Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Policy topics Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY is active on

What Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY has said (79)

• 2026-06-15 “(18:06:02 – 18:07:29): Thank you, chair. Dear colleagues, what do high energy prices, Chinese clean tech, US weapons, and digital services, and critical raw materials have in common? Well, they all add up to European dependency. And let's be honest, we are dependent on others. Otherwise, we would not be having this debate. And as a liberal and a democrat, my political mission is that people have their own fate in their own hands. And I want the European people to be in the driver's seat in their daily life with the freedom to choose, but also in a geopolitical sense through a strong and united Europe. Currently, European dependency in economic, security, and strategic terms is preventing exactly that. Soon, it may also mean that people have less freedom in their own lives. So, colleagues, we have a responsibility here. We need to face this risk and ask the question, is it worth risking or sticking to national interests above European unity? And my answer is to go with European unity, and let's use that strength. It's the only way towards independency. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• 2026-06-15 “(18:08:06 – 18:08:46): Well, thank you very much for that question. I think the most important message of Draghi regarding energy is that we should become independent and produce our own energy. So, and that, per definition, is clean energy. It's either fully renewable or nuclear. And I think that is that is very clear because we don't have oil, we don't have sufficient gas, and coal is, obviously out of the question if we want to survive in this planet. But the most important message of Draghi is let's do it together and not as 27 member states from each other. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• 2026-02-18 “P-000703/2026 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 1 active substances used in plant protection products (PPPs) can only be approved if a comprehensive scientific assessment conducted by Member States and the European Food Safety Authority demonstrates their use is not expected to have harmful effects on human or animal health nor unacceptable effects on the environment. The Food and Feed Safety Omnibus does not propose to change the strict approval criteria for active substances or the requirements for PPPs. It intends to increase procedural efficiency by replacing periodic renewal procedures for most active substances with reviews, when there are indications for its need, via the work programmes for full renewals or targeted reassessments 2 . Under the current legal framework, most substances are approved for a period of up to 15 years. However, due to resource constraints in the Member States, many renewal procedures are greatly delayed, resulting in extensions of existing approvals for sometimes considerable periods. New scientific guidance is only applied at the time of renewal. With the proposed targeted reassessments, substances can be reviewed earlier when new science becomes available. The Commission’s proposal does not affect the ongoing procedures to review the approval of 25 of 30 currently approved PFAS 3 active substances, another will start soon 4 . Decisions on the approval period for these substances will only be taken after completion of these renewal procedures. The study results on PFAS pollution societal costs cannot be directly compared to economic impacts in each sector. The Commission thus considers that the Food and Feed Simplification Package maintains and even improves the current high level of protection. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1. 2 See the amended Article 18 and new Article 18a, proposed for Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in the Food and Feed Simplification Package. 3 Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. 4 Application for renewal of approval is due in April 2026.”
  Reduction targets for pesticides · EU policy on pesticides
• 2026-01-12 “E-000078/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is currently analysing the findings of the exploratory feasibility study 1 , together with the views expressed by stakeholders. The study does not prejudge any future legislative or non-legislative measures, and no decisions have been taken at this stage on proposals concerning data collection or criminalisation related to illegally sourced wildlife. The Commission will examine the issues raised as part of its ongoing analysis, including in relation to data collection. Any future work would need to be consistent with ongoing efforts on electronic permitting and ensure coherence with related customs systems. The Commission remains committed to continued dialogue with all relevant stakeholders throughout this process. 1 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/3f466d71-92a7-49eb-9c63-6cb0fadf29dc/library/13062c04-a41e-434a-837b65e5ed2bda9f/details.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• 2025-11-05 “E-004351/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 1 includes an ambitious 35% climate and environment spending target, aiming at mobilising over EUR 700 billion, including for biodiversity and nature restoration. The EU budget will offer significant opportunities to support EU Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) 2 activities in the 2028-2034 period, compatible with a streamlined structure of the next MFF. LIFE is broadly recognised for its crucial role in advancing environmental, climate and energy objectives. To ensure continuity, the Commission has proposed that under the next MFF, LIFE activities can be funded both as part of the National and Regional Partnership Fund and through the European Competitiveness Fund. The Commission is aware of the questions from Member States when preparing the financing components of their national restoration plans. The uniform format 3 offers Member States a clear and user-friendly structure that streamlines planning and reduces administrative burden. Thanks to its harmonised structure, it ensures comparability and coherence across national restoration plans, while also helping to build a coherent pipeline of restoration measures. Work with the Expert Group on the Nature Restoration Regulation 4 will help to ensure that the modalities of the Commission’s assessment support realistic and coherent financial planning in the preparation of the national restoration plans. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-2028-2034_en. 2 Regulation (EU) 2021/783 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE), and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013, OJ L 172, 17.05.2021, p.53. 3 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/912. 4 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869, OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2025-10-27 “E-004219/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. Across the EU-27, the permanent grassland area slightly increased between 2015 and 2023, resulting in a net increase of 2 million hectares (+4.1%) – see enclosed table. This trend reflects both land abandonment and re-pastoralisation in extensive zones, and conversion to annual crops or temporary pastures elsewhere. 2. In 2025, the Commission proposed to simplify the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), among others by enabling Member States to extend the period for classification of agricultural area as permanent grassland from five to seven years and by introducing more flexibility through the monitoring of the share of permanent grassland. This should prevent unnecessary ploughing, and give farmers more freedom in the management of production of feed on their farms, therefore benefiting biodiversity. 3. In areas facing a decline in the livestock herd, concerns emerge in relation to the permanent grassland maintenance. Therefore, the Commission has proposed an incentive-based approach for the CAP post 2027. Rather than a national requirement to maintain a certain share of permanent grassland, Member States may provide incentives, for example in the form of ‘coupled income support’ for grass and forage under environmental safeguards. Member States are also encouraged to design environmental and climate actions supporting extensive systems or supporting farmers in their transition to resilient production systems, including through transition lump-sum payments. This shift towards more targeted territorial grassland management aims to maintain grasslands’ role in EU climate and biodiversity goals.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2025-10-08 “E-003935/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/900 1 establishes common transparency standards for political advertising offline and online, requiring political ads to be clearly labelled and accompanied by other information such as who paid for the ads and how much, and whether they were targeted toward a specific audience. The Regulation does not ban political ads, nor does it regulate the content of political ads or impose general monitoring obligations on online platforms. The new rules will help to protect the integrity of electoral processes and support an open democratic debate. On 8 October 2025, the Commission adopted guidelines 2 to support the effective implementation of the Regulation. They offer practical explanations on how to identify a political ad and clarify the transparency and due diligence obligations, to help those sponsoring ads – such as political actors – and providers of political advertising services to comply with the new rules. The guidelines also clarify the obligations applicable to online platforms when they act as providers of advertising services, to support and ease compliance with the new rules. The Commission will closely liaise with stakeholders and Member States to monitor and support the application of the Regulation and it will organise an implementation dialogue in 2026 to draw insights as necessary from the application of the rules. The decisions of certain companies to discontinue offering political advertising services on their online platforms are commercial decisions. The Commission is aware of the concerns raised by several civil society organisations about the impact of these decisions. The Commission will continue discussion with these companies on this topic. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/900 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/900/oj/eng. 2 Guidelines to support the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2024/900 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising: https://commission.europa.eu/document/0e5bb552-72f5-434e-8778-ed95e2955f25_en.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2025-10-08 “E-003973/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the concerns regarding the exports to third countries of EUbanned pesticides. The Commission committed ‘to establish a principle that the most hazardous pesticide banned in the EU for health and environmental reasons are not allowed back to the EU through imported products’ 1 . Ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment, both within the EU and globally, is paramount. This approach is applied in the Food and Feed Simplification Package of 18 December 2025 2 . The rise in exports of banned pesticides does not mean the EU is producing or using more of them, it reflects the fact that more substances have been banned in recent years 3 . The Commission is exploring further possible options, including by possibly amending relevant legislation if and as needed. For this purpose, the Commission launched a public consultation and a study in 2023 4 and an impact assessment on hazardous pesticides entering EU through imported products in November 2025 5 . 1 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A Vision for Agriculture and Food Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations, COM/2025/75 final. 2 https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/simplification-legislation_en. 3 For example an assessment in the ‘EU banned pesticide trade expands despite promises to end it – Unearthed’, 22 September 2025, quote: ‘This sharp increase is because in the past seven years the EU has banned dozens of pesticides that were previously authorised for use on European farms, after evidence emerged of the dangers they pose to human health or the environment’. https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2025/09/23/eu-banned-pesticidetrade-expands-despite-promises/. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13750-Hazardous-chemicalsprohibiting-production-for-export-of-chemicals-banned-in-the-European-Union_en. 5 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_25_2809.”
  EU policy on pesticides · Chemicals regulation
• 2025-09-01 “P-003342/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission reiterates that it is the responsibility of Member States, as coastal States, to determine what enforcement action to take. The Commission also reiterates that any such action should be in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which stipulates that coastal States have sovereignty over their territorial sea, including for the adoption of laws and regulations related to marine environmental protection. UNCLOS provides a basis for boarding of foreign flagged ships, outside territorial waters, only in limited situations. 2. The Commission considers that the practices and operations of the so-called dark or shadow fleet pose maritime safety and environmental risks to the entire EU coastlines. It has therefore proposed several actions 1 aiming to counter such practices and risks both in the context of the EU and, together with Member States, internationally in the context of the International Maritime Organization. This includes the amendment to Directive 2002/59/EC 2 requiring insurance information reporting for all vessels entering (current or future) EU Mandatory Ship Reporting Systems (MRS) in and around the EU coastline and waters. 3. The Commission is working with the Member States to ensure that the new requirement for insurance information reporting is shared with all Member States, irrespective of if they have any MRS or not. This is done by technical adaptations to the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System (SafeSeaNet), hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency, which provides maritime surveillance at sea. The aim of that action is to avoid any ‘weak links’ by making all relevant information, including insurance information, available to all EU Member States in near real time. 1 As outlined in P-002100/2025. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2002/59/oj/eng.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• 2025-06-11 “P-002366/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the recent publication of some of the results of a study 1 on glyphosate undertaken by the Ramazzini Institute 2 . The Commission has mandated the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to request from the study authors all original data without delay. Once the data is received, to also conduct a robust and thorough scientific evaluation as to whether the new information, considered alongside all other available data, changes their previous conclusions concerning the hazard (ECHA), or risk assessment (EFSA) conducted for glyphosate. This work will be carried out within an appropriate and realistic timeframe, following the relevant procedures of the agencies. The Commission would like to recall that ECHA concluded two times in 2017 3 and 2022 4 , respectively, that based on the available information, including animal data and human epidemiological data, and using a weight of evidence approach, no classification for carcinogenicity is warranted for glyphosate 5 . The new information by itself does not immediately call into question the outcomes of the previous reviews. 1 Panzacchi, S., Tibaldi, E., De Angelis, L. et al. Carcinogenic effects of long-term exposure from prenatal life to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides in Sprague–Dawley rats. Environ Health 24, 36 (2025). https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01187-2. 2 As part of their Global Glyphosate Study. 3 European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (2017). Opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment proposing harmonised classification and labelling of glyphosate (ISO); N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (EC Number: 213997-4; CAS Number: 1071-83-6). 4 European Chemicals Agency (2022). Opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment proposing harmonised classification and labelling of glyphosate (ISO); N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (EC Number: 213-997-4; CAS Number: 1071-83-6) (https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-clh-intentions-until-outcome//dislist/details/0b0236e185e41a77). 5 This was based on all available scientific information in a weight of evidence assessment and on the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1272/oj.”
