What Virginijus spoke about.

– Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, President Hoyer, I would like to thank the European Parliament for these two reports and, in particular, the rapporteurs for their work. The EIB Group plays a key part in carrying out EU policies both inside and – as it was just presented – outside our borders, and it is integral to the EU’s response to today’s economic and geopolitical challenges. And this includes Russia’s brutal and unjustified war against Ukraine and the resulting energy crisis, along with the existential threat posed by climate change and environmental degradation. All these challenges call for a decisive, coordinated EU response, so we welcome the EIB Group’s long-term strategy, which focuses on the green and digital transitions and strengthening our open strategic autonomy. This is reflected in the EIB’s support for EU policies that underpin our transition to net zero, including its increased support for the REPowerEU plan, its investment in digital and cutting-edge technologies, as well as in security and defence within the context of dual-use technologies, also in semiconductors, biotech and critical raw materials. Promoting investment for recovery, green growth and employment across Europe is one of the EU’s top priorities. The flagship InvestEU investment programme should be strengthened in line with our proposed regulation for a Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform, or STEP – our response to the need for raising investments in critical technologies in Europe. And the EIB will play an important role in achieving the ambitions of STEP. I welcome the EIB Group’s active role in implementing InvestEU, now in its second year of deployment, with its many operations already underway to support the green and digital transition. The Group supports SME investments in areas such as solar photovoltaics, wind energy, energy efficiency and renewable hydrogen. I would also encourage the EIB to use its expertise and market knowledge to address more difficult areas, such as social priorities. I will now turn to Ukraine, where our close cooperation with EIB has been vital for securing urgent financial assistance in 2022 and in 2023. Backed by the EU guarantee, the EIB has now made EUR 2.3 billion available in loans to Ukraine since the start of the war. However, Ukraine’s needs continue to be massive. We need to make sure that we stand by and support Ukraine at all times. So in June, as part of the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework, the Commission has proposed the Ukraine facility to provide medium-term support of up to EUR 50 billion in grants and loans between 2024 and 2027. The facility will be vital for Ukraine’s macro-financial stability and to promote its recovery and modernisation, while carrying out key reforms needed on its path to EU accession. I take this opportunity to call on the European Parliament to contribute to the speedy approval of the Ukraine facility so that we continue to provide uninterrupted financial flows to Ukraine, as well as the other elements of the package, such as the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform that I mentioned earlier. In addition, I would like to thank the EIB for its EU for Ukraine Initiative to support Ukraine in the short term. It should help to rebuild infrastructure, address priority investment needs and ensure business support. As you know, the Commission is contributing to this initiative with a guarantee that allows the EIB to provide EUR 100 million in extra financing. And it is encouraging to see that EIB has already identified a promising pipeline of the new project. Besides Ukraine, let us not forget that the Group’s other activities outside the EU are reinforced by setting up EIB Global, which is now reaching its cruising speed. So I welcome the Parliament’s explicit call in its report that EIB Global should focus on ensuring alignment with EU policy priorities. And this includes, of course, Global Gateway, the external dimension of the EU Green Deal, digitalisation and connectivity, regional integration and the health sector.

– Madam President, honourable Members, I have listened very carefully to your interventions today, and I would like to thank everybody for engaging in this important debate this morning. I am glad we are having this broad public debate on such an important topic. Nature deserves this public attention. So what can we take away from today’s debate? First, I think it has illustrated very well what’s at stake. It has shown that stakes are high and that nature will not allow us to lose time. Far too much of Europe’s nature has now been degraded or destroyed; it’s vital to reverse that trend and time is running out. The world is watching us – so are our children – and we all need to take responsibility. If we want to deliver on Europe’s global biodiversity commitments agreed at COP15 in Montreal in December 2022, if we want to maintain the role of the EU as a global climate leader, we have to deliver. Nature restoration is not a luxury legislation. Healthy ecosystems, they are just fundamental assets of our economy and society. We cannot simply opt out or postpone. Today, I hear again that the Green Deal is not the Nature Restoration Law. Honourable Members, yes it is! This law is the flagship initiative of the European Green Deal. Nature and biodiversity is a key pillar and the equivalent of the Climate Law for nature, and it is the first dedicated EU legal proposal on nature in 30 years. You may be surprised to hear this, but to me this debate has shown that an agreement is possible if we remain engaged and if we take our responsibilities. Why am I rather optimistic? Because most of your interventions have shown that there is a willingness to discuss this law. And because even those of you who claim that this law has to be rejected have proposed amendments. This is positive and this is what co-legislators and the codecision process are all about. If there is anything to change or improve, the Commission is here is to discuss and support you. This is our role: to facilitate an agreement. And this is what we are determined to do. I am optimistic because today I have heard concerns on issues which have already been addressed and solved on the Council’s side and which we have already reflected in the non-paper on 8 June. And in spite of our genuine efforts to clarify and explain, I still hear and read many misconceptions and misunderstandings. I still hear questions to which there are very straightforward answers – which we have already provided to many of you on a bilateral basis, but which we are more than happy to reiterate. So let me mention just a few of them. Ms Sander and Mr Mato, you raised the concern that nature restoration will impact food security and that we are going to increase food imports. Well, the EU food system has achieved a high level of security and a wide offer for consumers. And actually 20% of food in the EU goes to waste. The challenge is to maintain the EU’s agricultural food production potential to ensure food security in the mid to long term. And this requires a transition to sustainable food production and sustainable food systems. I am afraid that food availability is not the issue, but food affordability. The biggest threat to food security in the EU and globally are the combined, interlinked climate and biodiversity crises leading to depletion of soil, pollinator loss, desertification and drought. This is reflected in the very comprehensive study on the drivers of food security, which the Commission published in January. I heard Ms Schneider ask for data and impact assessments. All data on the relation between healthy ecosystems and food security can be found there. On food security, I make a plea to all of you who have expressed concern to actually look at Article 9 of the proposal, and see with your own eyes what this article is about. Requirements are about increasing trends in indicators, which scientists tell us are the best proxies to tell us the health of our agriculture. And Member States can set their own levels to be achieved on those indicators. So when we talk about the regional dimension and Member State flexibilities, they are there. Mr Vondra, Mr Dorfmann and Mr Torvalds, you expressed concern that the proposal would put Member States into a straitjacket. The opposite is true. It provides for a large degree of flexibility and subsidiarity. It will be for Member States to decide which restoration measures they wish to put in place, where and when. The proposal asks Member States to do this together with stakeholders, involving them closely, all of them: that means farmers, foresters, fishers, civil society, scientists. Ms Zalewska, let me also reassure you that the Commission will only assess Member States’ plans to see the EU trends, but it will not approve or validate them. Mr Liese, you and some other Members have expressed concern that the Nature Restoration Law would hamper hydropower from dam removals in rivers. Nowhere does the Nature Restoration Law proposal require de-establishment of hydropower. To the contrary, it says literally in Article 7(2): ‘Member States shall primarily address obsolete barriers, which are those that are no longer needed for renewable energy generation [...] or other uses’. So we would expect Member States to target primary obsolete barriers. Experts estimated that at least 20% of all barriers in the EU are obsolete, so they no longer serve any purpose. The number of hydropower plants in the EU is estimated to be 23 000, which represents barely 2% in the total number of barriers. It is therefore possible easily to respect the proposed requirements without having an impact on hydroelectricity generation. Mr Liese, you said we need to make compromises to reconcile nature protection and economic activities or infrastructure, and you said you believe in cooperation. I am glad to hear this because I hope you are ready to finalise this codecision procedure in the same constructive spirit as we have started one year ago or, I would say, four years ago – the first time I met you and we had a discussion on this upcoming mandate. Finally, let me also use this opportunity to clarify once and for all that the Nature Restoration Law will not put 10% of land out of production. First of all, the 10% is not a mandatory target, neither for individual Member States, and especially not at farm level. Hence there is no obligation for individual farmers to take 10% of their land out of production. It is mentioned as a benchmark, referring to the EU-level objective set in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Member States are asked to increase the share of agricultural land with high diversity landscape features at national level until a satisfactory level is reached. Member States would define themselves in their national restoration plans the satisfactory level they aim to achieve, and that level could be way below 10%. As stressed in the non-paper, the Commission is ready to clarify the objective of this provision and adapt if it is necessary. Dear colleagues, last but not least, I remain optimistic because I know that, since the beginning of this mandate, we have always worked constructively. We have always shown that we can find compromises and solutions. We carve them out in the most difficult legislations, and we have already reached agreements on many important files – sometimes very difficult files. It would be regretful and difficult to explain why we didn’t manage to do so also for one of the most important pieces of the legislation of the European Green Deal. Honourable Members, let me be very clear and honest: a compromise is possible and in reach. The divergences are not as big as to justify rejection. Other files have been even more complicated and we managed. I sincerely hope we will not miss this opportunity to bring the Nature Restoration Law to a successful conclusion. The Commission will play its role as an honest broker and do everything it can to make it happen. Honourable Members, some of you voiced concerns that this law may hamper our economies – putting farmers, foresters, fishers out of work. Let me be clear: there will be no work, no income when nature is sick. Today, we are proposing the medicine. The first to benefit from this medicine will be those whose livelihoods directly depend on our natural resources. They need nature to be healthy. They need that for the resilience and productivity of the land and of the seas. They need it to ensure food security. Some of you said that they are in favour of nature restoration, but they simply ask for a new proposal from the Commission. Let me be very clear. We do have a proposal. A proposal based on a solid impact assessment. A proposal that has already evolved, on which we have presented a non-paper in June and on which Member States have already presented many amendments, touching upon many issues also raised in this House. A proposal on which, until April, all groups worked constructively and proposed important amendments. A proposal on which even those groups who plead for rejection have now tabled amendments for the plenary vote tomorrow. Honourable Members, this is called codecision. Let’s finalise this process. It is possible, and with a constructive approach we could conclude it actually quite quickly. Let’s not miss this opportunity. We cannot lose time and we don’t need to lose time. Restoration is our best hope of getting nature back in shape. We need that for climate mitigation. We need that for climate adaptation. We need that for our economy. The world is watching us. Our citizens are watching. We set the pace at COP15 in Montreal, and this is our chance to deliver at home, proving to the world that it can be done, proving to our citizens that we keep our promises. For the last time, honourable Members, let’s secure a better future for our citizens, our farmers, our fishers, our businesses, our children.

