Speeches

– Mr President, honourable Members, following nearly two decades of dictatorship, The Gambia has presented a positive story since it returned to democracy in 2017. It has demonstrated a commitment to defending human rights and multilateralism, with the UN at its core. It has voted in solidarity with Ukraine. It has been at the forefront of many human rights battles, including the Rohingyas in Myanmar. It is a respected member of the United Nations Human Rights Council. In this positive context, the bill to repeal the ban on female genital mutilation, suggested by an independent National Assembly member, casts a shadow over the reputation of The Gambia. However, it should be made clear that this initiative does not come from the government. The EU has already taken steps to discuss with the Gambian authorities in quiet diplomacy. We have shared our concerns and passed strong messages through our EU Ambassador, as well as through the EU Special Representative for Human Rights. While respecting alternative cultures and traditions, the EU is against all gender-based violence. The EU has convened the view that legal protection of young women provided for by this 2015 law should not disappear. If it did, it would represent a substantial setback for the status of women in the country. The Gambian Government, from all our contacts, shares our concerns, and there is much hope that the National Assembly would vote against this initiative. The matter needs to be approached in a way that is sensitive to local politics. Much needs to be done to avoid reinforcing the position and arguments of the bill sponsors, who often present themselves as defenders of The Gambia’s traditions and culture against the influence and interference of foreign actors. We need to move forward in a way that bases our approach firmly on the commitments already made by The Gambia and its leaders. Of course, we will continue to broaden our outreach to key political actors in the National Assembly, which is currently examining the proposal at the committee level. We will continue to encourage The Gambia based on its commitments to reject these proposals.

– Mr President, the rule of law and human rights are at the core of the EU’s relations with Azerbaijan, and it will continue to be an important part of our dialogue. We have repeatedly raised our concerns about the intensification of persecution against civil society and independent media in Azerbaijan, which we see as an attempt to intimidate and silence dissenting voices and suppress freedom of expression. Today, we are focusing on two cases of detention on politically motivated charges, but repression against many dissident voices in Azerbaijan continues. Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu is a well-known Azerbaijani economist, political opponent and vocal critic of the government, who has been held in pre-trial detention since July 2023. Mr Guliyev is a political activist who has been in pre-trial detention since December 2023. Since November 2023, we have seen several waves of arrests of independent journalists and political activists affiliated with a number of media outlets and non-governmental organisations. At least 16 people have been detained, among them Ilhamiz Guliyev. Since the last debate in this Chamber and the resolution adopted on Dr Ibadoghlu, we have repeatedly raised our concerns on the rights of detained persons, including their access to medical assistance, independent doctors and the International Committee of the Red Cross, both in direct contact with the authorities and in public statements. We continue to call on Azerbaijan to uphold its obligations under international law. The EU delegation in Baku also regularly conducts trial-monitoring in politically motivated cases like those of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu, political activist Ilhamiz Guliyev, seriously ill journalist Alasgar Mammadli, public activist Baxtiyar Haciyev, and others. It has also repeatedly requested to visit Dr Ibadoghlu and other prisoners. Civil society organisations in Azerbaijan are operating under difficult circumstances. Support for these organisations is and will remain a key priority for the European Union, with currently more than EUR 12 million in assistance. We also continue to call on the authorities to allow civil society organisations to operate freely in the country. Human rights, the rule of law and civil society remain a priority in EU-Azerbaijan bilateral relations. So, therefore, we will continue to call on Azerbaijan to adhere to its obligations under international law, including international human rights law.

– Mr President, when confronting totalitarianism, we must combine vigilance with mindfulness. The rejection of the totalitarianism in our past and the evils that it led to inspire our Union and the values which bind us. So we must recall these truths of history to brace ourselves for the challenges of the present and future. As politicians preparing for elections, we need to embody our values and show they work for citizens. We need to stand for the values of democracy, fundamental rights, and the rule of law – not only through our words, but through our conduct in these coming elections. This month, the Commission welcomed the commitment of European political parties to adhere to the code of conduct to support transparent and fair campaigning in the 2024 European elections. We urge all political parties and candidates to adhere to this and to work to ensure that, irrespective of the election result, Europe will continue to stand true to its fundamental values: democracy, rule of law, equality and fundamental rights.

– Mr President, honourable Members, the values set out in the EU treaties are neither theoretical nor optional. They are the essential condition upon which our democratic and pluralist societies are founded. The EU was built on the ashes of World War Two, and it was designed also to counter totalitarian tendencies. According to Hannah Arendt, the features of a totalitarian regime include a government characterised by a single-party dictatorship that seeks total control over every aspect of society and the individual, including politics, economy, culture, education and even thought. She highlighted the use of terror, propaganda, mass surveillance and ideological indoctrination as key mechanisms through which totalitarian regimes maintain power and suppress dissent. The EU and its Member States are strong democracies with laws and freedoms, but democracy needs nurturing. The enemies of democracy try to undermine it, weaken it, or even destroy it, and they use a variety of methods, traditional and modern, including foreign interference, disinformation, corruption, or hybrid threats. The Commission has worked with the European Parliament and the Council to develop a set of legal instruments and policy initiatives to promote and protect the EU common values and fundamental rights. The Russian war against Ukraine and the Middle East crisis remind us that peace cannot be taken for granted. It reminds us of the evils that result from politics built on aggressive, expansionist extremism and ideologies of intolerance and hatred. When our values are placed in doubt, fear becomes the driving motive. We should not respond to this fear by lecturing citizens or ignoring their concerns. We have to try to understand the reasons, address challenges and propose better alternatives. Countries like Russia have increasingly sought to undermine our democracies and promote fear. But we are not defenceless. On the contrary, the European Democracy Action Plan set out a comprehensive list of concrete measures to harden our democracies to these attacks and challenges. The Commission put forward initiatives that range from regulation on political advertising to measures to protect journalists and prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation. Our new digital and media regulation, including the Digital Services Act and the European Media Freedom Act, aim to support a resilient and diverse media landscape that strengthens our democratic space and public trust. I would like to thank this House for your support for these files. Supporting the work of the civil society organisations and independent experts is essential to democracy and for remembrance of our totalitarian past. Civil society deserves the role it gained in the Anti Disinformation Code, along with the online platforms and other digital companies. In December 2023, the Commission presented the Defence of Democracy package. It includes a directive for transparency standards for interest representation activities on behalf of third countries that will shed more light against hidden foreign interference, and a recommendation on inclusive and resilient elections. In the joint communication on ‘No place for hate: a Europe united against hatred’, the Commission reiterated our commitment to step up EU efforts to fight hatred in all its forms, and this includes remembrance of our totalitarian and authoritarian past and its victims. The core EU framework for a strong common response to racist and xenophobic hate speech and hate crime is the 2008 Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. Under this, Member States are obliged to penalise public incitement to violence or hatred. Knowledge of the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes is also key to a healthy debate based on facts. That is why every year we mark 23 August, our Europe-wide day of remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. To support awareness and debate, the Commission has introduced European Citizens’ Panels on tackling hatred in society. We also have a programme which supports remembrance actions on the causes of totalitarian regimes, in particular Nazism, but also fascism, Stalinism and totalitarian communist regimes. Young people should also become aware of their common history and values as the foundation for a common future. Through Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps, we promote activities aiming at promoting European values and combating all forms of discrimination and intolerance. European heritage dates can also raise awareness on totalitarian regimes. The Commission is co-financing these open calls with the Council of Europe and providing grants to inspiring projects promoting historic literacy. Ladies and gentlemen, protecting European values and rejecting authoritarianism and totalitarianism require a concerted effort by everyone.

– Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this debate, which is very timely ahead of the European elections. Let me use this opportunity and address at least some of the more concrete issues you raised during this debate. First of all, as regards Ms Bentele, Mr Canfin, Mr Liese, you all said, and it is absolutely true, that the most of the Green Deal legislation was approved in this House by a large majority. The Green Deal achievements of this mandate are our joint achievements, and we should say this loudly and clearly. But the reality is that there are also important pieces in this puzzle still missing, and without these pieces, like the Nature Restoration Law, we will miss crucial tools to meet the binding targets we have jointly agreed and subscribed in the EU Climate Law. We would discard an indispensable instrument that can help us becoming more resilient towards the devastating effects of climate change. So I therefore urge Member States to now fully take their responsibility and get this law over the finishing line. Unfortunately, many interventions today show that we still tend to overlook the value of nature. Let me recall some additional figures and facts. In 2019, the economic value provided by the wider set of ecosystem services in the EU amounted to EUR 243 billion. The UN calculated that losing the benefits provided by the healthy ecosystems could cause a decline in global GDP of USD 2.7 trillion annually by 2030. And finally, the European Central Bank points out that nearly 75% of all bank loans in the euro area go to companies that are highly dependent on at least one ecosystem service, and severe losses of functionality in those ecosystems would cause critical problems for those companies. No, climate and biodiversity policies are not a threat to our economies, but quite on the contrary, the cost of clean-up, for example, of the Slovenian floods, stands at over 16% of Slovenian GDP: 16%! So more than a tenth of what Slovenians earn altogether had to go to clean up damages of the event that may well be repeated. These are concrete reminders of the costs at stake. These are real figures, and behind these figures there are these are real people whose lives are affected. Let me also say a few words on farming because this is also extremely important. But listening to claims that farmers were protesting against the Green Deal means not listening to farmers demands, because if you look concretely at what farmers asked, there were demands concretely going as regards the common agricultural policy and Gaia-X implementation and trade measures, which if we implement the Green Deal and if we ensure that the Green Deal is implemented outside the EU, the farmers will have a level playing field. When it comes to CAP, let’s not forget that the CAP, which was finalised in this mandate, was proposed by the previous Commission, so it is way behind the Green Deal was actually introduced. Let’s be clear. Let’s listen to our farmers demands, and try to implement the exact steps needed so that they would be competitive, that they would receive a fair price for their hard work. That’s the core of the Green Deal. The Green Deal does not go against the farmers’ interest. On the contrary, if there is no clean water, if the ecosystem is degraded and the soil is not fertile, we won’t have any farmers, and that would be the biggest disaster. Dear Members of the Parliament, once again, thank you very much for this encouraging debate. The last European Council adopted extremely important points on supporting Europe’s competitiveness. Nevertheless, the Green Deal is recognised that it ensures competitiveness of EU industry and increases Europe’s energy independence and resilience. So the Commission looks forward to continuing cooperation with the European Parliament and all its Members, both in this mandate and the new one to come, because we are committed to finding the best solution for European citizens and European businesses.

– Mr President, State Secretary, honourable Members, the European Green Deal was originally designed as a growth and innovation strategy from the start and it continues to be an essential driver for securing lasting prosperity. We remain committed to our climate and environmental objectives, because becoming more resource-efficient and energy-independent makes Europe stronger in the face of geopolitical tensions and challenges, such as energy market volatility, while preserving the results of decades of social development. Individual citizens and communities are increasingly exposed to natural disasters and health risks and energy prices have soared because we were too dependent on energy from important fossil fuels. Therefore, slowing down our efforts is not an option, as the cost of inaction would be disproportionately high compared to the investments needed to act. The figures prove this: the EU reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 32.5 % in 2022 compared with 1990, while its gross domestic product grew by 67 % over the same period. Environmental policies have been wrongly portrayed as exacerbating social divisions and leading to decreased EU competitiveness. However, the transition to sustainability and trying in the European Green Deal remains the only viable response to the undeniable reality – and this reality is that extreme weather events resulting from intensifying climate change, critical changes in Earth systems, pollution and degradation of natural ecosystems pose significant risks to our well-being. This assessment comes straight from the business community and it is supported by the annual risk report of the World Economic Forum. We also have strong support from citizens. According to the 2023 Eurobarometer, 93 % of Europeans believe climate change is a serious problem facing the world and over half think that the transition to a green economy should be sped up. Doing nothing and waiting is not an option. The cost of inaction would be simply too high. And according to the climate risk assessment, a conservative estimate is that climate change-related impacts could reduce EU GDP by about 7 % by the end of the century. What about biodiversity? Biodiversity loss is one of the biggest threats to agricultural production and food security and it also affects climate, our health and water security. Nature is our first ally and nature-based solutions are the most efficient way to face the increasing risk from climate change. And they are very cost-efficient solutions. From the beginning of this mandate, the European Green Deal has tackled the interlinked risks of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. It has set in motion the transformation of our society and economy to make it more modern, resource-efficient, climate neutral, resilient, prosperous and competitive. Honourable Members, the handprint and contribution of the European Parliament to the vision and concrete legislation of the European Green Deal has been of utmost importance. The set of policies and regulation adopted over the last four and a half years provide clarity on the direction of travel for the EU’s green transition. We hear prominent European industries and companies are making strong calls to strengthen the industrial dimension of the European Green Deal and better promote industrial competitiveness. The Commission agrees. Climate neutrality by 2050, increased competitiveness and resilience of our industry and a transition that is socially fair and inclusive go hand in hand. The economy and the environment cannot be disconnected one from the other and we need robust productivity to ensure public services can be financed. Competitiveness, sustainability and social support go together. We are fully committed to supporting citizens and businesses in this transition. The recent simplification proposal in implementing the Common Agricultural Policy, or the ongoing work to reduce the administrative burden of companies, are examples of how we support the implementation in light of evolving circumstances. We also work together with Member States to support them in addressing skills gaps, ensuring people have the skills required for the new technologies. Implementation is the key word for the next years. The first fruits of EU actions are already visible, for example, the value of the EU’s net-zero start-ups ecosystem in 2021 is over EUR 100 billion, doubling since 2020. Renewables provide 45 % of our power in 2023. Over 1.5 million electric vehicles were sold in the EU in 2023. The EU budget 2021-2027, including both the Multiannual Financial Framework and the NextGenerationEU instrument, are currently projected to contribute almost EUR 600 billion to climate action and 7.5 % of the EU budget in 2024 and 10 % in 2026 and 2027. They are also dedicated to biodiversity objectives. At the same time, we will continue to develop strong partnership with like-minded partners while ensuring security of our energy systems and supply chains and reducing external dependencies. We need to listen. We need to talk to each other. We need to avoid polarisation that creates divisions amongst us. We may not convince each other on all points, but we need to cooperate sincerely and find compromises that take us forward. European citizens, they ask that their politicians take a longer-term perspective, while ensuring the competitiveness of European economy and supporting the vulnerable groups within society. This is what the European Green Deal is about.