  Glyphosate · EU policy on pesticides
• 2025-06-05 “E-002283/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware that the Dutch competent authority for the authorisation of plant protection products wrote 1 to the Dutch Minister for Agriculture to inform about the outcome of an expert meeting 2 on statistical analysis of results of carcinogenicity studies, expressing preference for one-sided tests, and that it would 3 bring them to the attention of the appropriate European and international regulatory bodies 4 . As reported in the letter, the experts noted that statistical analysis is only one line of evidence for concluding on carcinogenicity; some experts even considered statistical analysis of limited importance. All information on a substance should be considered in a weight of evidence approach, including a consideration of biological relevance of findings. A different method of testing does not automatically lead to a different conclusion on the hazard. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concluded two times (2017 5 , 2022 6 ) that, based on the available evidence and using a weight of evidence approach, no classification for carcinogenicity is warranted for glyphosate. In the last review both one- and two-sided tests were used to assess findings in the carcinogenicity studies and arrived at the same conclusion. The European Food Safety Authority considered the ECHA assessment as well as the underlying studies in its Conclusion on the peer reviewed risk assessment. Given that the outcome of the meeting of Dutch experts requires further discussion among independent risk assessors and that statistical testing is only one aspect of carcinogenicity assessments, the Commission currently does not consider it necessary to ask EFSA and Member States authorities to re-open assessments. 1 https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=2025D20811. 2 https://www.ctgb.nl/binaries/ctgb/documenten/beleidsnotas/2025/04/28/deskundigenbijeenkomst-beoordelencarcinogeniteit/Verslag+deskundigenbijeenkomst+7+februari+2025.pdf. 3 In cooperation with other parties - the letter from the Dutch Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides (Ctgb) mentioned specifically RIVM – the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. 4 Notably the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 5 European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (2017). Opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment proposing harmonised classification and labelling of glyphosate (ISO); N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (EC Number: 213997-4; CAS Number: 1071-83-6). (https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/2f8b5c7f-030f-5d3a-e87e-0262fb392f38). 6 European Chemicals Agency (2022). Opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment proposing harmonised classification and labelling of glyphosate (ISO); N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (EC Number: 213-997-4; CAS Number: 1071-83-6). (https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/5702e99d-d503-f154-226f-d8ab070ac47a).”
  Glyphosate · EU policy on pesticides
• 2025-05-27 “E-002114/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission recognises the challenge posed by e-cigarettes. The Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks underlined the negative health effects associated with e-cigarettes 1 . Challenges related to e-cigarettes are being considered as part of the ongoing comprehensive evaluation of the EU legislative framework on tobacco control 2 . This issue was duly raised within the Expert Group on Tobacco Control and is being discussed with the Member States. The Commission is not aware of any case, in which a Member State has taken appropriate provisional measures to prohibit specific electronic cigarettes or types thereof in accordance with Article 20(11) of the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU 3 . A competent authority may do so if it ascertains or has a reasonable ground to believe that specific electronic cigarettes or a type of electronic cigarette, could present a serious risk to human health. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/default/files/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/scheer_o_017.pdf. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13481-Evaluation-of-the-legislativeframework-for-tobacco-control_en. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02014L0040-20231023.”
  Electronic cigarettes · Restrictions of flavours in tobacco products
• 2025-05-26 “P-002100/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission The Commission takes the risks posed by Russia’s shadow fleet seriously and is addressing environmental and maritime safety threats they entail with targeted measures. EU sanctions designate shadow fleet vessels involved in risky or deceptive shipping, imposing port bans and service restrictions. So far, 444 vessels have been targeted, greatly reducing their activity. The EU has also engaged with third countries providing flags to these ships, raising concerns about environmental and maritime safety. Additionally, to further enhance maritime safety and environmental protection, Directive 2002/59/EC 1 has been amended to mandate insurance reporting for all vessels entering EU Mandatory Ship Reporting Systems, including those in transit. The enforcement of sanctions rests with the Member States. Additionally, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal States have sovereignty over their territorial sea, including for the adoption of laws and regulations related to marine environmental protection, innocent passage as well as the need to take the necessary steps to prevent non-innocent passage. Member States that are coastal States under UNCLOS, have the obligation and responsibility to protect and preserve the marine environment in the maritime zones under their sovereignty, especially in ecologically sensitive and strategic areas like the Western Scheldt. The Netherlands, as the coastal State who has sovereignty over the Western Scheldt, has the responsibility under UNCLOS to adopt measures to protect the marine environment and ensure compliance with international law within its territorial sea. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2002/59/oj/eng.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022) · EU policy on screening foreign investment in strategic sectors and critical infrastructure
• 2025-04-07 “E-001412/2025 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission Based on 2006-2022 data, the Commission estimates wildfire losses to be around EUR 2.7 billion annually. Accurate future estimates of these costs in the EU in the next 10 years require running projections, which the Commission plans to do. Under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF), the EU financed 12 new firefighting aircraft, which will join the permanent rescEU 1 wildfire-fighting fleet as of 2028. In line with the adopted preparedness union strategy (PUS) 2 , the EU also plans to scale up the existing capabilities of rescEU, including aerial firefighting. The next MFF will build on the PUS. The Commission will encourage expanding more insurance/reinsurance capacity and accompany the sector in the required changes in their investment decisions and underwriting practices. As announced in the PUS, the Commission will explore possible solutions to reduce the insurance protection gap in the EU 3 . Under the EU Copernicus programme 4 , the Commission is developing new tools in the European Forest Fire Information System 5 to help assess current and/or possible future high-risk areas and potential impact of wildfires. Under the common agriculture policy 6 , support is possible for insurance covering drought losses. Since the beginning of the programming cycle, the programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE) 7 has financed 34 projects 8 targeting climate resilience, providing a total contribution of EUR 84.9 million. Regarding cohesion policy, out of EUR 14 billion of EU funds allocated to climate adaptation and disaster risk management, EUR 4.2 billion is dedicated to preventing climate-related risks, including actions for drought prevention. Under cluster 6 of Horizon Europe, research and innovation projects on forest management are funded 9 . 1 https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/civil-protection/resceu_en. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/preparedness_en. 3 Public-private solutions may be necessary to address risks that are or may become uninsurable by the private sector alone. 4 https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/copernicus-earth-observation_en. 5 https://forest-fire.emergency.copernicus.eu/. 6 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-glance_en. 7 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en. 8 These projects target drought prevention actions such as water management and drought-resistant agroforestry practices, as well as the setting up of monitoring systems. 9 Ongoing projects, worth in total of EUR 72 million, include: FIRELOGUE, FIRE-RES, SILVANUS, TREEADS, FirEUrisk, focusing on better decision-making for sustainable and integrated forest management, development of climate resilient forest management platform and demonstrating forest resilience to wildfires.”
  Climate efforts · EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.)
• 2025-04-02 “E-001353/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Subsidies harmful to biodiversity comprise the following: - energy subsidies harmful to the environment including fossil fuel subsidies, where there is established reporting to the Commission 1 ; - ‘other’ non-energy environmentally harmful subsidies, which would cover agricultural subsidies, where Member States are due to report for the first time in 2025. A guidance document on the methodology for doing so has been agreed based on input and discussions in an Expert Group of the Member States 2 . The Member States and the Commission have a commitment to report on these environmentally harmful subsidies as part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework on Target 18 by February 2026. The Commission intends to publish an overview of environmentally harmful subsidies before this time, but this is dependent on Member States reporting to the Commission their non-energy environmentally harmful subsidies including for sectors such as agriculture, transport and manufacturing. By 31 December 2025, the Commission will report on the assessment of the operation of the new delivery model by the Member States and consistency and combined contribution of the interventions in Member States’ Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans 3 to achieving environmental and climate-related commitments of the Union. The Commission will examine the effectiveness of the CAP by 31 December 2026 as part of the interim evaluation. 1 https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/energy-subsidies-report-shows-progress-2023-2025-01-29_en 2 Sub group on Environmentally Harmful Subsidies and the Polluter Pays Principle (E02987/1): https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expertgroups/consult?lang=en&groupId=103352&fromMeetings=true&meetingId=50127 3 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans_en”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding · Agricultural funding
• 2025-02-12 “E-000647/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. Regulation (EU) 2024/1679 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, the TEN-T Regulation, was only adopted last year. It sets, amongst others, deadlines for the completion of networks and for the replacement of national, non-interoperable, rail safety systems (‘class B’ systems), with an EU standard system, notably the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). The Regulation contains mechanisms to steer its level of implementation, including through national plans and programmes, the annual status report and the work plans drawn up by the European Coordinators as well as a review clause per 31 December 2033. 2. The Commission, supported by the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA), works continuously to harmonise administrative and technical requirements for railways in the EU. Recent initiatives include the proposal to renew the rules on capacity allocation, which is currently being negotiated with the European Parliament and the Council. Upcoming initiatives include proposals on the revision of the Train Drivers Directive 2 and a new legislative initiative on ticketing. 3. Together with Member States and ERA, the Commission works to identify and to remove identified barriers. Tools to identify these barriers include the so-called ‘log-book’ for freight services and the pilot projects for cross-border long-distance passenger rail. In addition, the regular updates of the Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) support the further harmonisation of technical and operational rules. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1679/oj/eng. 2 Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community, OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 51–78.”
