Speeches

– So, first of all, I fully agree with you and now I think our nature restoration legislation is exactly addressing that we find in bad or poor quality around 81% of our ecosystems. So, of course, deploying for 20% nature restoration, just not to mix it with rewilding because it’s not the same. Nature restoration efforts would of course, allow us to bring that back to around 40%. But of course, we want to go even beyond that; the 2030 and 20% target, this is what it is realistic to achieve. Even so, it’s quite ambitious but further on we want, of course, to deploy nature restoration efforts on all ecosystems that are in bad or unfavourable status. Now, when we speak, what we’re able to do. So, first of all, of course, we need to lead by example. We need to prove that our legislation works. We need to use the High Ambition Coalition. During the Lisbon COP, we welcomed the 101st country to the High Ambition Coalition for Nature, which I think is a very positive step, which shows that there is a strong club of ambitious countries which clearly understand the need. We, of course, need to push, together with them, for an ambition which would be implementable, realistic, but yet would allow us to reach a common agreement. Last but not least on artificial intelligence: I think this is very much an untapped potential, an area which I think can be very well addressed now, during the Czech Presidency, where the Czech Presidency of the Council put the digital and green transitions together, and I think in a very good way we can really rethink on where the digital solutions are going to be crucial to implement our Green Deal ambition. And very quickly, we will be able to see that without the digital solution, we cannot really advance much. So far in speaking about the COP15 and its resolution, there is no mention of the use of artificial intelligence. But again, I think when it comes to implementation across the board, across the countries, it will be very vastly used.

– You know, talking about the COP15 agreement, of course I hope and I count on support from Parliament as well and we will be getting that agreement and negotiating together. Now as regards the harmful substances, I think one core element which we maybe didn’t mention in our debate today is, of course, the ‘do no significant harm’ principle in our spending – as regards our funds, as regards our multiannual financial framework, as regards our other funds. If that is kept in line, I think that will already have a significant contribution, especially also looking at the recovery and resilience plans from the Member States, which have a very clear notion of ‘do no significant harm’, which was kept in the plans but of course, it’s very important that it would be kept also in the implementation phase.

– Thank you for your question. And again, thank you for your work on the ETAP, which I think we have achieved a great result. So first of all on the first part on harmful subsidy, so the work is already ongoing and as it’s framed in the ETAP, we will propose it in 2023. We started, of course, with the stakeholder consultations and so we will move on, work with the Member States and then finalise the proposal in 2023. As regards the footprint and reduction of waste, so of course one thing is our waste legislation. Secondly, our ecodesign sustainable product policy, which is really transformative legislation. And last but not least, of course, our proposal on food waste. These all will have a major impact on reduction of the footprint. I think what’s very clear, of course, we have to implement the circular economy action plan. The circular economy action plan will help us to significantly reduce the footprint of our consumption, allowing, first of all, to take responsibility for the consumption patterns that we have here in the EU. But secondly, we also have to look at other legislation which can also significantly contribute. And of course, I count on Parliament’s support on the proposals that already are put on the table. As regards the binding targets in COP 15, so first of all we have to agree on what those targets are. And then depending, I guess, on the outcome of negotiations, depending on the possibilities of funding, we can see what is there to be achieved. At the moment it doesn’t look like the binding targets would be accepted and approved, but we of course must work to ensure and find a way, let’s say, to ensure that what is going to be agreed is implemented. So that’s why the review clauses, the implementation review mechanism and monitoring mechanism can be those tools, and there are many reasons for that. It is not only – I am very sorry I am over the time – there are many reasons for that because for some countries to accept the binding targets is extremely difficult due to national rules, etc., so we also have to bear that in mind. Therefore, I think we have to put very clear and very strong implementation mechanisms.

– Thank you very much. I think that call was well addressed in REPowerEU as regards the clear need for deployment of renewable technologies and fast—track procedures. The proposal by the Commission is on the table and now I think it will be, of course, in the hands of the co-legislators. I hope for a swift adoption which will allow us, of course, a swift transition and faster permitting procedures for private investments.

