Speeches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Mr President, honourable Members, Secretary of State. Let me start by thanking you for adding this important point to today’s agenda. It shows once more the strong interest of this House in securing sustainable water management and access to clean water for all citizens. Water has been high on our political agenda since the beginning of this mandate, and your support in raising further awareness is crucial. The early signs of water stress in Europe are already visible today. The global water cycle is changing. The new normal already includes prolonged droughts followed by floods in the same region, and the EU put robust rules in place to protect water and aquatic ecosystems. If those rules were respected in full, many elements of the current crisis would be less pressing, but a large number of ongoing infringement cases related to water shows that this is simply not happening yet. Drought and climate change exacerbate the problem. The first ever European Climate Risk Assessment, due in spring 2024, will surely remind us again of this reality and the need to take action in line with the EU adaptation strategy. All in all, this means we need a different approach. We need a systemic transformation of the way water is managed, used and valued, while always bearing in mind the need to protect nature and ecosystems. This is one reason why president von der Leyen, in her letter of intent to the European Parliament and the Council a few weeks ago, announced a water resilience initiative as one of the priorities for 2024. While we have already made progress, we know there is still a lot to do. Despite our efforts to improve water efficiency, demand is still growing in some sectors, and leakage levels in drinking water supply systems are unacceptably high. Over—abstraction and the over—allocation of water resources must come down. Major water users like industry, energy, transport and agriculture must do more to integrate water efficiency and water protection into their everyday practice. It took a major crisis to teach us how precious our energy is. It is time to apply a different mind-set to water as well. Rather than waiting for a crisis to happen, we need to prepare by taking comprehensive action. The ‘efficiency first’ principle must from now on apply to water, while also ensuring it remains affordable for all. Also, 20 years after adoption of the Water Framework Directive, we find that its pricing instrument is not used enough to promote a more efficient use – far from it. We need to address this as well. The truth is that in 2023, we still have not reduced pollution as much as we should. Only 31% of surface waters in Europe reach good chemical status. The result is an enormous reduction in the quantity of water that is fit for use. The fastest route to reducing pollution is set out in two proposals still pending before Council and Parliament. So your support for a revised list of water pollutants and the recast of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive is therefore fundamental. Council adopted a general approach on the revisions of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive yesterday. We are ready to start trilogues as soon as possible. We also need more action to ensure that the human right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a reality throughout the EU. This is why the recast Drinking Water Directive and our proposed recast of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive introduced new obligations on access to water for human consumption and sanitation, in particular for vulnerable and marginalised people. Special attention should be given to the outermost regions. For example, Mayotte is facing an unprecedented water and humanitarian crisis due to a major drought and the resulting lack of drinking water, and this is why the commission is providing EUR 47.5 million to Mayotte for investments in water infrastructure. The engine of the water cycle is our planet. We have to look after this engine. If we want adequate supplies of clean water, we need to nurture and restore the ecosystems that purify water and hold it in store – our soils, our forests, our rivers and our wetlands, plus our marine waters where our fisheries and coastal communities depend on unpolluted water for fisheries, aquaculture and tourism. This is why the Commission’s proposal on the Nature Restoration Law and the Soil Monitoring Law are both so important. They are key for protecting our natural systems that provide us freshwater. However, legislation alone will not solve these problems. An exit from the crisis will require firm action on many sides. For that, we also need to scale up and upgrade our investments in water. According to the OECD, current EU spending on water supply and sanitation amounts to around EUR 86 billion per year. By the year 2030, that need will grow by a huge amount, by up to EUR 255 billion. When we speak of investments in water infrastructure, we speak of ‘must’ investments, including research and innovation, to protecting river basins, the premier natural barrier against drought. Ground zero for resilience to droughts is healthy river basins that can absorb rainwater, replenish our ground waters and slowly release it over time. Between 2021 and 2027, some EUR 13 billion of Cohesion Policy funds will be invested in water services, water reuse and wastewater collection and treatment. One result of that will be clean water supplies to 16.5 million people. In addition to that, in their National Recovery and Resilience Plans, Member States allocate EUR 12 billion for water. This is significant, but modest in scale. To improve water resilience, the available EU resources should be used to the fullest, and we should also ensure full exploitation of potential support provided by the Common Agricultural Policy. Farmers need help in the transition to a more sustainable water use, increasing water efficiency, lowering pollution and switching to drought—resilient crops. The Commission, through the Technical Support Instrument, is providing expertise to increase water efficiency and restructure the water sector. Honourable Members, let me conclude by highlighting once again the importance of sustainable, resilient water management and of protecting the quality and quantity of fresh water by increasing the resilience of the water system and of sectors that rely on it. We move away from crisis management and we move towards the proactive management of risk. That is what we need for citizens today and for the water—stressed citizens of tomorrow.

– Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for your valuable reflections and views and let me briefly reply to the key points that you have raised. First of all, I would like to stress again what I have said during my introduction. Proposed standards: they are both realistic and implementable and we assessed that we could not align, unfortunately, to WHO standards for 2030, but only setting a trajectory for revision close to 2028. But standards should apply as of 2030 and we cannot lose more time. Secondly, as regards the air pollution improving: so, yes, it’s true, and those graphs that were shown. But it’s still a long journey for us ahead. We have managed to improve air quality. From 1 000 000 premature citizen deaths to 300 000 premature citizen deaths per year. So it’s 300 000 citizens too many every year. And I think this is our direct responsibility to take responsible decisions to ensure that this number is minimised. As regards the funding, especially with the Member States that have the worst air quality, overall, EUR 147 billion will be available for clean air directly or indirectly in the current funding period for 2021 and 2027. And this can be used, for instance, for cleaner energy, sustainable transport or air quality monitoring. And it’s more than three times as much as what was available in the previous funding period. So to make sure we cover the needs across the Member States and sector, this involves a number of EU funding programmes and, of course, I hope that Member States will put a high priority and use those funds. Now, as regards unachievable solutions to knock out the Alps. You don’t need to knock out the Alps. It’s true, our impact assessment recognises that without significant and additional local effort, only 6% of monitoring stations would be at risk of not meeting the proposed air quality standards by 2030. One example is northern Italy, where specific meteorological and orographic circumstances lead to reduced dispersion and thus accumulation of air pollution and this is aggravated by elevated emission levels from residential heating, including biomass burning as well as agricultural emissions across the Po valley. So that is precisely why our proposal already provides for the possibility to postpone the attainment of deadlines in specific situations under specific conditions. Yet we should not hold back the ambition level across the whole European Union to cater for a limited number of exceptions – exceptions that always come at a price for those that are exposed to poor air quality and who are very often the most vulnerable groups of the population. Now, also, I hear the calls of those who said ‘Why are we not aligning fully to WHO guideline levels?’ – I truly wish to do so, but as I said, you know, we have to be bound by our impact assessment and put on the table the proposal that is realistic to implement across the Member States. With this proposal, we revise air quality standards in two steps. First of all, we set intermediate 2030 EU air quality standards more closely aligned with WHO recommendations, which fully take into account technical feasibility and socioeconomic considerations. We set a clear trajectory for reaching a zero pollution objective, fully aligned with science, at the latest by 2050 through a regular review mechanism. This will allow us to move to full alignment with WHO recommendations as soon as new technology and policy developments allow us. And the first review will already take place in 2028 to prepare the post 2030 framework. Honourable Members, dear colleagues, I truly count on your support for the overall approach of our proposal. It’s reassuring to hear from you, first of all, willingness to keep the ambition of our proposal. The Commission stands ready to assist you through the negotiations process. I think what’s extremely important to remember is that this debate shows that we agree on the core objective of protecting citizens. But there are different views in terms of timing and ambition. I can reassure you, and I hope I’ve managed to do that in my answers, that the Commission’s position is, first of all, to be realistic of what’s possible to implement in upcoming years. So let’s remember that tomorrow’s vote is not the end. The most important part, of course, is going to come in the trilogues. The Commission stands ready to assist you throughout the process. And let me now call on you to ensure that we set a clear path towards a productive and conclusive discussion in the trilogues. I’m sure this is an issue where all of us want to reach an agreement before the next European Parliament elections, and I truly hope that we can swiftly agree to further improve this directive in the interests, first of all, of our citizens, for our environment and for our economy.