  EU support of rail transport · EU transport infrastructure integration
• 2025-02-11 “E-000627/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission On 19 May 2024, Directive (EU) 2024/1226 1 on the definition of criminal offences and penalties for the violation of EU restrictive measures entered into force. Member States have until 20 May 2025 to transpose it. The Commission is supporting them in their implementation and monitors the transposition. Sanctions enforcement is a national responsibility, but shadow fleet activities often occur outside of EU jurisdiction hindering national enforcement (ships not stopping in EU ports, not resorting to services of EU operators, etc). The Commission may reject a tender where any operator involved is subject to sanctions adopted under Article 29 of the Treaty on the European Union and Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2 . Ongoing contracts may be terminated when sanctions are substantially affecting their implementation. The Commission must exclude companies and individuals from its tender procedures if they are in exclusion situations covered by Article 138(1) of the Financial Regulation (FR) 3 . Ongoing contracts may be terminated if the contractor or related persons are in an exclusion situation. Exclusion measures must be based on a final judgement, an administrative decision or a recommendation (Article 145 of the FR). Article 5L of Regulation (EU) 833/2014 prohibits providing direct or indirect support, under EU, Euratom and national programmes, and any EU procurement under the FR to a legal person, entity or body in Russia, or directly or indirectly owned for more than 50% by an entity as previously referred to. Sanctioned natural or legal persons are illegible to receive funding under a new award procedure and participation in existing legal commitments would be ended. 1 OJ L, 2024/1226, 29.4.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1226/oj 2 Please note that the EU Official Journal contains the official list of entities subject to restrictive measures and, in case of conflict, its content prevails over that of the EU Sanctions Map, available at: https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main 3 OJ L, 2024/2509, 26.9.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj, see in particular Article 138(1)(c) and Article 138(1)(d)(iii).”
  EU competences on foreign affairs · EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• 2025-02-11 “E-000628/2025 Reply Targeting the so-called Russian shadow fleet has been an integral part of several sanctions packages against Russia adopted by the Council. The most recent 16th package of sanctions against Russia, adopted by the Council 24 February 2025, which was designed to further ramp up pressure on the aggressor, touches upon vital sectors of the Russian economy such as energy, trade, transport, infrastructure and financial services and introduces further measures aimed at tackling circumvention. In this latter respect, the 16th package adds further vessels to the list of those subject to a port access ban and a ban on the provision of a broad range of services related to maritime transport. This concerns non-EU tankers which are part of Russia’s shadow fleet circumventing the oil price cap mechanism while conducting irregular and high-risk shipping practices – thus possibly posing safety and/or environmental risks –, support the energy sector of Russia, or vessels that are responsible for transporting military equipment for Russia or stolen Ukrainian grain. In total, 153 vessels from third countries are currently listed. The Council explicitly acknowledges the environmental risks posed by Russia’s shadow fleet. Those risks have in particular been flagged by the International Maritime Organisation in its General Assembly resolution A.1192(33), adopted on 6 December 2023. Recital 6 of Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/388 of 24 February 2025 indicates that ‘for the purposes of those oil exports, Russia is increasingly reliant on a fleet of vessels involved in substandard and high-risk shipping practices such as operating with inadequate or inexistent insurance (‘shadow fleet’). Those vessels pose significant maritime safety and environmental risks for the Union, its coastal Member States and third-country coastal states. […] Discouraging persons and entities from undertaking and facilitating high-risk shipping practices when transporting Russian-origin oil and disrupting shadow”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022) · Disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons
• 2025-02-10 “P-000595/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission did not instruct nor require non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to lobby Members of the European Parliament. NGOs independently propose their work programme of activities in the policy areas indicated in the LIFE Regulation 1 , in response to a call for proposals 2 published by the Commission. The call for proposals does not require any lobbying activities towards the Members of the European Parliament or other stakeholders. The work programme is then annexed to the operating grant agreement signed between the Commission and the NGO 3 . The NGO has the contractual obligation to properly implement the work programme it proposed, while the Commission has the obligation to pay the amount of the grant. The work programmes may or may not mention, among other NGO’s activities, advocacy related to environmental, climate and energy efficiency policies. These activities are not imposed by the Commission. The Commission does not prescribe the specific activities to be carried out by the NGOs in their work programme, nor does it instruct them to support any specific positions. According to the grant agreements, any opinions expressed, and activities carried out remain the sole responsibility of the NGOs. Civil society entities remain fully autonomous and free to establish their own views on all policy matters. The Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration made clarifications in this sense also during the meeting of the European Parliament Committee on Budgets on 29 January 2025 4 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0783 2 See for example the 2024 LIFE call for operating grants: https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/life/wp-call/2021-2024/call-fiche_life-2024-ngo-og-sga_en.pdf 3 See for example the 2024 LIFE model grant agreement for operating grants: https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/life/agr-contr/og-flat-rate-mga_life_en.pdf 4 https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/webstreaming/committee-on-budgets_20250129-1500COMMITTEE-BUDG”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · EU engagement with civil society
• 2025-02-10 “E-000596/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is convinced that agricultural production and nature preservation must go hand in hand to face climate change by improving water resilience and give young farmers a farming future. Balance between agriculture and nature has both an EU and a national dimension. The present Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 1 and existing environmental and climate acquis, provide a solid legal framework for Member States to identify fit for purpose targets, based on National Strategic Plans, offering them more margin for manoeuvre than before. Member States have designed tailor-made interventions in their CAP Strategic Plans (CSPs) which also target livestock-related pollution. Eco-Schemes and Agri-Environmental and Climate Commitments support interventions to improve water quality and nutrient management, addressing manure surplus, on 21% and 15.5% of EU farmland 2 respectively. Other interventions include livestock density adjustments, aiming at reducing Greenhouse Gases, water and air (ammonia) emissions (for example, the Luxembourgish CSP 3 offers financial aid to less intensive animal husbandry systems). In his speech during the Grüne Woche 4 (Green Week), the Commissioner for Agriculture and Food reflected on targeted territorial solutions for balancing the livestock sector’s competitiveness with environmental sustainability, as published later in the Commission’s Vision for Agriculture and Food 5 . This approach includes maintaining grasslands, valorising the link with carbon sinks and improved water resilience, as well as more extensive systems beneficial in preserving biodiversity while reducing negative externalities. 1 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-glance_en 2 https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardCapPlan/result_indicators.html 3 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/a534870e-10e8-4178-bbdbefc16b0485d0_en?filename=csp-at-a-glance-luxembourg-en.pdf 4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_25_460 5 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food_en”
  Use of fertilisers · Water pollution
• 2025-01-17 “P-000201/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission Under Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP 1 and Regulation (EU) 833/2014 2 , the EU may designate specific vessels for their contribution to Russia’s warfare against Ukraine, including vessels that are part of Russia’s shadow fleet, which seeks to circumvent the EU and Price Cap Coalition’s caps while engaging in deceptive and high-risk shipping practices contrary to international standards. Such vessels are subject to a port access ban and a ban on provision of services. To date, the EU has designated a total of 153 vessels as part of the 14 th , 15 th and 16 th sanctions packages 3,4,5 adopted in response to Russia’s war against Ukraine. The Commission is continuously monitoring the developments relating to vessels belonging to Russia’s shadow fleet as part of its efforts to combat the circumvention of the EU’s Russia sanctions. It has also reached out to third countries providing flagging services to these vessels raising concerns of environmental protection and maritime safety. All decisions on EU sanctions are taken unanimously by Member States in the Council, including decisions on the sanctioning of vessels. 1 OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 13–17, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2014/512/oj/eng 2 OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 1–11, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/833/oj/eng 3 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/06/24/russia-s-war-of-aggression-againstukraine-comprehensive-eu-s-14th-package-of-sanctions-cracks-down-on-circumvention-and-adopts-energymeasures/ 4 https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-adopts-15th-sanctions-package-against-russia-itscontinued-illegal-war-against-ukraine-2024-12-16_en 5 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_585”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• 2024-12-11 “E-002861/2024 Reply The Honourable Member is informed that the European Council established the EU’s priorities and strategic orientations for the institutional cycle 2024-2029 in the Strategic Agenda it adopted on 27 June 2024. The Strategic Agenda states that the European Union should pursue a just and fair climate transition and will continue to protect nature and reverse the degradation of ecosystems, including oceans. The European Council invited the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to put the priorities defined therein into action during the next institutional cycle, respecting the institutional balance of powers as set out in the Treaties and the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality. The European Council will follow the implementation of all aspects of the Strategic Agenda closely and will define further general political directions and priorities as necessary. The letter to leaders, which has been made public at the Honourable Member’s request, was written in the light of the conversations António Costa had during his tour de capitales ahead of his term as President of the European Council. In his speech at the handover ceremony before starting his term, he noted that we need to effectively address people’s concerns, and climate change in particular.”
