Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there are still deaths in Brazil. Bruno Pereira and Dom Phillips are the last victims of this war waged by Bolsonaro and his allies of the ', but there is a cause, above all, our demand for Brazilian goods. It is for this reason that the Amazon burns, let's be clear. Bruno had received death threats because of his work with indigenous peoples and their organization Univaja, precisely to rid their forests of illegal loggers, miners, poachers and drug traffickers. That is why strict European rules are needed to stop imports of products that cause deforestation and violate human rights. It is therefore scandalous that the Council has agreed to this in order to ensure loopholes and limit traceability requirements. In addition, indigenous peoples are the best guardians of the forest, so it is necessary to defend them by monitoring the renewal of the ordinances for territorial protection. Finally, I believe that all Member States should ratify the 1989 Convention of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, the only international convention on the rights of indigenous peoples.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a pensioner living in an 80-square-metre house in Italy paid a bill in February/March 2021 of EUR 75, which rose to EUR 380 in 2022. And instead a fossil giant like Eni goes from 50 million profits in the last quarter of 2020 to 2 billion in 2021, an increase of +3 780 percent, and continues in 2022, is impressive. As households and businesses run wild and many won't be able to turn on heating next winter, energy giants are getting richer: In Italy alone, almost 50 billion euros of non-profits. Taxing them, therefore, should not even be a question to be asked, but a decisive response from politics in the face of this social drama, otherwise stop saying that we want to reduce inequalities, which in fact continue to increase. The Italian Government first introduces a 25% solidarity contribution – ridiculous – and then cancels the tax on non-profits of gas importers. I want to say it clearly: Non-profits must be returned one hundred percent to households and businesses.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we in the Committee on Petitions have received a large number of petitions denouncing illegal logging as a growing phenomenon in Europe. Citizens, in particular, complain that European laws, which already have several gaps, have serious shortcomings precisely in their application at the territorial level. I believe that we therefore need better control and better harmonisation. The Union should promote the use of scientific methods to monitor deforestation and verify the legal origin of timber on the market and assess the effectiveness of forest management. I also agree with Mr Gheorghe that we need an environmental prosecutor in the European Union against transnational environmental crimes, including illegal logging. An environmental prosecutor at European level would facilitate cross-border investigations and the harmonisation of judicial proceedings across the Union. Finally, however, a clear definition of the offence of illegal logging is also needed, because Member States, organisations and stakeholder They have very different interpretations to date.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the last parliamentary term I followed the work on the regulation on CO2 standards for cars and I remember very well, very well, the resistance of those who opposed stricter rules for the alleged inability of the industry to convert in time. Well, we saw and then found the exact opposite: New market prospects have opened up for manufacturers and sales of electric vehicles are growing year by year. This shows that what some political parties feared as unrealistic is, in reality, not only possible, but also beneficial in every way. Today we need an extra shot, because the climate crisis and the air pollution of our air, of the air we breathe in our cities, require us to act quickly. I say this especially as an Italian: My country ranks first in Europe for premature deaths from air pollution, almost 60 000 per year. Therefore, banning polluting vehicles is not an ecological ambition, but a social, health, environmental, climatic and economic urgency. Economical, yes, because with electric mobility you create jobs.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, citizens have shown that they have no doubts about the future of Europe. They want it to be more democratic, more transparent, fairer, fairer and above all more courageous to face the challenges of the climate crisis and the ecological crisis. The citizens drawn by lot proved to be ahead of their representatives, presenting careful and forward-looking recommendations in this extraordinary experiment in participatory democracy that was the Conference on the Future of Europe. Let me give an example: They are asking us to abandon the practice of intensive livestock farming and industrial farming, because Europe is still not up to the challenges it faces. They therefore ask us for an agricultural model in balance with nature. They ask us to drastically reduce, for example, the consumption of meat and animal products, to promote plant-based diets. I am far ahead of this European policy. I therefore ask the institutions, especially the governments, not to let the citizens' appeal go unheeded, but to make it a cornerstone for that renewal of our European home, which is now more necessary than ever. Let us move forward with a European Convention.