we might encounter. And I absolutely understand the situation, but Francesco Ventola is actually under investigation by the prosecutors for corruption in the context of an election. Now, I do, of course, subscribe to the principle of innocence prior to there being any evidence that a conviction is appropriate. But I do think the Parliament needs to take this fact into account. This is an important role in an important, very substantive committee which is highly significant to economic and social policy in the European Union, and therefore, I think in terms of respect for the institutions, irrespective of political conviction. We therefore need to recognise that it is inappropriate for this institution to allow this candidature to go forward. I would therefore please ask you not to accede to this request for this nomination. Thank you for this. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: I would like to know if Mr. Francesco Ventola accepts to be a candidate.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you. I'd like to congratulate you, too. And I'd like to congratulate the vice chairs who have been elected as well. I don't want to make any assumptions in terms of any political difficulties that we might encounter. And I absolutely understand the situation, but Francesco Ventola is actually under investigation by the prosecutors for corruption in the context of an election. Now, I do, of course, subscribe to the principle of innocence prior to there being any evidence that a conviction is appropriate. But I do think the Parliament needs to take this fact into account. This is an important role in an important, very substantive committee which is highly significant to economic and social policy in the European Union, and therefore, I think in terms of respect for the institutions, irrespective of political conviction. We therefore need to recognise that it is inappropriate for this institution to allow this candidature to go forward. I would therefore please ask you not to accede to this request for this nomination. Thank you for this. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: I would like to know if Mr. Francesco Ventola accepts to be a candidate.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thanks a lot for this meaningful debate, and thank you for the suggestions. And to make clear the necessities that you are putting thanks to these democratic initiatives. So I will continue in Italian.”
  EU engagement with citizens
• “I have to admit. So thank you very much. I will speak Italian. As we've heard. Only 3% of young women, of 3% of people that lead farms are women. Young women only 3%. So this is something that really illustrates how difficult it is for young women to get into the world of farming, but also to stay in the world of farming. One of the main reasons is a c, a p that ignores the difference between the genders. It's really not recognized, and unfortunately women just don't have the same rights. And in many countries the situation is even worse because of national trends and tendencies. And so often the it's young women young farmers and young women particularly that are at a disadvantage. It's the equality the the imbalance between the genders are just not taken into account. There are many measures that exacerbate the situation. So we really do need to look at the cases that that lead to more hurdles for women access, easier access to to loans to land and innovations not making something. Uh, these measures just just, um, voluntary, but they have to be mandatory to ensure that this actually happens. You need to targets measurable targets, because otherwise, anything that we do is not going to tackle gender imbalances. We need to reduce these imbalances. So that's why we need targets. We need rules and regulations from Europe. We need a framework that doesn't leave it up to the nations. The nations that the countries themselves, they. The flexibility is all very well, but it's not going to help the situation. We want a good social services as well. We want good healthcare services. We want the, um, protection for women because sometimes it takes 2 to 3 hours for people to access health services, depending on where they are. So it's all of these things are connected. We need to make sure that we break some of these taboos to ensure that we are empowering women in farming.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much. 12 years ago, I was a young farmer and I felt very alone indeed. Suffocating bureaucracy, exorbitant costs, access to loans in was a lost cause and generational renewal was out of the question. I couldn't grow. I was exhausted. 12 years on, I don't want to see any other farmer find herself in a similar situation, because entrepreneurs cannot wait for the corner that they can turn. They need to be able to see that corner to turn it. Who else is going to prepare our food? This is a step forward for organic farming for farmers, but a lot of the bureaucracy comes down to the member states. It's their responsibility. And yet you talk much about deregulation, but never do you talk about what we can do directly. What can we do to make a difference here in Europe? Big distribution and their power that scorns our work. The strategies for rural areas producing food despite the climate crisis. Those things I'd like to see you have the same enthusiasm to resolve these problems that are much, much harder than just taking out a few environmental conditionalities, because it takes vision and political courage first and foremost. There could be a lot of us young people, women, let us in and let us stay in farming.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you. President. Well, drought is really challenging us, and in fact, it is taking its toll to the tune of 50 billion in just 2022. 