– Mr President, State Secretary, honourable Members, first of all, I’m truly grateful for the opportunity to address you today on the crucial role that nature plays for our future. And let me start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Luena, all shadow rapporteurs and the rapporteurs of the two opinion giving committees, Ms Sander and Ms Roose and the many of you who I met over the last year, and even more so in recent weeks to discuss the Commission proposal for nature restoration that we presented in June 2022. And I hope that these discussions have led to a better understanding or even convergence of each other’s positions, because that’s what decision making in the EU is all about. This law is nothing less than the flagship initiative of the European Green Deal Nature and Biodiversity Pillar and is intrinsically linked to its climate pillar. Is the first EU legal proposal on nature since 30 years. It is the EU’s climate law for biodiversity and the success of one depends on the success on the other. During the last year, the Commission has worked very closely with all actors involved and we have listened very carefully to the full range of issues that have been raised and to your concerns. Several of you made it clear that additional flexibility was needed, in particular on some of the provisions that may not have been clear enough and thus were considered as potentially hampering economic activities. And many Member States have raised similar issues. We acknowledge that, and we have consequently showed openness to revisit and improve certain provisions and to enhance clarity, making sure the proposal reflects the current reality. On that basis, we have outlined possible ways forward in the non-paper which we submitted to you and to the Council on 8 June. We very much welcome the positive response of the Member States to our recent non-paper and the fact that the Council took responsibility. Engage constructively and agreed on general approach on 20 June. And I understand that the Spanish presidency now stands ready to engage in trialogue negotiations, provided, of course, that the European Parliament adopts its mandate. Honourable Members, in the past weeks, we have seen an intense debate on our proposal because the questions they are complex, because these issues are crucial for our collective future and because the stakes are high. Proof of this is the unprecedented mobilisation for this law from citizens and in particular, the youth with around 1 million signatures collected in support of the law from hundreds of businesses in renewable energy, food and other sectors, including some of Europe’s biggest corporations. From farmers and foresters concerned about the impacts of biodiversity on their land and production. From over 6000 scientists from civil society organisations across the EU as well as from international organisations such as IUCN and UNEP. That debate showed very clearly that there is very broad consensus that we need to restore nature and that we can constructively discuss and find solutions on how. The consequences of the climate and biodiversity crisis are becoming increasingly visible also here in the European Union. They already affect nearly every citizen and every sector of the economy, and they are among the biggest threats to the long term resilience of Europe’s food security. In order to ensure the long term food security and resilience of our farmlands, forests, our seas, we must improve their biodiversity conditions. And some of these ecosystems are already severely threatened by the growing impacts of climate change in almost all parts of Europe. With drought fires degraded soils that risk food production and livelihoods, especially in rural areas. Science is crystal clear. Far too much of Europe’s nature has now been degraded or destroyed, so it’s vital to reverse that trend. And time is running out. Some 80 % of EU habitat types are now in bad or poor condition. Half of the global GDP depends on nature, and 75 % of our crops depend on pollination. The European Central Bank found that 72 % of the euro area firms, about 3 million, are highly exposed to nature related services, such as timber, clean water, pollination, sand or healthy soils, and depended on at least one of them, sometimes more. 75 % of bank loans are to firms that depend on ecosystem services, so financial institutions are clearly exposed as well. The unsustainable use of natural resources already costs thousands of lives and billions of euros. Between 1980 and 2021, weather and climate related damages amounted to an estimated EUR 560 billion and the severe droughts experienced in the EU in August last year led to losses in agricultural production, averaging between 5 and 10 % for crops like grain, maize, sunflower and soybeans. Droughts, floods and forest fires have become part of new reality. While they are driven by climate change, the degradation of ecosystems and their weakened resilience due to biodiversity loss accelerates and intensifies the impacts of these events. These are figures. But even more important are the people behind these figures. Reversing this trend by restoring degraded nature must therefore be our shared responsibility. It’s my sincere hope that the openness shown by the Commission with the non-paper, that the Council’s general approach, as well as the proposal presented last week by the Commission to complete the nature pillar of the European Green Deal, that all these elements can facilitate today’s discussion, that they reassure those who felt that the Commission’s initial position was too far reaching and they remain still convinced to those who would have expected even higher ambition for the nature restoration. The Green Deal is a highly pragmatic approach to solving the climate and biodiversity crisis. Climate solutions without nature solutions are half measures. Let me give you a couple of examples. Making soils healthy, it’s not good just for farmers, foresters and habitat. It’s also essential for ensuring the soils can store carbon. Carbon rich soils, in turn, store water and mitigate the consequences of flash storms. Dead soils do none of that. Boosting innovation. New business models like carbon farming and promotion of technological developments, such as for new genomic techniques, are key parts of the Commission’s nature package. All proposals are interlinked and actually strengthen each other. They all contribute and assist to achieve the goals of the other proposals on the table with the Nature Restoration Law in the centre. The more we do on nature, the less tough we will have to be on climate action. Nature is our best ally in fighting climate change, and if we don’t take proper measures to let it thrive, we will be ditching our best chance to achieve climate neutrality. Honourable members, citizens, businesses, scientists, farmers, foresters, cities, our international partners, they all expect us to act to address the climate-related challenges they face, which are aggravated by the bad and deteriorating state of our natural ecosystems. This very Parliament in June 2021 called for a strong Nature Restoration Law, including binding targets. And together with the Council, Parliament and the Commission signed a declaration only six months ago on 22 December 2022, confirming that nature restoration was a joint priority for 2023. Today I am reconfirming to this House that the Commission remains 100 % committed to turn this proposal into law, to showing the necessary flexibility and to supporting the co-legislators in their search for compromise. The Council has already engaged in this process and I am convinced that with a constructive approach, a compromise is possible also within this House. In order to uphold the European Union’s international commitments under both the Paris Agreement and the Montreal Biodiversity Framework to ensure a transition to sustainable economy and deliver on the EU climate law and adapt to climate change. We need to urgently restore and strengthen the resilience of natural ecosystems across the EU. I know that many of you share this urgency. I therefore trust. That you will seize this opportunity and take responsibility to engage constructively so that tomorrow this House can adopt a mandate for trialogue negotiations, which would also allow us to reach a final agreement on the proposal in time for Cop 28 and the next biodiversity Cop 16, and to see the entry into force of the nature restoration law before the end of this political term. This is not about restoring nature for the sake of nature. It’s about ensuring a habitable environment where the well-being of current and future generations is ensured, where the land and seas continue having the capacity to provide us the goods and services that our lives and our economy fully depend on. It is about our lives. It’s about us and those who come after us.

– Madam President, dear Members of Parliament, first of all, thank you very much for your support and kind remarks. And let me address a couple of the main issues that were raised by some Members of Parliament. First of all, on our dependency on critical raw materials that are needed for batteries, on the contrary, this proposal strengthens our strategic autonomy. Targets for recycling efficiency, material recovery and recycled content will be introduced gradually. From 2025 onwards, all collected waste batteries will have to be recycled and high levels of recovery will have to be achieved, in particular for critical raw materials such as cobalt, lithium and nickel. And that brings multiple benefits. First of all, as I said, that strengthens our strategic autonomy. Secondly, it significantly decreases pressures on the environment, and that will guarantee that valuable materials are recovered at the end of their useful life and brought back into the economy by adopting stricter targets for recycling efficiency and material recovery over time. And material recovery targets for cobalt and nickel will be 90% by 2027 and 95% by 2031. And for lithium, 50% by 2027 and 80% by 2031. So, as you see, it’s gradually increasing and it’s really ambitious. Now, the last thing which has been mentioned also a lot – and it is extremely important, I know, for this House as it is for the Commission – is, of course, the due diligence and compatibility with our Due Diligence Directive. Our legislation aims, first of all, at ensuring full compatibility, at fostering sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour and to honour and ensure human rights and environmental considerations in companies and operations and corporate governance. So, the CSDD rules, the new rules, they will ensure that businesses address the adverse impact of their own operations, operations of their subsidiaries and including in their value chains inside and outside Europe. Just to finalise, this proposal will definitely stay in my memory for two reasons: partly because it was genuinely ambitious, but also because it was the first circular economy legislative initiative of the European Green Deal to be adopted by the Commission, and that made it a blueprint for the whole new approach that we take to sustainable product policy. It aims to make sustainable products the norm and that’s exactly what we are aiming for with the proposed regulation on ecodesign for sustainable products. I am sure you all share a great sense of pride at this successful outcome. I am sure that it will also inspire us during the hard work ahead as we work to ensure the smooth implementation of this ambitious new framework. So thank you once again for your extremely constructive role in this success story for the entire European Union. *** Commission statements on Batteries and waste batteries (in writing) The Commission notes that the approach agreed by the co-legislators linking the applicability of certain sustainability rules with the adoption of the respective delegated or implementing acts by the Commission may impinge on the legal certainty for the economic operators about the applicability of the rules in the Regulation. The Commission regrets the short deadlines for the adoption of delegated and implementing acts as well as several other follow-up actions and expresses concern about the feasibility to comply with these deadlines in time. The Commission notes that the implementation of the Regulation will require significant resources in the Commission.