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this war is already causing hunger, speculation and staggering prices. The most vulnerable families are those most at risk. But what are this Parliament, the Commission and the governments concerned about? Feeding animals on intensive farms! 70% of Europe's agricultural land is already used for the production of feed and yet we are constantly importing feed, almost all GMOs, from third countries, fuelling yet another structural dependency after that of gas. The problem should be obvious: overproduction and overconsumption of animal products, food which, moreover, becomes waste for more than a third. To continue all this today we want to go to cultivate even in ecological focus areas, use more pesticides, loosen and delay the implementation of the "Farm to Fork" and biodiversity strategies. It is no coincidence that the long-awaited law on nature restoration has already been postponed. It is therefore not the time to give in to the agro-chemical lobbies, but to profoundly rethink our food model.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to public money, transparency is a duty, yet we are in 2022 and we have a 20-year-old regulation, mainly because of the blockade by European governments in the Council, and cases of serious lack of transparency still persist in the EU. I am talking about the Turin-Lyon high-speed rail project and the 813 million euros of public money to finance it. CINEA, which is the entrusted agency, continues to deny access to funding information, recalling the exception provided for in the Public Safety Regulation, but without giving valid reasons. In addition to the damage, therefore, the mockery, because in addition to the devastating environmental impact of a wicked project, citizens are denied the legitimate right to verify that the beneficiaries of public money use them in compliance with their obligations. I therefore call on the Commission to shed light on this unacceptable situation, because the right of access to documents is one of the founding pillars of the democratic structure of our society.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the cleanest, most sustainable and cheapest energy is the one we do not use. That's why energy efficiency must always be in the first place. But to build a highly efficient economy powered 100% by renewables, we need more and more batteries. That is why it is so important today to revise the battery legislation and I thank the rapporteur, Mrs Bonafè, for the work she has done and for improving the Commission proposal. The right to repair, the removability of batteries, the restriction on the use of hazardous substances, re-use, recycling and above all the significant strengthening of the provisions on due diligenceThis is essential to ensure that the entire value chain, in particular the extraction of rare materials, respects social and environmental standards and human rights. All these are crucial points. And I dwell on the rare materials, critical and weak link of the battery race. The way out is undoubtedly to create a circular system to recover and recycle these precious materials. But what if there was another way? What if we could use resources that are widely available in Europe? Salt, for example. Well, salt batteries are proving to be an interesting and promising solution, although with some improvement, but at a low cost, easily recyclable and on which to invest more attention. A precondition for this is to accelerate towards energy independence. We Greens are calling for a European law for energy independence, it is not enough to diversify gas purchases to solve our dependence on fossil fuels. We need to revolutionise the current energy model and build one that creates peace, is democratic, respects human rights, creates jobs and combats the climate crisis. And this model is based on energy efficiency and renewables.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to congratulate the European Ombudsman on her excellent work in 2020. All its activities, which are the subject of this report, have confirmed that its action has once again proved crucial in safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens. In 2020, the Office of the European Ombudsman celebrated its 25th anniversary. The impact of the many surveys carried out over the years undoubtedly gives this body the central pillar role in helping to improve standards of good administration at EU level. Emily O'Reilly, since her election, has been able to give a further qualitative increase, which continues to be optimized thanks to the implementation of the strategy she launched called "Towards 2024", fully supported by this report. However, there is a need for the European institutions to take full responsibility for ensuring full and consistent compliance with the Ombudsman's recommendations, which still do not exist at all. This is also explained in the text. The importance of this element is fully grasped precisely by analysing what happened in 2020, a tragic year marked by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ombudsman worked tirelessly to investigate the transparency and integrity of decision-making processes related to the measures taken to address the pandemic. His voice was raised to remind the European institutions of their duty to guarantee, even more so in dramatic and complex times, the highest standards of good administration for the protection of general interests. This Parliament, relying also on this, has also officially pointed out that