– Madam President, honourable Members, first of all, let me start by thanking rapporteur Javi López for the excellent work done to advance this file. Clean air is essential for all of us: our health, our environment, and our whole economy depend on it. So we must tackle this problem with ambition and a sense of urgency and with the clear objective of achieving better air quality by 2030 and zero pollution by 2050. With the European green deal and the zero pollution action plan, we are strongly committed to these objectives and in line with the expectations of EU citizens. It is for all of us to deliver on those commitments. Nearly 300 000 Europeans die prematurely each year as a result of air pollution. This is a huge number of lives we cannot afford to lose. Scientists, citizens, as well as this House, have called for urgent action to drastically reduce this figure and align to what are the science recommendations. In the Green Deal, we made a commitment to revise air quality standards and to align them more closely with the recommendations of the WHO. We also committed to strengthening provisions on monitoring, modelling and air quality plans to help local authorities achieve cleaner air. And this is exactly what we have done. Our proposal sets out four essential elements to substantially improve EU air quality. The first one is ambitious, yet achievable air quality standards. Our thorough impact assessment confirms that this is entirely feasible from both the technical and the socioeconomic point of view. The second is preserving and enhancing the reliability and robustness of the monitoring network with increased use of cost-effective methods like modelling. The third is better and more harmonised information for citizens, including on the health effects of air pollution. Lastly, we strengthen the provisions for governance and enforcement, and this includes establishing a new right for citizens to seek compensation for damaged health – also through collective action – building on well-established procedural guarantees, which makes collective redress action in the EU very different from other leading international jurisdictions. Honourable Members, let me conclude on the most critical issues. The new standards we propose are stricter, but also implementable. Our robust impact assessment confirms that they can be achieved by 2030 at up to 94% of EU monitoring stations with benefits that are at least seven times greater than the cost. It also shows that neither lowering nor delaying those standards is an option, as those changes would bear unacceptable costs in terms of human lives. And not only, as I said, any year we are losing the lives of 300 000 citizens. Our proposed standards would allow to decrease the premature deaths from air pollution by at least 70% in the next ten years. Thanks also to the synergies we can build with ambitious measures already adopted on transport, energy, the proposal would also lead to gross annual benefits estimated at between EUR 42 billion and EUR 121 billion in 2034, for less than a EUR 6 billion cost annually. Dear colleagues, I look forward to hearing your views and this is a very crucial and important topic, which I am sure is dear to European hearts, too.

– Madam President, honourable Members, I have found it very enriching to listen to the positions and concerns expressed during this debate. And it’s encouraging that so many of the interventions have been supportive of the Commission proposal and that there are few points on which honourable Members substantially disagree. Let me point out first, as regards the watch list, about making it mandatory as some raised, that it will result in increasing the costs and making them unacceptable for Member States. Under the current voluntary system, the watch list covers up to 30 substances, and the mandatory mechanism would limit the number of substances and monitoring points. For the mechanism to work, it’s important that all Member States deliver data, which is currently not the case, and that way we can be sure of correctly identifying the substances that pose a risk at EU level and thus of setting EU quality standards for the right substances. I reiterate my appreciation for the swift and robust work on this proposal, and I very much hope that this pace will continue in the next co-decision stages so that the new law can be adopted before Parliament recess. EU citizens are increasingly alarmed about the water quality and the water quantity, about too much or too little water. An update to the list of pollutants is long overdue, and Parliament’s support would clearly show that water quality and water quantity are two sides of the same coin. Unclean water means less water fit for use. That is a trend we cannot afford and Member States must act more decisively to protect the indispensable resource and the ecosystems that depend on it. Steps like this take us in the right direction and they help us develop the EU water resilience policy we need in line with the recommendations of the UN Water Conference in the spring of this year.

