Isabella LÖVIN

Policy topics Isabella LÖVIN is active on

What Isabella LÖVIN has said (44)

• 2026-06-17 “(15:49:33 – 15:50:48): You very much. Miss Tim Grin, you were talking about reliable energy you can plan on. Well, in Sweden, we have had people calling on taxpayers to cover the 400,000,000,000 Swedish krona investment necessary to build new nuclear energy power plants. And yet a lot of investment that was meant to go into renewable energies has in fact been stopped. So what is your opinion? Do you think that is good for the Swedish population and for our climate? Thank you very much. Well, why is it that we need new nuclear power plants? Well, perhaps because the environmental party turned its back on it. This was a big mistake both for our society, our economy, and for the climate. Our system at the moment isn't particularly environmentally friendly either. We need to create new opportunities for us to be able to have reliable energy for the future. Thank you. Thank you very much. We really are running out of time. So if we could please stick to our time. Miss Belljour?”
  Nuclear energy
• 2026-06-17 “(16:06:51 – 16:08:07): you very much, president. In Norway, 96% of all, vehicles are e vehicles. It's almost 70% elsewhere, but only 36% in Sweden. The government produced a climate bonus for electric vehicles, but we've had less since that was released, and not much has been done by the Swedish for the Swedish population. The war in Iran has led to a situation of of us being incredibly vulnerable and, particularly when it comes to our reliance on fossil fuels. I have to say I don't understand how we got ourselves into this situation with our eyes open. We're not just talking about climate here. We're talking about our security, about our independence, about being able to produce our own electricity under our own conditions, not on conditions set by Russia or by Iran. We need to do more for electrification. We need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. We need to not make the same mistake that has been made in Sweden. Eriksson, Prague. Madam Eriksson, please. Thank”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• 2026-06-15 “Thank you very much, David. Dear mister Andre Pocherbutt, we're very, very pleased to have you present here together with us and being in the same building. Until recently, you were a political prisoner in Belarus for being a leading voice for truth and democracy in your country. Through your journalistic work and activism, you've helped shed light on the violations that follow the contested 2020 presidential elections in Belarus. Since then, the country has experienced a significant democratic backslide with more than 1,000 political prisoners, including many journalists. For your commitment to truth and freedom, you were the object of repeated arrests, periods of solitary confinement, and ultimately sentenced to eight years in prison. Your fate is shared by many journalists, civil society activists, trade union leaders, and ordinary citizens who fight for democracy around the world. In this regard, we cannot fail to mention Miss Zia Amaglobele, who was awarded the 2025 Sakharovsk prize alongside you. In the European Parliament, we received the news of your release from prison on April 28 with great relief and joy. We salute your courage and the dignity with which you endured injustice. Mister Foserbut, we look forward to hearing your testimony this evening. First and foremost, I hope you will be able to reassure us about your health. I think I will pass the floor now, to you, David.”
  EU-Belarus relations
• 2026-03-13 “Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission 7.5.2026 Written question Commission Notice C/2025/6438 [1] providing guidance on new or substantially modified provisions of recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EU) 2024/1275 (EPBD Directive) [2] sets out the Commission’s understanding of these provisions and clarifies that, in the context of the calculation of energy performance pursuant to Annex I, primary energy factors ‘have an equivalent meaning’ as the weighting factors from the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN)/International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) overarching standards for the calculation of the energy performance of buildings. The weighting factors from the standards have a wider meaning, being either total, renewable and non-renewable primary energy factors, greenhouse gas emissions emission factors, or others. The provisions of EPBD Directive and the ISO 52000-1 standard do indeed allow for some flexibility in using weighting factors and primary energy factors. The main goal of EPBD Directive as laid down in Article 1(1) is ‘the improvement of the energy performance of buildings and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from buildings within the Union, with a view to achieving a zero-emission building stock by 2050 […]’. As such, the EPBD Directive does not prescribe the use of sustainable biomass or waste incineration technology but provides a robust legal framework for an efficient use of energy resources in buildings. It remains the prerogative of Member States to decide on their national energy mix and the most efficient use of energy resources in their national context. The Commission will ensure the proper transposition of the EPBD Directive through the infringement dialogue that will start after the transposition deadline on 29 May 2026. [1] OJ C, C/2025/6438, 18.12.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6438/oj. [2] Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EU) 2024/1275, OJ L, 2024/1275, 8.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1275/oj.”
  Energy performance of buildings · Energy efficiency
• 2025-11-11 “E-004466/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The EU is actively engaged with the international community and the regional stakeholders, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with the aim of reaching a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Sudan. In particular, the situation in Sudan has been discussed by the European External Action Service during the political dialogues and bilateral consultations with the UAE at various levels. The EU Special Representative for the Horn of Africa has been engaging extensively with the UAE and the EU representatives have also raised concerns about reported UAE support to the Rapid Support Forces, while emphasising the importance of the UAE’s constructive engagement for reaching a sustainable cease-fire in Sudan. The EU continues this active engagement, in accordance with the Council Conclusions on Sudan from 20 October 2025 1 and the discussion of the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 November 2025 2 . Accordingly, the EU works in close coordination with the international community, using diplomatic tools and instruments to support the work of the International Criminal Court and of the United Nations in Sudan, while maintaining political dialogue with the UAE, including the Free Trade Agreement negotiations. The EU exercises its trade policy, including with respect to negotiation and implementation of trade agreements, in consistency with other EU external policies. In addition, an enhanced political dialogue will be a key tenet of the future Strategic Partnership Agreement 3 , reflecting the shared commitment of the EU and the UAE to promoting regional stability and prosperity. 1 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/10/20/sudan-council-approves-conclusions-onthe-ongoing-conflict/. 2 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/11/20/sudan-statement-by-the-highrepresentative-on-behalf-of-the-european-union-20-november-2025/. 3 Strategic Partnership Agreements; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1874.”