any lack of transparency in the context of the most serious public health crisis of the modern era constitutes a violation of the right of citizens to be fully informed. Unfortunately, however, the European Commission's first response was one of reprehensible disregard for these assumptions. In fact, the EU executive has continued to deny, and continues to deny, full transparency on the overall content of the contracts signed with pharmaceutical multinationals on COVID-19 vaccines, also made thanks to the use of billions of euros of public money. This report clearly highlights this problem and calls for full transparency. The text also sets out the serious issues underlying the current practices in the Council of the European Union, which emerged following yet another case of maladministration detected by the Ombudsman in 2020. Indeed, the Council continues to prevent citizens from benefiting from direct and timely access to its legislative documents, in breach of the right of effective public participation in the decision-making process. Therefore, the request to the Council – which is obviously not present in this House – is to change its conduct, finally bringing it into line with respect for the democratic rights of citizens. The Ombudsman's action has also proved meritorious on many other fronts. On the issue of public access to documents of the European institutions, the Ombudsman has repeatedly been instrumental in allowing their disclosure, despite the fact that the applicable Union legislation is outdated and needs a timely revision, as requested in this report. In the field of public procurement, the Ombudsman found serious legal loopholes in the current rules on public procurement, making them inadequate to counter conflicts of interest, as was shown, for example, in the inquiry into the European Commission’s serious decision to award a contract for a study on the integration of environmental, social and governance objectives of EU banking rules to BlackRock, which manages huge investments by large oil and banking companies, to which those same rules will apply. On the issue of active substances used in pesticides, the Ombudsman's inquiries confirmed that the European Commission has continued to regretfully approve them, despite the official identification of critical areas or the need for additional data to confirm their safety, even in the absence of any safe use. Furthermore, with reference to the EU-Mercosur trade agreement, the Ombudsman, at the end of her inquiries, stated that the conclusion of the related negotiations by the European Commission, before the finalisation of the sustainability impact assessment, represented another serious case of maladministration. It became clear that the Commission had taken that decision in a context without proper analysis of the social, environmental and economic impacts of that agreement, in breach of its own guidelines on the matter. In the report these elements are analysed in detail, together with various others, and each of them finds a set of precise requests, which go in the direction of guaranteeing citizens the highest levels of protection of their rights. I conclude by confirming my full support for the Ombudsman's action, which, as indicated in the report, must also be reflected in the allocation of more budgetary resources to enable her to manage effectively her overall workload, given the additional important responsibilities that have recently been attributed to her with the approval of her new statutes. I would like to conclude by thanking all the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation and the overall work they have done on this text.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after years of complaints, petitions and reports from citizens, all this great work is put on paper in the final report of this Parliament's Committee of Inquiry. And the citizens were right: Millions of animals are transported from one part of Europe to another and out of Europe in appalling conditions. Nightmarish travel. Why do we do this? Produce more, transport more, sell more, kill more, eat more and throw more. A sick and out of control system, which is proving every day more and more to be a huge danger for everyone, for animals of course, which are exploited beyond belief, but also for the entire planet, for the climate, for our health and for small farmers. This is why the recommendations we are voting on today must send a clear and strong message to the European Commission: Transport rules must ensure genuine protection for animals. But we must go further: reduce the consumption of meat and animal products and break this sick system that has become imperative.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, air pollution is the main environmental threat to human health. According to the European Environment Agency, three quarters of Europe's urban population breathes harmful air. An unjust condemnation for all those people who inevitably compromise their health and that of their children. According to the European Environment Agency’s report on air quality in Europe, 97% of the EU’s urban population is exposed to fine particulate matter levels above the recently updated WHO guidelines in 2021, while 94% are exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels above the WHO guidelines. In addition, almost all urban dwellers, i.e. 99%, are exposed to ozone levels higher than the WHO guidelines. If EU countries had met WHO air quality guidelines for fine particulate matter in 2019, premature deaths