– I mean, of course, I think our Green Deal policy through these two and a half years from the very beginning when it was adopted, then of course, we had we heard tries to shut down the Green Deal during COVID. We hear similar calls as regards Russia’s war in Ukraine. But we kept on implementing the Green Deal. And the Green Deal proved to be the right direction. And I think this is a very clear signal to the market. I do not really think that the market needs additional calls to really see the way forward and where to deploy their capabilities, what decisions will be needed for us, for example, to transit, to fully decarbonise our economy. But then when you look at the opportunities and the funding opportunities, they are all there. First of all, our Horizon Europe programme, which very well funds the transition and so on, Member States deploying their research action to the green policies. So I think there are very clear opportunities for the market, for the private sector and I don't really think that it's going to be left behind. Left behind can be only those who didn’t believe, didn't invest and then find themselves in a few years in a disadvantage position. But at the end of the day, I think all that demand is very much going to be created by the market. And when we speak about agricultural policy, transport, energy policies, we clearly see where the trend is going and where the biggest investments are being put. So there is no chance of implementing the Green Deal without solutions that are coming and going to come from the private sector. And most importantly, I truly count that our companies, those who, let’s say, are early on this transition path, they will be able to reap the advantages and we will be the ones leading in this technological change, which will require an enormous amount of technology as regards the transition. But just to finalise - I’m very sorry I’ve gone over the time - but you know, I remember very well when we proposed our decarbonisation goals. There were just a few countries on board and now we have quite a club which formed. And that’s also a very clear signal to companies that the market for clean technologies is there.

– So as regards the Blue Carbon Coalition, you know, EU usually supports the ambitious coalitions, coalitions which lead to example. I’m a bit afraid that after the COP in Glasgow there is more and more coalitions created. But as long as that leads to result and we not devalue the meanings of coalition and we really manage to get the countries, like—minded countries together to make a push, that’s fine. Now, as regards the announcement by the French President, I was of course extremely happy to hear it. And, of course, that depends on Member States if they will be able to join. But my call remains the same. We also put a very clear language into our nature restoration legislation that such activities can be only done when we have a clear scientific evidence, which means that at the moment they cannot be happening and deployed and, of course, I’m happy by President Macron’s clear leadership here and a clear call for other Member States as well to join.

– First of all, thank you for your leadership as regards the oceans and their protection. Of course, it was great to meet such a large group of European parliamentarians in Lisbon, which clearly showed that international ocean governance is a key question for the European Union. Now, as regards the progress made in Lisbon, I have had numerous meetings with my counterparts discussing the possibilities and the outcome of the BBNJ agreement and the meeting in New York. But, as always in negotiations, everything will be done at the very last moment and to say we have made progress or not, is very hard. I hope that we are very close. But even our closest allies have to make a step towards a middle ground in order for us to advance. I think that would be an historic step, which we have to deploy all the possibilities, all the efforts, all the pressures in order to get it done. So my team is currently focusing mainly on the August meeting. We are reaching out to stakeholders. We welcomed additional countries in our high ambition coalition. Hopefully all these efforts are going to help. But, as I said, you know, it’s extremely hard to predict the outcome of the negotiations. I was going to the WTO negotiations with a good mood, and thought that we had a deal in sight. Then it took two additional days and nights to get at least a partial deal. So I won’t estimate what I think we should deploy all the possible efforts and then of course ensure that it’s really, really happening. I think that can have a fundamental role than going to Montreal and COP.

– So the measurable targets are probably the crucial part. First of all, of course, the overarching target ‘30 by 30’ is the fundamental one. Secondly is, of course, we want to have a measurable target on nature restoration, also the same as we just proposed within the EU of 20%, most likely 10% for the oceans, 10% for terrestrial areas. And then, of course, looking at direct and indirect drivers of ecosystem loss, addressing them within the targets and then not only having those measurable targets, but also very clear milestones, how we reach those targets, having a very clear review mechanism, returning back every two years to the target and see are we able to reach that first, second or third step towards the ‘30 for 30’ target, how the implementation is done and what measures are deployed in one or the other ecosystem. As I said, a lot can be done not only within the COP 15. We have already some very strong proposals on the table as regards the marine resources, as regards our oceans, so if we are able to agree on rules beyond national jurisdiction and protect the high seas, which was mapped by scientists as the rules that requires and could be protected. Secondly, of course, we have our proposal as regards the ocean around Antarctica that would protect 1% of the world’s ocean. So there are already even clear proposals on the table which we could be advancing with. And I think that would be the best way to go forward: measurable and concrete. And for that, of course, we could do our utmost to raise the fund. There is another idea, you know, returning to funding coming from Colombia as regards the working project where we would have additional fund and then certain projects implemented from that fund, that is also measurable and implemented on the ground, which could be considered.