  EU relations with United Arab Emirates · Free trade agreements (FTAs) · EU policy on Sahel and Sudan
• 2025-07-17 “P-002982/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission In light of the provisions of the revised Fisheries Control Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 1 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 2 ), the Commission decided on 25 July 2024 to close the five infringement procedures concerning control and enforcement of the landing obligation. Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 introduced new rules aimed at strengthening the effective control and enforcement of the landing obligation. These include enhanced and digitalised systems for catch recording and reporting, a reinforced sanctioning regime for cases of noncompliance, as well as mandatory installation by 10 January 2028 of operating remote electronic monitoring (REM) systems on board, including closed-circuit television (CCTV), and may include other instruments and/or equipment, for catching vessels of 18 metres in length overall or more which pose a high risk of non-compliance with the landing obligation. The amendment of the EU fisheries control framework warranted a reassessment of the five infringement cases ensuring consistency between the Commission’s enforcement actions and the amended EU legislative framework. The European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund helps to implement the fisheries control system and supports investments in digital tools such as REM and CCTV. The Commission will follow up with all Member States on the implementation of the amended Fisheries Control Regulation and of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 3 ), as it is vital to adopt the necessary effective control means for monitoring compliance and implementing the landing obligation. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1224/oj/eng. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2842/oj/eng. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1380/oj/eng.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture · Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2025-05-13 “P-001903/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission In response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU has adopted an unprecedented set of sanctions. With these measures the EU, in close cooperation with its like-minded allies, aims to cripple Russia’s ability to finance its war effort. Sanctions are carefully designed to maximise their impact on Russia and its economy, while limiting to the extent possible any negative consequences on EU businesses and citizens. The Council adopted its 17 th Russia sanctions package on 20 May 2025 1 . This package further restricts Russia's access to battlefield technologies and cuts Russia’s energy revenues by targeting an unprecedented number of its shadow fleet vessels. The package also expands the number of individuals and entities subject to sanctions. While this package did not include any further import restrictions on seafood products, it is important to recall that imports of crustaceans and caviar are subject to restrictive measures since April 2022. The Commission is closely monitoring imports of seafood from Russia. Last year, the volume of EU imports decreased by 9% (down to 180 000 tonnes) and their value by 19% (down to around EUR 700 million). It is important to note that certain existing dependencies on Russian fisheries products, such as Alaska pollock or cod, have not increased. In light of the stable import flows, the Commission is currently not considering additional tariffs on imports of Russian seafood products, but it continues to monitor the situation. Moreover, as of 2024 Russia is excluded from the autonomous tariff quotas for fisheries products, meaning that such products cannot be subject to any tariff reductions when imported in the EU. 1 https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-adopts-17th-sanctions-package-against-russia-2025-05-20_en.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you to the ministers for the presentation. Now, one of the key priorities of the Polish presidency is ensuring the security of energy supply, eliminating dependence on imported fossil fuels, especially ending purchases of Russian energy commodities, is a crucial step towards a secure and resilient energy system in Europe. So it's worrying that EU level data confirms now rising Russian LNG imports. However, no member state acknowledges or takes responsibility for their significant consumption of Russian LNG. We understand that, unfortunately, there is no unity in the Council to adopt EU sanctions on Russian LNG imports to cut off the revenue stream to Putin. But we can expect Poland to push and advocate for greater transparency in the Council regarding gas imports. So I'd like to ask specifically, would you be able to support comprehensive tracking of all gas volumes from their ultimate origin to the entry point into the EU and final consumption by the Member States, and also mandatory publication of gas provenance data by all member States Estates follow the example of Belgium, where such data is available to ensure accountability of each member state. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you chair. And thank you, professor, for this very, very comprehensive and clear presentation. And also the report which I have read and I really recommend for everyone to to have a look at this. And I think it's, uh, really clear, uh, with your uh. Moving into what has happened in the in the Baltic Sea the last few decades that we have failed and that we have policies in place that have not managed to turn around the vicious cycle of the Baltic Sea. And, uh, as a rapporteur of the Multiannual Plan implementation report, I really want to urge colleagues and the Commission and Member states, you know, we have to really look seriously at this and take this opportunity to do something differently. And I think, uh, what you're proposing in this report is exactly where we need to go. Uh, so just continuing with business as usual, using, uh, the same instruments and the same harvest control rules, the same questions to ISIS. The same. Stovepipe approach where we don't take into account all the factors that are affecting the Baltic Sea negatively. It would be irresponsible. It would be stupid. I mean, we can't really continue this way. And I've been following fisheries policy now for 20 years, and I've just seen this negative spiral going on in the Baltic Sea. And we just have to take responsibility about this now. So if I may, chair, I would like to, uh, put a few questions to you, Professor Murman. Uh, one is an observation, really? And you highlight this, that actually, these stocks were doing better without EU management.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Livin. Thank you so much. Sorry for coming to the microphone a little bit late. And sorry also for my voice. Uh, for the greens. We feel that the commission's proposal for a new Global Europe instrument is worrying because it threatens the very essence of development aid that we should be very focused on the root causes of poverty and reach out to the most vulnerable. And also on the Parliament's role of scrutiny. It weakens it very much. And I'd like to ask the Commission very clear question on how much of the total envelope will go to the global gateway, how much will go for climate? I thought I heard 30%, but we also see this very empty PowerPoint slide, where we only see the geographic pillars and not the thematic priorities at all. So this flexibility, I think, also prevents long term priorities and a more strategic way of thinking. And also, of course, the involvement of the European Parliament to to to see if we are reaching our goals. There's no dedicated thematic program on human rights and democracy, and this is at a time where we only 7% of the global population now lives in full democracies. And we see that democracy is really at the heart of what we need to strengthen civil society. Organisations are also lacking. So maybe the commission could could say something about that. Will we see dedicated funding to this? Uh, and I think there's also a lack of commitment to policy coherence or development, and there's no explicit commitment in the regulation on that. Uh, and this is something that is also very, very crucial. If we're going to address root causes of, of poverty, then we have to really, uh, focus on a more holistic approach and not only focus on competitiveness and and migration, but on sustainable development. Thank you.”