  Climate efforts
• “Sorry. Um, it's harder than it seems. Giving the floor to yourself. I'm afraid I need to talk about this as well, because that problem is getting out of hand. And I find your, uh, Answers don't have enough urgency in them. You're saying we're trying to seek a ban for consumer products, but that's just too little. It's in our water. It's in our eggs. It's in our breads. These are products that all Europeans consume several times per week. And the most alarming thing was the research that was published in the Netherlands last week, that everybody had not only PFAS, but PFAS above the safe levels in their blood's blood. So that's a serious public health problem. A few months ago, we had representatives from the commission from DG competition and DG, N.V. here in the Nvt committee. And there really DG envy spoke about the €85 billion that it will cost to clean all that up. And real concerns about public health. But DG competition was focusing more on competition. That's all well and good, but you can't play with public health. It's our citizens. That needs to be our primary responsibility and our priority. You are working with Commissioner KG. And we know that industry has put forward thousands of exceptions, and we just don't have time to do that. You've spoken about and others have spoken about consumer products, but then several colleagues have spoken about pesticides with TVA, which is a product of pieces. And that's what you have in all of our feed. And we have no law in Europe concerning PFAS Containing pesticides and that needs to be tackled. Now it needs to be banned. Now. Quite honestly. Because this is about public health. Of hundreds of millions of Europeans. And so my very simple question is, can you be more quick about, uh, getting out of consumer products and in particular of pesticides? Because if you wait too long, member states will run their own course and that will be a real drama for Europe.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Commissioner, dear colleagues, this debate is not about climate policy, it is about the economy and about physical laws. Because the electric motor converts 95% of the energy to movement and the combustion engine only 30%. And that is why the future is electric. Its technology is simply superior in energy terms and in cost terms. So to save the European car industry, we have one single challenge: how to become competitive in the global electric car market, and certainly not by spreading our investments between EVs and hybrids and combustion engines or on biofuels. Then we will really experience what slow agony looks like when passenger cars replace horse and carriage. We did not invest in cars that could also be pulled by horses. No, we understood that the new technology was superior. So let's not fool ourselves. Hybrids and biofuels are not making our industry more competitive. Only a full focus, private and public.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner. Colleagues. Europe is by far the best place in the world to live. Nowhere else in the world do you have our level of freedom, democracy, welfare and wellbeing. The European way of life is so important that we even have a commissioner for it. But we do have to pull out every stop to ensure we stay the best place to be. Because we are threatened. We are threatened internally by nationalism and externally, geopolitical threats, economic shortages and high energy prices. And we have to be clear, the commission program is addressing the right things. The internal market strategy, the 90% CO2 reduction by 2040, European defence industry, and also simplification of the rules. But all of this requires a strong centralist Europe with a big budget with much more own resources. So that's what we have to work for. And perhaps the most important thing is that the member states have to move in that direction. They have to act as one. And that's why it's a pity that there are no changes proposed to the treaties, because a bolder, simpler and faster Europe is only possible if we get we get rid of national vetoes in the Council, also Parliament, we should follow this agenda and we can only do that with a strong pro-European coalition at the centre of our institution. And listening to this debate once again, I see on the right, far right and far left margins of this Parliament. There is no solution being offered to the European problems that we face. We can't go back to the past. I heard a colleague from the ECR saying that we should return back to coal. I mean, even Donald Trump wouldn't dare suggest that.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you. I have listened carefully to what Mr. Sterle has said. But you say you. Well, you don't want a strong Europe. You don't want a powerful, centralising Europe. But when it comes to defence, Europe has spent two and a half times more on defence than Russia. But because we don't do this together, we don't have a strong enough response. What's your answer to that?”
  EU competences on defence
• “Thank you, chairman. And thank you, Minister, for for being here. Um, and also, thank you for your strong statement that we very much need also for our economy. Um, strong and ambitious 20, 40 targets. Um, as minister in the presidency. During these six months, you'll also play a huge role in during the Cop. And we all know that the cop is not starting on the 10th of November. It has already started. Negotiations are ongoing. And the credibility of the EU strongly depends on the speed with which we can adopt our ambitious 2040 target. I sincerely hope that you will be successful in adopting the council position on the 18th of September. My very concrete question is how quickly after that do you expect the Parliament's position in order to be successful in the negotiations in the run up to a Cop 30? And then, as the second question, you mentioned the Kyoto Protocol and the integrity of the system. My question concerns the international credits and the negative effect it might have on the ETS price. Maybe you can elaborate on that as well. I myself have to leave for a vote in another committee, but your answer will be followed very closely by my colleagues and assistants. Many thanks.”
  Climate efforts
• “We have to lead by example. So that is why it's so extremely important, not only Peter, to have a 2035 NDC, but also to have a very, very legally binding, ambitious 2040 target. For me, it's clear that extreme right shies away from this huge responsibility. And I'll be very frank, you simply do not have the courage to take the decisions that are necessary. You do not have the courage to tell the voters this is what we have to do, not because we like to do it, but because we simply have no choice, given what is happening at the moment. Renew supports the 90% target and we are not all very happy with the commission proposal, but it's a very good basis for further discussions. And no, we're not obsessed by figures. We're just following those who know best what to do. And that's scientists. And that is 99.9% of all scientists who know what to do. I know that we have parties here in this House who who are very much aware of the huge responsibility. And I'm very much looking forward in the coming weeks to work together with these parties, which is the EPP, of course, which is the S&D, which are the Greens and other parties as well. I'm very much looking forward to it, but let's stick together and find the right majority in order to end up with a very ambitious European climate target, in order to save our planet and to secure the world for our children and grandchildren. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Mr. Razza, Sir. I listened carefully to you, and we all agreed that we. Yes, Mr. Razza I listened carefully to you. And I think we all agree that we have to fight forest fires. But something else is that we have the responsibility to avoid a further increase in forest fires. And one of the most important reasons of this increase is climate change. Whether you like it or not, it is there and it is causing the enormous increase in forest fires. What are you doing? You're a powerful man because you're a member of the European Parliament. You decide on climate policy. What do you do to help avoiding further forest fires in Europe and the rest of the world?”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you so much, chair, and thank you. Executive Director Ella, for for being here and presenting this extremely important report. And, um, I fully disagree with the speaker just before me, if you are used to drink 100 beers a day, you shouldn't be surprised that your health is not improving a lot when you start drinking just 80 beers a day. Um, it's basically that we haven't done enough to save our nature and environment. Um, I think your statement is is very clear. Nature is a must have. Um, Europe cannot afford to lower its nature, climate and environmental goals. And this is science speaking. This is not your personal opinion that you're stressing here. This is science speaking. And I think that is that is very important to to note, um, in the climate field, we have a scientific board and we tend to listen to this scientific board. And I feel very sorry that the European Commission did not fully follow it, and that some groups in this House are not at all following it, because science is the basis of what we should be doing here. Um, it's difficult to focus on, on 1 or 2 things in this very important report, but I'll try to do so. And that is the economic side of environmental and nature destruction, and it's astronomical. If I look at the figures in your report, uh, €160 billion of losses between 21 and 23, that's enormous. And it makes you think if you look at current policies and current positions of groups in this House, that we are extremely penny wise, pound foolish, that maybe on the short term we think that we can gain a lot with simplification, Amplification, which in the end is more deregulation. But the economic losses due to the destruction of nature and environmental elements are well tenfold of what we tend to make. Um, also on social impact, if 10% of the deaths are premature, caused by environmental degradation, what about those social effects? They're enormous, of course. My question is, how can we use you more and and your role as scientific community in order to make better policies in this House. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And to the Madam State Secretary, I must admit that your presentation so far was surprisingly green. And therefore I would like to to ask you, what is the relation with your own Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, who called environmental protection a left wing issue for rich countries that hinder economic development, and even claimed that fit for 55 was killing middle class. Um, maybe you can clarify what is the true face of the Hungarian presidency. My second question is about competitiveness. You, um, a few times talked about jeopardising competitiveness because of a green agenda. I think quite often it's the other way around. And look at the automotive industry. The reason why we're falling behind China and Tesla is because we didn't catch up quickly enough to the green development of electric vehicles. Do you agree with me that quite often, given the green revolution that is going through our planet, that quite often it is a lack of green policies that is jeopardizing competitiveness instead of the contrary? Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, 2035 is ten years from now and we will be three US presidents further. And obviously we still have vonderlehr sitting here. But if you look ten years forward, it's also very valuable to look ten years back as well in 2015, the best selling electric vehicle was the European Renault Zoe, with a range of 100km. Today's EV world is incomparable to that of 2015, and the 2035 EV world will be equally incomparable to today's president, von der Leyen said in her state of the Union speech. The future is electric, electric and I fully agree. The big question is will this electric future be European or Chinese? And I want it to be European. No. It needs to be European. And therefore the title of this debate should have been how do we make our electric future European? What does the car industry need from us to make the transition successful, and what should they do themselves in history? Better technologies have always replaced the worse. Whether you like it or not. And in the 18th Century, the Luddites were convinced they could stop progress by destroying automated machinery in the textile industry. Obviously they couldn't. Let us not be the 21st century Luddites trying to destroy the European car industry. Let us do what made Europe great and embrace new technology and develop it in such a way that we lead the world. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “(17:21:45 – 17:28:05): Yes. Thank you very much, madam chair. And it's great after the work done on the draft report that we can now finally present a report. But before I start doing so, maybe a few general remarks because I think they are important to better understand this file. First of all, it's important to understand what this regulation is about and what it's not about. And it's important to emphasize that this is not a regulation that tries to describe how people should invest and nor is it steering investments towards sustainability. It is most of all disclosure regulation. It aims to enhance transparency and especially focusing on retail investors. And through creating more transparency, it should help mobilize private funds towards sustainability aims. In 2022, a comprehensive assessment and review started, and it became quite clear by then and even before that the sustainable finance disclosure regulation was not very efficient. The transparency was not functional for the main target group being retail investors. It was too detailed and quite often too extensive. And in time, it was more and more being used as a labeling and marketing tool, but it was not designed to do so. And, like many other regulations, it had too much compliance burdens for, in this case, the financial market participants. And it's good to emphasize that the European Commission did a very good and thorough job. All stakeholders were fully engaged in the assessment and their input was well received and used for the revision. And so if we look at the current revision, we see that it's considerably simplified with far lower compliance costs, that it makes sustainable investment products easier for investors to understand and compare, and that it's much better at preventing any greenwashing. But, of course, when I started as rapporteur, I also talked to many, many stakeholders myself, and I do believe that there are a few elements that can improve this very already very good proposal from the commission. And I identify three main elements. First of all, we should even make it more transparent. We should be aware that the SFDR is a voluntary regime for those financial products that really integrate sustainability strategies and want to use it as a selling point to customers. And therefore, we should make it clear to those customers when a product is not categorized under SFDR with a simple statement. And I also believe that it's important that the comparability of products between categories is improved so that customers should be able to gauge which product best suits their needs within a category by comparing them on the same indicators, and that is not the case with the commission proposal. The second element I would like to highlight is credibility. I think we need more credibility for this regulation because the SFDR only works when retail investors can rely on the promises. And that sustainable investments are really sustainable because those investors that deliberately choose the sustainable option have to be certain that their option is clearly sustainable. And once again, they're not forced or steered towards it. It's their own choice. So it's a matter of credibility that the sustainable investments, as we define them, are really sustainable. The third element is that we can even make it less burdensome and that has mostly to do with starting to apply this regulation as soon as it enters into force. So that is my third element. Finally, madam chair, we're all aware that there are lobbies to stretch the definitions of articles 7, 8, and 9. And they want to stretch it in such a way that more private companies and also public debts can qualify under these articles. And I fully understand the political and also financial interests here, but it would be a wrong approach. And it would be undermining the credibility of the SFDR, which I explained before. And I started my presentation by saying what the SFDR is and what it is not. And it's mostly about transparency. And we make this law especially for retail investors, for people who have relatively little money to spend on these financial products. And this is for people that are deliberately choosing to invest in sustainability financial instruments or focus on other social or governance objectives. And they have to be able to trust these categories. They have to be reliable, and I very strongly believe that it's important that we as EP take that seriously as well. Thank you, madam chair.”