– Madam President, honourable Members, good afternoon. Pollution is a major pressure on water and biodiversity. It affects life in rivers, lakes and seas, and our ability to use this resource for drinking water or irrigation. As droughts become more common, we cannot afford to pollute the waters that remain. This debate on a key deliverable in the zero-pollution package is therefore very timely. Many of these issues can be addressed through more integrated water management and by revising the list of water pollutants and modernising their quality standards. Let me start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Brglez, who has led a very inclusive discussion together with rapporteurs of the AGRI and ITRE Committees and this approach has secured very broad support in the ENVI Committee. And such a strong backing reflects the very high concern that the European Parliament continues to show for water, as also witnessed in the plenary discussion on the water crisis in June. You have my sincere gratitude and respect for this stance. I very much welcome this supportive and ambitious report. The proposal is based on the latest scientific knowledge, including advice from the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks. It is the result of the extensive work with stakeholders and experts from the Member States who looked closely at which pollutants to include and the appropriate quality standards. In the face of new emerging threats and compelling toxicity evidence, we propose an expansion of the list of pollutants. A group of PFAs and other industrial substances, pesticides and pharmaceuticals have been included. Standards for some pollutants already listed have been tightened. For a few others, where science shows they are now less of a problem, standards should be relaxed. We know a lot about pollution, but in some cases not enough. And this is why we have strengthened the watch list mechanism with a preparedness system to generate better data, enabling us to act swiftly if the need arises. The proposal aims to reap all the benefits of digitalisation. It also strengthens transboundary cooperation when a pollution event affects several Member States. And this is very much needed, as we saw from the disaster in the Oder. The report presented here today proposes changes to the list of pollutants and standards, and there are suggestions for tighter deadlines and for no limits to the number of substances to be added to the watch list. Additional proposals include exploring extended producer responsibility, cost sharing for additional monitoring and the possibility of an EU water quality monitoring facility. While the general thrust here is very much in line with the Commission proposal, for some we will need to consider the practical feasibility and implementations. On the use of delegated acts, I would highlight the phrase ‘swift response’. I request your support to empower the Commission to introduce changes to the list and to quality standards for water pollutants more quickly. We need a more dynamic decision-making system to protect the environment and human health from emerging risks. Rest assured, this procedure will not lessen the necessary consultation of all parties. As for the report’s proposal on specific substances and standards, we acknowledge that some standards need to be corrected in light of the scientific committee’s final opinion. They will also be discussed with the Council. I’ll finish here. Thank you. And, of course, I look forward to the debate.

– Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for all your contributions. The Commission appreciates that there is a consensus on the need to step-up efforts to support Ukraine and adapt our defence industry to the new challenges the European security faces. EDIRPA is a limited action in budgetary terms, as we are all aware, but its importance should not be overlooked. As mentioned in the introduction, for the first time ever, the EU budget will support cooperation between Member States in the procurement phase – in terms of advancing European defence integration, this is a major step forward. Moreover, EDIRPA is not an isolated initiative, but echoes other initiatives announced in the joint communication and the ASAP Regulation. Together, both measures will inject EUR 800 million into European defence, strengthening its resilience. They complement the European Defence Fund, which is already implementing and creating new cooperation between the defence industry in Europe on RTD projects. Research and development, joint procurement, direct support to the industrial ammunition production base – the EU budget now has a very clear role to play in consolidating our European defence ambitions. The Commission appreciates Parliament’s unwavering support in this direction for more cooperation, more efficiency in the European public spending and more collective resilience and, above all, for a more secure Europe. Supporting EDIRPA tomorrow will be a strong signal of our determination to do so.