– Madam President, honourable Members, good afternoon. And I would like to first of all, of course, thank the European Parliament for all the hard work on this file. We have come a long way since the Commission presented its proposal on batteries two and a half years ago, bringing together the European Green Deal and our industrial strategy. And I have to say that I am very pleased with the outcome. Our transformation to a circular and climate—neutral economy must be powered by sustainable batteries. They are essential for the green and digital transition of key sectors like mobility, energy and communication. And we have now sound rules and a powerful legislative toolbox firmly oriented to the future. We ensure that batteries will have a low carbon footprint and that they will be collected, reused and recycled, and the valuable materials that batteries contain will be then used to produce new batteries. This regulation is an excellent example of the change we want to make through our circular economy agenda. It is fully in line with Europe’s drive towards open strategic autonomy. It strengthens the security of supply for raw materials and energy, which is now more important than ever before. And I would like to thank the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs and everyone else in the European Parliament who has been actively involved in this file. Equally I would like to thank all the Presidency teams of the Council. Today our great work together and tremendous efforts are bearing fruit and this agreement is extremely timely. Many business decisions, investments are informed by the new regulatory framework, so we should now move swiftly towards implementation and the work on that is already well under way. New standardisation rules to support the regulation will soon go ahead. We are also drawing up rules for the carbon footprint, for electric vehicles, for electric vehicle batteries and much more is also on the way. If I have one small regret, it is the deadlines for the tasks given to the Commission. They are very tight and we will do our best to meet them. But as previously noted, I will ask for a statement be added to the minutes expressing our concern about the timeline of our implementation work. Having said that, I would like to recognise the improvements of the text of the regulation that happened in the course of the legislative process. The substantial clarification of the legal framework for second—life batteries is one of those examples. There are many other examples and they demonstrate how much of a collective effort this regulation really was. It is the finest example of our interinstitutional cooperation, and I am extremely grateful for that. So, congratulations to you all once again, and thank you.

– Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate today and thank you for your support and your contributions and feedbacks. They are essential in shaping the EU algae initiative towards a more sustainable future, and I trust that we will ensure a fruitful cooperation between our two institutions and work together towards this algae revolution to make sure that we make the best of their potential for Europe. Before closing, I would like to mention the first EU algae awareness summit in Paris on 5-7 October this year. This event will be organised by the Commission jointly with the French authorities and the United Nations Global Compact and we want to inspire national authorities for change and raise public awareness by sharing best practices, success stories and inviting people to test algae products.

– Mr President, honourable Members, the European Commission sees algae as a treasure of the seas and this is the reason why we have adopted on 15 November 2022 the Commission communication ‘towards a strong and sustainable EU algae sector’. The EU algae initiative is supposed to unlock the great potential of algae production in the EU and therefore I welcome our exchange today and the draft resolution of the European Parliament on this crucial topic. I would like now to reply to your specific questions. First of all regarding a future regulatory framework in the EU, let me highlight that the EU algae initiative calls on Member States’ authorities to simplify national licensing procedures for algae cultivation. The Commission has already started its work to promote this needed simplification. Creating one—stop shops at Member State level is a simplification that the Commission welcomes and supports. The EU4Algae stakeholder platform is currently working on a licensing toolkit, which will compile general and country—specific information to guide future algae farmers through the licensing process. Before the summer of 2023, the Commission will issue a guidance document on regulatory and administrative procedures in aquaculture as part of the implementation of the EU strategic guidelines for aquaculture. This document will aim at providing concrete recommendations to the EU Member States’ competent authorities to reduce administrative burden and costs on aquaculture operators, including those involved in the farming of algae. Regarding your second question on how the Commission will follow up if Member States do not do not implement the EU algae initiative. So it’s important to emphasise that algae cultivation is part of aquaculture policy and it is consequently a competence of the EU Member States. So the Commission supports and coordinates Member States’ efforts in this area via the open method of coordination. Furthermore, the Commission will prepare by 2027 a progress report of the implementation of the EU algae initiative, and this will be an important opportunity to take stock of the state of play and then of course consider further steps in case more needs to be done to fulfil potential for the sustainable development of the EU algae sector. Regarding the question about funding, I can reassure you that the Commission has encouraged the Member States to include algae in their multiannual national strategic aquaculture plans and their programmes under the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. In addition, the Commission will ensure that algae are satisfactorily covered in the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund measures directly managed by the Commission and in other EU funding instruments – those funding instruments comprise ‘EU Mission: Restore our Ocean and Waters’ under Horizon Europe, the Circular Bio—based Europe Joint Undertaking, the food strand under the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, BlueInvest and others. Last year, the Commission set up the EU4Algae platform that now includes more than 700 stakeholders. And this platform will consolidate information on all available funding opportunities and future open calls for funding to facilitate the access to information and support for the algae sector. Honourable Members, finally I would like to welcome the recently adopted Council conclusions on bioeconomy, which underline the potential of the EU blue bioeconomy, including the algae sector, for creating employment in coastal and rural areas, recovering European seas and freshwater resources and delivering low—carbon—footprint products to the European market. It is in the interest of all of us to see the potential of the algae sector fully developed. So I look forward to our discussions today.

– Mr President, honourable Members, first of all, thank you. Finally, we had a full morning of parliamentary debate to value the importance of the oceans for our life on this planet. And of course, your views and contributions in today’s debate are extremely valuable. We are now at a pivotal moment. Copernicus satellite imagery is a wake-up call that unfortunately confirms that the health of our oceans is degrading. But it’s also a time when fishers are challenged. They are challenged by high fuel prices, lack of manpower, the lingering consequences of the pandemic, Brexit and climate change. And I understand the concern about yet another challenge for fishermen and women. However, failing to protect the marine environment, at the end of the day, will mean that fishermen and women will lose more and more of what constitutes the basis of their livelihood. Hence, I want to point out the opportunities. Experience in the Mediterranean Sea shows that well managed marine protected areas can increase catches and can lower costs significantly. Scientific advice shows that big ecosystem gains can be achieved by the better management of fishing grounds and undistributed areas, and rebuilding the richness and abundance of species in ecosystems is good for fisheries, but it is also a good strategy to defend them against other pressures like ocean warming, acidification and oxygen depletion. Of course, opportunities need investment, not only investment from the many available EU funds, but investment in time, in manpower, in new ideas, new equipment and new working practices. And those opportunities require the political will to push forward real and concrete action and positive change. Let me reply very briefly to some of the comments raised today. I hear that there has been no impact assessment for the marine action plan. So first, the marine action plan is not a legislative proposal, but builds on already existing legislation that simply needs to be implemented – some of it for more than 30 years. Impact assessments will be needed for individual implementing measures as they are developed, and the impacts of action will depend on local choices. And I cannot repeat it often enough: we want choices and measures to be, first of all, local. We want the regional approach to work and that of course, means inclusion and dialogue. I also hear that there were no consultations. We have consulted stakeholders for more than one year, from October 2021 to January 22. Consultations in all forms: conferences, meetings, online consultations, even I personally met the community multiple times and all views are reflected in our maritime action plan, those of scientists, of local and regional authorities, of environmental organisations and of the fishing industry. We have to bring all the perspectives together. It is not an easy task to find that balance, but this is what we try. I have also heard that our political objectives expressed in this marine action plan are not based on science. Well, it’s actually the basis. Science is the actual basis from which we start, and reference to it can be found throughout the action plan. And the science is compelling. Almost 80% of our seabed is currently damaged. And what we propose is to find solutions at regional level and to find them together. And no, we are not driven by environmental ideologies, but by pure science. Finally, some of you asked why we do not address other pressures and other factors that impact the marine environment instead of focusing only on fisheries. Well, we do address also other factors and with the same determination and resolution. But this marine action plan is, first of all, about the fisheries and their future. The advantage of being Commissioner for the environment is that I could present under my portfolio important legislative initiatives that will directly benefit also the seas and oceans such as on urban wastewater or on plastics. And our policies address equally sorts of pollution that end up in the ocean. And I hope that this House will support those initiatives and that will ensure a better well-being and the future of the fisheries too. Honourable Members, we have used the last weeks and today’s debate to provide clarifications, reply to your questions and we remain available to discuss and clarify further whenever needed, both orally and in writing. But I think we now need to pass from words to action and let Member States propose how we can achieve our common objective to better protect our marine environment while taking into consideration extremely important social and economic factors. Solutions need to come from the regional level, from the consultations and dialogue, including with all stakeholders, and I look forward to working very closely with Member States, with stakeholders and of course this Parliament.