  EU approach to sustainability criteria in private investments
• “Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you so much, doctor, for for being here with us. I'm in the center back. Yes. Great to have you. Honored to have you here in our committee. I have basically two questions. And they're both linked to the Food and Feed omnibus. The first is there's no impact assessment of what will happen to public health when we do as proposed by the European Commission. And I've heard some people say, well, we believe it's responsible. Let's try it out. And in a few years time we'll see what the results are. My question to you is, from a scientific point of view, do you consider that a responsible approach? Or do you believe that we need a different approach? The second question is on Parkinson's disease, the fastest growing brain disease in the world. The last 30 years, the amount of patients has doubled, and it becomes very clear that the main reason is environmental pollution, air pollution, but also the use of pesticides. Now, Efsa has identified a statistical association and and I read it out, a plausible mechanistic link between certain pesticides and Parkinson's disease. And you're still working on a better framework on how to deal with this in your risk assessment. But how do you or Efsa, how do you ensure that we apply the precautionary principle, something that is very strongly written down in our treaty? In this field. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “And I think the biggest mistake we can do is leave that on that track. I have a few very concrete questions. One is on agriculture. You say that we should simplify the European Green Deal, simplify the green architecture of the cap. So that is that it is acceptable to farmers. That's almost giving a veto to farmers. And given the fact that the agricultural sector is one of the most polluted we have. I would really like to change that in a, in a workable cap to farmers. Then the other question is, you say that you want to to work through incentives and support rather than bans and excessive burdens. Besides the fact that I don't really like the language, ETS is a very, very successful instrument. It has been asked by by other colleagues and most importantly, it is the most cost efficient instrument that we have and the most successful climate instrument that we have. So maybe you can well give some answers to that as well. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on all those speakers who are saying that we need to be realistic and we need to make sure that we don't ban all PFAS. Last week, the National Environment and Health Agency was looking at chickens eggs. We're not talking about industrial produced eggs. We're not talking about battery eggs. We're talking about people who have a chicken in their back garden. Not a single egg in the Netherlands was safe. Not a single egg was safe for human consumption when it comes to PFAS levels. And I hear the commission saying that in the Netherlands, the pollution is highest in anywhere in Europe. Let's take that as a warning. Let's heed that warning and let's not do in the rest of Europe what the Netherlands is doing when it comes to PFAS. We are poisoning ourselves. That's how simple it is, and I'll leave it at that. I'm absolutely gobsmacked. Looking at the difference between the speakers from the commission, the first speaker is urging action, saying it's an emergency that we're talking about, maybe €80 billion that we're going to have to pay in public health costs in Europe. But the second DG competition speaker from the commission was talking about competitiveness, saying we have to be cautious, we can't ban everything, etc., etc. we are trying to accelerate the process. No, I'm sorry, that's not enough. It's not a question of accelerating the process. We have to look at all non-essential applications of PFAS and ban them. Let us not allow the industry to get derogations and exemptions and slow things down. This is a tactic that we cannot longer accept. So my call on the commission is take that decision today. Ban PFAS in all non-essential applications and try to make sure that the application of PFAS being used is restricted to an absolute minimum.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Minister Jensen, for being with us. Um, strong support for what you've been saying about the plant based strategy. Uh, plant based proteins not only good for the environment, but a more plant based diet is obviously very good for our own health as human beings. Something that my EPP colleague Smith doesn't care about, apparently. I have two questions. The first is on the Water Framework Directive. Um, Denmark has huge difficulties, uh, achieving those targets. So do many other countries within the EU. What are your plans during your presidency? To make sure that we are going to meet those targets. And finally, I'm very, very happy with the fact that Denmark apparently has banned 23 pesticides and the European Commission. Definitely needs to be pushed a little bit in order to do this, to do the same at European level. So I hope you can work on that. To work towards a total ban on PFAS in Europe and especially on pesticides, because that is an area where we haven't seen any legislation yet. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And since I fundamentally believe that these kind of debates should allow for blue cards, I'll react to a few of my colleagues. First of all, Mr. Procaccini Procaccini, who already left, he called climate policy a being ideological, but spending more than €500 billion annually on fossil fuels. Is that ideological or factual? And that member states who have the lowest investments in clean energy, that they are now the most vulnerable to high energy prices? Is that ideological or factual? And that Italy by far spends the lowest amount of ETS revenues on climate action. Is that ideological or factual? We all know the answer, and it's no wonder that Italy is in trouble and that Mr. Bardella, who always talks about French independence. French people, paid €1,000 a year in 2024 on fossil fuels, and if we follow his way, he will increase the dependence on France. The real ideologists are sitting over there, but their ideology is fossil fuels. It's high energy costs and full dependence. Thank you.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you, Peter. Good to see you in this in this chair. Um, thank you, Commissioner, for your presentation. Um, I listened carefully to my colleagues, and it were the patriots who asked for more reality. I think in your opening statement, you showed a lot of reality. And I would like to quote two sentences. Uh, one was that you said that electric vehicles that they perform in a superior way compared to in Boston, uh, combustion engine. Um, and I think that is one of the crucial things, um, the electric vehicle is four times more energy efficient than the internal combustion engine. And as long as markets tend to reward technical superiority, we know which way it will go. The future is electric, whether you like it or not. And that is the reality we live in. The question is more, and that is another quote that I would like to highlight from you, Mr. Commissioner. You said that we gave the industry more options to reach their targets. I think their main target is to stay in business, and staying in business means that they are able to compete with the Chinese and with Tesla and maybe others as well on EV, not on other cars.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “I guess that's me. Thank you. Thank you Chair and thank you Commission for presenting this very important review, the fourth already. I must say it's a pity that only so few members of us are here present because these are actually extremely, extremely important reports. We are fully packed here when we discuss new policies but to look at what is happening with our policies, are they implemented, enforced and what are the results might even be more important than discussing new policies. But unfortunately there's just, well, little, little attendance here. It's also a pity that we cannot address Council on behalf of the Member States because what is the main problem here is that the Member States are not implementing the European laws in the right way. And that's not only a big problem for our citizens who are not able to breathe in clean fresh air or swim in clean water etcetera etcetera. Also thanks to your report we can see that the costs of inaction are astronomical, really enormous and that is a part that we never hear when we discuss new policies. And members here are saying how expensive it will be to implement that policy quite often see that the costs of not implementing might even be bigger than the investments needed to implement. There's basically, I have one big question and that is looking at the four REFUEL reports the Commission has published since 2017 and I quote the one from 2019: there is a weak mechanism to ensure compliance and a lack of effective governance at national, regional and local level which contributes to implementation failures. And roughly the same conclusions came from 2022 and 2025. So after, well, six to eight years of implementation reports shouldn't we also try to draw more fundamental conclusions that the system that we have now is not working well, that we have Member States who are simply not doing what they should do based on the law and we don't have the instruments to make them do it besides infringements procedures and all the good work that the Commission is doing. But you already indicated that you have to prioritize, you cannot do everything because it's too much. So we've had discussions in the past, shouldn't we have at European level an inspection service to look more closely into what is happening at Member States level because quite often Commission is fully depending on data coming from the same national agencies that might not be implementing in the right way.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Madam Commissioner, obviously full support for your policy of preparedness union. And it's it's obvious, like other colleagues have said, that we have to work closely together to, um, to work on these, uh, droughts and forest fires. And if you imagine that even in April, in a country like the Netherlands, we already had forest fires. It says something. But let's face it, the best way to deal with these crises is to prevent them. And it's climate change that causes droughts, forest fires and floods. And it's threatening our livelihoods, our food security, and even our lives. So, colleagues, let's invest in climate mitigation in the 90% emission reduction in 2040 and in a sustainable agricultural system. Today we voted and we made €280 million available to assist several member states with the effects of floods of the last couple of months. And I hope that those parties who are voting against any climate change action. I hope that they have very, very deep pockets. Because in a few years time we do not need €280 million, but we will need billions of euros. In 1015 years time. We will need tens of billions in euros. And I count on you to pay that check. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me start by encouraging Peter Lees to again read the December 29th communication on the Green Deal, because he knows very well that the Green Deal is not a climate program. It's the new growth model, a growth model that makes clear that economic growth is only possible if we do it in a sustainable way. And yes, that includes climate change abatement, but it also includes everything that has to do with nature and biodiversity and other environmental concerns. So they're all equally important. And there's no Green Deal without nature restoration law, deforestation law. So maybe he can do some some reading again. And to Mr. Rendre, um, if you talk about living costs of European citizens, um, they will explode if we do not tackle climate change. That's the reason why we're doing this. Okay. Um, I thank the commission for for the assessment that they have made in their press release. They talk about closing the gap. And I think that is that is what we're talking about. 55% is the target. Um, we're now on paper at 54. So we are closing the gap. Um, but still, not only is there a lot to do, but as I said, this is a paper exercise where assessing the plans that are on paper in most member states, not all member states. For instance, Poland has still not, uh, admitted its plans.”
  Climate efforts
• “So maybe we can start with that. And in the global Diversity Biodiversity framework, we agreed to identify these subsidies by 2025 and also to phase them out. So my question to the commission is what is the status at the moment? When can we expect the overview of nature destroying subsidies, including a plan to phase them out? Um, the second question is more specific on the Kali fund. Um, that was launched in Rome on funding biodiversity action worldwide. Part of it was to, um, agree that certain industries, such as pharma and cosmetics that gain profit through the use of natural resource information, are expected to contribute to the fund. And this is non-committal. Um, but what kind of plan is the European Commission now developing in order to have our industries to contribute to this fund? Because it's completely makes sense that those industries that gained profit from the use of natural resource information, that they also contribute to the restoration of nature, that they use that much. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, one of the biggest strengths of EU climate policy has always been that it's, um, it has always been science based. So if the EP asks for flexibilities, I assume that's within the science advice that we have been receiving so far. My question to the European Commission is on the Cop, and, um, that is on the fact that the United States of America is more than just the Trump administration. It also includes many states like California, New York, Vermont that have more, even more ambitious climate policies than then the EU has. Are there ways to include them somehow into the Paris process in the Cop process? I know that they will be present, but it will be in an informal way. But can we find ways to have regional or local communities be more represented formally? Because in the end, it is they who are confronted mostly with the impact of climate change.”