due to exposure to the pollutant would have decreased by 72% compared to 2005. So the data speak for itself: the European Union is not doing enough to protect the health of its citizens and the measures taken so far are insufficient. Breach of the EU air quality directive is becoming the norm in many Italian cities, but in particular the situation in Bolzano is serious, where between 2003 and 2019 there were systematic exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide limit value. And precisely on this point, in my parliamentary question, the European Commission, on the one hand, confirms that the air quality monitoring scheme in Bolzano indicates the persistent exceedance of nitrogen dioxide limits, and, on the other hand, calls into question the air quality plan for the province of Bolzano, which should lead to full compliance of the situation only by 2023. This is a response that does not take into account repeated and documented violations for almost fifteen years, without anything being done to solve the problem and we are more than half of the period of validity of the plan referred to by the Commission, which has been in force since 2018, and therefore no prospect of improvement is looming. Among other things, the air quality plan adopted by the province of Bolzano in 2018 provided, if all the measures had been implemented, for a reduction of only 10% of the average annual concentrations of nitrogen dioxide by 2020 compared to the 2017 values, therefore a completely insufficient reduction, which would in any case have exceeded the European limit. However, in any case, there is not even the expected decrease of 10 % to date. So the Commission's response confirms the concerns of environmental associations, but its inaction, and therefore its lack of action in taking immediate action, is unacceptable. We cannot underestimate the harmful impact of pollutants on human health, in particular that of nitrogen oxides in causing various respiratory diseases and beyond. The focus today should therefore not be whether road traffic restrictions are compatible with the free movement of goods, but how to find urgent solutions to road traffic that causes emissions that seriously endanger the health of citizens living in these areas. In conclusion, the solution consists precisely in shifting traffic from road to rail and putting an end to the lower cost of motorway tolls and fuel that benefit road transport, in line with what the European Commission proposed a few days ago in its mobility package.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you that we are in the 21st century, in the midst of a veritable biodiversity crisis, with entire populations of wild animals literally disappearing. Lions, tigers, elephants, zebras, reptiles, the list is very long. Do we really believe that these animals can still belong to a circus, transported from one part of our continent to the other in trucks and cramped cages, trained through physical punishments for the sole purpose of performing for our enjoyment? Perhaps all subsidized by public funding, coming from the national ministers of culture as cultural and entertainment activities. Is this entertainment? Is it culture? Is this the educational message that we want to give and transmit to the little ones? That wild animals belong to a tent in an urban center and not to undisturbed nature? No, gentlemen, this is not spectacle, it is barbarism and it must have no place in the European Union. We need a European ban on the use of animals in circuses, as demanded by over a million European citizens who have signed a petition to say enough with this unnecessary suffering. The bans introduced at national level by some Member States are not enough as long as there are still states like mine, Italy, where there is no kind of restriction on the use of wild animals in circuses, which will allow this business to continue and survive. However, the Commission must not hide behind a phantom lack of competence in this area. The European Union can act and therefore has a moral obligation to do so.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dear European leaders, whom you will meet tomorrow to discuss again the dear bills, there is a saying in Italy that says: You can't have a full beating and a drunk wife. You cannot finance other pipelines with European public money and then complain that we continue to depend on fossil energy imports from abroad. And don't complain if energy prices skyrocket, but your energy ministers criticize the new targets on renewables and energy efficiency, because they say they are too demanding and therefore invoke the usual flexibility. One by one and some of you are polluting the taxonomy debate by making fake cards in order to have nuclear and gas classified as green investments with the complacency of the European Commission. Be consistent: Admit that you are doing everything to slow down this ecological transition.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Italy has just decided to finance drilling in the Arctic, just after signing the BOGA in Glasgow, in order to commit itself not to finance fossil fuels abroad. The Commission still wants to use citizens' money to finance gas-related projects on the fifth list of projects of common interest and still €56 billion a year is donated to fossil fuels in Europe. Instead, the number one measure to break away from fossil fuels, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce our energy dependence from abroad, to create green jobs, to combat energy poverty and to reduce energy bills is the one that is still very little talked about, and I would call it the Cinderella in history, or energy efficiency. By increasing the renovation rate of buildings by 3% per year, we could create up to 2 million jobs. So what are we waiting for to make energy efficiency the real protagonist of the story?