– Madam President, honourable Members, let me begin by sincerely thanking everyone involved and in particular the lead rapporteur, Ms Ries, with her shadow rapporteurs, as well as the rapporteurs in the three associated committees. The text of the new packaging and packaging waste regulations represents a balanced package of measures. This outcome of negotiations will contribute significantly to reducing packaging waste and promoting the transition to a circular economy in the European Union. It will also largely harmonise the conditions for placing packaging on the EU market. Naturally, in view of the broad scope of application of this legal act, there will be a need for follow up work to ensure its smooth and pragmatic implementation in the interests of the public authorities, operators and citizens. Let me be very clear that the Commission stands ready to make every effort to support the implementation of the rules agreed by the co-legislators and ensure that they deliver economic and environmental benefits on the ground. In the past weeks, specific concerns about the economic constraints and environmental issues were brought to our attention regarding the reuse targets for transport packaging. These concerns are related to the feasibility of achieving a 100 % reuse of pallet wrappings and straps – and indeed, based on the impact assessment carried out, the Commission did not include such a requirement in its proposal. In the light of the concerns and calls for action, I confirm that the Commission will launch an assessment of this issue by the end of this year, and address it as a matter of priority upon the entry into force of the regulation. To this aim, the Commission will adopt, without any delay, a delegated act to exempt plastic pallet wrapping and straps from the scope of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of Article 29, provided the assessment concludes that the conditions laid down in paragraph 18 thereof are fulfilled. So, to conclude, the replacement of the old directive by a modern regulation with predictable, meaningful and harmonised rules is urgently needed in the interest of the environment, but also for the EU economy and internal market.

– Madam President, honourable Members, the Commission is acutely sensitive to the importance of this law for livestock farming communities. So, the revision represents a major simplification and burden reduction opportunities for farmers. Only the 30% of the largest industrial-scale pig and poultry farms would be in the scope of the revised directive, with the 70% smaller pig and poultry farms, all cattle farms, as well as all organic pig farms out of the scope. The standards for pig- and poultry-rearing will defined in direct cooperation with the sector and farmers will have a long time to adapt, as the requirements will only become applicable between 2030 and 2032. The Commission will report by the end of 2026 to the European Parliament and the Council, including regarding potential measures and imported products. Honourable Members, let me be very clear: farms differ in their size, origins of their emissions, and means and resources to reduce such emissions in comparison to industrial installations. Due to the disparities between the industrial and the agricultural sector, and in light of the report, the Commission will evaluate the interplay with other agricultural legislation and will endeavour to separate the directive into two respective legal instruments. Turning now to the industrial side of the directive, this revision is key to support the green and digital transition of industry, ass the trilogue agreement provides for key flexibilities to test and deploy innovative techniques and for incentives to deploy net-zero technologies. It establishes an electronic permitting system, promotes hydrogen production, and provides a clear governance for key metals, mining and giga battery factories. So the trilogue agreement also includes a new derogation possibility for cases of big crisis, such as COVID or war in Ukraine. To conclude the revision, it’s urgently needed to build a predictable and simplified regulatory environment, favourable to investments, contributing to use clean and circular economy objectives.

– Mr President, Members of the Parliament, the Commission takes note of the rules on international jurisdiction and applicable law the European Parliament proposed in its mandate for the negotiations on the proposal for a directive on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings. The Commission agrees on the importance of rules on jurisdiction and applicable law in the context of a comprehensive protection against abusive litigation in SLAPP cases. For this reason, in its recent legal studies on the Brussels Ia and Rome II Regulations, the Commission has specifically addressed these SLAPP-related matters. However, such changes should be made in the horizontal Regulations covering international jurisdiction and applicable law to avoid a fragmentation of these rules across various instruments, and they should be proposed with a careful assessment of the impact of such changes. Consequently, the Commission will continue the already-ongoing review process concerning the Brussels Ia and Rome II Regulations. It’s the firm intention of the Commission to issue application reports on both these instruments with a particular focus on SLAPP in the near future in order to facilitate the political decisions on their revision.

– Mr President, honourable Members, first of all thank you very much for this lively debate, which shows once again the importance of this topic. It also reflects the complexity – and there are no easy solutions – but thank you very much for a very clear call for a new EU Blue Deal. Let me just reiterate that the initiative that we will put forward will, first of all, focus on a number of immediate actions that can be taken by the current Commission, while also mapping the key issues and launching a public debate. However, this will not prejudge the political choices that will have to be made by the new college as from the autumn of 2024. The aim of the Water Resilience Initiative is, first of all, to take stock of the main water challenges and opportunities faced by the EU and outline a series of immediate actions, as well as to include the stakeholders, involving EU institutions, Member States, relevant stakeholders, local and regional authorities, private sectors, NGOs and academia but also, most importantly, keeping the political momentum. So the debate in this House is extremely important to keep that momentum going. The initiative now is being developed around the three key objectives: protect and restore the water cycle; towards an EU water-smart economy; and clean water and sanitation for all. This is with three enablers: governance, finance and investment; research and innovation; and an international section. For each we are in the process of identifying concrete, immediate actions that can be taken by the current Commission, as I have said. Now, there was also an important question as regards the data. So, absolutely, the Commission of course uses the data and we base our recommendations, our further work, on the data that the Member States feed to the Commission, and then that data, of course, is used by the Environment Agency. Our planet is the engine of the water cycle, and we have to look after this engine. If we want adequate supplies of clean water, we need to nurture and restore the ecosystems that purify water and hold it in store – not just our soils and our forests, our rivers and wetlands, but our marine waters too, where coastal communities depend on non-polluted water for fisheries, aquaculture and tourism. Success will depend on scaling up action and funding to create a water-smart economy which optimises the use of scarce resources, meeting the needs of current and future generations. In agriculture, this means a more efficient use of water, wastewater reuse, soil management and vegetation cover, drought resistant crops and restoration of damaged areas. In energy and transport, it means preparing for disruptions to hydropower, plant cooling and waterborne transport. For drinking water, it means promoting leakage reductions with additional supply infrastructure as a last resort. Adaptation solutions will be required in every aspect of life, in every sector, on every time scale. Nature-based solutions are particularly well-suited for climate resilience to water impacts, and where that’s not feasible, let’s opt for hybrid green-grey solutions. Lastly, we need wider recognition of the fact that water is a public good, so more must be done to deliver on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation in the EU and globally. To achieve it, we need strengthened governance of water resources, increase awareness, to promote research and innovation, including digital solutions, and, of course, mobilising increased public and private funding. These investments must be part of the comprehensive strategic vision and hence the need for a water resilience agenda. The support of this House is going to be essential and crucial for delivering this agenda.