– Mr President, honourable Members, we share a huge responsibility for our oceans and for those who earn their living from what the oceans offer us. And we need to face our responsibilities collectively. We need to continue taking measures that reduce ocean pollution and mitigate the impact of climate change on marine life. We need to implement fully our comprehensive environmental legislation and continue to drive global ambition for protecting our ocean. And we need to make sure that our fisheries communities are valued for the tremendous work they are doing day by day, that they have the possibility to pass on their noble profession to their sons and daughters, that they are supported in the transition towards the less fuel—intensive and less impactful fisheries, and that they are actually driving this transition with innovative solutions and their experience and affection for the seas. We need to face these responsibilities collectively because fishers and sustainable fishing are at the core of food security, as is the state of the ocean and the life it harbours. Meeting these challenges is not going to be easy. There will have to be important changes which naturally brings uncertainty and fears. And these changes require a collective effort of various industries and various actors. It is our task as the executive and legislative bodies of the Union to meet the challenges of ensuring sustainability of the environment of marine food production and society. It is our task to ensure that changes are brought in gradually without incurring excessive hardship and that they are brought in fairly with full transparency and wide consultation. Effecting real change to bring greater protection to the marine environment and moving away from fossil fuels as the main energy source require huge endeavours: endeavours by the fishing industry, like by all other sectors in Europe. To make sure that also next generations of fishermen and women will be also able to fish, we need to continue our efforts to lower the impact of fishing on the marine environment in order to stop losing biodiversity, marine habitats and parts of ecosystems. Biodiversity loss and the extinction of species are not events that are happening far away from our waters or in the far future. No: they are happening in our waters and right now. The Commission’s communication on the marine action plan is just one part of the Fisheries and Oceans Package which the Commission has adopted earlier this year to address the main challenges of Europe’s fishers today. The dependency on fossil fuels, the continuous degradation of marine ecosystems, the need to ensure a level playing field within the fisheries sector – within the EU and with non-EU countries – and last but not least, the generational renewal. The marine action plan is aimed at better implementing our commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, our biodiversity strategy for 2030 and the EU nature and marine strategy framework directives. Its goal is to protect and rebuild ecosystems for resilient fisheries in the very interests of our fishermen and women whose well-being depends on healthy seas. It is our aim to ensure that the marine ecosystems can continue to provide services and goods to our fishers, to coastal communities, and to humanity at large. And all this should be done via the regional approach under the common fisheries policy and under shared competence under environmental legislation, Member States are invited to consult stakeholders and initiate measures at national and regional level to reduce impacts on ecosystems, making sure that our marine protected areas are effectively protected from the impact of damaging fishing gears, and complement this with measures to avoid or reduce bycatch of sensitive species and avoid catching undersized fish. The measures we propose allow for marine protected areas with effective rules for conservation, adapt fishing practices and gears, which let the most sensitive species escape and restrict damage to the seabed in the most vulnerable areas. This should result in improved condition and resilience of marine ecosystems and of fisheries which rely on them, as well as in lower carbon emissions. When biodiversity begins to recover fisheries also benefit from it. The transition does not come for free, but support from EU funds is available. Funding for research, development and adaptation of vessels, allowing them to fish with lower impacts on marine ecosystems. Let me be clear: there is no new legislative initiative planned at this time. Our marine action plan is a political call towards Member States to raise their ambitions. The Commission expects Member States to respect their political commitments on environmental protection and to implement their legislation under the existing environmental legislation. The marine action plan does not introduce a blanket ban on bottom trawling in EU waters. It calls on Member States to engage in dialogue to protect the marine environment while ensuring prosperity and future of our fisheries and fishing communities. I trust that we can find a consensus around the objectives of this marine action plan and around approach, ensuring a constructive dialogue between Member States and relevant stakeholders. Honourable Members, from what we do to protect our marine biodiversity within EU waters let me now turn to the international dimension, where our objectives and actions are well aligned with those that we are pursuing within the EU. The last few months have seen two historic diplomatic achievements which allow us to better protect our oceans. The agreement on the Global Biodiversity Framework in Montreal last December and the political agreement on the United Nations Treaty of the High Seas or as we also call it, the Treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction. The Treaty on the High Seas has been hailed by the UN Secretary-General as a success for multilateralism and a success for the ocean. And I cannot agree more. Now it needs swift ratification and implementation. The BBNJ agreement will help better protect our high seas, which is essential for ocean health, for meeting our climate goals and the objective agreed at COP15 in Montreal to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030. The agreement also improves the regulation of human activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction through the establishment of a clear process for environmental impact assessments. And this will ensure transparency, participation and accountability. It also contributes to foster global equity by ensuring that the benefits of marine genetic research are shared freely and fairly across the planet, benefiting all researchers. Monetary benefits from this research will flow back in part towards the BBNJ to protect the oceans. Finally, the treaty foresees capacity—building to support developing countries in their implementation of the treaty, and creates institutions which will be tasked with protecting the high seas – a secretariat, a conference of the parties, a science body, to name just a few. We should be proud of the role the EU played in reaching this agreement, as we initiated and led the high—ambition coalition on BBNJ, which now counts 52 members. But as you know, the success of a treaty in reaching its objectives lies above all in its implementation. So the treaty now needs to be formally adopted, which is planned for June this year, and ratified by 60 parties before it enters into force. And the EU now needs to put all efforts toward the ambitious implementation of the BBNJ agreement. And I hope I can count on the support of this House.

– Mr President, honourable Members, first of all I would like to thank you for today’s debate and for your comments and views on such important topic as the protection of sharks. And the views expressed by citizens are crucial when we design and improve our policies. And the European Citizens’ Initiative is an excellent tool to channel and make these views here. And it’s our institutional and legal obligation to take them seriously into account. We are now analysing the initiative very carefully, considering all environmental, economic and social aspects of possible further action. We are looking in detail at trade, customs and control aspects of shark fishing, which we will all take into consideration when preparing the reply to this ECI. Now when it comes to some of the remarks by some Members of Parliament, it’s true that EU legislation is very advanced. And it’s true that Asian countries are the main market for shark fins and have driven catch and trade of shark upwards. But the EU is a major player. Our share is 15% of catch worldwide. And the reality is that there is a global problem with sharks and we should take our responsibilities. The EU position should be geared more and more at continuing to be part of the solution rather than becoming part of the problem or staying silent as an observer. So, dear honourable Members, your comments questions today have brought to the discussion also important elements and perspectives. And as I said earlier, the Commission will take a decision on the follow—up to this initiative by July 2023, and I look forward to continuing our close cooperation on this very important topic, especially when we have a strong signal from European citizens.

– Mr President, honourable Members. The European citizens’ initiative that we are discussing today rightly points to a worrying situation of sharks globally and to the role that demand for shark fins in Asia plays in this. We share these concerns of citizens, and therefore we are active both within and outside the European Union when it comes to protecting sharks and promoting sustainable fishing. In view of the international dimension of the shark fin trade, it is important to ensure adequate rules within the EU and internationally. The EU actively promotes the conservation and sustainable management of sharks as well as the ‘fins naturally attached’ policy in regional fisheries management organisations and in other relevant international forums. The practice of shark finning is already banned in all regional fisheries management organisations. Some shark species need protection through a retention ban, whilst other species can still be fished sustainably through appropriate conservation and management measures, and those conservation and management measures may include a limitable total allowable catch Since 2008, EU law, and namely the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, requires that shark populations in our waters are healthy and abundant and that human activities do not harm them. With the nature restoration law proposal, we continue our efforts by seeking the restoration of the habitats of shark and ray species. The EU also works actively under two international conventions to protect sharks. Firstly, the EU is a signatory of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks, which concerns research, sustainable fishing, habitat protection and international cooperation. Secondly, the EU is an active member of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which among other things regulates trade in sharks and their products. So the EU promotes CITES protection for marine species and incorporates its decision in its own legal setup, including trade restrictions for relevant species. Given this solid international framework, sharks caught by the EU fleet in compliance with both CITES and regional fisheries management organisations, rules are considered legitimate fish products. At EU level, since 2003, the so-called EU Shark Finning Regulation prohibits the removal of shark fins on board all vessels in the EU waters, as well as the retention on board, transhipment or landing of shark fins. In 2013, the regulation was amended to enforce the ‘fins naturally attached’ policy. So currently all sharks targeted by commercial fishing must be retained on board and must be landed with their fins naturally attached – and there are no derogations from this obligation. The fins can be removed only upon landing. This applies to EU fishing vessels wherever they operate, even beyond EU waters. Honourable Members, this is a short outline of what we already doing, both within and outside the European Union, to protect sharks and to promote sustainable fishing. I have already had the privilege to meet twice with organisers of this citizens’ initiative – once during the dedicated meeting with the Commission, and a second time in the European Parliament hearing, Both encounters and discussions were a welcome opportunity to better understand the objectives of the initiatives and to discuss possible further actions to reinforce the EU policy on the protection of sharks. Against this background, the Commission is currently preparing the reply to the European citizens’ initiative ‘Stop finning, stop the trade’ which it will adopt by July 2023, in line with the provisions of the ECI Regulation.

– Mr President, High Representative, honourable Members, first of all, let me thank this House for today’s debate and for your interventions, because this is an important moment – an emotional one, too, and a moment of determination. It was important to have this debate. Today, it gives us – the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council – an opportunity to strongly reconfirm our full support to Ukraine, to reiterate our unconditional solidarity, and to do everything it takes – as long as it takes – to undermine Russia’s war machine. Each of us – literally everyone – remembers where we were when we heard the horrible news one year ago. I remember very well. I never imagined a moment in my life that I will wake up my wife and say ‘the war has started’. The first thing we did was call our parents, but by that time they were already somewhere deep in shelter. I will never forget those hours waiting for their reply. Unfortunately, those hours will stick deep in me for many, many years. 24 February 2022 changed this world. It changed each and every one of us. And we would probably not have imagined that we would stand here today having this debate 357 days into a brutal war. Mariupol, Bakhmut – once thriving, beautiful European cities. Today, they don’t exist. From the very beginning, Putin’s condition for peace – so-called peace – was to wipe out Ukraine: their culture, their tradition, their people. Are you ready to look Ukrainian children in the eye and say that rape and loot is their future? Because that would mean the future of our children, too. So let me say again: today’s debate was important: we cannot repeat and reconfirm our support and solidarity often enough. Any support of ours will never match the sacrifice of the Ukrainian nation. President von der Leyen has made it very clear that we will continue as long as it takes to keep Ukrainians’ dream of freedom alive. To praise the legendary bravery of the Ukrainian people. To bring Ukraine closer to victory and closer to the European Union, where they truly belong. We continue to bring our markets closer, our towns and our cities, our people. We have built bridges and we continue to build more of them – building the Ukrainians’ European future together. And reconstruction is going to be another chance to show true European solidarity – build Ukraine back even better, greener and stronger. Rebuild the beauty of Ukraine. We need to lay the groundwork for a green reconstruction, also holding Russia accountable for all damage that they have done. And I truly hope that in one year this debate will be about our efforts to rebuild Ukraine. Honourable Members, President von der Leyen has said it: Ukraine’s dreams of freedom are stronger than ever. I can only confirm this. I can confirm this personally. Today’s debate has sent a very strong message. We will help Ukraine so that these dreams one day become a reality. We will stand united. We will not allow Putin to divide us. His attempts to divide us have failed, and we will make sure they will never succeed. Because today has shown again that we are united in our firm belief that Ukraine’s future will be a European one. We owe this unity to Ukraine, to their children and to our children, too. Thank you. Slava Ukraini!