– Thank you for your very concrete question. Don’t get me wrong, the momentum is actually just arrived, I would say, and that will pick up with the clear date and place of COP15 happening due to postponement of the event. I think that’s why the momentum wasn't there. Now it’s there for sure. What can we do? I think, first of all, of course, President von der Leyen made a huge step when she announced the doubling of our resources for biodiversity outside the EU. Doubling it from three and a half billion to 7 billion. We, of course, need to get everyone else on board as well, especially here I am speaking about the G20 countries. They also have to increase and chip in to have as large as possible amount. Secondly, there are different ideas floating. I fully agree with you that demands from Global South are based on their needs. But we also have to see what is the reality to get this money actually on the table. Not to create fake expectations and not to over promise what actually have been done before and then that failed to reach the goal. So my first aim is to raise as many funds as possible. Use the resources that are not only international development funds, but also private funds, philanthropies etc., which also can play a crucial role. And then try to use that amount as efficiently as possible. Finding the possible agreement with the Global South. Their demands also have to be realistic. Creating additional funds, raising 800 billion per year, that’s going to be extremely difficult in this very short time. We can look at the timeline. We should see what is going to be realistic. But also we cannot only focus on funds because with funds obligations and implementation must also come. And it has to be very clear. And so far, I don’t really see it happening as well. Well, all the goals are still in brackets.

– I can only say that we always listen to the majority of citizens and I’m extremely happy to see huge involvement into our policies from citizens. Every policy or proposal that had a large amount of citizens’ signatures behind it usually went through this House also extremely successfully. So we always call for citizens’ involvement and very carefully listen to their voice. The European Green Deal was actually a result, and one of the first proposals – actually the first – of this Commission very carefully listening to what our citizens want. So I am sure we will continue to do so, matching the differences that we have between our regions, between the Member States and between the Members of this Parliament.

– Thank you very much for your remarks. I can only say that, absolutely, our trade agreements overall, our policies when it comes to environmental protection or the fight against climate change, has to be horizontal and of course, has to intake our Green Deal policies. Otherwise, it’s going to be extremely difficult to implement the Green Deal if we will see the Green Deal or the environmental policies such as nature restoration legislation or others as some nature beauty legislation, that’s not the case. So, absolutely that also has to be addressed in the economic activities. And trade agreements can be an excellent tool which can successfully export our Green Deal to other regions. That would, of course, ensure also a level playing field. So I think there is still a lot to be done in the future as regards to looking at the trade agreements and introducing the Green Deal component into our trade deal agreements.

– Mr President, so speaking about the funding, of course we have a LIFE fund which could be helpful, which is our environment fund. Even so, it’s a very little fund. Secondly, I think what’s very important when we speak about natural areas, about the management and so on, that also should be a part of the Member States’ recovery and resilience funding, which can be addressed through those funds. Some Member States actually took that into account and of course, I hope that is going to be implemented.

– Thank you very much for your question. First of all, it’s our responsibility what is planted and what management plans are prepared, especially for Natura 2000 areas. Usually for Natura 2000 areas that’s extraordinary cases, but we see this trend more dangerous outside Natura 2000 areas. I think one of the major aims of our 3 Billion Trees initiative is not only to plant the 3 billion additional trees in Europe, but it’s actually education – education that there must be a right tree at the right place planted, which would be resilient to future shocks, because we have a very diverse ecosystem across Europe, north and south, different geographical locations, and we’ve seen the mistakes done in the past where species that were planted unfortunately today have proved one of the major impacts on forest fires as well in some regions. So of course we have to avoid such mistakes. We have to also educate people who really passionately takes the duty of planting more trees. But, as you said, we need to build the forest of the future. So through the 3 Billion Trees initiative that can be addressed. As regards the Natura 2000 areas, these have to have solid management plan, and within those plans, of course, such questions also must be addressed.