– Mr President, honourable Members, let me welcome the strong involvement and frequent debates of the Parliament on the topic of water. It is a vital issue because five of the last six years in Europe have been exceptionally dry, and this has caused significant economic damage to agriculture, energy and inland navigation worth some EUR 9 billion every year, and the latest climate projections suggest that, in the extreme scenario of 3°C of warming, the resulting damage could cost up to EUR 40 billion per year. The water emergency in parts of Spain and other parts of the EU is a particular cause of concern, but water scarcity is no longer confined to the Mediterranean region. More and more regions of Europe, including even rainy regions like Flanders, now face similar problems, and this new normal includes prolonged droughts followed by devastating floods, sometimes in the same region. In the face of these changes, we need a different approach. We need to work towards a water-resilient Europe, a Europe better equipped to adapt to the water challenges of today and tomorrow, leaving no one behind. This entails a systemic transformation of the way water is managed, used and valued, while always bearing in mind the need to protect nature and ecosystems. This is also a precondition for the Union’s strategic autonomy and its green transition in relation to affordable energy, food security, industrial production and intergenerational fairness. This is one reason why, as announced by President von der Leyen, the Commission is putting forward a water resilience initiative in March. The initiative will combine a series of immediate actions with the launch of a broad, transparent public debate that will involve EU institutions, Member States and all relevant stakeholders such as local and regional authorities, the private sector, NGOs, academia and citizens at large. We know where additional action is needed: the EU has already delivered robust water legislation. If it were respected in full, many elements of the current crisis would be far less pressing. Better implementation of the EU acquis is therefore a top priority. A lot has been done under this mandate to spur further action, improving water quality and water ecosystems, and in particular throughout the biodiversity strategy and the zero pollution action plan. Today, too often we tend to address water scarcity and drought through ad-hoc emergency measures. We need to move to more systemic advanced planning of drought risk reduction. Currently, only 14 Member States have drawn up proper drought management plans, while droughts occur in every EU Member State. In addition to better planning, we also need more accurate data. That is why the Commission founded the European Drought Observatory in 2009 to systematically collect data on water scarcity. Last November, the Observatory published a pan-European drought risk atlas and a pan-European drought impact database, and these new databases map future drought risk and make predictions region by region. However, we need to do more: we need to realise that water quantity and water quality are two sides of the same coin. Success will depend on tackling head on all the pressures faced by our vulnerable water resources, and that means tackling pollution at source, it means reducing the over-abstraction and over-allocation of water. It means safeguarding minimum ecological flows in our rivers, allowing them to provide the ecosystem services that we rely on. It also means combating illegal abstraction with full deployment of technological solutions. We also need to ensure that heavy water users, like the digital and energy sectors, internalise water efficiency and water protection. It also requires more rigorous application of the ‘cost recovery’ principle with water pricing policies based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle. This will incentivise water savings and pollution prevention measures while ensuring it remains affordable to all. In all cases, we should start with efforts to reduce demand. Before looking for fresh supplies, we should start with water efficiency, mirroring the ‘efficiency first’ principle for energy, which now guides business decisions and investments. This is fully in line with the circular economy approach: our collective focus should begin with stimulating water efficiency and water reuse across the lifecycle of processes and products. Leakages and drinking water supply systems must also be addressed. Across the EU, an average of 23 % of treated water is now lost during distribution, and with the new obligations in the recast Drinking Water Directive, Member States have the tools they need to assess leakage rates and develop targeted actions to reduce the losses. The proposal for a recast Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive encourages the reuse of treated wastewater in agriculture, and that should receive an additional boost from the recent entry into application of the Water Reuse Regulation, helping limit freshwater abstraction from surface and groundwater bodies. But legislation alone will not solve these problems, and exit from the crisis will require firm action on many sides, and for that we also need to scale up and upgrade our investment in water. In the current financial period, the European Union has significantly increased its support to help co-fund water-related infrastructure through instruments like the ERDF and RRF. Adapting to the likely scenario of future water scarcity is the smartest economic move, and if we fail to act today, the cost of inaction will be far higher in the future. Adaptation is essential, but we must remain equally committed to climate mitigation. You just had a debate, so today the Commission launched the dialogue to establish an interim 2040 climate target, setting the EU firmly on a path towards climate neutrality by 2050. Honourable Members, let me conclude by highlighting once again the importance of sustainable, resilient water management and of protecting the quality and quantity of fresh water. By increasing the resilience of our water system and the sectors that rely on it, we move away from crisis management and we move towards the proactive management of risks, and that’s the best way to help our citizens today, that’s the best way to help our farmers, and that’s the best way to minimise the risk for the water-stressed citizens for tomorrow.

– Mr President, dear colleagues, I’ll be very brief. First of all, let me thank Ms Bilbao and the PECH Committee for an excellent report, where we, I think, fundamentally agree on the things that need to be done and need to be improved. So we commit ourselves to further work with all stakeholders along the supply chain to ensure that things are swiftly improved.

– Mr President, honourable Members, let me start by thanking Ms Bilbao, the shadow rapporteurs and the entire PECH Committee for the work done on this own initiative report, which the Commission welcomes. I’m happy to see that most of your findings concur with the Commission’s own report that we adopted in February 2023. In particular, we both conclude that the Common Market Organisation Regulation generally remains fit for purpose. Allow me to share the Commission’s views. I also agree that the producer organisations play a key role, and that more efforts are necessary to support the implementation and financing of their production and marketing plans, and these remain, of course, a responsibility of the Member States. Nevertheless, the Commission works closely with concerned parties to facilitate the implementation of the plans and provide guidance. I know how important the recognition of producer organisations such as cofradías and Prud’homies is for you. Cofradías and Prud’homies are welcome to adapt their structures in line with the rules. And in all my meetings with fishing communities where this issue was raised, I have always reiterated the Commission readiness to assess in that process. Regarding the difficulties for small-scale producers to set up producer organisations. I can reassure you that the national programmes under the EMFAF address these challenges, and the Commission continues to provide guidance here. On your call to improve marketing standards and consumer information, I fully agree that proper labelling is essential for the trust of consumers. A better consumer information relies on three elements. First of all, full traceability. Here, the timely implementation of the new Fisheries Control Regulation is crucial. Secondly, compliance by Member States with the regulation on the Common Market Organisation. And this is an area which we will prioritise in 2024. And third, consumer rights to an informed choice. Here we will work in 2024 towards a methodology to score some sustainability aspects for fisheries and aquaculture products. The report also mentions the need to include marketing standards in measures adopted in regional fisheries management organisations. Unfortunately, marketing standards are not covered by these organisations, but conservation and other control measures are in place to ensure sustainable fisheries. The report highlights the need to increase the use of quality schemes and to have a greater variety of quality schemes. The Commission, however, thinks that there is no need for more quality schemes, as the existing types seem to be wide enough to promote the specificities of European fishery and aquaculture products, and the best example is in the context of the quality scheme of the geographical indications, which increased by 240% over the last decade in the EU. However, I can agree with you that the producer to obtain a quality scheme needs to be improved. So therefore, the Commission adopted a proposal in March 2022 to revise the Geographical Indications Regulations. The report also includes a call to forbid the use of the word fish, or the name of fish species for plant-based products. The current EU rules already provide a solid framework to ensure that consumers are not misled. Regarding the mechanism to trigger financial aid under the Regulation on the Common Market Organisation in the event of a crisis, let me recall that crisis support already exists under the EMFAF. The Commission closely monitors market development and the continuing conditions to trigger it. So thank you for your attention and thank you for this excellent report.