  Global priorities for international development
• “(17:44:15 – 17:46:15): Thank you, chair. Just to follow-up. Yes. I know the law very well because I was here when we took it, And, we also proposed the Article 17. So this was how far we got. We didn't get, like, mandatory, environmental criteria or whatever, but we know that this is the competence of the member states. But it is mandatory for member states to be objective and have transparent criteria. And now we're more than 10 years after that law was passed. So my question is why hasn't the commission asked earlier? Because exactly what you described was what we were expecting, that if Member States clearly stated, okay, so we're just going for historical captures, nothing else. We don't care if they have fished illegally. We don't care if they use unselective gear and they have another vessel there that uses selective gear, but we still give more access to a bigger vessel that is not using voluntarily or elsewhere or else selective gear or if we could get that information out, then, of course, I think the the small scale sectors, those that want to fish in a better way, would have better arguments. But it's a little bit late now, and and that's my question. Why has it took so long for for the commission to do this, vademecum and also to put some pressure on member states to issue this information? Because I think it's really it's a publicly owned resource. We're talking about the fish in the ocean. And the least we can expect that we have transparency around who has the right to fish. Thank you so much. I don't know if the commission wants to react.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor again. And thank you, uh, Director General, for your extensive answers. And I think they are really interesting. Uh, I think one of them you avoided and that was kind of why do you see the deterioration of fish stocks? Uh, although we have all the data, we have all the technology, we have a lot of resources. And we should have also have a lot of experience in what works and what doesn't work, and I totally acknowledge that it's a complicated matters and politics are there. But from your perspective, could the FAO, for instance, uh, kind of promote more sustainable fisheries management methods and kind of, yeah, disperse some wisdom and knowledge on where it works and how we can do it better. So that's one question. And the other is on climate change, because when we understand how the marine heatwaves and acid acidification and all of these kind of very, very basic parameters are changing in our ocean, that also changes a lot how the fish develops. And a lot of scientists are saying now and experience are saying that maybe MSY is not the wisest fisheries management target, but that we should have more precaution in view of the very, very big pressures that climate change is putting on our ocean. Are you developing something around this, or are you just kind of yeah, maybe that's our basic baseline for what is sustainable or not. I mean, how can we make sure we're not gambling away our very, very precious, renewable, sustainable food source that we still have?”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Madam chair, I think especially the the EU role globally is extremely important. And of course, the CFP standards also apply to EU fishing vessels operating in external waters, which is fabulous. But we also know that there is a lot of European operators that are also fishing under other flags, either in joint ventures, in chartering arrangements, or simply they've been reflagging and they have the beneficial owners are EU nationals. So I think yeah. If, if, if the author of the report has any comments on that and how the, how the member states should act in order to make sure that the CFP is really a role model? The second question is on the status the the EU as a market market state, 70% of all the seafood that we eat in the European Union is actually imported. So it's extremely important that we make sure that whatever is landing on our plates is sustainably fished. And I'm quite worried that recent studies have shown that a lot of the fish that comes into our stores and for the retailers is not labelled. As my colleague was mentioning, 38% of analysed processed seafood products in supermarkets lack essential information on their origin. There are also reports about fish coming from from China. 124 European companies based in 18 member states were importing seafood products from China, possibly with links to illegal fishing and forced labour, and also of Russian origin. And Russian seafood is one of the items that have not been subject to EU sanctions since the invasion of Ukraine. So there is a lot more the EU can do in order to put pressure on other actors, making sure that we have a level playing field. But not to forget about EU citizens still fishing without EU flags outside of the European Union. And what can we do about that? How can we put more pressure on member States to to make these operators also live up to CFP standards. Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU · Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you. The commission for the presentation. My questions are around two main topics. One is on the science. So the commission now explained a number of times how uncertain the scientific advice is. And if you read the actual proposal from the Commission, it states that until 2019, decisions of Baltic Sea fishing opportunities were in line with all stocks with MSY. But then in 2019, something happened. It became apparent that the eastern Baltic cod had been under severe pressure, and in 2021 it became apparent that the western Baltic cod had been below the Berlin Conservation reference point for many years. Then, if we look at the herring, the central Baltic herring was below be triggered for many years since 2023. The the biomass has actually been around bilim since the mid 90s and below Berlin for several years. So in view of this that ISIS has revised its advice and its stock assessment so many times, and to such a degree, can the Commission really say that these proposals are in line with the CFP when it comes to the precautionary approach, when it comes to the ecosystem approach, when it comes to the ultimate target of article 2.2 to rebuild stocks and preserve them above levels that can produce a maximum sustainable yield when it comes to the central Baltic herring. You said that it's a MSY lowest, but it's it's also a really huge risk still of collapse. And we don't know how much herring there is because of all the misreporting as well. So my question is, instead of just issuing new proposals, why isn't the commission proposing a rebuilding plan for the Baltic Sea stocks? We should need a totally new approach and not just continue with based on very, very fragile data to try to help a sea that the Commission also is saying is extremely fragile. So we need a new approach. Why isn't the Commission proposing such a new approach? We still have a traditional plan, but the traditional plan has failed, so we need something new. It's too important not to do that. My second question is around the ecosystem approach. So is the Commission planning to ask ISIS for multi-species considerations in relation to and between cod, sprat and herring? We know there's a lot of misreporting. We know that the the feed for many of these species aren't in the locations where they should be. We see the cod is starving. We see the salmon is starving. We see even the herring is very, very thin. So we need to have a different type of advice from ISIS. What is the commission doing? Are you planning to ask for multi-species real ecosystem considerations when issuing before issuing any proposals of tax. So these are really, really serious questions. And we have a serious situation as the commission underlined. So we need a new approach. Why isn't the commission coming up with such an approach? Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you very much, president. We hear a lot from climate sceptics about all of this. And it doesn't really matter what we do they say, because China is going to emit so much more than we ever will. That doesn't mean that we are small or powerless, this though. Sweden's government seems to have thrown in the towel and is increasing emissions. But we can and we must take responsibility. We have to pursue the climate transition, but we also have to put pressure on the rest of the world to do the same. The EU's Cbam is one of the best tools we've got. We say you can sell things on our market, but if you do, then you have to follow our climate requirements. Otherwise it's going to be expensive. We thus force the big emitters in the rest of the world to take their responsibility for the climate. I'm glad that we have simplified the introduction of Cbam. I'm glad that it should be extended in future to other sectors. That's the way to reduce the emissions around us. We have to pursue climate policy here at home, but we have to put pressure on the rest of the world to do the same. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you, chair, and welcome, Commissioner. Well, the US has now announced its intention to leave the Paris Agreement. It has rolled back environmental regulations and climate policies. For instance, it has scrapped the Clean Power Plan, which limited emissions from the coal fired power plants. So against this background, I would like to hear the commissioner's view on how we can make the Cbam our climate tariffs more effective, particularly vis a vis countries leaving international agreements to create a level playing field for the European industry. So do you also support to put the Cbam on downstream products, not only on the raw materials. Then we also need to secure sustainable value change chains and ensure stable demand for steel produced in a sustainable manner. Tomorrow, the Commission will present its steel and metal action plan for the Swedish industry. I can tell you that the thing that they most are asking for is long term stable regulations, goals, predictability and not least also demand. And you mentioned on public procurement made in Europe condition, but you didn't speak about environmental and social standards in public procurement. So maybe you could elaborate on that, how we can do that and thereby establish a lead market for for steel. So my third question is also about raw materials to be very short. We also, of course, believe that recycling of metals will be extremely important to provide resilience to the union. So how can we moderate the increase of demand for new critical raw materials? And when does the Commission intend to publish its first list of strategic projects under the Critical Raw Material Act? Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you, Madam President. Following on from the war in Iran, oil and gas prices are rushing upwards. The EU has been affected. But what's worse is that Putin is profiting from this development. And these rising prices are filling his war coffers. The Iranian regime is murdering thousands of its citizens out on the street. They are. They survive on oil now. When war breaks out, that's now suddenly contributing to financing another brutal regime. Putin's Russia, who are now given more money with which to bomb Ukraine. Enough is enough. The situation really shows the absurdity of our dependence on fossil fuels. To say that we stand by Ukrainians or Iranians and at the same time, wanting to feed our fossil fuel dependence is hypocritical. The green transition has to be sped up. We need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and make mass investments into renewables. This is about the climate, certainly, but it is equally as much about European security. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “And these are much bigger herrings, etc.. So we don't know exactly what type of, uh, big or small stocks we are trying to handle with these tax and quotas. So maybe you could expand on that as well. I think that with, uh, this extremely worrying situation with warming, with, uh, oxygen, uh, loss in large, large parts of, of the Baltic, that is really, uh, even if fisheries aren't the major cause of mortality in some stocks, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect. I don't know if you could answer to that, if that, if that's a correct assessment. Uh, also on the stock assessments, you confirm that they are very uncertain and that they have been very optimistic. Uh, personally, I was quite shocked when I first realized that the stock assessments have been far too optimistic during the whole last decade. And even though, as the EU, we've been following the scientific advice more or less, even if it's been the EF upper, uh, then in retrospect, ISIS has found that they were overestimating the stocks. So could you give us a little bit, a hint on how we could ask scientific advice to be on the safe side, and maybe also compare to other, other parts of the world where we have less risk in the scientific advice than we have with with ISIS. Uh, yes. I think I'll stop there and allow other colleagues to also ask questions. Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “The floor is mine? Okay. Thank you. Uh, no. Thank you so much to the speakers. And I think this is a really important opportunity to have an exchange of views also on what is going on in the US. When it comes to upholding human rights. And basically, I just have two questions to Allison Parker from Human Rights Watch. One is on her view on exactly the first question, on the US upholding human rights in its external dimensions and external relations. If she has anything to add on the external policies in developing countries, for instance, and how that is developing and how the EU could somehow, uh, be instrumental in upholding human rights there with our where we partner a lot with the US on, uh, development cooperation. And also a question on how is the situation to work as an NGO with these kind of more and more pressures on, those that have criticism towards the government, are you feeling that you can express yourself freely? So that was a question to Alison Parker. Thank you.”
  EU-US relations
• “Well, thank you very much. I think, uh, the commission, yes, is explaining things, but in a way very defensively. And I was here 15 years ago when we did the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. And what we fought for from the green side was very much that we should have, as an objective of the Common Fisheries Policy to rebuild stocks and maintain them at levels above those that can produce maximum sustainable yield. And we fought for that little word above because to keep them at maximum sustainable yield is obviously a too low level to keep to have the precautionary approach, to have the ecosystem approach. It has nothing to do with the ecosystem approach to have levels at BMC. We have much, much too low levels. And I think the Commission can use the legislation as it is to really propose the ecosystem approach. And on the complexity of, uh, kind of asking of scientific advice, hey, we have a complex reality. We can't continue to pretend that each stock exists in isolation because they don't and they don't exist in isolation from climate change or Eutrophication or invasive species. So we need to take, you know, much more precaution just because of that. And if we fail a little bit and take too little one year, what's the damage is no damage because we just keep the fish in the sea where it can grow and actually create resilience that we need in times of climate change and all these other pressures. So I think we have the tools in existing legislation, and we also have the Commission has the mandate to actually ask the right scientific advice from from our scientists. And and if it's not perfect already, it's not perfect. So let's have another imperfect advice, but also that keeps us on the safe side of the precautionary approach. Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “And this was an issue that we discussed, uh, back in 2011 or something when we did the CFP reform that, uh, the requirement for information of where the fish comes from, uh, is only required for for wild caught fish that is imported. But if we have aquaculture fish. Carnivorous ones that are consuming forage fish like Sardinella from West Africa, for instance. This is not required information. And if we really want to take responsibility as one of the major fish consuming markets in the world, then we also need to be aware actually how this fish that is presumably comes from fish aquaculture in the Mediterranean, but actually it is a marine protein coming from West Africa, from other parts of the world that needs to be also an information that the consumer has. So maybe if you have an idea how we can get that into the legislation would be really fantastic.”