– I think it’s not mentioning and highlighting any Member State, because I think what’s extremely important is ensuring a level playing field to our fishermen and that the rules should be applicable across the board. Only then can we advance with the implementation and ensure that our fishermen and women, first of all, by doing their activities, will respect the rules. So a level playing field is, of course, crucial here.

– Thank you very much for your question. So, as regards the marine resources protection, we are working on the plan, which will be finalised this year, as regards the marine resources protection action plan. Then, as regards fisheries activities, of course, our CFP has to play a crucial role, but not only CFP, also our fisheries fund, which is actually aimed at investing into more sustainable fisheries practices, helping our fishermen to transition. Secondly, I think that what’s extremely important when we talk about deep-sea mining is that we cannot rush. We cannot rush things here, and we have to ensure that we have a proper impact assessment of what such activities would have as regards the sea’s ecosystems and environment in general. Only by having these results could we advance. But I am already really happy about the calls of the European leaders at the Lisbon Ocean Conference for actually halting such activities, which I think, especially as regards when we speak about the MPAs, is a crucial element. So I think there is a lot of work to be done as regards stepping up, the protection of the MPAs. We should not forget the principle of, of course, how the MPA is done, and there is always research and evidence behind the MPA into what is protected and what is aimed to be protected. But clearly, I think it has to address, first of all, the seabed, which is crucial for a thriving ecosystem.

– Thank you very much for your question. So absolutely. That’s what I probably meant by saying that implementation is crucial. So, of course, traceability and monitoring, verification of data that is received based on geolocation data at the source by operators is crucial to have. Then we can ensure that our legislation reaches its aims and we have approved data that can prove the origin of the commodity rather than, you know, we know that very often through the value chains, the product can travel through a few countries. And then we do not receive accurate data and might be misled and that would leave a major loophole. So we have to ensure that, of course, the monitoring framework is strong ensuring that the implementation is fully deployed.

– Thank you very much for your question. So our proposal was based on an impact assessment, and it addressed the six commodities that have the biggest impact currently on deforestation. We account that in our impact assessment these six commodities are responsible for 80% to 85% of deforestation globally. So of course we wanted to ensure addressing the biggest part, let’s say, of deforestation, but we also have included a very clear review clause which will allow market monitoring. If we see that certain product groups or deprived products or commodities are responsible for deforestation and that number is increasing, we would, of course, be able to include it into our legislation. The work is now, of course, within co-legislators. We have a Council opinion and Parliament will be soon voting on their opinion and then we will have three trilogues where I think also these questions can be addressed. I think at the end of the day, what’s most important is not the long list of commodities – even though I think that including two additional commodities can be an important step forward – but it’s implementation on the ground. We have to ensure that we learn the past lessons, lessons which showed that very often coming out with a very ambitious proposal and really good aims, we ended up with no implementation and unfortunately seeing the catastrophic numbers, with every year a larger and larger area being destroyed due to deforestation. So I think what’s most important is the implementation on the ground, working mechanisms across the value chain, ensuring that our proposal is actually the largest nature protection act, which is what we want.

– Absolutely, pollinators are a crucial part of our ecosystem, and we are seeing a steep decline in pollinators, especially wild pollinators, in our nature. Therefore, in nature restoration legislation, as a specific target, we actually have a target on pollinators, ensuring that they do not decline and instead reach a positive status. Secondly, when we speak about pollination and so on, I think it must be addressed not only from an environmental point of view, but also from our CAP and agriculture. I think we know that it is not only forest fires, which destroys forests, destroys pollinators, but there are other pressing chemical uses and so on that also do harm to the population of pollinators, which also have to be addressed. So I truly hope that, with the implementation of nature restoration legislation, Member States will have two years to prepare their plans, and within those plans, we will see a prominent role for protecting and ensuring the protection of pollinators.