– Mr President, Members of the Parliament, thank you very much for this enriching debate, which has helped us to clarify and share our views regarding the action plan, but also reaffirm once more that we all want to remedy the negative environmental impacts, because the future of our fisheries will depend on our ability to react and adapt. And let me now come to some points that you have raised. First of all, on impact assessment, the action plan is not a legal proposal. In addition, it is based on existing legislation, which impact assessments have been done and they were being adopted. Finally, the design and implementation of the measures is left to Member States, so they are best placed to judge what is needed and what the impact will be, and on that basis, ensure a balanced approach. It also has been explained on multiple occasions that the action plan does not intend to impose any legal measure. The action plan simply calls for a renewed political commitment to make the measures work involving the Commission, Parliament, the Council and Member States. It presents the CFP regionalisation process as the right framework for the measures proposed to be implemented. In addition, the Technical Measures Regulation also places the regionalisation in a privileged position. On bottom-trawling, again, we had a multiple exchanges on that, we’ve heard it quite a few times today. Dear Members of the Parliament, we need a transition to better protection of the seabed, including through the less damaging gears, but also to gears to ensure less fuel consumption. Because when the Russia attacked Ukraine, our fishers were left without income. Why? Because of their dependence on fossil fuels. And the fishing techniques that they are using today are unfortunately heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and we cannot keep them in this position where the whole livelihood, the income of their families, would be busted due to events happening in the world. We need to protect them and this is essential. The last thing on dialogue, you know, I myself, throughout this mandate, have visited all sea basins. I’ve talked with different communities in different parts of Europe, talked with the fishers from the Mediterranean to Baltic, Bay of Biscay even, a few times. We’ve been constantly involving fishers in this dialogue. I have accepted them on multiple occasions in Brussels. We had challenging times, starting the mandate with the Brexit issue and going through the COVID-19 crisis, and also, as I’ve said, Russia’s war against Ukraine. On all these occasions, I always had the privilege to meet the fishers and answer the questions about their future, and I will do so, same as you, Members of Parliament. So, you know, to say that there was a lack of dialogue is absolutely not true. We have been always involved and they were part of the dialogue as regards the action plan. The last thing, on the Bay of Biscay, as I see Mr Bellamy is still in the room, the very important thing to take from the Bay of Biscay, I think we don’t need to wait for national courts’ decisions to implement EU legislation, because when the national court decisions are announced, unfortunately it’s too late. I think we can prevent such things from happening and then ensure the livelihood of the fishers in different sea basins across Europe. Dear colleagues, in conclusion, the principle of regionalisation is the right framework to implement measures proposed in the action plan, so therefore it should be fully used to implement necessary measures to protect habitats and species. If we want the EU to continue being a leading actor on global marine conservation, we need to lead the transition to sustainability. So the benefits that ocean provides will be enjoyed also by the future generations, including future fishers. I count on the commitment of this House to work jointly with the Commission in the pursuit of the biodiversity goal, so we can offer our citizens the highest standards of marine conservation and supply of high-quality seafood, while ensuring the livelihoods of European fishing communities also in the future.

– Mr President, honourable Members, first of all let me thank the rapporteur, Mr Herbst, the shadow rapporteurs and, of course, the European Parliament, for this report and for their contributions to the discussions on the Marine Action Plan. It is important that these discussions are taking place publicly as they touch upon fundamental questions on how we see the future of our fisheries sector and of the natural resources on which this sector fully depends. Thanks to our common fisheries policy, we have already seen good results regarding the sustainable exploitation of commercial fisheries species. Fishing at a sustainable level clearly pays off economically, and this is a collective achievement. First of all, due to the hard efforts of our fisheries across Europe – of which, of course, we can all be proud and which should encourage us to continue our efforts so that we can achieve such positive developments in all situations. But fishing at sustainable levels will not be enough to keep fisheries economically viable. We must go beyond, and also look at how we can better preserve the ecosystems that allow fish stocks to thrive. Of course – let me be very clear about this – the degradation of the marine ecosystem is not provoked by fishing alone. This is why we are always looking at the ocean in a coherent and comprehensive manner, asking all sectors, all stakeholders, to step up and do their part. We know that our fishers cherish the sea. They are the guardians of the sea and we respect the role. The Marine Action Plan is a part of the Fisheries and Ocean Package, which, as you know, looks at all challenges affecting Europe’s fisheries today. The state of the marine ecosystem depends on the need to ensure a level playing field within and outside the European Union, the dependency on fossil fuels and generational renewal. It is all about increasing resilience, and restoring biodiversity is one of the ways to make the fisheries sector more resilient, so that our fishermen and women can continue providing high-quality seafood. This requires actions not only at EU level but also globally to enhance environmental standards at international level. In the Marine Action Plan, the Commission focuses on marine protected areas. When successfully implemented, marine protected areas offer large socio-economic benefits, especially for coastal communities and sectors like fisheries and tourism. Your report calls for scientific studies regarding the establishment of marine protected areas. When preparing this action plan, the Commission based itself on scientific data, which is why we proposed a targeted regional approach adapted to the specific needs, realities and challenges in each region. We do not want a one-size-fits-all approach. We want regionalisation to work, and it starts to work – not as effectively as we, of course, have hoped for, but we have continued to firmly believe that this is the right way to go. That’s why our Marine Action Plan calls on Member States to step up their efforts. Let me come back to the importance of science. Scientific studies show that increasing mesh sizes and minimum landing sizes enable the youngest fish to remain in the water, therefore increasing the chances for fish populations to reproduce. The action plan includes specific measures in that regard. We want to encourage and finance more work and studies to design the most suitable management options, which can lead to healthier fish populations that will bring higher yields per fishing trip and allow reducing fuel consumption. Again, the action plans include specific measures in that regard. Concerning eel protection, we are on the same line and continue to count on your support. The Eel Regulation needs to be fully implemented to ensure an effective protection of this iconic species. Finally, let me also say a few words on bottom trawling, which we have discussed extensively over the last year and which is only one area we address in our action plan. We do not propose a blanket ban on bottom fishing or any other technique, but we remain convinced that we need to move to less-damaging fishing techniques where possible and encourage massive innovation in this regard, funded for our fishers. Some of those techniques, they are already available and they are ready to be deployed more widely. Honourable Members, I would like to thank you once again for the open and frank discussions we have had over the last year. A lot of follow-ups remain to be done, but I am convinced that with a constructive approach and close cooperation among all institutions and stakeholders, we will manage to make progress. The biggest winners of that are going to be our fishers and coastal communities across Europe. Thank you for your attention.

– Mr President, honourable Members, it was a truly rich debate, and, of course, thank you for the variety of views that you have expressed. Let me react to some which I found most important, which were repeated by a few Members of Parliament. First of all, on the reform of common fisheries policy, the existing legislative framework provides the stability the fisheries sector needs. Several challenges have been identified to the successful implementation of the common fisheries policy, and initiatives announced in the fisheries and oceans package address these challenges. So the focus should be now, of course, on implementation and having, ensuring, stability to our fishers. As regards the MSY, where MSY has been implemented, stocks have increased. Catches and incomes are improving and impacts on the marine environment have decreased. Dear colleagues, these are real, tangible achievements which we have set out in our annual communications on the common fisheries policy. Returning back to landing obligation, which I already addressed in my introductory remarks, we need improved control and enforcement at all levels, as now also reflected in the recently revised EU Fisheries Control System, as well as the further use of more selective fishing techniques. The Commission will evaluate the landing obligation. Prior to that, throughout 2024, a study will be carried out to feed into the evaluation, so the Commission agrees that the objective to be reached should be to fish more selectively. Now social pillar, which has been mentioned a lot, and we had constant exchanges, which is absolutely critical for our fishers. The social pillar is crucial. It’s crucial for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors within the context of the common fisheries policy, but also for policymaking and implementation regarding the other blue sectors. So this overarching social objective is key to ensure generational renewal in fisheries. It is also essential for strong and resilient coastal communities. So we of course want to ensure that no one is left behind. And social pillar is a strong key part of the CFP. Very shortly, the Commission launched a new EU-wide participatory foresight project to forecast the role of fishers in the society called ‘Fishers of the Future’. Fishers are facing a multitude of new challenges – climate change, more and more competition for marine space, rising costs and the need to transition to greener energies, amongst others. And this project wants to look ahead and understand how fishers, including the small-scale operators, envisage their future. On small-scale fisheries, which was also mentioned, and Article 17 of the CFP, the Commission is working with Member States and the Scientific and Technical Economic Committee for Fisheries to assess the approach in Member States for allocating their fishing opportunities to ensure the transparency of criteria applied and their conformity with the CFP provisions, and encourages, of course, the use of criteria that can foster sustainable fishing practices and support small-scale and coastal fisheries. The last thing: level playing field. I know this is important, and I can reassure you that this is as equally important to the Commission. Commission is fully committed to further promote a level playing field for EU fishers, where they operate with the third countries’ operators. So the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing will also continue to be a key priority for us. Dear Members of the Parliament, dear colleagues, trust and engagement between all stakeholders from producers to policymakers is key to achieving our sustainability objectives and to strengthening our open strategic autonomy in the areas of fisheries. This is why we have called on Member States, fisheries stakeholders and the scientific community to join us in a Fisheries and Oceans Pact to reconfirm our joint commitment to fully implement the current policy and to contribute to necessary reflections and assessment of certain elements of the common fisheries policy. And this will then contribute to a discussion between fisheries managers and stakeholders on future-proofing the policy in terms of both social and environmental resilience. So today’s debate has been an important moment in this regard. Thank you for that.