  EU policy on country of origin food labelling
• “Thank you very much. And thank you to the speakers for addressing all these extremely important topics. It's difficult to choose what questions or what to highlight, but I'd like to just concur with those colleagues that have mentioned our deep, deep concern with the disrespect for international humanitarian law and what the consequences that we see in terms of attacking hospitals and aid workers and so on. So I could just repeat the question, what else can we do from the European Parliament side to put pressure on on different actors? The second item that I want to thank you for is highlighting the climate crisis, the Red cross, the EU office did that and the. Yeah, the, the the raising costs of Disasters and all the dispossessed, displaced people. That is linked to that. And there's a study from the European Parliament from 2022 that I found here. Uh, 376 million people have been forcibly forcibly displaced by floods and storms. Et cetera. Since 2010, I think. And this is really an increasing disaster that we are witnessing now. And it's also very costly. And I think that the best way for us to prevent these catastrophes is also to act on climate and make sure that we don't worsen this situation. So maybe my question to you is how do you see the upward trend if we don't make the 1.5 degree goal as the we agreed in the Paris Agreement. Today, 62 people are displaced each minute due to natural disasters that are linked to climate change. So if we want to have a safer world, we need to actually address climate change. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much. Dear Commissioner, to succeed the heavy industry, I think, needs two things. One is stability, clear rules and targets. So for the clean industrial deal to to really take off. The EU needs to also have a new target for 2040. And we also need to present a new NDC by the end of February. So my question to you is will you present a new 2040 target together with the clean industrial deal? And also, will the clean industrial lead be precise and robust enough to ensure that the heavy industry sector, the hard to abate sectors, can make the technological leaps that they need to do and to invest in new infrastructure. The steel, cement and machine, uh, for, for instance, the maritime transport sector, so that they can comply and and contribute. The second thing that you need is smart cooperation. And I come from Sweden. There we instituted a platform called Fossil Free Sweden back in 2016. A platform to inspire, engage and help actors to connect, to share solutions, but also risks and best practices. And this has led to cooperation between the energy companies, the mining companies and the steel production companies so that we now in Sweden, have the first ever fossil free steel production in the world. And this would not have been possible without the cooperation across sectors. So my question to you, do you think it would be a good idea to institute such a platform at a European level? A fossil free Europe to catalyze, facilitate, to share best practices and really make it possible for the industry to participate.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you to the presidency for the presentation. I can't start without mentioning that the first thing that your Prime Minister did once Hungary took over the rotating chairmanship of the European Union, was to visit Vladimir Putin and then going to China on what he called a peace mission. And this has been also deemed by the council's legal service as a breach of the treaty, because every member state needs to be in support of the union's foreign and security policy. So that is quite outrageous what he did. Now, I'd like to ask also a question about the root causes of irregular migration because you mentioned climate change, and I agree with that. And I also agree with the need to apply the agenda 2030 and the SDG perspective on our policies. But then we also need to make sure that we recognize that one of the major causes of irregular or willing migration is the lack of democracy and respect of human rights. And do you agree that that is also important in connection to the global gateway and with the EU development policies, that the EU also must be a promoter always, of human rights and democracy in our partner countries in order to have stable conditions and The liberty for people to create their own future and and and live in peace and and prosperity. Thank you.”
  EU development aid (migration conditionality)
• “Thank you very much. Um, regarding best available science. And that is what the tax should be based on. Regarding central Baltic herring, the status of the biomass of the stock has been uncertain since 2020. Isis undertook a benchmark study in 2023, and then estimated that the biomass has been below blame for the most of the past 30 years, including in 2023. And then, uh, then of the short term forecast for the stock development results in a catch advice that would almost triple the TAC. Compared to 2004. However, this forecast and this is what ISIS. Explicitly states, is that it's based on uncertain assessment. Of an optimistic recruitment, and also estimates that with no fishing at all, the probability that the stock will remain below B trigger in 2026 is 55%. I'm just saying this because this is not the way that we should be managing our fish stocks according to the Common Fisheries Policy. We should rebuild and maintain stocks above levels that should produce a maximum sustainable yield, and the Commission must be the guardian of this and take another approach. Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for your presentation. So of course affordable energy is key to competitiveness for the for for Europe, but also for our security. And in the leaked text there is a reference to the dependence on fossil fuels driving the prices. But despite that, there is no mentioning of a comprehensive Roadmap to get us away from not only Russian energy, but also transition. Away from all fossil fuels. So I wonder when can we expect such an initiative? There is also a mentioning of promising tripartite contract for affordable energy for Europe's industry that might be introduced under the Affordable Energy Action Plan. I believe that it is important that it should not only be for the large scale energy producers, but also open up for small and medium sized enterprises, smaller energy producers, energy communities and emerging players in the energy market. So we actually get a real transition and a possibility to for everyone to participate in that. And I'm asking if that is also the intention. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Madam president, the world is facing the worst energy crisis in its history. We've seen that, most particularly in recent days. The Swedish government has chosen to lower taxes on fuel and increase support for producers, whereas they should be doing the opposite. So what can we do in France, for example? There are €10 billion a year allocated to reducing dependence on gas and oil, and we need more ambitious policies. Their support for households and businesses. But one of the most effective ways to do that is the ETS. Since its entry into force, we've reduced emissions by 50%. So it's quite worrying to see some countries wanting to dilute this system. We shouldn't be doing that. On the contrary, we need to increase our climate ambition and reduce our dependence for our own security. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “For the greens and endeavour as well. So thank you very much for the presentation and I think very valuable recommendations. I'd like to ask you further on humanitarian, the humanitarian budget. Uh, I'm on the, uh, here. Oh, okay. So you expressed concerns regarding the absence of financial breakdowns by objectives, which could lead to a less targeted approach. So my question is, when it comes to humanitarian aid. So the European Union is the world leader right now on humanitarian support. Uh humanitarian funding is declining globally. And unfortunately it actually needs to increase. So do you consider that a simple indicative amount provides sufficient protection for this pending objective? Furthermore, does the fact that humanitarian aid is integrated into a broader instrument and spread across the different geographic pillars, risk exposing it further to budgetary trade offs and flexibility, particularly particularly particularly as when the European Commission states its intention to direct funds to the union's strategic interests. Finally, has the court considered other mechanisms that could better ring fence humanitarian aid? And I'm not the only one that is asking for that. Uh, and we're also really worried that it is now in competition with other priorities, such as competitiveness and other strategic objectives. So what is the court's view on the possibility of having a dedicated and potentially also separate budget for humanitarian aid? Thank you.”