– Thank you very much for your question. So you’re absolutely right. We already see that this summer, the beginning of the summer is very hot. We had heat waves in the regions and of course, early forest fires in some parts of Europe, particularly in Greece. I would say that we were prepared as much as possible and rescue deployed its capacities around Europe, especially around those regions where the forest fires are most likely. I think, you know, Greece and I visited myself places which were severely impacted by the forest fires have huge experience in managing the forests and then restoring it’s, of course, unique ecosystems. I think what’s extremely important, I’m sure, and we always find the capacities to rebuild. But of course we have to realise that for ecosystems the investment and our efforts to rebuild is relevant. But most importantly that it takes years to replenish. So, therefore, we have to deploy all possible efforts to prevent forest fires from happening as much as it’s possible, deploying all the possibilities of monitoring and so on, ensuring that the least possible amount of land is affected. And therefore, I think that's where we should put all the possible effort. And it’s not only in regards to the COP15, I think we as Europeans and citizens of Europe, we value every piece of our land, and especially forests which bring so much into our lives, which are our lungs and our support system. So, of course, we have to be prepared and ensure that we do not lose them in the first place.

– I always say that in order to fight issues like climate change or biodiversity loss or pollution, they respect no borders. Of course we have to cooperate transboundary, but also at the regional level because, at the end of the day, implementation comes to the regional level. Especially when we speak about our sea basins, about our seas, we know how our regions are heavily dependent on activities. COVID, unfortunately, very clearly exposed that our coastal regions are mainly dependent on two activities: fisheries and tourism. We know that with ecosystem decline at the rate that we have, the places where eutrophication is taking place and dead zones are forming there will be neither fisheries or tourism. So of course we have to deploy all the possible efforts. We are already working very closely as regards the fisheries management with the regional fisheries management organisations, which helps us to get the specifics and, of course, successfully address them. I am sure that also with the deployment of funds as regards the cohesion funds or fisheries fund, we can also engage even closer with the regions, with the coastal communities, because at the end of the day we are speaking here about their social and economic well-being, which is unfortunately with the declining of our ocean ecosystems might be severely impacted as well.

– First of all, there is no chance that we can succeed in the fight against climate change or halting biodiversity loss without the oceans playing a vital role, oceans, of course, including the sea basins that we all know best. And here, I think, speaking against the background of the Ocean Conference in Lisbon, we can clearly say that this year we need to use, as much as is possible, to actually put the ocean nexus into the final documents of COP15. It must be also a clear visibility at COP in Sharm el-Sheikh, too, because without healthy oceans, without their mitigation functions, without absorption of CO2, we won’t be able to fight climate change. And you are absolutely right. Climate change is already putting huge pressure on our oceans and we see this with very quickly changing ecosystems, biodiversity, within our oceans. Another thing which I think is going to be an important step on the way to Montreal is negotiations on so-called BBNJ – beyond national jurisdictions – on the protection of the high seas. That can give a great booster towards the meeting in Montreal in finding an agreement on protection of the high seas and having clear rules there. So I hope that we will be able in August to have a final meeting in New York to close these negotiations. That would be a big step further as regards our oceans’ protection. The final thing is, of course, we also have to look and protect marine resources better in our seas. I think what’s very important is to step up the implementation of marine protected areas. So far we’ve seen significant steps done by some Member States and we just had a huge announcement of the largest marine protected area, but still, it’s not enough. We need to do more. We need to be aiming at and reaching our 30% goal that we have in our biodiversity strategy. And of course, the Member States will have to step up their efforts.

– Absolutely. I think when we speak about any agreement, funding we know is going to be a complicated part, especially when we talk about biodiversity. Remember the Paris Agreement? For Paris to become a reality there was a Copenhagen before, where actually the number on funding was finally met and then it sort of started a true dialogue towards an ambition. We don’t have that time for COP15. We all have to become a bit more, let’s say, pragmatic and realistic about what can be put on the table. Because when I also hear calls for a EUR 100 billion per year from the current EUR 6 billion, we understand that it’s unrealistic – although, you know, creating additional funding, additional funds and so on, we are ready to explore those opportunities. We are ready to have a look how they’re going to work. We as the EU, and President von der Leyen, have very clearly showed our leadership already in doubling our funding for biodiversity from EUR 3.5 billion to EUR 7 billion. I hope – and I’m working together with colleagues especially in the high ambition coalition – that others will follow. But I think here, in order to really have as much as possible funding available, we also need to look at other sources, at private funds, where we can get additional support to increase that number as much as possible. That will require lots of creativity. That will require additional solutions. As I said, we are ready to explore those options, but nevertheless we have to be realistic as to what it is possible to allocate. Now I fully agree with you as regards the harmful subsidies. I think some progress has been reached and the question is becoming a centre of attention. Here within the EU we also need to fully implement the ‘do no significant harm’ principle – and especially now when we are in the middle of a transition where Member States are going to be using funds as regards the post—COVID restoration, as regards the war in Ukraine and so on. So it is extremely important that those funds would be used without doing harm to our environment, to our climate targets.