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today it is the courts that remind governments of the commitments they have made to combat the climate crisis. Today it is the International Energy Agency – and therefore not a group of environmentalists, radical chic extremists – that tells us that there is a need to radically change the energy sector in a total way and that there is no longer room for fossil fuels. Today, this European Parliament is once again calling for a halt to fossil fuel subsidies ahead of the COP in Glasgow. In Italy, what happens? The Minister for the Ecological Transition does everything to try to slow it down, calling it "a bloodbath", fueling a narrative of terror that scares citizens and businesses. It has even allowed the deadlines for the PiTESAI plan to expire, effectively allowing the resumption of drilling permits, in total contrast to European and international recommendations. Just tell lies, because the ecological transformation of our society, if guided with courage, will bring enormous opportunities and jobs.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the citizens of the Union have the right to full transparency on all aspects of the European Union's vaccination strategy. This should be taken for granted for a public institution, especially when we talk about the bloodiest health crisis of the last hundred years: making available in a transparent manner all the details of decisions taken on behalf of citizens should be established practice. For the European Commission, however, this is not the case, and continues not to be the case: Indeed, the Commission continues to be heavily opaque in its conduct, undermining not only the legitimacy of its entire action, but also the respect of fundamental rights on access to citizens' information, as defined in European law and reaffirmed in the established case law of the Court of Justice. The Commission has spent billions of euros of public money, i.e. money from European citizens, to support the research, development, production and purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, thereby reducing the financial risks for the pharmaceutical companies involved. Despite this, it continues to deny full transparency on all details related to Advance Purchase Agreements and Vaccine Purchase Agreements, signed with pharmaceutical multinationals. The European Commission even goes so far as to say this explicitly on the institutional website: its priority is not to ensure full transparency of the decision-making processes underlying the crucial choices it has made. The Commission does not care that the lack of transparency undermines the legitimacy of its work in terms of the protection of public health; what continues to prevail over vaccines is the protection of the possibility of maximum profit of the multinationals of the drug, both in the current context and in the future, considering legitimate the economic exploitation pushed, to the detriment of transparency. This, moreover, on a matter that, from the beginning, should have subtracted from economicist logic, imposing the character of "global public good". Not only that, for the European Commission, it has been peaceful, by its conduct, to prevent this Parliament, co-legislator and expression of the representation of European citizens, from exercising any power of control over the process of purchasing and distributing vaccines, thwarting its ability to verify the correct application of the Union budget. I therefore strongly support this oral question and the resolution we are going to vote on in October, through which this Parliament asks, must explicitly ask the European Commission, echoing the many requests from citizens, through the submission of petitions, to publish in full and without further delay all the contracts signed with pharmaceutical multinationals on vaccines, and to provide as a precondition for future agreements the public disclosure of all the related details. It is a duty to all citizens.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when the European Union sets itself a goal, a strategy is normally given, medium and long-term targets are set and funds are allocated. Yet, although Europe has set itself the goal of putting an end to the use of animals in research and experimentation, to date there is none of this. On the contrary, after years, there are still about 10 million animals that are used in scientific research every year in Europe and European funding dedicated to scientific methods. animal free They are a drop in the ocean compared to traditional methods. But it's not just an ethical issue. In doing so, we are putting a brake on the potential of innovative methods. human-based, which have already shown that they can lead to concrete advances in the understanding and treatment of diseases, I am thinking, for example, of cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, where traditional methods have failed. I therefore call on the Commission to present, as soon as possible, an action plan with definite targets and timetables, concrete and measurable commitments and dedicated and adequate funding to finally achieve the objective of a science that is a reality. animal free.