– Madam President, honourable Members, today we mark a new stage in European defence integration. As Russia’s unprovoked war continues to rage on European soil, we are about to adopt EDIRPA, a new instrument to support the joint procurement of armaments. And I would like to thank the co-rapporteurs, the shadow rapporteurs and the individual Member States who worked on this text, which tomorrow the Chamber will have the opportunity to adopt. For the first time, the EU budget will encourage Member States to jointly procure the most urgent and critical defence products. This is an historic step forward. With this new initiative, our objectives are manifold. First, we want to respond to the difficult proof the war in Ukraine made bluntly clear: Europe must restore its collective defence capabilities. Since 24 February, together with our allies and through the mobilisation of the European Peace Facility, we have organised and supported the transfer of arms to Ukraine. It is a massive effort – unprecedented. However, to facilitate the support, the Member States must draw on their stocks: ammunition, light or heavy artillery, anti-aircraft or anti-tank defence systems, armoured vehicles, tanks and as we recently heard, even F-16s. This both limits the possibilities of Member States to provide further support to war-ravaged Ukraine and weakens Member States’ defensive capacities. We must address this urgently. With the new European joint procurement instrument we are proposing a European mechanism to carry out part of this stock recovery effort. This will come in support, for instance, of the recent framework contract that the EDA just managed to conclude on ammunitions as part of the three-track approach on ammunitions, and this shows that there is increasing momentum within Member States to join procurement. EDIRPA will help us to sustain and increase this momentum. Secondly, we want to avoid fragmentation. Many Member States have announced a significant increase in defence spending in the face of the new security situation. There is a risk, however, that investments will be made purely along the national lines, and that would mean a fragmentation of armaments offers, a very damaging lack of interoperability and a challenge to the efforts made with the European Defence Fund to develop an integrated a European Defence Industrial Base. With EDIRPA, we offer Member States a path, a European alternative, by creating a common incentive and investment framework. Thirdly, we want to support the adaptation of the European industry to the harsh reality, the return of high intensity conflicts in our continent. Our industrial base is currently not prepared, neither in terms of volume nor pace to cope with the new security situation at our borders. And since Member States need the same equipment at the same time and in large volumes, there is a great risk of competition between Member States leading to higher prices and above all non-guaranteed access to key capacities. As we have done with vaccines, we must therefore act in the interest of all Europeans to smooth out emergencies, evenly distribute available capacities and support an accelerated race in our industrial base. No Member State should be left behind. EDIRPA has been developed and will be implemented in full synergy with another important initiative – the Act in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP) endorsed by the co-legislators in record time. So, the Commission is grateful to the European Parliament and the Council for their swift reaction. EDIRPA allows for the structuring of demand, while ASAP supports the ramping-up of ammunition production. The Commission will implement both programmes in a diligent and timely manner. This is our collective responsibility to ensure continued support for Ukraine and the security of our Member States.

– Madam President, honourable Members, the Commission is currently preparing a proposal for implementing the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean recommendation stemming from the GFCM annual session in 2021 and 2022, with a view to presenting this proposal to the European Parliament and the Council in a timely manner.

– Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for your contributions today. This evening’s debate is a testament to your ongoing engagement with this legislative proposal for which we need a strong collective effort. And as I have already pointed out, a significant amount of work remains to be done. So I am therefore looking forward for tomorrow’s plenary vote. It is the next key link in the chain and I encourage you to use it as an opportunity to secure a strong mandate for entering trilogues. Let me reply to some of the key issues that you have mentioned. First of all, a few times there were mentioned SMEs. Article 19 of proposal provides for Commission and Member States’ action to specifically guide and support SMEs in the implementation of ESPR measures. Commission programmes benefiting SMEs will take into account specific initiatives targeted at SMEs, integrating sustainability aspects into their value chains, and the Commission will also publish specific guidelines for facilitating compliance to ESPR requirements by SMEs. So Member States will have to provide one—stop—shops for awareness—raising and networking to facilitate adaptation to ESPR requirements by SMEs and they could adopt additional measures from financial support to training and technical assistance. Substances of concern – they were mentioned. The chemical composition of products determines largely their functionalities and impacts, including the possibilities for re-use or recovery when they become waste. So information on the presence of substances of concern in products is therefore a key element of the proposal. So legal clarity and coherence with existing legislation, including on chemicals, have been a priority for the Commission. The proposal was carefully prepared to avoid overlaps with existing chemicals. Legislation and definition is aligned with the chemicals strategy for sustainability, according to which substances of concern are substances having a chronic effect on human health or the environment, but also those which hamper recycling for safe and high—quality secondary raw materials. So any changes to the definition will run counter to the strategies’ objectives. As regards a direct ban on the destruction of textiles, footwear and electronics, I