  Climate efforts
• “(17:08:00 – 17:10:25): I was okay with the other order as well. But anyhow, thank you, and and many thanks for both the agency and the scientific board for presenting their studies. I'm a bit puzzled by the 2 previous speakers. Focusing only on adaptation without mitigation is like mopping with the tap running. I don't think that's a very intellectually wise thing to do. But anyhow, my question is the following. You're coming up with recommendations on how to deal with this changing climate. And you advise us to map the risks, etcetera, etcetera. But obviously, there are also sectors that in the near future are simply impossible in certain areas of Europe, like tourism in high summer in areas where it's simply too hot. I know that many Dutch people don't go to the South of Europe anymore during the summer, but they either go to Scandinavia or they are changing their vacation behavior from summertime to springtime. So, that will obviously have huge consequences, also economic consequences for the tourism sector in Southern Europe. I think about agriculture. Certain crops might not grow anymore. You can decide to grow other crops, but I assume that certain areas are simply impossible for agriculture in the near future. The insurance sector, houses, other areas that are simply not insurable anymore because the costs are too high. Are you in your analysis also taking that into account? Because it could also mean that we should not invest in certain sectors anymore, in certain regions because it is simply not feasible anymore to do so. And what are your, well, I assume quite strong conclusions then. Thank you.”
  EU strategy for tourism development
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. Sometimes it's wise to to zoom out a bit and to to focus on the essence. And I think the essential question is why do we have a European budget? What is the essence of it? Well, for me it's very simple. We have objectives that we define democratically and then we need the means to achieve results. And now if I look at the opening statement of the Court of Auditors, which I believe is an institute that has cautiousness in its DNA, it says no clear link between funding and results, which is the essence of having a budget. You want results and you need money to achieve them. And then the Court of Auditors, our main institution, to look into this, if we're doing the right thing, is saying that there is no clear link. I'm I'm really very disappointed. Uh, listening to the commission. And I know budget is also a political exercise, but it cannot be so political that there is no clear link anymore between the money and the results. So, um, this is an opinion from the Court of Auditors and with opinions. We never get an official response reply from the commission. Can we ask for a written official reply from the Commission on this? Because this is so essential. This is really what the budget should be about. Are we able to achieve results with the money that we're asking from our citizens. So that's what I'm what I'm asking you chairs. If if it's possible to ask the commission to come with a formal written explanation and response to this Court of Auditors report. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “(17:43:59 – 17:45:33): Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and many thanks to my colleagues, some of whom were very positive about the draft. So I strongly welcome that. But not only that, they were also talking about a good spirit of cooperation among each other. So I'm very much looking forward to building the bridges that are necessary to find a majority in this house. I must say, I'm not surprised by a few of the comments. Most of them were positive. A few were more critical. I'm quite certain that it's possible to find a relatively large majority in this house. And also looking at the developments within council, this rather technical file shouldn't be too difficult to be finalized at the end of the year. But of course, optimism is important, but realism as well. So I'm very much looking forward to start working with my colleagues. I think Mr. Niedermeyer was absolutely right that one of the biggest questions will be the transition category. And let's work on that together. And I'm very much looking forward to seeing your amendments later this week. Wish you good luck with the coming 24 hours, stabilizing them, and we'll start working together after that. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Um, to what extent are the latest simplification proposals taken into account? If I look at the agri omnibus that we're discussing now, um, in Parliament as well, um, permanent grassland, um, proposals from the Commission is, in theory, adding a lot of CO2 emissions. So. Are they taken into account? And the same with the CC'd omnibus. Um, getting away with the climate transition plans for companies. What does that mean for, um, reaching the targets of 2030? Um, then the enforcement and the monitoring. Um, we all know that there's still a huge lack of monitoring and enforcement in the member states, so maybe the commission can, um, um, look at that as well. Um, finally, I was happy to hear that the commission is planning to look at the governance regulation. Um, I would not plea for for changing, um, the sequence of the reporting, but how can we avoid that with the two year sequence? We are not really strictly, um, monitoring what really is happening in the member states, because we all know that some of the most current national plans are going backwards instead of forwards, like in a country, uh, like mine, the Netherlands. So how do we avoid that? We lose track, um, with the current two year sequence. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, I would like to focus on the food and feed omnibus proposal. And there's one thing that we fully agree upon that is that the current system is not working anymore, and it has to be fixed. But you've chosen for a very bold approach, removing the standard Reapproval. And if we look back 15 years, last 15 years, roughly 10%, 54 of the active substances were not re-approved. Um, and because they were too dangerous. 31 of out of the 54 were not on the radar of um independent science or the European Commission. They were only not re-approved because of this ten year, um re-approval system and simply because um science, independent science does not have the capacity to go through all these active substances. So without the current system, they would most probably not be identified and would still be on the market. At the same time, science has been arguing now for years that we have to be stricter on pesticides because of the cocktail effect and because of the cumulative use of pesticides. Um, my question, um, is about the fact that you did not deem it necessary to undertake a proper impact assessment. You argue that there is hundreds of millions of reduction in administrative costs, but you have no idea what the costs for the environment and for public health will be. So my question is whether you're still willing to undertake such an impact assessment. Um the Dutch Parliament has asked science, uh, to um make a scientific assessment. And they came to the conclusion that your proposal will not reduce bureaucracy, nor can it guarantee equivalent health standards. So maybe you can answer that as well. And then finally, um, your portfolio is about public health. There's a lot of reason to put much more effort in trying to, um, look for the links between the use of pesticides and neurological diseases like Parkinson's disease. But you seem not to be very, very active and actively urgent, acting very urgently on that. So I hope you can respond to that as well. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Costa, thank you for being here. You have not been long, chair or president of the European Council, but long enough to know that its ways must change your members. Government leaders concluded once again under your leadership that we must have a European Union, which is climate neutral, competitive. A military power, a foreign policy actor, even the guardian of the oceans. And that's all fine and well. And I couldn't agree more. And many agree with these words. It's just that your members go home and then do nothing. While Europeans have never wanted more Europe. They are far from meeting the moment. The customers want a michelin star dinner, but the European Council delivers thin porridge. It has been two months since Trump and no sovereignty has been shared to defend our territory. It has been six months since Draghi and no economic or democratic reforms were carried out. It has been 11 months since Letta and no jealously guarded national powers were pulled. Mr. Costa grabbed history by the scruff of the neck. Wake up your members and stop talking. But start doing.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam Minister, for your presence here and your presentation this morning. And I would also like to thank you for your personal support in the past for the Green Deal and also your work on the just transition. I think those two are extremely important. I, I fully acknowledge the the difficult national political situation in Poland and therefore I have the feeling that not just the the written program of the presidency, but also Donald Tusk's speech yesterday on the Green Deal have to do a lot with the difficult national political situation. But I would like to urge you not to to fall in the trap of your political adversaries, because by criticizing the Green Deal, I do not think that will help in in getting more public acceptance. One of the problems that you address in your in your own document. We should be very careful here. The Green Deal is not an environmental agenda. It has been presented and it is the new growth model of the European Union. It is a combination of safeguarding our environment and at the same time working on the On the competitiveness of our economy.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you chair. And thank you, commissioners. Um, we all know the saying never change a winning team. Well, one of those winning teams has been for the last 33 years, the life program. And it has been the European champion of the last 33 years. And every winning team has a star player, the star player of the life program, where the nature and biodiversity parts of it. Those were so successful that even the European Court of Auditors mentioned this it as the main example for other financial programs of the EU, not just in the environmental field in total. So if you want to streamline things, use the live program as the core example. Nature and biodiversity is is exactly that thing that had disappeared in the new set up. There is no single dedicated target for nature and biodiversity. So it's lost. So you're you're sort of deleting the world champion, um, within the European Commission. Then second point, um, according to NGOs, we have €43 billion a year on harmful subsidies. Huge part of it are in the Cap program. And the European Court of Auditors says that the Commission counts too much of Cap spending towards climate and nature goals. Can you also elaborate on that? Because there we have a serious problem.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. Um, just one final remark. Because many members mentioned Paphos and they showed a huge sense of urgency. So just to give you a very friendly political advice, to again discuss it within the commission and try not only to focus on consumer products but also on the pesticides, because that is an area where I think measures can be taken very quickly. Of course, it's your responsibility and we fully take your, um, uh, your attention and, uh, and views very seriously. But as a friendly advice, I want to warn you that this, this committee will come back to this. So thank you for being here. And thank you all for being here. That was the end of this meeting. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you, Madam President. Dear commissioners, dear colleagues, Europe is not condemned to weakness. Far from it. Time and again, Europe has proven to be our best chance. When our people were trapped by a deadly pandemic. It was Europe that produced the vaccines that saved millions. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it was Europe that stood tall, united under the Ukrainian flag. And when the climate crisis threatened our children's future, it was Europe again that set the most ambitious green agenda in the world. And we can rise to these challenges, too. We have the engineers, the scientists, the soldiers, the farmers, the entrepreneurs. We have the ideas, the values, the creativity. What we lack is not capacity. What we need is confidence to act together. Imagine what this union can be a continent that runs on its own, clean energy and builds technology. Others can only dream of a Europe that speaks with one voice and fights with one army. It can be done. If only our member States could be less afraid to choose compromise over debilitating consensus, to choose unity over their own individual agendas. Yes, colleagues, we have a very crucial choice ahead of us, and let's choose to unite. Let's follow president von der Leyen's pitch for unity, as she called it, and to Mr. Weber and Mrs. Garcia Pérez. Unity is not looking for differences. Our European citizens need a strong pro-European coalition. Let us take our responsibility and show that we can make Europe together. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, what we're witnessing here today is what happens when you open Pandora's box. Because that is what you did. Madam Commissioner, on the 23rd of September, you opened Pandora's box. You then see political opportunists jumping in line to kill the basic legislation with arguments that are pure sophism. You can kill any piece of legislation with the argument of red tape. The question is, do we want to achieve the targets, and do we allow a certain amount of red tape to come with that? For me, it's very crucial that we move on. Um, deforestation is one of the biggest problems we're faced with. Um, 10 to 20% of climate change is caused by deforestation. It's huge. So, Madam Commissioner, there are two options. Either there are real IT problems and that means huge mismanagement by the European Commission or there is a political agenda behind it. And in both cases, I think the commission has a huge political problem.