– Mr President, I thank the honourable Members, and let me also join the warm welcome to the group of petitioners from Spain who are present here. Today we are discussing a motion for a resolution on the creation of a European capital of local trade and retail, and this proposal is built upon a petition put forward by federations of small retailers keen to give a more prominent role to local trade and small retail. The Petition Committee was unanimous to support this petition, and the Commission also sees value added in this initiative. First, let me emphasise the economic importance of the retail industrial ecosystem. It represents 11.5% of EU value added. It directly employs more than 29 million people across Europe, and it’s key for our citizens. Consumers spend on average 30% of their budget for their shopping through retail. And of course, the SME dimension is crucial: 5.5 million companies are active in the ecosystem, 99% of which are SMEs. And we know how the retail ecosystem was badly hurt by the COVID-19 pandemic. Shops were either closed or bound by stringent precautionary measures. Thanks to a strong and ambitious EU response we managed to alleviate many of these impacts, but still SMEs were the ones which suffered most. So today the energy crisis is also harsh on retailers and in particular on retail SMEs. We all have in mind the bakeries example, here again we have worked hard to provide emergency solutions through energy policy or state-aid tools. Honourable Members, retailers play a crucial role in our communities. They provide local employment, proximity to consumers and build the social fabric. A thriving small retail sector is essential for attracting city centres. Retail is equally important for maintaining lively rural areas and boosting local supply chains, and through its ‘Revitalise Retail’ actions, the Commission is supporting these objectives. Back in 2018, the Commission published a guide for competent authorities to help them support their local small retailers to modernise and revitalise. Based on the guide, the Commission has organised workshops to encourage sharing best practices. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we held virtual worship workshops with a focus on sharing innovative ways to keep in touch with consumers. And currently we are gathering stories of retail SMEs who have successfully embraced innovative green and digital solutions and transformed their business models. They should provide inspiration for SMEs wishing to respond to the challenges of digital and green transition. Last but not least, I would like to mention the transition pathways announced in the industrial strategy update. Such pathways support the green and digital transition of industrial ecosystems, among which the retail ecosystem. The Commission is planning the launch of a public consultation on it in the coming months. But it may be not enough. In this context, the Commission considers that the proposal to create a European capital of local trade and small retail can take the Revitalise Retail action even further. Beyond that, the draft resolution also includes several additional proposed measures, which confirms a lot of enthusiasm, and many ideas to support the small retail sector. And we will assess further how to benefit and how to best follow up on these measures while avoiding duplications. And on the central issue of the creation of the European capital of local trade, the Commission would welcome if the European Parliament would support the action through a pilot project, and I’m convinced it would be a very positive development in the long-standing Commission and the European Parliament commitment to support SMEs and in particular retail SMEs.

– Honourable Members, thank you for this productive and very consensual exchange. I have taken good note of all your remarks and observations, and I’m very pleased to see a large majority supporting Ms Weiss’ report. Let me briefly reflect on some of the key issues raised. First of all, as regards the proposed ban on the export of plastic waste from the EU, which, as I already said in my introductory remarks, we will need to assess very carefully. The EU rules on the export of plastic waste have become stricter since 2021, and this has already led to a decrease in the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries over the last two years. Furthermore, with our proposal, we are proposing a new regime applying to the export of all waste that will, in practice, further strengthen the conditions under which plastic waste could be exported outside the European Union. We have not pursued the option of a complete export ban for plastic waste in our proposal as, according to international rules, a restriction on trade has to be grounded on purely environmental grounds and can only be imposed when no other less trade-restrictive measures are available to achieve the objectives. In this case, we believe that the measures in the Commission proposal are both effective in curbing plastic pollution caused by our exports of plastic waste and proportionate to the problems. We also believe that our proposal could contribute to raising the standards for the management of plastic waste in third countries. So, as I said, we will look at it very carefully, but we need to make sure that it is in full compliance with our international commitments. As regards comments on exports of steel and iron scrap. The Commission proposal includes strong measures to ensure that waste, including metal waste, is treated in broadly equivalent conditions to the European Union, and these measures are expected to lead to a decrease of waste exports. And our impact assessment showed that the EU industry has the capacity to process this waste. As regards labour conditions in third countries and sustainable management of waste, we have taken note of a proposal of the European Parliament to consider eight International Labour Organization conventions and we are open to considering including such agreements in country assessments. We want to point out that recently two additional conventions were concluded under the umbrella of ILO, and we invite colleagues to also take them into account in the light of the proposed amendment. Finally, as regards illegal shipment activities, the Commission is working closely with enforcement agencies from the EU Member States, the EU Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law, Europol and international organisations like the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and the Basel Convention to tackle illegal waste management activities and illegal waste shipments. And the EU notably supports cross-border investigations and cooperation between enforcement agencies in its Member States, and this is reinforced in the Waste Shipment Regulation. So, honourable Members, as I said at the outset, the Commission is fully committed to advancing as rapidly as possible on this file. You can count on our support to help the co-legislators ensure that ambitious futureproof rules start applying to waste shipments without any delay. We hope for swift progress under the Swedish Presidency to match the pace of work in the European Parliament.

– Mr President, honourable Members, let me thank the European Parliament for the very comprehensive work that has gone into this file. My thanks go in particular to Pernille Weiss and her team, together with all the shadow rapporteurs for their very full scrutiny of this proposal for new EU rules on waste shipments. The progress you have made so far is very welcome, and we particularly appreciate Parliament’s strong support in keeping the essential elements that form the heart of the Commission proposal. Reducing the EU environmental footprint linked to the export of waste to third countries, building up a robust EU market for waste, going for recycling and addressing waste trafficking, which is one of the most prevalent forms of environmental crime. Stricter controls on our waste exports will make sure that we take responsibility of the waste produced in the EU. The regulation as a whole has great potential to accelerate the transition to a more circular and climate-neutral economy. Facilitating the shipment of waste for recycling within the EU will help with the decarbonisation of EU industry, as waste reuse and recycling are both far less CO2-intensive than the use of primary raw materials. Finally, legal shipments: potentially compromising up to 30% of waste shipments worth 9.5 billion annually. And we need to step up action on waste trafficking. The Commission will support investigations by Member States on transnational crime linked to waste trafficking with the support of the EU Anti-Fraud Office. I also thank the Parliament for highlighting the important links between waste shipments and waste policy in general and climate change mitigation, global sustainable development and labour rights. And let me briefly mention two elements of your report which we will need to monitor very carefully in the course of further interinstitutional discussions and negotiations. So we take note of your call for a stricter approach on the export of plastic waste. The Commission will look into this very carefully and will have to consider the legal implications of this amendment, especially its compatibility with the EU’s international commitments. We need to fully assess if a blanket ban on the general export of plastic waste would be necessary and provide a better solution than the measures the Commission proposed to achieve our policy objectives. Respecting the EU’s international obligations will be, of course, key in this context. I would also like to add a word of caution on the tasks you expect the Commission to perform once the regulation is adopted. Some of the changes proposed in your report would create a substantial additional workload for the Commission, needing a considerable increase in staff with expenditure for heading seven already close to the ceiling set for the MFF. The resource implications of the proposed amendments needs to be very carefully considered. Honourable Members, our waste is our responsibility. Letting waste pollute the environment and end up in illegal dumpsters or in our oceans is a real loss of resources which are precious for the EU’s transition to a circular economy. And this proposal is a decisive move to create the most advanced waste shipment system in the world and bring this system to the digital era, too. Our goal is to make sure that waste generated in the EU is managed in a sustainable way so that it does not harm nature and health, but opens up new opportunities for green growth and innovation. And I am confident that we can achieve swift progress towards finalising the negotiations on this regulation. The sooner the new harmonised rules start applying, the better. My team and I are ready to continue providing every support necessary. We look forward to start to the trilogue negotiations as soon as possible and we hope that the Council would also be ready to do so without delay. Thank you. And I, of course, now look forward to hearing your views.

– Mr President, Minister, honourable Members, thank you very much for this rich debate and for your comments and interventions, of which I took good note, and thank you very much for your great support. Let me come back just to a couple of points that some of you raised. First of all, of course, resource mobilisation. Yes, this will be a key point in the negotiations. The package must cover the means of implementation in the broad sense. We need to scale up financing from all sources, and in particular domestic finances. We also need to remove, redirect or repurpose environmentally harmful subsidies and incentives, and we need to increase positive incentives and align all financial flows with biodiversity objectives. We want clear and operational provisions on mobilising resources from all sources. Without this, the framework would be a dead letter. Because I have also heard some of you drawing parallels to what have happened in Sharm el—Sheikh, let me also mention that without any significant increase in official development assistance, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to strike an ambitious deal. Combined efforts by EU Member States, as well as from a wider range of donors, will be necessary to achieve full impact. At COP11, the parties agreed on doubling biodiversity—related international financial resource flows to developing countries. The EU has delivered on this commitment, and the Commission will double again its financing over the period 2021—2027. France and Germany also made significant pledges. We are pushing other donors to come up with similar increases. We will need a very practical and pragmatic conversation if we want to identify solutions that can work for all. The EU and Member States certainly want to avoid to agree on a pledge that at the end of the day cannot be delivered. We should avoid a situation, as for climate, where perceived lack of financing becomes a political stumbling block for full implementation. Last, Ms Paulus, let me say that based on assessment by the IUCN, we have a clear list of species that are at risk of extinction. We need urgent action by 2030 to save these species. However, the vast majority of species is unknown to us, and yet the IPPS global assessment in 2019 estimated that one million species is at risk of extinction. The 2050 goal should be to save all the species, bringing the rate of extinction back to the natural background level. Dear colleagues, Members of the Parliament, let me use very clear words. Our biodiversity life on Earth is in danger. We are part of that biodiversity. We too are in danger. So we must stop biodiversity loss and restore nature. Therefore, our key priority is a successful COP. The negotiations in Montreal are our chance to adopt a framework that credibly addresses biodiversity crisis.