understand that Parliament very much supports this idea. I understand that the idea – because destruction is clearly not in line with the circular economy principles. So a directly applicable prohibition on the destruction of textiles or any other product groups was not part of the Commission proposal because we did not have a detailed overview of the actual number of unsold consumer products being destroyed. So whether this prohibition is introduced directly based on the currently available evidence, or at a later stage after the further impact assessment and based on the information that business operators will be obliged to disclose under this proposal, the Commission is ready to prioritise work on this, also in line with the commitment under the textiles strategy to prohibit the destruction of unsold textile products. As regards the market—surveillance authorities in the ESPR, so especially talking about the online marketplaces, in addition to the generic obligation of cooperation under the Market Surveillance Regulation, ESPR contains more specific obligations like to establish a regular and structured exchange of information to allow online tools of market surveillance authorities to access their interfaces and allow for scrapping data. Having only generic obligation to cooperate without any further specifications would reduce clarity on the concrete activities that providers of online marketplaces have to carry out for products that are subject to ESPR requirements. And this aligns with the logic that was followed by the General Product Safety Regulation and accepted by the legislators. Finally, as regards the competitiveness, and of course the products that are going to be imported in the EU, the rules proposed under ESPR will apply to all products placed on the EU market, whether products manufactured inside the EU or outside the EU, ESPR will contribute to the EU’s long—term competitiveness and strategic autonomy. The decoupling of economic development from natural resource use and reduction of material dependencies will foster the EU’s resilience. Honourable Members, what we have on the table is a future—oriented framework, a real game changer. The new Ecodesign Regulation will be a key instrument for achieving our environmental, climate and energy goals and for ensuring the functioning of the single market for sustainable products. So we cannot afford to lose time. Work on the ESPR framework needs to begin as soon as possible so that concrete progress on making sustainable products the norm in the EU can begin. So I am confident that thanks to the ambition and commitment of the rapporteur Ms Moretti and all of those closely involved, excellent progress on making sustainable products the norm can be soon made.

– Mr President, honourable Members, my sincere thanks to this House for putting the ecodesign for sustainable products proposal on the agenda for this plenary session and for hosting this important debate this evening. Rapporteur Alessandra Moretti, ENVI Chair Pascal Canfin, opinion rapporteurs David Cormand and Maria Spyraki, as well as shadow rapporteurs and many other Members have done a tremendous job making this file forward in excellent time and laying the foundation for what I truly hope will be tomorrow’s adoption of a constructive Parliament mandate to enter trialogues. The work you have carried out in little over a year leads me to believe that you see a strong potential in the new Ecodesign Regulation, and the existing ecodesign framework has already proven its effectiveness by making energy related products more efficient. Current ecodesign and energy labelling cumulatively amount to a 10% lower annual energy consumption by the products in scope, comparable to the energy consumption of Poland. And this translates into reduction of several hundred euros on energy bills of EU households each year. By enabling us for the first time to ensure that a wide range of products are designed for circularity and sustainability, this new Ecodesign Regulation will speed up our move from the linear ‘take, make, use, dispose’ economic model to one in which we need less, retain more and contribute to fostering the circular transformation of our economy. While the Commission still reserves its position at this stage in the process, I am pleased that in many places Parliament have preserved a high level of environmental ambition as well as the core single market principles of the proposal. I nevertheless want to draw attention to a number of points. Firstly, it is vitally important to ensure that the new Ecodesign Regulation remains coherent with existing legislation. This is particularly true for the complex field of chemicals here. If any ecodesign provision overlaps with the scope of other already existing rules – for example, REACH – the only outcome will be confusion leading to ineffective implementation and reduced compliance. Secondly, in relation to destruction of unsold consumer products. We understand the Parliament would like to take direct action in this area. Regardless of the final outcome, it will be essential for the measures to work in practice and prevent loopholes and circumvention. The better we think through and design these provisions now, the more effective they will be once in place. Another aspect I want to touch on is online marketplaces. These play a crucial role in today’s supply chains, allowing economic operators to reach an ever-increasing number of customers. And the rules put forward for these entities aim to complement those under the Digital Services Act. Through compliance with eco design regulation, a level playing field for a sustainable marketplace will be created. Finally, let me be practical and realistic. Much work needs to be done under the new Ecodesign Regulation – and done fast. If the current negative environmental trends are to be reversed and for our industry to benefit from its competitive advantages in circular products and technologies, any obligations or procedures added during negotiations must work in practice and not pose undue delays. The Commission will ensure alignment with the Treaty and the Interinstitutional Agreement on better regulation. Honourable Members, I hope that today’s discussion will pave the way for a positive outcome at tomorrow’s vote, and I look forward to entering the next phase of negotiations so that another key milestone in the EU’s circular transition can be crossed.