5 million farmers who have been brought to their knees because of a lack of water and harvests have collapsed. Our soil has been degraded. Biodiversity loss is accelerating. Now this is the new climate change normality in Europe and you are now complicit in it today. Those who truly work the land and care for it are not recognised for that. Those who provide for us a living soil that retains water, and the biodiversity that is necessary to produce food, which is a common good. This is what they are doing. These are our true farmers, the stewards of our future and they must be supported now, in the near future, we will be introduced to the new proposals for the Cap. We need concrete, stable, accessible tools. And this strategy has a name. Ecology Commissioner, let us stop chasing the interests of those who refuse to change and finally build the agricultural policy that protects us and protects those who protect us.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “I'd like to thank the rapporteur. Today we are filling a major gap in the directive when it comes to providing information for cross-border practices. That was important. However, outside this chamber, people know that life is still difficult. I've been speaking to lots of farmers who know just what it means to sign an agreement. If there is a contract without having access to the most important information, which is the price. Without a decent price, farmers can't live. Nor can we continue to produce. We have to ensure we have the power to fight against unfair trading practices. In too many cases, we don't. Farmers don't even know. We don't know that such protections exist. The commission has announced another review of the legislation for this year. We would ask you for a series of clear things. First of all, to ban selling at a loss. Provide for robust penalties and ensure that there is protection for anybody who acts as a whistleblower. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Well, thank you very much indeed. To the representative of the Economic and Social Committee for this opinion, which we welcome. And I agree, this Cap proposal has no direction and political choices, and it creates specific risks linked to the single market that doesn't only apply to agricultural policy, but all of policies which have been thrown in together on NRP cohesion. All of the policies for small municipalities, SMEs and so on and so forth. And then I also support the call to protect, protect resources for awareness alive program leader, rural development. And it's also crucial that we should strengthen social conditionality for all companies and to give priority to generational change. But I don't understand the opposition to the redistribution of direct payments. Starting to put a ceiling on that would mean that it would be better able to balance support towards those who need most of it. Young people and women, for example. If we don't do that and we continue to support just the fact that you have certain hectares, it means that there will be less money for those priorities. And we, I think, have to fight for a fair income coming from the market rather than generating injustice, which could actually undermine the positive measures which are needed, which are vital, in fact, for the future of agriculture, the future of our farmers and for food production. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you very much. And I'd like to thank the rapporteur for speaking of the. About the value of the promotion policy. I think it has significant strategic value, but only if it supports the evolution of the sector towards more sustainable products. We need to focus our attention on what we are producing without going against food safety and security measures. So I think we still lack competencies, as DeMeo says. There's organic farming, which has all its environmental and sustainable and economic criteria. Um, compared with conventional farming. And unfortunately, there's a lot of anti-scientific knowledge here because the organic sector is one of the sectors that objectively, when it comes to social and, um, food security and local products and quality systems, has significant added value. So I've got two questions, um, for our guests because but also the commission. First of all, why reduce the organic, um, budget by €3 million? And then when it comes to access criteria, we didn't have time to speak about this in the previous panel. How can we review access criteria when it comes to co-financing of promotion policies and making them really accessible to SMEs? We need a specific scheme for SMEs and the organic sector, but also for the wine industry. The objective of covering by about 50%, I think is too rigid and hinders participation. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “(16:07:35 – 16:09:47): take a I will, as always, speak Italian. So Starting with the legislative sequence, the 2024 directive required an exhaustive evaluation of geotechnical emissions of the commission with particular reference to cattle by the end of 2026 potentially, with a legislative proposal. Now that has still not been provided, but we're sitting here now, debating opposite modifications without having seen that evaluation within the framework of a simplification omnibus. And we're doing this on a directive which has still not been transposed, and the effective effects have still not been visible, therefore. So how is it possible to analyze them? So I'm just wondering, does this approach strike you as sensible? I don't think it is because, looking at the actual heart of the matter, the problem is that this modification is going to consolidate the structural scientific weakness of the entire structure on the geotechnical side of this IED. The Uber thresholds are the outcome of political discussions, not an assessment of the environmental pressure in our countryside. New exclusions are being proposed for pigs, etcetera, without any analysis of how many farms would come out of the threshold and in what territorial context. And the commission itself admits that it has not conducted an impact assessment. So rather than simplification, I think this is legislating without a scientific basis, responding to lobbying pressure. And I think we should be a little bit more open about this. We have a political role to fulfill after all. At the same time, the cattle sector, which responds to 69% of agricultural methane emissions in Europe and most production of ammonia, is left outside from every purpose of the revision.”