– Thank you very much for your question and for the very clearly expressed ambition, but I think we have to be realistic on the ambitious targets that we set. There’s nothing wrong with being realistic, because, looking back, we have failed to implement the targets before. And every time we return, we return with new targets. And of course, I’m happy to do so. But I think there is a clock ticking and asking for urgent implementation. So I think the 30x30 target which is proposed, which is there, is enough. Because if you look back at the Aichi targets, they are still relevant and they are not implemented. Secondly, what we have to have, in order to successfully implement it, is a monitoring framework review clause, which would allow us a successful implementation. Last but not least, when we speak about the Paris moment for biodiversity and the environment, what we want to do with the COP, and when you mentioned at the beginning that the rounds in Geneva and Nairobi didn’t bring the result that we expected, you’re absolutely right. I think there are many reasons for that. But one of the key reasons was, of course, that COP15 was constantly postponed and, of course, it didn’t get the political momentum that it should have. So hopefully now, when we have clarity, that will pick up pace. I think if you compare the Nairobi round and the Geneva round, there was already progress. Yes, that progress is still in brackets. And we will have to do a lot of work to take it from brackets and make it an agreement, because we have to be also, you know, very clear here that there is no broad agreement between countries, and that will require a huge effort negotiating even 30x30 targets, and then, at the end of the day, it’s implementation. But I am optimistic. I think the EU has the credibility to talk and to lead. We managed not only to already have a significant increase on biodiversity funding, but also we have very ambitious domestic legislation, which has been proven to be working.

– At the moment, it does not have a mention, and of course, knowing the dynamic of the COP and the UN, that might be challenging. But I think what’s extremely important is that we keep it in mind and we know what is the issue. As I said, you know, the issue as regards the Odessa port blocking is, first of all, a war crime. Secondly, it is a logistical issue. But then, when we see the situation also here in the EU, our farmers already lose every year more than EUR 1 billion in crop yields just because of biodiversity loss. The same applies to other parts of the world. I think that’s inevitably going to be underpinning and therefore I think it’s going to be inevitably applied. And I think, you know, when we look at developing countries, we see that there is an urgent need to help them, but to help them not only with development funding, but also ensuring that they have the environment which can produce.

– Thank you very much for your question and of course, thank you very much to all Members of this Parliament for putting this question, this important question, on the agenda as we are heading towards COP15. Finally, the date and the place is clear. So of course, for us to have an ambitious outcome, we need to be united and also lead by example. So the first part of my answer to you is that we have strong legislation here in the EU with the biodiversity strategy, now also with the nature restoration legislation and other pieces of legislation, which allows us to lead the way. Secondly, I think what’s extremely important is to seek an agreement which would be a landing zone for all regions around the globe, finding a perfect match between an ambition but also realistically what can be implemented and also, of course, funded. Last but not least, I’m very thankful that you have mentioned the food security issue there, because exactly due to biodiversity loss, exactly due to ecosystem degradation, this is the biggest threat to our food security and I think this has to be addressed immediately. One of the steps forward is, of course, nature restoration legislation, which on one hand does not maybe directly produce the crops and yields, but on the other hand plays a vital role to ensure food security in the long term for our people. The same goes for other regions. So I think this food insecurity which is now very much at the centre of attention, caused by Russian war crimes and even a bigger war crime is committed when the Port of Odessa is blocked, must be also one of the topics that should be mentioned in COP15 and especially the biodiversity’s and ecosystem’s importance for food production.