– Mr President, honourable Members, given the cumulative crisis we have been or are still faced with, be it climate change or the loss of natural resources, COVID-19 or the energy crisis, it is our collective responsibility to help the EU fisheries and aquaculture sectors to become more resilient so that they can continue to provide citizens with high-quality food. I would like to, first of all, start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Mato, and all shadow rapporteurs for the work they have put into this report, and I truly welcome that it acknowledges the importance and the merits of the common fisheries policy and of its main objective to achieve environmental, economic and social sustainability. I agree with you that the compliance and implementation of the landing obligations remain challenging. Your report asked for a socio-economic impact analysis, which the Commission has already carried out in 2022 and which has shown that the landing obligation so far has not had a big impact, including socio-economically, as unfortunately, it is not consistently complied with. Regarding the call to assess alternative ways to minimise unwanted catches, we would first need to know what the upcoming evaluation of the landing obligation bring and, as you know well, the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund already provides effective support to more selective and less impacting fishing techniques. One point on which the Commission cannot agree is that to decarbonise our fishing fleet, to ensure generational renewal or to increase safety on board, we need to necessarily increase the fishing capacity limits. It is crucial that the size of the fleet remains in balance with the available fishing opportunities if we want to ensure sustainable fisheries management. Besides, several member states have a non-negligible margin between the active capacity of their fleets and their fishing capacity ceiling, and they can – and should – allocate this margin where needed to facilitate the modernisation of the fleet. I have called on those Member States on several occasions to look into this, and I reiterate this call today. Supporting the fishing fleet in its energy transition will remain one of our big joint responsibilities for the years to come. To facilitate this transition, the Commission has already proposed a number of concrete measures under its energy transition initiative, and we have also issued a guide on funding opportunities to support stakeholders in navigating the different types of funding that can be used. The ‘fishers of the future’ project, which we launched last February, will also look at the generational renewal and safety on board. I fully agree with you that the promotion of low-impact aquaculture practices, such as mussel or oyster farming, needs more support. In line with your report, the strategic guidelines on EU aquaculture recognise that future research and innovation is required, in particular on species-specific welfare parameters. The Commission is therefore committed to support such research in the current programming period of EU funds, and will certainly support effective implementation of these strategic guidelines. A number of funding opportunities are available to achieve the energy transition and other objectives under the European Green Deal, including under Horizon Europe and REPower EU, and for that purpose, we also revised the state aid guidelines and ensured the necessary synergies with the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. Let me also be very clear that the Commission is fully committed to ensure equal treatment of women in the fisheries sector and their improved representation. We have launched a specific call for proposals under the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund to support projects promoting the role of women in the blue economy, the so-called WINBLUE and WIN-BIG. I am grateful to you, Mr Mato, that in your report, you also addressed climate change, and in that context, more specifically, the changes we see in the oceans’ chemistry and temperature. This is a key challenge, and we need to continue to carefully monitor any future developments and take them into account when taking policy decisions. The European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund already helps the fisheries and aquaculture sector to adapt to the consequences of climate change. However, the uptake of the available funds by Member States has, unfortunately, been relatively limited until now. So this needs to change and I count on your support in this regard. Your report also sets out very concrete ideas regarding regional fisheries management organisations, and I can only reiterate the reassurance I have given to you on previous occasions: that the rights of the European Parliament regarding the negotiations within these organisations are – and will always be – fully respected in line with the framework agreement that governs the relations between our two institutions. So, the Commission supports the creation of new regional fisheries management organisations. However, this comes with its own set of political challenges. Of course, the Commission remains fully committed to involve the European Parliament in all future policy developments, in line with our treaty obligations and in line with our agreed better regulations principles, and it will continue to conduct evaluations or impact assessments when preparing new initiatives involving all stakeholders, including our fishers.

– Mr President, honourable Members, first of all, what is very clear is that today’s debate shows the importance of tackling pollution by plastic pellets as well as the complexity of this issue. There are no easy solutions, but we do need bold and decisive action to protect our oceans and to deliver on the zero pollution target. We are committed to reducing plastic litter at sea by 50% and microplastics released into the environment by 30% by 2030. Some may be inclined to look at these targets as sort of nice figures, but when pollution strikes for real, like on the Spanish coast, we see that environmental concerns climb to the top of the political agenda. So success will depend on our joint coordinated efforts to support decisive and rapid actions and decisions at all relevant levels. Regarding maritime transport, dear colleagues, I heard your request and we are ready to consider its inclusion in EU law. For instance, to forbid the carriage of pellets in bulk and to work together on ensuring good quality packaging and safe storage on board ships. We are also calling on all parties involved to act at international level. We urge all Member States to unite their efforts at the International Maritime Organisation for a swift conclusion of the deliberations on this topic.