– Mr President, Minister, honourable members, the UN biodiversity COP – COP 15 – is almost upon us. A successful COP, one that adopts an ambitious post—2020 global biodiversity framework, is a key priority for the Commission and for me personally. Protecting the health of people and the planet are central elements of the European Green Deal, and we must reverse the trend of biodiversity loss and we must do this urgently. One million species are at risk of extinction. We need nature for food security, disaster risk reduction, sustainable jobs, poverty, education and health. We need a framework that credibly addresses the biodiversity crisis. And let me remind you, we will never solve the climate crisis if we do not help nature, our best ally, offering us so many nature—based solutions. The finishing line is approaching and a huge number of issues are still to be resolved. There are large divides on key issues. Last week in Sharm El Sheikh I had several meetings with ministers, including a high—level event organised by China and Canada. Many of the discussions at COP 27 were important stepping stones towards COP 15. They reaffirmed the importance of tackling the nature crisis. COP 27 confirmed loud and clear that there is no way to limit global warming to 1.5ºC without taking action to protect and restore nature, including a first—ever mention in the cover text of tipping points and nature—based solutions. As I’m sure you recall, we have several key priorities for the post—2020 global biodiversity framework. Let me start with targets to ensure sustainable use of biodiversity. We need strong targets to eradicate illegal, unsustainable and unsafe exploitation of species, targets to ensure that all areas under agriculture, forestry and fisheries are managed sustainably. Integrating biodiversity across policies and sector is a key priority for Europe. We also need ambitious targets to address the direct drivers of loss, not only for the sake of nature, but also for sustainable livelihoods and poverty eradication. This is because pollution is also a health issue. Invasive alien species threaten food security, and so on. We need nature for so many different reasons. We need to restore 3 billion hectares of terrestrial and 3 billion hectares of marine ecosystems. This corresponds to roughly 30% of degraded terrestrial ecosystems and 10% of degraded marine ecosystems. This target is best expressed in hectares because parties have diverging views on how many areas are degraded. The 3 + 3 billion hectares may seem ambitious, but let us keep in mind that this target focuses on bringing areas under restoration and not about completed restoration. We need to protect 30% of land and oceans – the 30 by 30 target. In our engagement with other parties, we should underline that protection goes well together with economic activities that don’t jeopardise the conservation objectives. Moreover, the target can be achieved by establishing protected areas and other effective conservation measures if they offer the same level of protection. And these other measures can, for example, be land—managed by indigenous people. This creates flexibility for implementation. Similarly, not all marine protected areas have to be no—take zones, or not all the time. Some fisheries activities are compatible with conservation objectives. When we implement this target, it will be crucial to respect and safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. They are essential stewards of biodiversity. We are aware that some of them fear being expelled from their lands and indeed there have been terrible examples of this in the past. But the 30—by—30 target can and must be achieved while safeguarding the rights. In fact, we expect the 30—by—30 target to bring them significant benefits. Lastly, 30—by—30 target should focus not only on protecting a percentage of lands and oceans, but also on qualitative aspects. We must protect the areas most important for biodiversity and ecosystem services. We also need to ensure effective management and connectivity. We do not want paper parks. But we also have other priorities which are equally important. We must ensure solid biodiversity outcomes by the middle of the century. That includes halting human—induced extinction, increasing ecological integrity and connectivity, and increasing the area of natural ecosystems by 20%. We need a significant reduction of our ecological footprint by 2030 to bring it within planetary boundaries by 2050. We want clear and operational provisions on financing of implementation. This is absolutely essential and without it, there will be simply no agreement. We must align all financial flows with biodiversity objectives and eliminate or repurpose harmful subsidies. The ECB estimates that those subsidies are around USD 800 billion. For each dollar that we spend on biodiversity funding, we currently spend 8 dollars harming biodiversity. It will not be possible to achieve our goals when taking one step forward, we then take eight steps back. We need to mobilise resources from all sources. That starts with domestic sources and we need to involve the private sector. However, we also know that a significant increase of international public biodiversity financing will be needed. President von der Leyen has pledged a doubling of our international biodiversity funding to EUR 7 billion over the period of 2021—2027. This money is targeted primarily at the most vulnerable countries. Germany and France have pledged similar increases. And let me underline we need all EU Member States, as well as other public and private donors, to contribute. In addition, we are fully committed to the third objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity on access and benefit—sharing. We constructively engage in the discussions on this matter and are ready to contribute to a positive solution. And we should not repeat the mistakes we found with the Aichi framework. The global biodiversity framework will only make a difference if it includes both a strong monitoring framework and much stronger mechanisms for review of implementation. And this should include a regular reviewing cycle. All parties should report national targets within one year from COP 15 as a basis for a global analysis of collective ambition. And this is kind of global gap report to see where the collective ambition stands. All parties should use the same headline indicators so we can measure collective progress. National reports and scientific evidence would feed into a stocktake, and this would assess progress towards the global goals and targets based on an assessment of national reports and the relevant scientific evidence. And this stocktake should be followed by a transparent process during which parties indicate where they step up ambitions or implementations. This monitoring framework should be adopted at COP 15, together with the first set of indicators. We cannot postpone this if we want the parties to start reporting and it is not necessary to postpone this. There has been good progress on identifying the indicators. Of course, the work will continue towards COP 16, where additional indicators should be adopted. Our policies will not succeed without sound science. The EU provides funding for a significant research programme on nature and nature—based solutions. We are also putting in place a global knowledge centre for biodiversity, a science service for all to be launched at COP 15. This knowledge centre aims to help developing countries to build capacity for monitoring and reporting and to make data collection easier. The EU and Member States’ preparations are in full swing. In October, the Council adopted conclusions setting out the key elements of our positions. The details are being finalised and I am really grateful to the Czech Presidency for the effective steering of our preparations. Dear Members of the Parliament, I am also very happy that a sizeable delegation from the Parliament will join the EU delegation in Montreal because your support will be very welcome, and I look forward to meeting you there and to staying in close touch with you during the negotiations. Thank you for your attention.

– Mr President, Minister, honourable Members, let me first of all sincerely thank you once again for your support for Ukraine, for Parliament’s solidarity and for the urgency and priority that Parliament has given to this file. I would also like to thank you for your interventions and comments, to which I have listened very carefully. I would like to reply just to a couple of questions which require a very clear answer. One Member has asked whether we really want to send all this money to Ukraine. Our clear answer is ‘yes’. Because, as many of you have said today, it’s about solidarity, it’s about humanity and about standing on the right side of history. I also heard questions as to whether we know where all this money goes. Again, I can reply with a clear ‘yes’. This money goes to the budget for immediate needs – pensions, salary, rebuilding critical infrastructure, which we have seen destroyed by Russian bombs, and actually it’s being destroyed right now while we are discussing it. Ukrainians, they are left without water, electricity, heating, hospitals. Finally, some of you have seen a risk and point to corruption and the need to scrutinise well the money spent. So let me stress again that we are ready to work with Ukraine on a memorandum of understanding to include areas for conditions to strengthen the rule of law and fight against corruption. We aim to sign this memorandum of understanding as soon as we get approval for our proposal by the European Parliament and Council. Dear Members of the Parliament, once again thank you. Thank you for the overwhelming majority of Members who supported our proposal in today’s debate. It’s vital for our Ukrainian friends that the entire package goes through quickly, and we will of course keep this House duly informed about future developments. Slava Ukraini!

– Madam President, Minister, honourable Members, I would like to start this debate by reaffirming the EU’s solidarity with Ukraine. While Russia continues its brutal war, killing Ukraine’s citizens and destroying infrastructure, the EU stands with Ukraine as long as it takes. The EU remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and its inherent right of self-defence against Russia’s aggression, as enshrined in the UN Charter. Russia must stop its illegal war of aggression, which has taken a heavy human toll and deeply damaged Ukraine’s society and economic potential. The destruction of physical capital and infrastructure is immense. By the end of May, it is estimated to have cost reconstruction and recovery costs of USD 349 billion; almost 14 million people have been forced to leave their homes. It is an extremely challenging context. Ukraine’s funding needs will continue to be acute in 2023. The EU, its Member States and the European financial institutions under the Team Europe approach are fulfilling their promise to provide sizeable support to Ukraine. In total, almost EUR 20 billion have been mobilised in 2022, in addition to military assistance. And I would like to thank the European Parliament for its unwavering support for Ukraine and its continuous cooperation. This includes the Parliament’s support under the urgency procedure for the legislative proposal made by the Commission. Yesterday we disbursed another EUR 2.5 billion of exceptional macro-financial assistance to Ukraine. This brings the Union’s macro-financial assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the war to EUR 6.7 billion: emergency MFA of EUR 1.2 billion disbursed in March, exceptional MFA of EUR 1 billion disbursed in August and an exceptional MFA of EUR 4.5 billion disbursed in October and November. We expect to disburse another EUR 500 million of exceptional MFA to Ukraine in December, once the authorities have shown that they have met the conditionality agreed in the related memorandum of understanding. So far there has been satisfactory progress with implementation and we are confident that the Ukrainian authorities will meet their commitments. Based on the enhanced reporting requirements linked to the exceptional MFA designed to ensure the transparency and efficiency of the use of funds, Ukraine has reported that the funds have been used to repay maturing domestic liabilities. In that sense, the Union’s support has effectively contributed to limit Ukraine’s recourse monetary financing of its government. That way, the Union’s MFA has achieved its goal of maintaining macro-financial stability and preserving the stock of official international reserves of Ukraine, which stabilised at above USD 25 billion since September. Estimates of Ukraine’s funding gap in 2023 are exceptionally uncertain, ranging from EUR 3 to 4 billion per month, notably depending on the length of the war and the inflicted damage. To help Ukraine cover its sizable funding gap in 2023, on 9 November the Commission presented a proposal for a new instrument: Macro-Financial Assistance Plus. It aims to channel up to EUR 18 billion in highly concessional loans to Ukraine in 2023 in a predictable, continuous, orderly and timely manner. Such an unprecedented amount will allow Ukraine to ensure macroeconomic stability and restore critical infrastructure destroyed by Russia. To ensure maximum concessionality, the loans provided under the MFA+ instrument should have long maturities and there will be no repayment of principal before 2033. To secure the funds for the loans, the Commission proposes to borrow on capital markets using the diversified funding strategy via a targeted amendment of the Financial Regulation and this would enable the Commission to use the full portfolio of funding instruments to secure market funding on the most advantageous terms. To guarantee this borrowing for Ukraine, the Commission proposes to use the headroom of the 2021-2027 EU budget in a targeted manner for Ukraine, limited in time, and this will be done via a targeted amendment of the MFF Regulation. The headroom is the difference between the own reserve ceilings – so the maximum amount of resources that the Commission can ask Member States to contribute in a given year – and the funds that it actually needs to cover the expenses envisioned in the budget. The EU will also cover the interest—rate costs of Ukraine to be financed by voluntary contributions from Member States in the form of external assigned revenue, and the scale of the required interest payments under the proposed MFA+ funding will depend on the rate at which the Commission raises the funds on the capital markets within its diversified funding strategy. Current market extrapolations point to estimated interest—rate costs of less than EUR 600 million per year. These costs will only come into effect from 2024 onwards because there will be no interest payments related to these funds in 2023. Allocation of the costs across Member States will be done on the basis of the GNI key. Financial support for Ukraine in 2023 will entail conditionality to be negotiated with Ukraine in a memorandum of understanding. Obviously, implementing a structural reform agenda in a country at war is not an easy task and it puts a premium on relevance and feasibility. This conditionality will feature reforms to further enhance the rule of law, good governance, anti-fraud and anti-corruption measures. And this is essential for the country’s future reconstruction and for supporting Ukraine on its path to EU accession, as well as ensuring the financial interests of the Union. The Commission intends to negotiate the memorandum of understanding without delay once the MFA+ instrument is legally in place, and we are confident that this will allow us a swift disbursement to be made in January 2023. It is important that the emergency financial assistance for Ukraine from all other international partners, both bilateral and multilateral, should continue in 2023 as it was in 2022. The Commission is in regular contact with the international financial institutions and also in the G7 framework to ensure cooperation and coordination. But honourable Members, macro—financial assistance is only one element of the Union’s support for Ukraine. Since the beginning of the Russian invasion, the overall Team Europe assistance pledged to Ukraine amounts close to EUR 20 billion. This combines the support enabled by the European Union budget. In addition to the financial assistance, the Union has also made military equipment available through the European Peace Facility, plus over EUR 100 million of CSDP support for training missions, as well as in-kind assistance under the Union’s civil protection mechanism. On humanitarian assistance, the EU, together with its Member States, have mobilised more than EUR 1.5 billion, of which about EUR 500 million comes from the EU budget. The EU’s comprehensive humanitarian and civil—protection assistance is far from being a short term deal. The EU is with Ukraine for the long haul. Honourable Members, once again, I would like to thank the European Parliament for the urgency and priority that it has given to this file. It is vital for our Ukrainian friends that this entire package goes through quickly. It is also vital for Europe’s credibility as a whole.