  Industrial emissions directive (IED)
• “This calls us to make decisive political decisions about the kind of union we're trying to build and finance after 2027. As the Regi committee, we have a fundamental mission. Cohesion needs to be defended. Because it's not just a spending heading like others are. It's one of the clearest demonstration of European solidarity. As the Greens, we strongly state a very simple principle do not harm cohesion. No reform of the MFF should weaken the goal of reducing territorial disparities on an economic and social level. And that applies even despite the pressure to increase defence spending from the cohesion budget. European defence should not be built by removing resources from local authorities. But this can't turn into competition between European policies, particularly between the cap and cohesion. Putting farmers and citizens in competition for resources is a political error that the Commission has chosen to pursue. For that reason, we have to demand separate funds that can be clearly identified in order to guarantee predictability and allow for long term investments. We want funds for rural and mountainous areas, and they should just not just be a patch or a bandaid for people who lose out in a cap. We need direct access to funds for cities. We are against the risk of concentrating decisions at national level and politicised allocations and the emergence of new inequalities. As Ms. Tavares mentioned, we would like clarity and funds for all regions, including the most developed ones and those that are in transition. But defending cohesion also means defending a method. Do we want inclusive, multi-level governments? We want regional chapters in the plans we want to regions managing the funds and a true convergence of all local authorities, social partners and civil society. We would also recall that cohesion is central when it comes to European competitiveness.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “The fertiliser crisis is most of all a fossil crisis because that is the raw material used. It's good, then, that the Commission has shown it can resist the worst type of lobbying pressure. Finally, well, we can also talk about strategic storage, new suppliers, temporary aid, miraculous technology which needs huge investments. But if we don't reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and chemical fertilisers, we are basically laying the way for the next crisis. Today, Europe imports 90% of its gas and up to 45% of nitrogen based fertilisers. It's this dependency which is hitting farmers and families so hard. If we really want to have a resilient food system, we need to build autonomy with a circular economy, nutrient recovery. But agro ecology more than everything else, if we want to then fight food poverty, the problem isn't just producing low cost food, it is the wages, which are basically hunger wages.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “I admit that what we are faced with is the umpteenth systematic attempt to distort the Commission. The Court of Justice's ruling and also the Parliament's position. I mean, I could mention Mercosur, for example, the Commission seems to be able to do whatever it wants, but the ruling handed down is unequivocal. Western Sahara is a different area and the products have to be labeled as such. The amendment, which was adopted provisionally excluding the Parliament's role, allows for regional nominations, which will. Receive consumers. This is going to be problematic because it will lead to unfair competition. Competition with EU farmers. They are. Essentially what we're seeing is something which will undermine the European Union's credibility when it comes to international law. So I'm wondering what kind of EU values we're putting forward when even we have a when when we have a ruling which says that we are breaking international law. We're not doing anything about it. We're essentially continuing to. Colonization of the Southern hemisphere. We need to stop doing this now.”