– Mr President, honourable Members, good morning. Plastic pellet spills, like the recent event on the Spanish coast or the French coast last year, give rise to a wave of public concern. Such accidents are occasional, but they create sudden and significant negative impacts on some regions. Other regions have been struggling with the endemic pollution by plastic pellets due to poor handling at every stage of the supply chain, and such pollution may not have been always as visible as in major accidents, but it has nonetheless harmful impacts on soils and waters, on lives and livelihoods. So the need for action is clear. That’s why in October last year, the Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation on preventing plastic pellet losses. The primary focus is on prevention because once pellets enter the environment, they are difficult and costly to capture. And I would like to thank Parliament for giving priority to the work of this proposal in such a busy period of time. Coming back to the case at hand, let me begin with the tools that we already have at EU level to assist. The EU system hosted in the European Maritime Safety Agency allows the sharing of information between countries on containers lost at sea. It was duly activated in this case. Other forms of EU support are available through the Emergency Response Coordination Centre, EU Civil Protection Mechanism, for example, and the EU Solidarity Fund. Support might be also available from funds such as the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and Cohesion Funds. So the reasons for the fall remain to be investigated as well as the responsibilities. In the meantime, the clean-up is ongoing, but these operations are costly in terms of time and equipment, and they are also very challenging, especially at sea. That is why accidental and operational losses should be best avoided in the first place, and when losses occur, the polluter pays principle must apply. So the Commission proposal on plastic pellet losses requires economic operators to act in the following order. Firstly, they have to take action to prevent any spills. Then comes the containment obligation to ensure that spill pellets do not leak to the environment. And thirdly, if pellets pollute the environment, the clean-up must be ensured. So the proposal covers operators that produce, store or convert plastic pellets into products, and EU and non-EU carriers transporting pellets by road, rail and inland waterways in the Union. Given the international nature of maritime transport, this sector was not included in the proposal, so the Commission is, however, actively working at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to tackle highly complex matter. The IMO is examining the issue of plastic pellets transportation in containers intensively, notably on three aspects. So firstly, good quality packaging to withstand the shocks and handling normally encountered during transport. Second, transport information to clearly identify those freight containers containing plastic pellets, and thirdly, safe storage to minimise the hazards to the marine environment. Specifically, freight containers with plastic pellets should be stored under deck whenever possible or on board in sheltered areas of exposed decks. So we are determined, with the support of the Member States, to speed up this work with the International Maritime Organisation and help take decisions. This would avoid ending up with a patchwork of different regional and national rules, and in particular, given that many containers are loaded onto ships in ports outside the EU. So it is important that these rules are agreed and adopted worldwide to be effective. At the same time, we are ready to consider the inclusion of further provisions in EU law on the basis of the developments at the International Maritime Organisation. So this could include a ban on the carriage of pellets in bulk, and also tighter rules on the quality of packaging and the transport of pellets in the main body of ships. In this way, we would already reduce the risk of pellets washing up on our beaches. Protecting coastal and marine ecosystems is in the interests of all. The EU’s blue economy sectors including fisheries, aquaculture and coastal tourism are directly affected by plastic pellet pollution. So we need firm action by all parties involved, as sea waters are transboundary and this will require close cooperation among Member States. Despite our efforts, the sea remains unpredictable and at times a dangerous place to operate, so adverse weather conditions may unavoidably lead to catastrophic events. It is then that remediation solutions are necessary, so the Commission will pursue the evaluation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which already contains provisions to protect the marine environment against harm caused by litter. The Environmental Liability Directive, which offers limited protection in this regard, will also be subject to evaluation. The Commission will continue to contribute to the research guidance, promotion and support of best handling practice with a view to reducing any possible effects caused by plastic pellet losses. Reducing microplastic pollution is also an objective of the EU Mission ‘Restore Our Ocean and Waters’, which is developing and demonstrating innovative solutions to prevent, eliminate and monitor microplastics in our ocean and waters. Finally, I would like to point out the new international instrument on plastic pollution that is currently being negotiated. Let me stress the importance of including a legally binding provision to prevent release of plastics into the environment through the life cycle. I am confident that together, we will find the best way to deal with the current crisis and pave the way to preventing such crises in the future. This entails the rapid adoption of the proposal on plastic pellets, and I am sure that we are all united in our determination to do all we can to avert such ecological disasters.

– Mr President, honourable Members, let me start with the very positive: first of all, truly thank you for your contributions, because they clearly showed that we are all seriously concerned about the rapid, unsustainable growth in packaging waste. We also understand that our task to set the framework for a resource-efficient packaging sector is a truly challenging one. The linear system of ‘take, make, throw away’ has vested itself deeply in our production and consumption patterns, and it will take considerable efforts and a change in mindset to bend the curve towards the circular economy for packaging. So we must ensure that the measures with significant implications for businesses are stretching but proportionate, that there is sufficient time for the transition, and that SMEs are not overburdened. Both citizens and businesses expect us to act with ambition and realism, and we are determined more than ever to work together to ensure that all concerns are addressed and the Commission is here to help and discuss. Let me come back briefly on a few individual points that I think are extremely important to address. First of all, prices for consumers. I heard quite a few statements on prices for consumers. I ask you to use your common sense. All this shiny new packaging that we fill our bins with – 190 kg per year – this costs money to deal with. So we estimated that with our measures that we have on the table, consumers will actually save EUR 100 per person per year. Inaction, if we continue with the same scenario as we have now, would cost 6.4 billion relative to 2030, and that’s a cost for the economy, for the society, for the environment. Very simple: less waste, less resources, less costs. And that’s good for both citizens and the environment. I’ve heard also quite a few remarks as regards the impact assessment, that it’s not sound, that there is no impact assessment. I want to reassure you that an impact assessment was done – a very careful one – and that the reuse targets lead to a decrease of water consumption and a reduction of CO2 emissions of 1.25 million tonnes in 2030. The Commission is fully aware that some LCAs with a specific scope on certain sectors and based on arbitrary model assumptions can come with different results. The Commission proposal, though, acknowledges the role of single-use packaging, and thus our proposal foresees a coexistence of both systems established in a way to reap the maximum economic and of course environmental benefits. Now, on reuse, the architecture of the Commission proposal builds on improvement of both reuse and recycling, and we cannot be naive that with these growing numbers of waste that we can recycle our way out of it. I am very sorry to take a bit more time, but I think it is extremely important to reply to the questions that the members of Parliament have put forward. The last thing, which was very sensitive, on some of the packaging of some of the cultural heritage. So indeed, in the EU, certain food packaging made of wood, textiles, ceramics is placed on the market in very small quantities, and many of them protected by the food quality legislation. So the Commission is aware that such packaging may have difficulties to be recycled at scale and is open for specific exemptions, notably where certain packaging materials or formats are required for specific food and products. Finally, honourable Members, let me assure you there will be no compromises when it comes to food safety, and we duly analyse the measures to avoid any increase of food waste. And when it comes to the impacts on the producers of single-use packaging, let me recall you that our approach foresees a coexistence. Single-use packaging will not disappear. Our analysis concludes that volumes for cardboard- and paper-based single-use packaging will flatline at the levels they reached a few years ago. So there is no disruption in a business case, because when the regulation kicks in, production levels would be still higher than a decade ago. Honourable Members, I think we are united in the task. We must do more to reverse the rising tide of packaging waste, and we must do it as soon as possible. Most importantly, this will benefit the environment, reduce pollution and safeguard our single market. Let’s listen to our citizens and provide solutions. And the Commission is there to do its utmost to support agreement in the coming months. And of course, I count on you and I trust we can make it. Sorry for taking a bit more time.

– Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for this opportunity to address you today ahead of a vote that is crucial for our environment, our single market, our industries, and our citizens. Let me start by thanking, first of all, the rapporteur, Ms Ries, all shadow rapporteurs, the rapporteurs of the three opinion-giving committees and the many of you whom I also met over the last months to discuss this proposal. Dear Members of Parliament, what we have on the table is a set of ambitious rules to take packaging on board our transition to climate neutrality and clean circular economy. If we are to reverse the ever-growing amounts of waste and increase resource efficiency in the packaging sector, then we have to be ready for a change. I am convinced that this will be a change for the better. Packaging is a key sector where we can empower citizens to participate in the circular economy and help create new business opportunities. The measures we propose will deliver cost savings to consumers and benefits for the environment. The Commission has worked very closely with all stakeholders, all actors who have listened to the full range of issues, concerns that have emerged. Some of you call for additional flexibility, in particular on re-use targets, mandatory deposit and return systems and waste prevention in general. However, harmonising Europe’s packaging rules is a core objective of this initiative, reducing red tape, compliance costs and market barriers, taking full advantage of the EU single market. And I’m convinced that we can achieve the desired high level of harmonisation only if we keep the bar of our ambition high. The latest data on packaging waste showed that we have broken a new sad record. Between 2010 and 2021, our packaging waste grew by more than 24%, faster than GDP and even faster than recycling capacities. In 2021 alone, we saw the highest increase in decade by 6% compared to 2020. This surge in packaging waste is a clear sign of persisting wasteful trends in resource use. Driven by single use in the EU, we now generate almost 190 kg of packaging waste per person every year. Our proposal aims for efficiency gains in the recycling sector. The absolute volume of packaging waste for recycling will surely need to increase but the trends are clearly showing – and please note it – recycling is not enough. Losses are inevitable at every stage of recycling change, and primary materials are constantly needed to complement what comes from the recycling waste. We must do more to reduce the degeneration of packaging waste, more to replace single-use packaging with sustainable solutions and help to roll out, reuse or refill systems. Lastly, dear colleagues, let me recall that our industries are united in their call for this regulation to come into force, supporting our single market. Our citizens expect decisions from all of us and they all say the earlier the better. And the Commission agrees.