– Mr President, honourable Members, Minister, I would like, first of all, to thank all of you for your interventions and the good debate today. The terrible events we have experienced this summer in Europe and worldwide are yet another wake-up call. Natural question: how many of those wake-up calls do we still need? Many of you call today for clear political will, and I couldn’t agree more that it’s high time to prove our political will – our political will to properly implement European legislation that is in place to make our nature more resilient and slow down climate change, but also political will to further step up efforts and show more ambition. Because what the extreme weather events over the last year showed is that climate change and loss of biodiversity are progressing faster and faster. The reply cannot be a lowering of our ambition, but more commitment to increase it. Some of you were asking whether we are late. Yes, we are. But hopefully not too late if we now urgently speed up and step up, better prepare for and address the climate crisis – and let us be clear, every single region in Europe will be affected by the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss, even those which so far thought they were more or less safe. To those who mentioned agriculture today and the need to support our farmers, let me be very clear. Our greener CAP, our biodiversity strategy, our ‘farm to fork’ strategy, they are our straightjacket for our farmers. They are our plan to make them more resilient – more resilient against biodiversity loss, against climate change, including of course natural disasters and their consequences that they are already facing. Our policy is an insurance policy for the future, for all the sectors, so much dependent on healthy nature. Without a healthy, resilient nature, there will be no food security. This is also what we will discuss with the Czech Presidency at the next Environment Council, when we will prepare our two key international meetings this year: COP27 for climate and COP15 on biodiversity. Sharm el-Sheikh and Montreal will be key opportunities to get the world on-board and to show commitment also at international level and to promote what is a truly smart solution. I am talking here, of course, about nature-based solutions, protecting and restoring wetlands, peatlands, coastal and marine ecosystems, developing urban green spaces and installing green roofs and walls, or promoting sustainably—managed forests and farmland. These smart solutions help mitigate climate change at the same time as reversing biodiversity loss. They all contribute, for example, to better regulate temperatures, to absorb flood overflows and to attenuate the effects of extreme droughts. It is the EU’s commitment, if a disaster strikes, to respond and to deliver assistance in the spirit of solidarity, both domestically and abroad. Let me join all of those who have paid tribute today to firefighters and all of those who helped and did everything they could to lower the suffering. But it’s also the EU’s commitment to avoid disaster, to hit hard in the first place and to protect society against suffering and damage. We have the strategic framework and the tools at our disposal. Climate adaptation policy is already mainstreamed in a number of areas. Prevention requires more political attention that it has been given so far. Our legal deadline is to get ahead of climate change, and for this we need to act on science more than ever. We need a more coordinated effort, targeted funding for good adaptation solutions, rigorous and fast implementation at all levels, not only after a summer like this one, but on a continuous basis every day.

– Mr President, honourable Members, Minister, the climate crisis is here. With scorching heat, devastating droughts, historic levels of forest fires or deadly floods across the globe. It left one third of Pakistan underwater while uncovering riverbeds of the Loire, Rhine or Elbe. Remote possibility turned into a harsh reality, yet again, in Europe. Water scarcity has crippled the energy generation from hydropower. Temperatures hit hard the cooling for nuclear plants and pushed up energy demand for cooling and energy prices, constituting a burden for consumers and industry and dampening economic recovery. Droughts are affecting crop yields and adding to the overall public concern of unfolding food-price increase. Heat is exhausting the population, impacting our well-being, certain jobs and outdoor activities already affected by the pandemic. For the younger generation, this may be the coldest summer they experience. The most recent assessment of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2021 and 2022, confirms that most of the changes now observed in the climate system are related to the increase of greenhouse-gas emissions over the past decades related to human activities. The scientists are warning that the intensity and frequency of extreme-climate events is set to increase as the climate warms. Many people rightfully ask: are we equipped to deal with situations of such a gravity? This strategic framework is there. The climate law commits the EU and its Member States to a duty to adapt with regular reporting, assessment of collective progress and consistency of efforts, with the objective of climate resilience. In 2021, in the EU Adopt Adaptation Strategy, we have identified areas where progress at EU level on climate resilience is necessary if we are to get ahead of impacts before they do damage. No doubt the gravity of the climate crisis demands transformational change across all sectors, systems and parts of the society. We have taken a whole-of-government approach looking at macroeconomics, competition or health angles to properly address this broad challenge. In principle, when we prepare European legislation, we are under the obligation to assess whether this impacts negatively on our adaptive capacity or increases our vulnerability to climate change. All EU funded infrastructure should be climate proof. Project promoters and responsible authorities should make sure that the future climate scenarios are used, vulnerabilities identified, and potential material impacts avoided or minimised. Understanding fully what the future risks are, is essential. That is why our in-house science and knowledge service, the Joint Research Centre, has made it a priority to provide new science evidence and tools for anticipating and managing the crises of the future. We launched the work with the European Environment Agency towards an EU-wide forward-looking risk assessment that should allow us, based on the best science, to identify key risks, key hotspots in Europe and table inconvenient yet pressing issues about the fate of certain sectors, relevance of certain policy objectives and necessary interventions. Furthermore, we will launch a dialogue with the insurance, financial sector, real estate or cities, to identify and examine the main reasons behind the widening climate-protection gap and ways to address them. There are significant European funds already available for financing adaptation to climate change from the common agricultural policy through cohesion policy, recovery funds to LIFE or Horizon Europe. It is teamwork. We all must work together – European, national, regional and local authorities, researchers, businesses, representatives of civil society and citizens. The EU Mission for Adaptation to Climate Change, launched in September 2021, is putting the EU adaptation strategy in practice on the ground by helping Europe’s regions become more resilient to the impacts of climate change. A call for testing and demonstrating transformative solutions of climate resilience worth EUR 88 million is out and will be closed by the end of September. Adaptation to climate change requires local action to better understand the existing and future climate risks; to develop climate-adaptation pathways to be better prepared and cope with the changing climate; to test and deploy on the ground the needed solutions to build resilience. This is what the mission should offer to 150 regions in the coming years, up to 2030. The other Horizon missions on climate-neutral cities, soils and oceans will also include activities in support of building climate resilience across Europe. Lack of capacity is an essential element of vulnerability. We need to work with Member States, regions and local authorities to build up their capacity, understanding, anticipation and the governance for climate adaptation that is commensurate with amplifying faster climate impacts. Sustainable and climate-resilient management of our water resources will make the EU more resilient to droughts and increasing water stress. Droughts can be managed on an ad hoc basis or by preparing and following strategies or plans. The European Commission recommends establishing specific drought-management plans where relevant, complementing river- basin-management plans required by the Water Framework Directive. With integrated water management, water reuse can play a significant role in addressing droughts and water scarcity. The regulation on water reuse for agricultural irrigation offers a legal framework for this alternative water-supply option, and the Commission will further explore possible water-reuse uptake beyond agricultural irrigation. And let me stress in particular also the crucial role of healthy soils in the water cycle, which makes them an indispensable ally for climate adaptation. The restoration of the sponge-like function of soils can boost the supply of clean fresh water and reduce the risk of flooding and drought. This is why we proposed a nature restoration law in June this year, and we are developing, following up on a strong request from the European Parliament, a new soil health law to be proposed in spring next year. A wide number of soil-protection measures are available that help retain water and reduce water needs, and avoid and increase resilience of droughts. Therefore, applying specific sustainable-management practices that retain moisture, planting bushes and trees that generate shade and cultivating plants and crops, species and variants adapted to dry climatic conditions can reverse the trend towards desertification and restore soils that are already affected. In 2023, we will also present a proposal for a forest-monitoring law to provide Member States with satellite imaging and other state-of-the-art information services, helping them to minimise and optimise forest-management practices. Copernicus, the EU Satellite Earth Observation Programme, represents a key asset in this regard, and this will keep forests resilient, enabling them to perform multiple ecosystem services while meeting market demands. In addition, prevention is crucial to reduce the risks and the impacts of forest fires. This summer, we have witnessed an alarming acceleration and spread of wildfires across Europe. And although the season is not over yet, it already broke all the records. The number of large fires and the hectares of land that were burned amount to approximately 800 000. This is about three times the size of Luxembourg or one quarter of Belgium. European solidarity remains unbroken, thanks also to the strategic decision-making of previous years to pool capacities at European level and share them across the board. However, we must do more at European level; we need to find ways to ease the national burden more quickly. Solidarity across Europe, when everyone is affected at the same time, cannot be taken for granted. Since June, 23 deployments of firefighting planes and eight of helicopters have taken place in response to ten requests for assistance under the Union Civil Protection Mechanism. To be better prepared for next year, the Commissioner for Crisis Management, Janez Lenarčič, and the Czech Presidency called for an informal ministerial meeting on Monday 5 September. The Commission tabled a proposal to urgently expand the existing rescue transitional aerial fleet, which is every summer fully operational to support Member States when faced with simultaneous large forest fires, and accelerate the procurement of the permanent rescue fleet of aerial firefighting capacities. The Commission and Member States have invested much time and energy in negotiations for the production launch of new Canadair planes, which, however, will become available only between 2026 and 2030. To bridge the gap until the EU rescue fleet is available, faster procurement of firefighting helicopters for the next fire seasons and doubling the rescue transmission fleet with light amphibious aircraft and helicopters was discussed with Member States. Now it’s important that we mobilise the necessary budgetary resources so that the EU can help to better protect the lives of our citizens, their properties and livelihood.