  EU Development & Humanitarian Aid
• “Mr. president, Donald Trump's tariffs are bad for the world and bad also for the poorest Americans. The purpose of these tariffs is to destabilise the world and to upset the global rule based balance. But is this what the Americans want? Is this what the rest of the world wants? We've seen what we've seen, how the Canadians have said no to this division. People want to defend the rules in international trade and international relations. That's an important signal, which reminds us that there is another path and that is the path we should follow. The European Union should continue to build its relationships with countries on the same wavelength. No one is going to win a trade war. We end up paying more for less. We therefore have to fight the Trump administration's measures.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you very much. And thank you so much, Commissioner, for for being here. I'm over here. Yeah. Uh, so we're living in, uh, really, uh, sometimes frightening times. And also the rule of law is questioned from from very important partners of the European Union. And you mentioned the disrespect of humanitarian law, which is also something that is really extremely worrying and terrifying. And you also mentioned the numbers of humanitarian workers being killed in Sudan and Gaza. And, and we see example after example, where some parties are completely ignoring international agreements and law, and the principles that we all agreed upon in terms of, um, the United Nations and how we work together best. So, uh, how does the Commission now work in order to kind of, uh, use humanitarian diplomacy, as you also mentioned, uh, do you work together with the high representative to have a serious talk with, uh, with those that kind of allow or even, uh, are behind the breaches of humanitarian law, like, like Israel or in the case of Sudan, where we know that the UAE is, uh, very much behind one of the parties that have been kind of preventing humanitarian Uh, from from coming through to those in need. Uh, is the commission really working as a team, the team Europe that you want to see? Uh, to to to uh, yeah. Be be hard on those that allow and, and uh, facilitate these breaches of humanitarian law and, and these attacks on humanitarian workers. So that's one question. Another question is on the budget, as everyone has already asked you. But, um, we're worried that there's not enough ring fence about the humanitarian budget. Is there a standalone budget? Uh, and how can we make sure that that money is not kind of seeping out of that budget, going to other purposes? Lastly, uh, you mentioned your trip to Jamaica and the hurricane, Melissa. And of course, we see more and more climate related disasters around the world. And could you maybe say a few words about your estimate of the increased needs for humanitarian responses in relation to climate induced catastrophes around the world? Thank you.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to all the speakers. I didn't hear the first round, but however, I think this has been really interesting to listen to the last speakers. Now, uh, of course, as Vanya was underlining, uh, if we want to really protect food security, we need to make sure that we have fish in the ocean. Otherwise this will be a lost cause. But I thought it was really interesting that you underlined also the shifting ranges of shared fish fish stocks in light of climate change. We already seen this when it comes to some some stocks in the North Sea where we had battles with Iceland and Faroe Islands, and not least Norway, because yeah, obviously these stocks are really trying to escape warmer waters and going further north. Uh, and this could also, as you said, incentivize illegal fisheries, uh, unregulated fisheries. And at the end of the day, that would contribute to overfishing and and overfishing in turn, will also increase the damages of climate, the climate crisis to our oceans. So this is really a vicious circle. So could you see, uh, any way that the EU what preventive measures could the EU do in with full knowledge of of this fact that actually the stocks are shifting their their geographical presence and that we will have more conflicts around this in the future? The other thing that I think is really important and interesting is, uh, product information, uh, the fact that we don't have product information on tuna cans or surimi or, uh, the fish that we consume in, in the different restaurants, I think is, is something that we really need to correct, but also on forage fish.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “It looks like that. But maybe you can expand on that. I understand that we had a different Baltic Sea before Sweden and Finland entered the European Union, but still, you can actually see in your timeline that when we got EU management and the multiannual plan, things have only gotten worse. If you can just expand on that. I also like to, uh, hear you say or if you agree that we need to have a lot more fish in the sea than the present management plan is allowing for with the ranges that we are proposing on, on Tacs. Um, so, uh, you said that maybe it will take a lot of time to rebuild the stocks, but with the present management rules, we are talking about MSE. And basically MSE is that you fish down a fish population, its virgin stock size by some 70% or something like that. And then you fish on on the remaining stock. Would you like to propose a higher number to kind of have in the in relation to a virgin non-fish fish stock, how much would we need in order to really, uh, have the precautionary approach and being more responsible when it comes to all the environmental factors that we also see, to safeguard that we have fish in the sea for the future and also preserving, uh, the Baltic Seas, uh, health in times of, of many other pressures. Um, you also said that now that taking every fish now is a problem, And I think it's very interesting because we just heard from one of your colleagues in Sweden that they have identified also different genetic populations, uh, close to the Bay of, uh, evil.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “(17:29:25 – 17:33:49): thank you, chair. First of all, yeah, thank you to the commission. I regret that there are so few members here because I think this is a really, really key discussion and a key article in the common fisheries policy of 2013. So reading the communication, first of all, the statement is somewhere here that the most frequently applied criterion is the allocation based on historical catches. And exactly this is why we pushed back in 2013 very much for objective and transparent criteria as a means for member states to actually use the allocation to achieve objectives. Those could be environmental, but they could also be social objectives. So what type of fishery do we want? What is giving most benefits to the communities? And this is also reflected in the Recital 33 of the CFP, which says Member States should promote responsible fishing by providing incentives to those operators who fish in the least environmentally damaging way and who provide the greatest benefits for society. So this was the intention of the lawmaker back in 2013. And I think this is really a missed opportunity to use this tool in order to achieve the objectives that we all set out and that we are not really reaching. So I'm a little bit actually disappointed in this, Wademekum, and also in how the commission has used this possible tool. Of course, member states, as we understand it, has not kind of many of them have not even provided the thing that they should do, which is to present objective and transparent criteria, which is in the Article 17. So why hasn't the commission been pushing more to have that information? Because all right now, more than 10 years later, we don't have that information from everyone. I think the language in the Vadimecum is very much encourages, invites and so on. Of course, it's no obligation for the member states to use environmental or social criteria when allocating. But I think you could have been a little bit more bold to propose how to implement. And there's some nudges in the end here, non exhaustive list of criteria reported by Member States, which could be deploying selective fishing gear, fishing techniques that have reduced environmental impact, crew size, small scale fishers and the history of compliance, for instance. I think that's a no brainer. If you have someone that fishes which has break the law a number of times, for instance, why should they have allocated fishing opportunities based on their historical catches? So I mean, something could have been done, I think, from the commission earlier to propose how to implement this tool in order to achieve the objectives that we have. So I would also like to know you're in dialogue, you say, with Member States now, but how are you presenting this to the council? How are you going forward with this Vademekom? And could these be developed into something more usable like the strategic guidelines? Can you do more? And how yes. So do you also see the relationship between the allocation of fishing opportunities and the reaching of objectives of the CFP and how it can be used. Thank you. Thank you so much. Now, Mr. Flanagan, the floor is yours.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you very much, chair. Well, I have to start by saying that involuntary parenthood is one of the major obstacles for women to be able to plan their future, to have an education, to have work, have their human rights. And I think it's really incredible that we can hear these types of opinions here in 2024, in the European Union that we just heard. I also must say that I'm very, very worried and I agree with the analysis of Tanya Cox and Concord. Every word of it. We have definitions of Oda. What is official development aid? And it's not supposed to be in self-interest of the the donor country. It's supposed to have the development and the needs of the poor people in, in the center. And it should not be about mutual interests or economic development of the donor country. And this is exactly what is expressed in the mission letters of of all the concerned, um, commissioners and the high representatives. So, I mean, this is really something that we're extremely worried about. Also, that civil society, as you mentioned, is being silenced. And we see that in Sweden, for instance, with our new government, there are also not not giving the support to civil society through civil society anymore. And I think this is extremely worrying, because if we're ever going to eradicate poverty, we need to give the ownership and the possibility for the people on the ground who's really living and knowing the circumstances to be able to contribute. And it's not going to be done through investments from the European Union or other huge economies. So basically, I just want to thank you all for being here, and we will do what we can to make sure that the commissioners can respond to these concerns, because I don't yeah, we we have a like a paradigm shift that is expressed in the, in the commission letters and the mission letters. So we have to really work very seriously on on the hearings. Thank you.”