– Mr President, honourable Members, the Schengen area is the largest area of borderless travel in the world, including so far 27 countries and benefiting 425 million people since the accession of Croatia earlier this year. As stated in this year’s State of Schengen report, the area is functioning well overall and was the most visited destination in the world last year. Schengen brings liberty and prosperity, and the absence of border checks between our Member States is cherished by Europeans and is part of European identity. It is both a legal expectation and a European promise that Member States acceding to the Union participate fully in the Schengen area once all the agreed conditions are met and – as the Commission has underlined repeatedly since 2011 – Bulgaria and Romania have continued to meet all the necessary conditions to join the Schengen area. Controls at the Romanian and Bulgarian internal borders bring extra economic and environmental burden to all EU citizens, as underlined in the petition we discussed today. Therefore, it is urgent to finalise the process that started 12 years ago and let Bulgaria and Romania become full members of Schengen. Both Member States have constantly acted as essential actors for the continuous development of the Schengen acts. They have gone beyond what was required of them and agreed on a voluntary basis to the fact—finding missions of October and November 2022 – missions which further confirmed their readiness to join the Schengen area. The Commission regrets that the Council did not reach unanimity on the decision on Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession to the area in December 2022. Not only are these two Member States ready to become full members of the Schengen area, but equally the area is today stronger than ever before, with many challenges on their way to being addressed. Just to give a few examples, our work on the Western Balkans with the EU Action Plan we proposed in December 2022 is producing excellent results. Overall pressure on the Western Balkans route has decreased by 25% in the first five months of 2023, compared to the same period in 2022. On visas, significant decisions have been taken by the partners to align the visa policy. On border management, tangible progress has been made on the two pilot projects set up in March by Bulgaria and Romania showcasing good practices at European level in this area. Moreover, new Frontex status agreements are well under way. New operations started in mid-April in North Macedonia. We signed a new agreement with Montenegro in May, and expect to sign one with Albania in September. Negotiations are ongoing with Serbia and we expect Bosnia and Herzegovina to appoint a chief negotiator during the summer. Finally, the Regional Anti-smuggling Cooperation Partnership, launched in Tirana in November 2022, is also bringing results with increased engagement at operational level between EU Member States and the Western Balkans. We are delivering on all fronts of managing migration, and this makes our area stronger. It is high time the EU honour its commitment to grant the two Member States full membership and further strengthen the European Union in doing so. Schengen enlargement remains a political priority for this Commission, and we welcome that this is a priority also for the Spanish Presidency. The Commission is working closely with the Spanish Presidency to prepare for a decision to be taken by the Council to lift internal border controls as soon as possible this year.

– Mr President, honourable Members, just shortly to conclude, first of all, I would like to thank the Members of the Parliament and the EIB for today’s debate. Overall, as the reports testify, the EIB is our key partner in providing EU response to the crisis that we have faced. And the challenges ahead, including the EU’s green and digital ambitions, and the move to open strategic autonomy call for even closer cooperation with the EIB Group to make sure that its activities are aligned with the evolving context and EU policy priorities. Lastly, I would like on behalf of all the Commission to thank President Hoyer for his hard work over the last 12 years at the helm of the EIB for that excellent work that, Dr Werner Hoyer, you have truly transformed this institution into a noble institution, a modern multilateral bank that is admired and appreciated around the world. So once again, many thanks.

– 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.