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this week we will most probably vote in a large majority in favour of more flexibility for our European car industry to comply with the Co two standards, and the renew group supports this amendment. However, this is not something to be cheerful about. It's a clear sign of the competitive weakness of our car industry. We all knew years ago that the future car would be electric for technical reasons, for energetic reasons, and for climate reasons, and although our industry tried to make this switch, it did so reluctantly. Our national governments were equally reluctant to develop the right policies to facilitate this historic and revolutionary transition. This flexibility does buy time for our industry, however. Let it be a lesson for both industry and our governments. If we want to continue driving European cars in the future, we should step up our game. Industry should by finally fully embracing the electric revolution and stop undermining public policies and governments should by facilitating the electric transition. And this should be a joint public private effort. And I call upon industry and the European Commission to work on that. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much. And thank you, Commissioner, for being here today and for your answers. So far, 2024 was a disastrous year from a climate point of view. And all the colleagues who are calling for more realism. I'd like to ask them to look at the figures. 20 billion of worth of damage. A lot of people killed, 317 hectares of land was burnt down. About half a million citizens were affected by flooding. And the insurance companies had to pay out 7 billion because of climate damage. So it was a disastrous year. And when we what we know from climate change is that it's going to get worse and worse unless we reduce emissions. So we've got to speed up. The more we delay, the more CO2 will be emitted and the more disasters we'll see. And we can't cope with that. So that brings me to implementation by member states because we can talk about 2040 objectives, but we have objectives for 2030 and we must achieve those. And three member states have not yet submitted their plans. And according to the analysis, 11 countries are not going to achieve their objectives. Can I ask you, what are you going to do about that? The hearing you promised that you will pursue this. You said that infringement proceedings were not impossible, but you also said that you believe in words. You went to the Netherlands, for example, and we know that the climate plans we have are absolutely not going to achieve their goal. So my question to you is this what are you going to do to ensure that all these member states actually get down to it, so that they achieve their climate goals? Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me start by encouraging Peter Lees to again read the December 29th communication on the Green Deal, because he knows very well that the Green Deal is not a climate program. It's the new growth model, a growth model that makes clear that economic growth is only possible if we do it in a sustainable way. And yes, that includes climate change abatement, but it also includes everything that has to do with nature and biodiversity and other environmental concerns. So they're all equally important. And there's no Green Deal without nature restoration law, deforestation law. So maybe he can do some some reading again. And to Mr. Rendre, um, if you talk about living costs of European citizens, um, they will explode if we do not tackle climate change. That's the reason why we're doing this. Okay. Um, I thank the commission for for the assessment that they have made in their press release. They talk about closing the gap. And I think that is that is what we're talking about. 55% is the target. Um, we're now on paper at 54. So we are closing the gap. Um, but still, not only is there a lot to do, but as I said, this is a paper exercise where assessing the plans that are on paper in most member states, not all member states. For instance, Poland has still not, uh, admitted its plans.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Vice President for being with us. The best way to avoid ad hoc panic driven responses is, of course, to have the right long term policy. And that is exactly what the Green Deal is. But we need more than that. If I look at China, China newest five year plan, they want to double their production of renewable energy. And that includes nuclear. But most of it will be wind and solar because wind is four times less expensive and solar five times less expensive than nuclear. So that's a clear energy strategy. But also looking at electric vehicles, China has already saving 160 million barrels a year of oil because of their electric vehicle strategy. So let's stick to this long term strategy and focus much more on the only energy source that makes us really independent to the external shocks. And that is renewables. The same, of course, with ETFs. Etfs means using less fossil fuels. So it makes our industry much more resilient. So maybe we can learn from the Chinese and become even more ambitious in these fields than we are now. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Madam state secretary. The chair. Dear colleagues, thank you very much for the presentation of the program and the priorities of the Hungarian Council Presidency regarding environment and circular economy. It was great to see the commitment of the Hungarian presidency in many areas regarding climate change. I wish you a successful semester, and I hope that the program of the Hungarian Presidency will be fulfilled successfully, even despite of the fact that many countries and even the European Commission is boycotting the Hungarian presidency program because of the cordon sanitaire and what have you.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, madam Minister. Commissioner. Colleagues. Security, prosperity and climate action. The European Council agenda focuses on the big challenges facing Europe right now. Indeed, we cannot take chances with Putin, nor can we gamble with the living standards of future generations. Uncomfortable risks that need addressing. But there is just one 100% risk here, and that's climate change. It's 100% sure that it's coming for us, for our European way of life, and not tomorrow but today. Floods, heatwaves, droughts, crop failures, broken lives. Today, not tomorrow. Six years ago, president von der Leyen presented the Green Deal and a new model for growth and prosperity a model to stop importing €450 billion worth of fossil fuels each year. A model that chooses to buy European cars in the future instead of Chinese. A model that leads the world in clean technology. A model that needs, and I quote president von der Leyen, relentless focus and effort. And that is what we need this week. From this week's European Council. Relentless focus and effort at the single 100% threat that we are facing climate change. Strong leadership means looking ahead and leading people to a better future, having the courage to take difficult decisions. Principles that too often yield to political convenience, and therefore I call upon our heads of state to do what scientists advise us to do adopt ambitious climate policies, including the necessary social and industrial policies. But this House should also look at itself as directly elected politicians with a clear mandate from Europeans who rely on us. We also have to show the necessary courage and responsibility. Our European citizens deserve it. Our planet demands it and our economy needs it. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, last month, our member states decided without any really extensive debates and without proper impact assessments, to spend 3 to 5%, uh, to withstand a huge threat. We're confronted with Russia, and these hundreds of billions can only partly be seen as investments. Most of it is just spending. And the threat of Russia is real. So I fully support this decision to spend this money. But if you look at the probability of this threat, it is relatively unclear. Yes, we have to be prepared. So we have to do it, but the probability is rather unclear. The probability of the threat of climate change is a full 100%. We know it's coming. Even if we stop emitting CO2 right now, it will hit us and it will hit us heavily. It is much bigger than any geopolitical threat that we're confronted with and funny. We need also 3 to 5% of GDP in the coming years, decades to avert this threat Threats. And most of this money is an investment. It's developing new technology. It is making our economy stronger. It is becoming independent from the import of fossil fuels that cost us more than 400 billion a year at the moment, and still and still giving this huge threat and still the Patriot rapporteurs simply deletes all climate targets in his draft report. I became a politician because I want to to carry responsibility, responsibility for the planet, for ourselves, for our children and grandchildren. And to be very honest, in a file like this, responsibility is really huge and we have to be aware of that. It is a very, very heavy responsibility on our shoulders. If I look at the international negotiations on climate and Peter was also talking about that Cop 30 can only be successful if we have a very ambitious European target because of the geopolitical situation, which is extremely difficult.”
  Climate efforts · Defence spending
• “Yes. Thank you, chair. And I thank the DGS for their contribution and Monika Hohlmeier for her questioning so far being the Budget Control Committee. I hope that we can focus more on the way that we spend money on the amounts, on the accountability of it, and maybe less on the internal processes that we all work with. And quite often they are linked, they are linked. But if you look at the enormous amounts of money that go via, for instance, the general expenditure allowance, that is hardly controlled in any way, and there are numerous examples where we have enormous budgets on one side that we hardly discuss, and we focus a lot on on processes. Nevertheless, my most concrete question will be on that as well. And that is because I was away for five years and coming back I noticed that the increase in Bureaucracy, especially regarding assistance, is is incredible. And the flexibility for members, for instance, to decide which assistance comes along to Strasbourg or not is is nothing compared to the flexibility that we had in the past. My question is not shall we get rid of all the rules that are in place now? It's more do we review the things that have been put in place in the last couple of years, whether we reach the objectives that were set and why we have all these additional rules, or that we might miss the objectives, but we still stick to these rules also because the IT applications make it easier to to have the rules in place. But that's not always a reason to keep them in place because Um, we I think we should question the rules itself as well. So that is my more concrete question. And I'll come back to the more budgetary issues later on in the process. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Energy is the most essential building block of our economy. And when energy prices go up, people suffer. Businesses suffer. Why? Because we do not control our own energy prices. Others do. Events do. The good news is we have already insulated ourselves from the worst shocks. Quite literally. With all the homes we have insulated, boring but important work. And because we are generating more home grown, sustainable green energy than during previous energy crises. But not enough. We will have bigger problems than strictly necessary, because some in this House have worked tirelessly to slow down and break down the Green Deal. And this is on you. But I say, let the past be the past and focus on one thing to restore our citizens faith in Europe, in in Europe's energy policies, to rebuild our grid and to renew our promise of a strong and independent Europe. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner. And let me start by thanking president von der Leyen for his strong words on the necessity of decarbonising our economy. As she said, it is crucial for our competitiveness. But today I would like to focus on Ukraine. And last month European Council discussed the use of the frozen Russian assets for Ukraine. But since that meeting, Russian troops have closed in on Pokrovsk and are taking it as we speak, bringing Russia one step closer to control over the Donbas. Ukraine is losing ground. While national leaders here bicker over who foots the bill, Belgium does not feel reassured for its release, for if it releases the frozen assets, and I understand that. But it's crucial that our finance ministers solve this problem tomorrow. Ukraine needs money. Right now. Direct financial aid is the cheapest and quickest way of stopping Putin. And let's face it, while we worry about legal consequences, Ukraine is worried about losing the Donbas, losing its freedom. And in addition to this, how is it possible that Russia keeps its economy running with our money. Why are we still allowing Russia to make a profit on third country export, or by sending a shadow fleet across the globe? Ban the shadow fleet. Sanction these third countries. Give the frozen assets to Ukraine. It is our indecisions, our inaction, our fear of legal repercussions that is keeping Russia in the war and Ukraine fighting for its survival. Thank you.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “And Poland is one of the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in Europe. So my first question is how can we qualify this assessment if one of the biggest emitters is still not there? How can we get, to closing the gap if that is the case? Um, I have the feeling that that we still lack a lot of ambition in many member states, and especially in the effort sharing, um, um, sectors transport, buildings and agriculture. Agriculture is basically doing close to nothing. Um, the sector and also the political representatives of it have always, um, well aligned together and made sure that there are no real targets for agriculture. Also at national level, in the effort sharing plans of our member States, it is very, very limited, which means that the other sectors have to do more. And that is not not really happening. So, um, some critical remarks on that as well. How how strong is the assessment. How? How? In a quantitative qualitative terms, how valid is the assessment if you look closely at some of the individual plans? Major concern is of course energy efficiency. Um, the discussion has always been energy efficiency. First, it's the no brainer you have to do it, but it's one of the fields where we're lacking behind most. So how come? And why are we not putting much more effort on energy efficiency? And what can the Commission do in that in that sense? Um, one other question to the commission.”