  EU development policy (gender conditionality)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I hear many members are concerned about the economic viability of the fishing sector. And of course, that is very important. But I think we all can agree that without any fish, there can't be any prosperous fishing sector. So I am very concerned that when you look at the status of the stocks that are the percentage of stocks outside safe biological limits. We still have 41% of the stocks that are outside of safe biological limits. And when we reform the Common Fisheries Policy in 2013, the the year that we saw that we should have finished the job by rebuilding all the stocks would be 2020. Now we're at 2024 and we're still not there. And I think this should be the core question of of this report. Why haven't we achieved a safe biological limits for all the commercially exploited fish stocks by now? So that's my question to to the authors. What is the main reason why we're not there yet. We have had more than ten years of rebuilding the stocks and we are still not there. So that's one question on aquaculture. I also have a question about one of the main kind of the core, the, the, the core principle of any aquaculture is that you have feed for the species. And globally we have a lot of fisheries going to feed for carnivore, carnivore aquaculture species such as salmon, for instance, in, in the in Norway. And a lot of the fisheries that we were discussing earlier on herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea, all of that goes basically almost all of it goes to feed salmon aquaculture in Norway. So it's not for human consumption. So that is also a major question why you don't address this main problem in this, in this report, and how you see that we can actually increase aquaculture without also increasing the the industrial fishing for feed in Europe and elsewhere, importing it to Europe to feed aquaculture fish and other marine creatures. Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Then Tara expedition, I think you're doing an amazing job, not least when it comes to science and collecting data and so on. You underlie that. Mse alone cannot be the only, uh, kind of, um, sustainability, uh, guidance for European fisheries or in light of climate change. And we're all seeing this. I saw an article yesterday, actually, on how warming waters around 30 degrees surface waters is killing off some of the cyanobacteria that produces oxygen, etc., which is a very, very basis of marine ecosystems. So we need to be much, much more precautious when setting quotas or uh, allowing fishing to be done. So my question to you is, do you see any fisheries management around the world, uh, which has a more precautionary ecosystem based management that you would recommend that you see is better than the European Union is doing. Or do you have any other kind of advice to give to us? But because I completely agree that maximum sustainable yield is an outdated target for us when we're only looking at single species and not seeing the whole ecosystem, and particularly not factoring in climate change in in this. Sorry for not putting questions to the other ones, but I'll listen to your answers anyway. Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll speak on behalf of the shadow rapporteur, Melissa Camara. Um, but first of all, I'd like to also encourage all member states of the European Union to ratify the Bbnj as fast as possible. I think it's really good that the commission is moving this fast. But still, we're not fast enough because we have a very, very urgent situation in our oceans where we need a mechanism to protect what is in international waters, which is the common heritage of mankind. And we really need a mechanism to protect what is there, which is half of the planet. So on behalf of Melissa, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent work. We fully support her balanced approach, and we need and the need for a swift and faithful transposition of the Bbnj agreement into EU law. The high seas are a global common essential for biodiversity, climate and sustainable fisheries and we therefore welcome the proposed amendments to clarify the conditions for environmental assessments, to strengthen the obligation to collaborate with stakeholders to allow member states to adopt more ambitious measures and to ensure coordination with Rfmos and regional conventions. From the Greens perspective, we would like to add one further point, which is transparency. Environmental assessments. Area based management proposals and implementation reports should be published in a publicly accessible way, including through the Bbnj clearinghouse mechanism. This would ensure accountability and enable scientists, NGOs and citizens to contribute to the effective implementation of the agreement. This is really crucial. We believe that this additional step will reinforce trust, scientific scrutiny and ultimately the success of the Bbnj agreement. Thank you.”