– Mr President, honourable Members, allow me to thank you again for this very rich debate. Tackling barriers to repair is a major challenge, as these barriers are complex and require pragmatic solutions. But today’s debate once again confirmed that we are on the right path, and this is what truly Europeans want. The proposal discussed today is an important step towards creating a right to repair for EU consumers, as it makes repair easier and more attractive, and the Commission stands ready to facilitate an agreement between the co-legislators during the trilogues.

– Madam President, honourable Members, I am pleased to be with you for this debate about the proposal on promoting the repair of goods. This proposal is a major contribution to the green transition, aiming to make repair a more attractive alternative to replacement. And together with other initiatives, such as the adopted proposal for a directive on empowering consumers for the green transition and the proposal for an Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, it aims at ensuring an effective right to repair for consumers. It would encourage consumers to have products repaired and, as a result, use them for longer. I would like to thank Parliament for its support for this important proposal and in particular the rapporteur, Mr René Repasi. I would like to express my gratitude for the work done at all committee levels and following a demanding timeline to make the adoption of the proposal possible still within this parliamentary mandate. The Commission welcomes the draft report, which supports the overall goal of our proposal that is to make it easier for consumers to repair defective products. The Commission is pleased to see that the draft report maintains the key elements of the proposal. We also note that on some elements, the report goes further than the Commission or, on the contrary, falls short on certain provisions compared to the Commission’s proposal. In this context, let me highlight two important aspects. Firstly, in order to meet consumers’ expectations about the right to repair goods on the market must be technically repairable. This is why the Commission proposal links the obligation to repair for producers with product-specific repairability requirements under EU law. Such requirements are set, for example, in the eco design measures that regulate the design of the goods and availability of spare parts to make the repair technically and practically possible. The proposed obligation to repair would apply to the goods that are already subject to such requirements and as listed in Annex II of the proposal – an annex that will continue to grow in the future. And in this context, we also welcome the co-legislators progress on the proposal for an Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation. So, by linking the manufacturers obligation towards consumers with their product-related obligations, the right to repair proposal creates a coherent legal framework for the business and consumers. Secondly, the Commission’s proposal includes another important feature with the European repair information form. Transparency and predictability are key for consumers, so the repair form aims at giving consumers clearer information in a standardised format on the overall costs and main parameters of repair that is valid for 30 days. Having this information would enable consumers to look for alternatives offers from producers and other repairers. There would be increasing competition on the repair market. The Commission does not consider that provision of the form would generate significant cost and burden for repairers. From a legal point of view, by providing the form, repairers would ensure compliance with consumer information requirements that apply to them under the existing EU rules in any case. In addition, repairers could ask consumers to cover the necessary cost for inspecting the product and establishing the defect before providing the form if such cost arises. Therefore, the Commission believes that the mandatory repair form is a win-win for all parties concerned. Finally, the Commission would like to welcome Parliament’s support towards the establishment of national information platforms. Together with the repair information form, such national platforms will help consumers in their search for repairers. To conclude, I would like to thank you again for your support on this file. The Commission hopes that we will start trilogues as soon as possible and once the Council has adopted its position, which should happen very soon.

– Ladies and gentlemen, Members of Parliament, dear rapporteur, I would like to thank you for the quality of your contributions and, in general, for the spirit of compromise that has emerged from this debate. The Commission has taken note that on several elements of the Commission’s proposal, Parliament wishes to go even further or in a direction that sometimes differs from the proposal, and I am notably thinking about the possible scope expansion, shortening certain permit timelines, or modifying some criteria related to market access. This also concerns some of the provisions related to the strengthening of the chapter on governance. All these points will have to be discussed during trilogues. For the Commission, these negotiations will need to be guided by two principles: speed and efficiency. We must act quickly because the situation on the ground is worrying, in particular for solar and wind energy. European wind turbine equipment manufacturers suffer record losses and they are facing fierce competition from China. The same can be noticed in the solar sector, where European manufacturers had to reduce or even stop their production over the summer due to significant stocks of Chinese solar panels being, to say it very bluntly, dumped on the European market. But we must also act efficiently. With the political agreement reached in record time on the Critical Raw Materials Act, the Commission is convinced that this can be achieved also for the net-zero industry as well, so that Europe can finally tackle head-on the industrial dimension of its decarbonisation efforts.

– Honourable Members, this lively debate shows the importance of this topic. It also clearly reflects the complexity and there are no easy solutions. But if we truly want to progress towards SDG 6 and clean water for all, we must be decisive and we must be bold. I would like to address one matter in particular about Mayotte. I think what is very clear, is that we must ensure access to water throughout the EU and in its most remote places. For example, the outermost regions of Mayotte is facing an unprecedented water crisis that has triggered a humanitarian crisis caused by the drought and the resulting lack of drinkable water. The Commission provides significant support to Mayotte for investment in water infrastructure under the European Regional Development Fund: in 2014-2020, EUR 20 million to reinforce drinking water networks, equipment, reservoirs and work on a dam. In 2021-2027, our investment in water will more than double to EUR 47.5 million. Dear colleagues, the approach that we recommend is proactive. It is based around preparedness, adaptation and keeping ecosystems healthy. We also need wider recognition that water is a public good. More must be done to deliver on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. And success will depend on our shared commitment to scale up action and funding. While it is our responsibility in the European Commission to establish the right framework conditions, Member States, regional and local authorities are at the forefront of implementation. It is through their actions that water is preserved as a precious resource and their willingness to act is essential – how willing they are to involve all stakeholders; how willing they are to support the Commission proposals for new legislation; how willing they are to direct investments in this key priority area, and how willing they are to improve the implementation of the existing rules. Member States are implementing integrated river basin management through the Water Framework Directive, and some have adopted drought management plans for vulnerable river basins. These practices must be promoted and improved in agriculture. This means more efficient use of water, wastewater reuse, soil management and vegetation cover, drought-resistant crops, and restoration of damaged areas. In energy and transport, it means preparing for disruptions to hydropower, power plant cooling and waterborne transport. And for drinking water, it means promoting leakage reductions or additional supply infrastructure at as a last resort. Adaptation solutions will be required in every aspect of life, in every sector and in the short, medium and longer term. Nature-based solutions are particularly well suited for climate resilience to water impact, and they must be upscaled. In the words of the proposed recast of the Urban Wastewater Directive, let us think nature-based first, and where that is not feasible, let us opt for hybrid green-grey solutions. But adaptation is only one part of this story. We must also be committed to climate mitigation. It is still possible to avoid the worst predictions for climate change. The Commission will continue contributing to research, guidance, promotion and support for good practices with a view to preventing and reducing the possible impacts of water scarcity and drought. Our investments should be based on a comprehensive strategic vision, not on responding to one crisis after another in a piecemeal manner, and hence the need for a water resilience agenda. So your support for this agenda is fundamental.