  Trade relations with Morocco
• “Thank you very much indeed to Maria for this draft opinion. It's a very sound, ambitious basis which addresses some of the structural limits in this proposal, of which there are many. Now it talks about the impact assessment, because as far as we're concerned, I wonder what is the point of a regulation that talks about performance? If it's the only thing it doesn't actually measure? These indicators exist. The data exists, and getting rid of it makes no sense because for reasons of comparing various different programs cycles, I fully agree also on the objective of climate and environment. Spending 35% is absolutely inadequate. We need at least 50, and I think we need to establish a specific objective on biodiversity with correlated coefficients on spending, not because we like birds and butterflies, but because in the absence of biodiversity, there is no agriculture. There's no food production on the coefficients. We have already pointed out how the non-alignment with the Rio indicators and the various different processes in the additional initial proposal, particularly also in agriculture. So we need greater granularity to move closer to reality as proposed in the draft. And as we've been supporting politically for a long time now, one final comment about how the agri committee has the duty to trigger a debate on how we can render proper operational, the right to be in mountainous areas, remote areas with indicators that were coherent on the provision of essential services and equal opportunities for young people for women, and were linked with the entire question of generational renewal as well. On the question of land ownership, which is touched upon, but we could do even more. So I look forward to working with you on this. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “And so I think that we've got to really consider all these other aspects. There is a hazard problem which cannot be looked at just by individual companies. But there has got to be. You've got to have a look at the bioaccumulation of these substances, including the products which are the, um, which are the half life products, and you've got these studies which shed light on what I'm saying here. So I think that we've got to have a holistic approach, and I think that we've got to have a limit. If you ask for a limited waiver, this will suggest to legislators that you don't really want to you don't really want to take this seriously. And there's a big risk, which was mentioned by my colleague, uh, before. And that is that we will be we will not be competitive, uh, compared with the rest of the world, if we're talking about competition, we've got to have regulatory certainty. We've got to have investment in European solution, we've got to have innovation, and we've got to respect all the needs social, economic and health needs. And we've got to, uh, We've got to bear in mind the economic aspect. So thank you very much for producing this study. And I think that, uh, this has got to, um, this has got to be enlarged. And I think that other industries have got to be consulted to.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Well. Wine producers are struggling. Less consumption over production tariffs. But first and foremost, the climate crisis. We need to stop saying that we can simply carry on with business as usual. We should have respect for those who are producing wine and are struggling to compete in a market that's shrinking. That's why it's important to say that's enough to the obligation to every year authorise more and more hectares of vines. And this would enable us stopping, having new planting rights because there's overproduction at the moment. But quite honestly, these measures don't produce hope among farmers because grubbing up vines and distilling to produce cleaning alcohol or green harvesting. So basically chucking out non ripe grapes undermines the value of our work. The new challenge of this package is to provide a new perspective for this sector, and that's why we, as the Greens, suggested boosting funding for innovation and sustainable practices, and to promote changes in varieties so that we can have grapes that are more appropriate for a changing climate. We need to ensure that this sector, which is in crisis, opens up to diversification. We don't want to see the countryside abandoned, and in order to do that, to make sure that farmers stay in the countryside, we need to support farmers who want to produce new products, either materials which are necessary or other more innovative products. We need clear rules which also look after consumers. And then you've got the historic problem of promoting wine abroad. Until this point, small producers found it impossible to access this assistance because the rules were based on large producers rather than them. But thanks to the Greens and thanks to these new rules, then this will no longer be the case. So I'd like to thank everyone for their work, and I'm going to be proud to be able to vote in favour of a text that is starting to respond to some of the problems that we have had as winegrowers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sardina, for the left group.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “There are various companies in Europe who have decided to phase out, and I think it's very important to be clear about this. And even from what certain people have said today, I think that some people have, uh, some people have only heard information from one area, from one branch of the chemical industry, which gives them a one sided view. But I think you've got to take into account these many other aspects, and we've got to look at the practical aspects as well. Certainly there are critical sectors, but in this crack in in this study, we've got to have an impact study, which doesn't just take into account the costs, but they are not really properly calculated and they are already being, um, they're already, um, a burden for industry. For example, deep polluting water. And there is that there is an analysis now, not just the social and economic impact, but also, um, the environmental impact and the impact on health, because even fluoropolymers. Because I do understand with the use of these there are no content, there is no contamination, but the management of the management of waste. With cars, for example, there is a problem of there is a problem of pollution and you've got soil pollution, air pollution and so on and so on.”
  PFAs