  Regulation of deep-seabed mining
• “Thank you very much. In the light of this overcapacity. So how can Europe compete with price? No, obviously not, but with breakthrough technologies and really showing the way how to produce green steel. But in order to do that, the industry needs to security to be able to invest because these are huge investments. And the the worst problem for them when I speak, for instance, with the Swedish steel industry is the regulatory uncertainty. They want to know that what they are producing will in fact be absorbed and demanded. And they also, of course, are worried about an unlevel playing field. So the Cbam is really central to the steel industry. So I'd like to ask the commission to make sure that you are not backtracking on the ambition of the implementation of the Cbam. Also, I'd like to ask the commission about such things like green quotas for steel or contracts for different schemes that can ensure the market for European steel. Because we need this technology, we need it on the market, and we absolutely need to reduce 7% of the world's emissions. That is accounted by by the steel industry. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you very much, chair. First of all, apologies on behalf of my colleague Kira Peter-hansen, who could not be present here today. So I will speak on her behalf. So thank you so much to Miss Anna Sterk and your team for the draft report on this important topic on electricity grids. The Greens EFA believes that the draft report correctly identifies the challenges for EU grid functioning as essential not only for energy transition, but also for competitiveness. The draft report proposes many solutions that we support. There are many positive aspects in the report were especially happy to see key elements such as keeping the course on implementation of existing legislation, Renewable Energy Directive and the electricity electricity market design. And we suggest adding the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive to that. Also, the calling for stronger EU level coordination through the upcoming TNA regulation revision and a reinforced role for Acer in grid grid planning. Thirdly, focus on distribution level, including via CEF and a dedicated financing facility for decentralised grids and aiming to improve grid connection management, increase cross-border trading capacity and enhancing interconnections. We also there are also some elements that we, as green EFA, hope to strengthen together with a negotiation team, further highlight that grids should support a fully renewable based and highly energy efficient economy. Prioritizing grids, optimization and technology enhancement before systems expansion in order to keep costs in check. To maintain focus on electrification as the only viable path for an affordable and fair transition, particularly in buildings and mobility. We also want to highlight more independent and transparent grid planning. Highlight the role of energy communities and other smaller actors in efficient grid use. To reinforce language on grid flexibility solutions and demand response mechanisms. And reinforce language on cybersecurity data transparency and accessibility. And lastly, reinforce Reinforced language on fairness of grid tariffs and cost sharing mechanisms. That was a long list, but I think we are like minded in many of those issues. And we thank you very much and look forward to working with you and your team in the discussions and the shadow rapporteurs, of course, in discussing our amendments. Thank you.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Thank you. Madam President. Commissioner Kadis, it's easy to take the oceans. For something that is self-evident. We've thrown all sorts of rubbish in the seas. But the fish, the. Sorry. The oceans are producing lots of things for us. They're dealing as working as carbon sinks. They're giving us fish. But that's not going to work in the long run because they're starting to collapse. And we have to assume responsibility for that. And that's why I welcome this new Oceans Pact and the Ocean Act that the Green Party has been pushing for. This could be a change in significant terms, but it has to be more than just fine words. We need to have binding marine policy that deals with these issues. We need to make sure that oceans, especially the Baltic, have a chance to recover. So we need a new order. We need new plans, but clear timetables as well. In short term, we need heavily reduced fisheries tax and quotas, and we need to make sure that there's an overall joined up thinking between sea and land. Or we need to stop having a silo approach to this, and we should not shy away from getting rid of destructive practices such as bottom trawling. It's not just about fish stocks, it's about having healthy ecosystems in the sea. About seas that can breathe. It's about our own future. We have a choice. We can act, or we can passively watch as the seas die and the Baltic is being destroyed. I know which choice we need to take. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you so much, David. And let me also thank you, Miss Andrikiene and the European Court of Auditors for this very useful exchange. Um, I think you have provided very valuable input for us, which will help us when we focus on amendments to this proposal. Uh, so it was really good to hear you point out, uh, any potential weakness that you have analyzed and unspotted, we will definitely take the points raised today into account when crafting the positions of our committees. And with that, together with David, we close this item and wish you all a good evening. Thank you very much.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Uh, so also, we just had a discussion on, uh, food security, uh, in Europe. But also, of course, we need to think about food security globally. And, uh, there is now a lot of, uh, expectations and wanting to invest in aquaculture. And of course, it's not that's a zero sum game or even a minus sum game if we are going to use, uh, um, pelagic species and forage fish to feed the aquaculture species species. But still we see the big increase in aquaculture in the world and in your statistics. So basically is that carnivorous fish the majority, or is it a herbivorous or species that are not kind of taking away, uh, marine protein higher up or lower down in the food chain in, in our oceans? Last question, if I may, also on climate change, because this is, of course, impacting our ocean in a silent way, we don't see it very much. But of course we can. We have extreme marine heat waves. Now, uh, all the time. And maybe you could say a few words about how you expect this to impact, uh, world fisheries, both in terms of, uh, the health of our fish stocks, but also on how the fish stocks are going to move, uh, and, uh, and, uh, kind of create new situations for fishing communities and fishing countries. Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Director general, nice to see you again. We met in in nice, and I already took part of the presentation there. So excuse me for being late to this presentation, but, uh, one thing that stuck out to me this year was that, in fact, the number of sustainably managed fish stocks in the world are decreasing and not increasing. And maybe you could give us your take on why that is. I mean, we have more technological possibilities, more science, more control, more of everything, more legislation and so on in the world. And we should be actually managing our fish stocks better and better for each year. But instead, the trend is actually that we have less stocks that are managed sustainably this year than we had last year. So this is a really worrying trend, and I'd like to hear your your take on why that is. Then another thing that stood out in, in the presentation was that the Pacific fisheries were basically none of them were overfished. Is this true? And I mean, are there any kind of other things that kind of could have alarm bells on those data, or is it really that good? And why? In case it's, uh, that good. What are they doing? Right. That we are not doing right in, for instance, the the Baltic Sea or the Mediterranean, where we still have a lot of overfished stocks and even stocks that are collapsing.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “(16:20:47 – 16:23:57): Thank you, chair. Thank you for to the commission for the presentation. I think it would have been a good idea to have some slides actually to show the uptake of the funds so far because it's quite astonishing what you can see if you look at the actual report. There's a few member states that have 2 thirds of the allocation of the fund, like Spain, Portugal, France, Poland, and Greece. And if you look at how much they have as well by 2024 allocated yet, most of them have allocated 0%. I also wonder, as my colleague, what is the case by 2025, if you could update us or 2026 rather what's happening. There's a lot of discussions here in in the parliament about, yeah, we want more ring fence funding and so on. But I think it's quite worrying to see how little the member states seem to utilize the funds that are at hand. For instance, I read that the aid intensity for small scale fisheries is 100%. Is that right that I understood right that you can for actions for supporting small scale fisheries, you can actually get 100% no co funding from member states. Also, it comes to implementation of the landing obligation, 100% for usage of selective gear, for instance, and 75% for infrastructure for landing and also to take care of unwanted catches. So I also get the impression that member states are not using the funds because it's not really in line with their own priorities. So are do in the is the commission of the view that member states are using funds to comply with the objectives that we have in the common fisheries policy and other policies? Or are they, you know, just complaining that it's difficult to do it, but they're not using the funds that are available? And I think that's quite remarkable. And I think also, I must say, I think it's regrettable that we get so old figures. It's been at least 1 more year that you could comply could compile, sorry, the figures before presenting for parliament? And also noting that the next evaluation will be after this programming period, and that will be too late. Also, a question about the Baltics specifically. Do you think that member states are using the funds that are available to do something about the catastrophic situation that we have in the Baltic Sea. Is there enough funds allocated towards this or not? Thank you. Gracias, Senor Flanagan. Mister Flanagan.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture · Environmental regulation of fisheries