– Mr President, honourable Members, dear rapporteurs, the Commission welcomes this interim report. It is based on the Commission’s proposal of December 2021 and it provides important and timely input for a targeted amendment of the Multiannual Financial Framework Regulation. Let me briefly recall two very specific objectives of the Commission proposal. First, to allow the financing of the Social Climate Fund, as proposed in July 2021, by increasing the relevant MFF ceilings by the exact amounts of expenditure proposed for the Social Climate Fund. Secondly, in conjunction with the proposal of December 2021 for introducing new own resources to the EU budget in line with the Interinstitutional Agreement of December 2020, to enable the use of new own resources, once introduced, for the repayment of Next Generation EU borrowing, without harming the integrity of the multiannual financial framework and its programme. I want to thank the European Parliament and, in particular, the rapporteurs for their support for the Commission proposal, which fully reflects the principles of unity and universality of the budget. We take good note of the focused modifications suggested by Parliament. We acknowledge that the amendment to the Multiannual Financial Framework Regulation is intrinsically linked to not only the new own resources proposal of December 2021, but also to sectoral legislative proposals, namely the Social Climate Fund, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and the Emissions Trading System Directive. On the latter, the trilogue negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council are still ongoing. The outcome of this legislative process will, of course, be decisive for the further consideration of this targeted amendment of the multiannual financial framework proposal. To close, let me once again thank Parliament for this constructive interim report.

– Mr President, honourable Members, let me start by stressing that the Commission very much welcomes this very timely and important report. Schools across the EU are now trying to address negative trends in students’ competence and mental health due to loss of in-person teaching and social distancing during the COVID-19 crisis. This report will be instrumental in helping us direct efforts to support learning institutions across Europe. I would like to assure you that the Commission has been closely monitoring the situation and working with the Member States in this regard. We have already taken several steps towards alleviating the negative impact that COVID-19 closures of educational, cultural, youth and sports activities had on children and young people in the EU. As a result, three recently—published reference documents help Member States to address those challenges. First, in November last year, the Commission proposal for a Council recommendation on blended learning for high quality and inclusive primary and secondary education was adopted by the Council. The recommendation recognises that the physical, mental and emotional well—being of students was compromised during school closures. Secondly, a detailed framework for the social and personal key competences – LifeComp – outlines the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed by young people to take care of their physical, social and mental well—being. Third, on 30 June this year, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council recommendation on pathways to school success. The goal of all these initiatives is to address our major concerns – the post—COVID recovery, sustainability and under—achievement. This effort is part of our work on achieving the European Education Area by 2025. In fact, the new working group on schools under the European Education Area Strategic Framework for Cooperation started its work already last year. In particular, pathways will be complemented by an expert group on school well—being to be set up in the coming months. When it comes to the budget, about 13% of the total RRF envelope, amounting to more than EUR 63 billion, will be devoted to measures supporting education and skills. Investment in digital education and skills will be around EUR 28 billion. I would also like to stress that our Erasmus+ programme has provided invaluable during the crisis. For instance, in 2020, the Erasmus+ programme published two calls for proposals in the area of partnerships for digital education readiness and partnerships for creativity. Each provided EUR 100 million to respond to the educational challenges resulting from the COVID—19 pandemic. With an overall indicative financial envelope of about EUR 28 billion for 2021—2027, the programme is with nearly doubled funding compared to its predecessor, which opens additional opportunities. The programme also supports European online platforms for virtual cooperation and digital education, e-twinning and the school education gateway, which played a key role during the pandemic. In the field of sport and youth we also launched a number of initiatives like ‘Be active at home’, the European Week of Sport, HealthyLifestyle4All and the European Year of Youth 2022. As for culture, a sector that also suffered so much, the Commission published the Communication ‘Coronavirus: a common path to Europe’s safe re—opening’. Particularly useful in this context was the setting—up of Creatives Unite, a platform for and by the cultural and creative sectors. We made additional financial resources available through the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative, Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency, the Recovery and Resilience Facility, which can also be used for the cultural and creative sectors, REACT—EU and the future cohesion policy. The Creative Europe programme has an unprecedented budget of EUR 2.4 billion up to 2027, and this is an increase of 60% compared with the previous programme. Finally, we have worked a lot to encourage Member States to consider culture as a strategic investment. As a result, at EU level, more than 2% of the total budget of the recovery and resilience plan will be dedicated to the cultural and creative sectors. Mr President, honourable Members, again I would like to applaud the efforts of the CULT Committee of the European Parliament and particularly the work of the rapporteur, Mr Heide. Our joint work is fundamental to help our young overcome the negative consequences of those two years. With your excellent collaboration I am sure we can continue doing more.

– Mr President, honourable Members, I appreciate the discussion that we had today on the two proposals and I would like to thank again the rapporteur and all of those involved in the negotiations on both files. A couple of you – Mr Mato, Mr González and other honourable Members –also made some more general observations on the role of our fishing fleet and on the need to develop management measures in close dialogue with them. I absolutely agree with you, and this is what we, Member States, the European Commission, with your support, are doing and the transposition of files we are discussing today are key for our fleet. That’s why for these reasons we need to join forces in the future to transpose all measures much faster into EU law, simplifying the process. So I hope that I can truly count on your support. Honourable Members, the adoption of both proposals will update the relevant regulations with the most recent conservation and management measures. Of course, I hope that we can also make swift progress on the other outstanding RFMO implementation proposals and that we will keep working together towards improving the implementation process.

– Mr President, honourable Members, dear Ms Carvalhais, I would like to start by thanking you for bringing the negotiations on this important transpositions to a successful end. Let me briefly say a few words on both of them. The main purpose of the Commission proposal regarding the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization is to implement into EU law the most recent conservation and enforcement measures adopted by this organisation at its annual meeting in September 2021. As you know, such transposition of updated measures by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization is a regular legislative exercise. However, in addition, this Commission proposal includes delegated powers to the Commission concerning landing and inspection for Greenland halibut, as well as the control measures for cod in Division 3M. Such delegated powers are important in order to ensure a fast transposition into EU law of these technical rules that change every year. The adoption of this amending regulation will allow Union vessels to fish on the same footing as vessels from other contracting parties of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation for future fishing seasons. This has been a recurrent request from many stakeholders across the EU, and I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their full support for the Commission proposal. As regards the Commission proposal for a regulation for the Union Fleet operating in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Convention area, I believe that overall the amendments by the co-legislators improved the text. At the same time, those amendments are indeed in line with the organisation’s conservation and management measures. However, I regret that the co-legislators missed the opportunity to simplify the overall process of transposition, since some of the avenues proposed by the Commission to streamline the process were not supported by the co—legislators, despite Parliament’s and Council’s earlier calls on the Commission to further improve the process. I obviously fully respect your positions, but I think we missed a good opportunity here to simplify the procedures, which are currently too complex and long. The transposition process lasts on average 18 months – from the drafting of the proposal by the Commission to its adoption by the co-legislators. Considering the nature of this exercise, this is far too long and complicated. I would therefore like to ask for the inclusion of a statement on behalf of the Commission in the minutes of this debate reflecting our disappointment. The Commission will, in any case, continue to work together with the European Parliament and the Council on further improvements to the implementation of the process. In this particular context, I would like to point to the two Commission proposals for the transposition of international fisheries conservation measures which are currently stalled in the interinstitutional negotiations. One proposal concerns the conservation of the Atlantic bluefin tuna management plan, and the other the Atlantic bluefin tuna catch documentation scheme. I am concerned that such delays affect the credibility of the European Union in the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. It is indeed difficult to explain to our international partners why it takes so long for the EU to implement its international obligations. I am also concerned that the lack of transposition has negative consequences for the EU fishing fleet. We should really avoid this. We trust that work will pick up in light of the most recent additional amendment proposed by the Commission in April this year and, of course, I look forward to seeing these two files advanced quickly. Statement by the Commission (in writing) “The European Parliament and the Council underlined on several occasions the need to further improve the process of implementation of conservation measures adopted by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), notably in a timely manner. The Commission regrets that its attempt to streamline the implementation process has not been fully retained by the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission will continue to work together with the European Parliament and the Council on further improvements to the implementation process.”