  Energy efficiency
• “Thank you. Madam president, Commissioner, Minister, the European car industry finds itself at the heart of a perfect storm. The China. Chinese markets collapsing, but China and Tesla have a technological advantage because they're producing cheaper cars. The European stimulation measures are being got rid of. We're lagging on infrastructure. The European battery producers are going bankrupt and the Americans are making money hand over fist. But the European car industry has taken far too long to transform, to move on to the electric vehicle. And we know that lateness here is a problem 2028. We know the electrical electric car will be cheaper and better than the internal combustion engine, so we have to make sure we have public private partnerships so that Europe can produce electric vehicles more quickly and more cheaply. With an agreement between the commission and industry with a broad ranging agreement with innovation. But industry has to stop dragging its feet as we're seeing that people are trying to slow down the commission's proposals from industry, because otherwise in a few years the lights will be going out in every single car manufacturing plant in Europe.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me start by saying that I feel extremely privileged that I'm able to work on a daily basis on the two biggest threats to, um, to us humans, that is climate change and the loss of biodiversity. And I even feel privileged that today we had on this Wednesday afternoon, we had the opportunity to discuss those two threats to humanity with the European Commission. Um, I must say that both the Montreal Agreement, but also the Cali agreement that was finalized in Rome, are a huge step forward in fighting the loss of biodiversity and also as Mr. Delgado. Delgado said, just like Kurt von der Burg before him, that it shows that multilateralism is still alive. And that is that is a very good news. But we as Europe, we have to deliver on our promises as well. And, um, so let's start with the low hanging fruit. According to many studies, we spent roughly €30 billion annually on nature destroying subsidies. Um, so what's what's the reason of trying to find a lot of new money to restore our nature and at the same time, burning our nature with €30 billion annually on nature destroying subsidies.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Can I make a point of order? Because the commissioner did not answer my question on his last week blockage of the proposal from the commission to end And fossil fuel imports from Russia. And I hope he can still answer that question. And if not, if we can have an answer in writing.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “I just want to make a point of order. We have a topic of debate. This hall is totally empty. Even the one who initiated the debate is not here to listen to the commission. This is not only offensive to a commissioner, but also to this own institute, the European Parliament. This is not a place like a press room, where you have your statement for cameras and then you leave. This is a political arena for political debate. So my question, and that is why it's a point of order. Could you please ask the president to address this at a conference of presidents? Because in this way, this is not working. Thank you.”
  EU public communication strategy
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. Sometimes it's wise to to zoom out a bit and to to focus on the essence. And I think the essential question is why do we have a European budget? What is the essence of it? Well, for me it's very simple. We have objectives that we define democratically and then we need the means to achieve results. And now if I look at the opening statement of the Court of Auditors, which I believe is an institute that has cautiousness in its DNA, it says no clear link between funding and results, which is the essence of having a budget. You want results and you need money to achieve them. And then the Court of Auditors, our main institution, to look into this, if we're doing the right thing, is saying that there is no clear link. I'm I'm really very disappointed. Uh, listening to the commission. And I know budget is also a political exercise, but it cannot be so political that there is no clear link anymore between the money and the results. So, um, this is an opinion from the Court of Auditors and with opinions. We never get an official response reply from the commission. Can we ask for a written official reply from the Commission on this? Because this is so essential. This is really what the budget should be about. Are we able to achieve results with the money that we're asking from our citizens. So that's what I'm what I'm asking you chairs. If if it's possible to ask the commission to come with a formal written explanation and response to this Court of Auditors report. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “(16:12:04 – 16:13:40): Thank you, chair, and thank you, European Commission for for being with us. In these kind of debates, when the focus is a lot on simplification and and administrative costs, You quite often forget why we have this piece of legislation at all. Well, the answer is very simple because deforestation is 1 of the main causes of biodiversity loss, of climate change, of soil erosion, of flooding, of decertification. So it's extremely, extremely important that we continue with very ambitious deforestation policies. And yes, it will always have administrative costs, but they are relatively limited compared to the positive sides of this piece of legislation. I have a very concrete question. A lot has been asked already about the leather exclusion. I wonder, cattle is the 2nd biggest cause of deforestation. Why single out leather? Is that just because of the very effective lobby of Italy or are there other good reasons for doing so? My 2nd question is, in the analysis of earlier postponements of the regulation, we've seen that the member states were quite often very badly prepared for the implementation. Is the commission now in close contact with the member states in order to make them ready for the implementation this time. Thank you.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “And Poland is one of the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in Europe. So my first question is how can we qualify this assessment if one of the biggest emitters is still not there? How can we get, to closing the gap if that is the case? Um, I have the feeling that that we still lack a lot of ambition in many member states, and especially in the effort sharing, um, um, sectors transport, buildings and agriculture. Agriculture is basically doing close to nothing. Um, the sector and also the political representatives of it have always, um, well aligned together and made sure that there are no real targets for agriculture. Also at national level, in the effort sharing plans of our member States, it is very, very limited, which means that the other sectors have to do more. And that is not not really happening. So, um, some critical remarks on that as well. How how strong is the assessment. How? How? In a quantitative qualitative terms, how valid is the assessment if you look closely at some of the individual plans? Major concern is of course energy efficiency. Um, the discussion has always been energy efficiency. First, it's the no brainer you have to do it, but it's one of the fields where we're lacking behind most. So how come? And why are we not putting much more effort on energy efficiency? And what can the Commission do in that in that sense? Um, one other question to the commission.”
  Energy efficiency
• “Thank you. Madam president, the huge significance of the oceans, both for humans and nature, has become clear thanks to science, and this is now accessible to the general public thanks to fantastic film The Blue Ocean by David Attenborough. Despite this massive significance, unfortunately a lot is going awry. Take the Baltic Sea, where we have dead zones where, thanks to the huge amounts of pollution, Russian chemicals, there are areas where nothing survives. Bottom trawling. Which, uh, stirs up the nurseries of the sea. And even in the Netherlands, where 70% of marine protected areas allow bottom trawling to be carried out. I would call on the commission to put a moratorium on deep sea mining. I hope that's something we can push through at international level as well. And finally, we need to work together to do this. Nature has given us a fantastic gift and that is the ability to regenerate. The regeneration Generation power is nowhere as great as it is in the oceans. So if we see this, if we act now, we can see an immediate effect.”
  Water pollution
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. High Commissioner, President, dear colleagues, in 2016. We were taken by surprise by Trump's actions, and we even smirked and laughed about his incompetence. Ten years on and we are taken by surprise again. And this time the smirking and laughing is happening on the other side of the Atlantic. While we struggle to respond to Trump's threats and attacks, the US scoffs at our inability to act. As the US Treasury Scott Bessent yesterday formulated it, and I quote, my guess is Europe's next move will be to form a working group. And the US is right to laugh at our weaknesses. Appeasement of Trump is clearly not working. Trump, like most authoritarian leaders, responds to strength. To be an equal partner, the EU needs to be stronger, more united. And I very much appreciated the speeches of President Costa and von der Leyen today. But something Important is missing with today's EU. Bessent is right. We desperately need a more federal Europe to really stand up against other powers in this world. The current structure is insufficient and additional intergovernmental initiatives will not make Europe stronger. So, dear member States President Costa, walk the talk. Make Europe strong. As most of you are advocating, let it speak with one European voice. Let it defend itself with one European army. And let's get rid of national vetoes. This House showed the way in our 2023 resolution. Now it's up to council and the Commission to pick this up and to do so urgently. We cannot afford to wait. And if not all 27 member states are on board. Let us move on with 26, 25 or even 24 if necessary. We simply have no time to waste. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. Sometimes it's wise to to zoom out a bit and to to focus on the essence. And I think the essential question is why do we have a European budget? What is the essence of it? Well, for me it's very simple. We have objectives that we define democratically and then we need the means to achieve results. And now if I look at the opening statement of the Court of Auditors, which I believe is an institute that has cautiousness in its DNA, it says no clear link between funding and results, which is the essence of having a budget. You want results and you need money to achieve them. And then the Court of Auditors, our main institution, to look into this, if we're doing the right thing, is saying that there is no clear link. I'm I'm really very disappointed. Uh, listening to the commission. And I know budget is also a political exercise, but it cannot be so political that there is no clear link anymore between the money and the results. So, um, this is an opinion from the Court of Auditors and with opinions. We never get an official response reply from the commission. Can we ask for a written official reply from the Commission on this? Because this is so essential. This is really what the budget should be about. Are we able to achieve results with the money that we're asking from our citizens. So that's what I'm what I'm asking you chairs. If if it's possible to ask the commission to come with a formal written explanation and response to this Court of Auditors report. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “So, um, looking at the figures, looking that in the fourth quarter of last year in the Netherlands, 78% of all new cars being sold were either fully electric or hybrid. Even in Germany, that is slowly catching up. The growth of EV was last year 43% compared to the year before. So the the direction is clear. My big question is, is this package sending the right message to industry that they have to focus fully on electric and not spend their time and money on prolonging an unwinnable war with the combustion engine? So I have three concrete questions to you, Mr. Commissioner. Do you agree with me that most probably consumers will not buy combustion car engines after 2020, after 2035, simply because of superiority of EV? Do you also agree with me that E-fuels will always be too expensive to compete with EVs? And thirdly, do you agree with me that if the car industry does not focus fully on electric vehicles, that they will not be sufficiently competitive in the coming years? Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Commissioner, dear colleagues, do we need an ambitious climate target in 2040 of at least 90%? And the answer is clearly yes. And if you are not convinced. Ask the relatives of the victims of the Valencia floods. Ask those farmers who are out of business because the crops do not grow anymore on their dried out land. Ask people who lost literally everything except their lives due to forest fires. Or ask Slovenia, where the floods of August 2023 alone already cost them roughly 10% of GDP. Yes, but our economy. I hear colleagues on the right saying yes. What about the economy? Increased climate change might cost us up to 34% of our economic output, while keeping the rise below two degrees will cost us just 1 to 2% of global GDP. So tell me what makes more sense economically? Fighting climate change is not a leftist leftish ideological agenda. It's the harsh reality we're faced with. It's the harsh consequence of our own behavior, and it's our responsibility to all the people represent in this House to save them from these consequences. So, yes, it makes absolutely sense to set an ambitious 90% target in 2040, but it is also important to do so in time, in time for the Paris Agreement process, in time for a strong EU position at the upcoming Cop 30. So I urge the EPP to support the urgent procedure, because that is the only way to be in time in this House. Partly due to the late proposal from the Commission. But please do not endanger the Paris climate agreement process and vote in favour of the urgent procedure this week. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yeah, but this is not a ping pong. This is a point of order. And he needs 1 or 2 minutes, and then we do receive an answer. I mean, do we take ourselves seriously as Parliament or not? I.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions