What Virginijus spoke about.

– Madam President, I would like to thank honourable Members for the opportunity to have this important debate as we look ahead to preparations for the upcoming 26th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Glasgow. Science demonstrates that global average temperatures will exceed 1.5 degrees within the next 20 years in all scenarios. The United Nations report on the parties’ nationally determined contributions revealed that we are well off the Paris consistent pathways necessary to respond. However, limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees by the end of the century, with the temperature overshoot, is still possible. It is still possible if parties achieve drastic cuts in emissions in the coming decade and net zero emissions around 2050. Significantly increased global mitigation efforts will reduce the risks and impacts of climate change, but we will also need to collectively and urgently scale up our efforts to adapt to the many unprecedented and irreversible changes in the climate systems in all regions of the world. As if all this was not enough, the latest report from the OECD shows that the donor community is off track from reaching the goal of mobilising USD 100 billion annually from 2020 to 2025. Against this background, the COP26 Council conclusions, adopted two weeks ago, set out the EU’s main political objectives for Glasgow: raising global ambition, enhancing resilience and scaling up climate finance. We have a strong responsibility to those societies most vulnerable and existentially threatened by climate change. These are exactly the messages Executive Vice-President Timmermans is bringing to the many countries he is visiting and to the many meetings he is holding, also this week and today, to prepare for COP26. The EU has been consistently calling upon all parties, particularly the world’s largest economies and biggest emitters, to step up their game before Glasgow. The nationally determined contributions and net zero strategies of all parties should set each of us on a path to net zero emissions, in line with the principles of progression and the highest possible ambitions, as set out in the Paris Agreement. In particular, parties in G20 countries that haven’t enhanced their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) or have not submitted net zero strategies need to come forward as soon as possible. Furthermore, we can only ensure the effective implementation of the Paris Agreement by all parties if we have a robust and ambitious framework of rules. Therefore, COP26 should address the single element of the rule book left outstanding from the previous two conferences – the guidance on voluntary cooperation and market-based mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement – as well as conclude arrangements under the enhanced transparency framework, which is the backbone of a well—functioning Paris Agreement. Securing a meaningful outcome for market measures under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is a key priority for the EU. Compromises that put environmental integrity at risk are not acceptable to us. Fostering global ambition, ensuring environmental integrity and avoiding double counting are at the core of the Paris Agreement and of the EU position on market mechanisms. Ambition is not only mitigation action. COP26 should deliver a signal that priority must be given to adaptation. The EU will contribute fully to achieving the Paris Agreement global goal on adaptation by enhancing resilience both at home and in vulnerable communities around the world. This is why we adopted an adaptation strategy for the EU, which was submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ahead of Glasgow and calls for the other parties also to communicate how they are stepping up their respective adaptation actions. The COP outcome should also provide a sense of balance in the treatment of mitigation and adaptation, which is a key concern for our developing country partners. The EU remains fully committed to a sustained and increased investment in enhancing resilience and adaptation in the most disaster—prone countries and regions. International cooperation on adaptation is a highlight of the new strategy, with a priority for Africa, least developed countries and small island developing states. Furthermore, the EU and its Member States support many activities to avert, minimise and address loss and damage through development cooperation, disaster risk reduction and humanitarian aid, as well as dedicated climate funds, organisations and initiatives inside and outside the climate process. However, we must be mindful that all actors must step up their efforts to face the challenges of climate change. We need to advocate for mainstreaming the climate issue in other relevant policy areas so that we can better consider the risks and needs of the most vulnerable in all our support efforts and in international processes. We have to do this in the same way that the EU supports mainstreaming of climate action across all financial flows, including development institutions. Action demands resources and we should continue showing our solidarity to the most vulnerable countries. The EU and its 27 Member States remain the largest contributor of public climate finance to developing countries, including to the multilateral climate funds, and contributed EUR 21.9 billion in climate finance for 2019. This is double the level in 2013. As you know, President von der Leyen, just last month, committed an additional EUR 4 billion until 2027. As part of a global effort, the EU will continue to take the lead in mobilising climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels. These include instruments to unlock the huge potential of private finance through the targeted use of public climate finance. Therefore, it is crucial to make swift and ambitious progress on making all finance flows consistent with the Paris Agreement. To this end, following the Commission’s action plan on financing sustainable growth and the follow—up strategy for financing the transition to a sustainable economy, progress is being made on various fronts: on an EU taxonomy for environmentally sustainable economic activities, on sustainability—related disclosures for issuers and for financial market participants, on the European Green Bond Standard, and on corporate sustainability reporting. That is encouraging, but we must continue to catalyse and accelerate action from all economic actors to reach the objectives of the Paris Agreement. We see leaders from the private sector, civil society, youth and other stakeholders coming together to show determination to accelerate transformative change on a scale that has not been seen before. All this demonstrates increasing awareness of the need for global climate action. Finally, climate change, the biodiversity crisis and desertification, as well as land, water and ocean degradation, are strongly interconnected and reinforce each other. Climate change and the nature crisis can only be successfully addressed in a coherent approach that comprises mutually beneficial strategies, including nature—based solutions with safeguards. We cannot solve one crisis without solving the other. This was very clearly highlighted by the recent joint report by the UN, the IPCC and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and this must also be reflected in the upcoming two COPs. We saw a positive first part of the biodiversity COP15 in Kunming last week, and we will pursue our efforts in this regard, also in view of the second part of COP15, which will reconvene in face—to—face mode in Kunming next spring. Therefore, the EU will continue pursuing closer cooperation and synergies between the UN, the UNFCCC and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, including the alignment with the post—2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, and we will further advance measures for mutually reinforcing co-benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation and halting biodiversity loss. We should all offer our strong support to the UK COP26 Presidency with a view to a successful outcome in Glasgow.

– Madam President, honourable Members, let me thank you, first of all, for the very interesting remarks on the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and the review of the economic governance framework. The emphasis put on elements of the debate might be different, but I see a broad convergence around the following points: support should not be withdrawn prematurely, and we have to ensure continued investment in our policy objectives to meet the targets we have collectively set ourselves. At the same time, fiscal sustainability is an important objective and we therefore have to seek a framework that allows for both – growth-enhancing investments and debt reduction in a credible and effective way. We have taken good note of these elements and they will be considered when we are reviewing the framework. Of course, we cannot complete our internal reflection before we have heard the views of all stakeholders, which is why it’s so important that we launch the public consultation. We’ll look forward to continuing this discussion with the Parliament during the consultation exercise and thereafter when we will draw the conclusions from it.

– Madam President, honourable Members, let me start by warmly congratulating honourable Member Marques on this excellent report, which is a timely contribution to the review of the EU economic governance framework. As you know, we had originally launched a public consultation in February 2020, but had to put it on hold due to the onset of the pandemic. We have stated that we will relaunch the consultation when the economic recovery takes hold. We welcome the large support that this report has received in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON). This shows the cross-party support that exists on the importance of reviewing the economic governance framework, not least our common fiscal rules. It is also comforting that you succeeded to achieve broad convergence on this complex issue. The ECON Committee has produced a very rich report, and in the interest of time I will limit myself to a few key remarks. First, I am glad to note that the Commission and the ECON Committee entirely agree on the near-term priorities for fiscal policy, namely to continue an expansionary fiscal stance for as long as is needed to support the recovery as well as the necessary transition of our economies, followed by a reorientation of fiscal policies aimed at fiscal sustainability in the medium term. This is entirely in line with the recent guidance that we provided to Member States on 2 June. Second, on the fiscal rules, the report correctly highlights the sharp increase in public debt in the EU since the start of the pandemic and the need to ensure country-specific pace of debt reduction that safeguards both fiscal sustainability and sustainable inclusive growth. We are not there yet, but once the health situation is fully under control and the economic recovery has taken hold, Member States will indeed need to achieve a gradual and credible reduction of high public debt pressures, creating buffers for future needs and challenges. However, and turning to my third point, when the time comes for this gradual fiscal consolidation, we will need to avoid a mistake from the last crisis, which was to allow the burden of fiscal consolidation to fall on public investment. The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) will play a key role in this regard but Member States must also seek to protect nationally financed public investment without jeopardising debt sustainability. The fiscal guidance that we recently provided to Member States contains elements that go in this direction. The report rightly stresses that further efforts are needed to improve the quality of public finances so as to improve the country’s long-term debt sustainability and enhance the long-term growth potential. It is highly relevant to reflect how the EU’s economic governance framework could contribute to that. Let me turn to the macroeconomic imbalance procedure (MIP), which is another major element of our economic governance framework. The MIP widened the scope of our surveillance beyond fiscal policies to cover other potential sources of macroeconomic imbalances such as large current account imbalances, deteriorating competitiveness, high private debt housing bubbles or fragile banking sectors. The COVID-19 crisis has made some of those aspects even more relevant. There are indeed some challenges around MIP implementation, on which we are collecting views. For instance, as highlighted also in our review, the policy traction of the MIP has declined over time and some imbalances are only gradually being reduced. The report rightfully puts a specific emphasis on the euro area dimension. In recent years the Commission already paid more attention to this such that all countries contribute to the rebalancing and their efforts are mutually reinforcing for the benefit of the area as a whole. In addition, the COVID—19 crisis has called for a stronger forward-looking perspective in our MIP surveillance, which we have pursued for this past year given the very unusual economic circumstances and exceptional uncertainty. To conclude, let me once again thank honourable Member Marques for this excellent and thought-provoking report. I look forward to hearing your views.

– Madam President, honourable Members, Minister, thank you for this inspiring debate and for your encouraging support. I’m very pleased to see that there seems to be a broad agreement amongst most Members and groups of this House that we need to urgently step up our efforts to tackle climate change and the loss of biodiversity in one of the most vulnerable regions, which is the Southern Ocean. Your voices clearly reflect the calls of our citizens for more and decisive action on climate change and biodiversity loss. Let me briefly reply to Mr Ruissen, who asked: what about the economic impact of closing fishing grounds and marine protected areas (MPAs) to fishing, including for our EU fisheries? I can be very clear on this. The actual impact on those MPAs on fishing activities is estimated to be very limited because the most productive fishing grounds are located somewhere else in the Southern Ocean, and large parts of this sea are covered by ice most of the year. Be reassured in any case that our fishers active in the Southern Ocean are fully behind us in our objective to establish new marine protected areas. All EU goals that are established in the biodiversity strategy are driven by the best available scientific advice. I can only reiterate what Commission President von der Leyen has said in her first State of the Union address when she committed the EU to use all its diplomatic strength and economic clout to broker an agreement on marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean. I sincerely hope that I will be able to report on progress in this regard to the European Parliament after the 40th annual meeting of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, in October. I am confident that I can count on your full and continuing support for our common goal to establish new marine protected areas in Antarctica. The past has shown that if we join forces in the EU and between EU institutions, we can achieve a lot.

– Madam President, Antarctica is not only one of the harshest and most inhospitable places on Earth, it’s also one of the most vulnerable. It is, therefore, a place where the two biggest crises of our time are coming to a head: climate change and biodiversity loss. Over the past 30 years, Antarctica has warmed by 1.8°C, which is three times more than the global average and, only last week, the United Nations recognised a new record high temperature for the Antarctic, confirming a reading of 18.3°C reported last year. As for the West Antarctic Peninsula, this is one of the fastest warming areas on Earth, where record temperatures above 20°C were recorded during the summer of 2019—2020. Climate change is already having profound and potentially irreversible impacts on the Southern Ocean. Retreating glaciers, ice-sheet instability, sea-level rise and ocean acidification are just some of the changes we are seeing. These impacts are real and they are accelerating. This is particularly alarming because the Southern Ocean plays a major role in regulating the global climate system. Climate change is also one of the major drivers of the second global crisis, that of the loss of biodiversity. The Southern Ocean is home to a rich range of marine life, including different species of penguins, seals, whales and seabirds. The rapid warming of the Southern Ocean is leading to a habitat loss, as well as to changes in the range of marine species and their interactions. These changes affect every level of the marine food chain in the Antarctic. But habitat loss is not only dangerous for marine species. It can also increase the risk of global pandemics, as the COVID-19 pandemic has painfully shown. It is the responsibility of the entire international community to address this dual crisis of biodiversity loss and climate change. The European Union, as a member of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), has a particular responsibility to conserve and protect the biodiversity of the Southern Ocean. We know that large-scale marine protected areas (MPAs) can help conserve marine biodiversity, maintain ecosystems, absorb large amounts of global carbon emissions and build ocean resilience against the impacts of climate change. That is the reason why the international community has agreed to a United Nations Sustainable Development Goal, under which we should conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas through marine protected areas by 2020. Currently, marine protected areas only cover 7.6% of seas and oceans globally. The European Union advocates the more ambitious target of protecting at least 30% of the world’s seas, as called for by science. This is the EU position within the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People as a major element of the global biodiversity framework to be adopted at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. New marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean would importantly contribute towards achieving this goal. To that effect, the EU and its Member States have proposed to establish two new large-scale marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean, one in East Antarctica and another in the Weddell Sea. If approved, they would make an essential contribution to achieving a representative system of Antarctic marine protected areas by protecting an area of over 3 million km2. The designation of these new protected areas is a key deliverable of the EU’s biodiversity strategy for 2030 and a key priority for this Commission. There is also a third proposal from Argentina and Chile to create a marine protected area in the Antarctic Peninsula, which would cover around 0.65 million km2. Together, the three proposals would protect as much as around one percent of the world’s oceans. This would constitute a historic act of environmental protection. Unfortunately, as you know, China and Russia continue to block the adoption of our proposals over various concerns. In view of these disappointing positions, I am even more encouraged by the support I received from the European Parliament in the resolution discussed today. I want to thank all of those who have helped to prepare the resolution that this House will adopt tomorrow and to include tonight’s important debate on the agenda of this plenary session, and in particular, Catherine Chabaud and Grace O’Sullivan. Your support is extremely important. Your voice will send a powerful signal to the world about the EU’s determination to have these marine protected areas designated in the Southern Ocean, and your resolution will also help raise awareness of this crucial topic. Turning to the Council, I also want to take this opportunity to thank the EU Member States for their unwavering support. Without their continuous and unanimous backing, we would not have come this far. You can count on the Commission’s, and my personal, full commitment to push for the adoption of these proposals by CCAMLR. There is no time to lose and I have been focusing on broadening support among CCAMLR membership for our proposals. I’m happy to see that this strategy is already bearing fruit. At the ministerial meeting that I hosted on 28 April, the USA and New Zealand announced their decision to join as core proponents of our two proposals. I intend to build on this success to convince even more CCAMLR members to join as co-sponsors. I have recently reached out to India, South Africa, South Korea, Brazil, Ukraine, Namibia, Argentina, Chile and Japan to that effect. In order to keep momentum and to take stock, I intend to organise a follow—up ministerial meeting on 29 September. I hope that, by then, we will have more co-sponsors for our proposals. But we must also turn our focus to convincing Russia and China to support these proposals. After all, without their agreement, there will be no new marine protected areas. We will therefore continue to systematically raise our proposals with China and Russia at the highest possible level and on every occasion. I have invited our Member States and international partners to do the same. If we join forces and we speak with one voice, we will have a better chance of convincing others of our cause. We must also use all the opportunities offered by multilateral events and fora to further our agenda. I am particularly pleased with the strong support expressed in the recent G7 Leaders’ communiqué for the designation of marine protected areas in Antarctica. I hope that the upcoming G20 will be equally ambitious. The Commission will also continue to play an active role in the negotiations on an ambitious, legally binding agreement on Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), where we are advocating for a clear global mechanism to identify, designate and effectively manage ecologically representative marine protected areas in the high seas. The BBNJ Treaty should be ratified and implemented as quickly as possible once the final discussions resume after the pandemic. I have already mentioned that the EU will be pushing for the adoption of an ambitious post—2020 global biodiversity framework at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Kunming. We will also invite our international partners to join the global ‘30 by 30’ goal of protecting 30% planet’s lands and oceans by 2030. We will continue to lead international negotiations to increase the ambition of our major emitters ahead of the United Nations climate change COP in Glasgow this year. Finally, I am hopeful that we will achieve progress at the 40th annual meeting of CCAMLR in October. We must keep up all efforts and continue to engage at all levels to drive forward the adoption of our MPAs proposal this year. What is at stake is too important.

– Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this discussion and for your relevant comments. Europe faces huge socioeconomic challenges linked to green and digital transitions that require forward-looking approaches. With the new European Research Area (ERA) the Commission proposes an ambitious policy framework, and its implementation is our top priority. This implementation will require joint efforts. We have identified a number of key actions that will be closely monitored and will benefit from appropriate and concerted measures. All the issues discussed are of strategic importance, and we will continue to work towards a pact for research and innovation that sets out ambitious targets, a pact that defends the EU’s common principles and values in research innovation, a pact that establishes an effective policy coordination and monitoring process to support the implementation of national ERA policies. Moreover, the new European Research Area will improve the free circulation of knowledge and help all Member States improve their research and innovation capacities. Finally, a new European Research Area will also require better coordination, including of the actions of the Member States in order to achieve greater impact and better results.

– Mr President, I would like to thank honourable Members because the oral question they raise today gives me the opportunity to present the ongoing actions in a number of areas identified in our communication on the European Research Area (ERA) last year. First of all, the Commission attaches the highest importance to research careers, as researchers and their activity are fundamental for the full implementation of a reinforced European Research Area, and for the development, growth and resilience of our society. We have already started working on the update of the definition of the taxonomy of researchers’ skills and on the update of the European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) classification. We intend to complete this work by the end of this year. In particular, the Commission is developing a list of researchers’ skills and occupations to be included in the ESCO classification with a view to improve the representation of the research profession. The new taxonomy will be transposed at national level for the European mobility portal, EURES, and it will be used by Europass for all the services the new platform provides. Both initiatives will contribute to a better recognition of the research profession and will provide the necessary conditions for researchers at all career stages, including young ones, to be equipped with the skills and competencies they need for a successful career. The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions will remain the main EU instrument for researchers’ career development and mobility. The new Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions further emphasise the role of excellent doctoral training programmes beyond academia, as well as the involvement of other sectors, namely businesses and SMEs, in order to ensure better career prospects for early career researchers. Another important element of the toolbox will be the ERA for You initiative. Currently at the design stage, this mobility scheme is designed to support exchanges between industry and academia and to encourage researchers towards entrepreneurship. The one—stop—shop portal, based on the new current EURAXESS services network and portal, will also be developed to help researchers with all their needs. The ERA Talent Platform will have enhanced features to make it more usable, more interactive and better fit for the purpose. As regards the academic freedom, the new ERA communication underlined the Commission’s intention to propose a Pact for Research and Innovation Europe. One of the objectives of the pact is to provide a renewed political impulse of the European Research Area by reaffirming the commitment of the Member States to the values and principles of the ERA, including academic freedom. The recently adopted communication on the global approach to research and innovation also identifies academic freedom as one of the fundamental values that the EU and its Member States should promote and protect internationally. Further work in developing and promoting principles for international cooperation in research and innovation will be carried out in the recently created ERA Forum for Transition. Second, the oral question also looks at how private investments in R&I can be encouraged in order to accelerate the green and digital transitions and foster a resilient and socially equitable recovery. The Commission has proposed the ambitious but realistic target of achieving public R&I investment at European level of 1.25% of GDP by 2030. In the context of the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the European Semester, the Commission engages in in-depth policy dialogues with the Member States with the aim of supporting structural reforms and fostering investments. The Commission regularly monitors R&I reforms and investments in the context of the European Semester and ERA. Preparatory work is being conducted for an ERA scoreboard, which will monitor the relevant dimensions of the ERA, including investments. The last point raised in the oral question concerns the narrowing of the gap in R&I. Research and innovation are critical to boosting the resilience of Europe’s societies and economies, and to supporting Europe’s competitive leadership in the global race for technology. Therefore, Europe needs to bridge the persistent innovation divide. Member States have the possibility to invest in R&I policies and reforms with support from the cohesion policy or the Recovery and Resilience Facility should they make this a priority in their plans. But place—based policies alone are not enough to close the innovation divide. In this context, Horizon Europe, in synergy with the other EU programmes, will continue measures targeting lower R&I performing countries through its Widening Participation programme, which will benefit from an increase in funding to almost EUR 3 billion for the period 2021—2027. A Reinforced Regional Innovation Scheme of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology will also be available for the 2021—2027 period. In Horizon Europe, traditional actions to widen participation will be combined with measures to promote brain circulation, improve the quality of the proposal of legal entities from less performing countries, boost the activities of national contact points developing matching services, promote excellence initiatives, and enjoy ongoing R&I collaborative projects. Synergies between all EU funding programmes for R&I and with national and regional funding schemes are encouraged and will become more simplified than in the past. Finally, the Commission has also set up a number of instruments, such as the Horizon Policy Support Facility and the Technical Support Instrument to assist countries to define and implement necessary R&I reforms and enhance policy learning across policymakers.

– Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for your encouraging interventions and for this very interesting debate tonight. I have taken a very good note of your comments and of the large support around the draft report adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and now tabled for adoption by this House. Let me briefly reply to some issues you raised and complement some of the points I already mentioned in my introductory remarks. Many of you mentioned beyond GDP indicators. GDP is a key indicator of economic performance and essential in key policy fields. However, it cannot be the main indicator to measure societal progress, sustainability and resilience. We made much progress in developing alternative measurement. New concepts are being tested and increasingly used for policymaking at regional, national and international level. The OECD Wellbeing Index is a good example. At EU level, our new resilience dashboard developed as part of strategic foresight is nearly exclusively composed of beyond GDP indicators, and our work on an Eighth EAP monitoring framework will also provide a new opportunity. So technically we have come far and we are well equipped to go beyond GDP. Now it’s up to us all to make this happen and to ensure that decisions on EU societal progress fully take into account the concerns of European citizens and capture sustainable development in its three dimensions. Also, several of you mentioned targets to phase out fuel and energy subsidies. I took note of the interventions related to some of the targets you propose to include into the enabling framework or to commitments to establish such targets. Well, our proposal already included a general commitment to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies. We will look carefully into the question of whether new commitments are necessary, and if so, whether they should be included in the Eighth EAP or in dedicated sector—specific instruments. Thank you once again for tonight’s debate and for your work on this important file, and I truly look forward to successful negotiations in the coming months so that we can make swift progress and minimise the gap between the Seventh and the Eighth EAP. Our experts stands ready to start first technical discussions as soon as possible, after the adoption of Parliament’s mandate for negotiations, to prepare for the first political trilogue in early September, and the Commission will of course assist the co—legislators throughout the process in order to facilitate an agreement.

– Madam President, let me first of all thank the rapporteur, Ms O’Sullivan, and of course all the shadow rapporteurs and the entire Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), as well as the opinion-giving Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) and the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) for their important work and efforts on this file over the last weeks and months. Environment action programmes (EAPs) have guided the development of EU environmental policies since the early 1970s. The previous programme, the 7th EAP, expired at the end of 2020 and the Commission’s proposal for the next EAP, which we adopted in October last year, now covers the next decade until 2030. Its vocation is to accelerate the Union’s transition to a climate-neutral, resource-efficient, clean and circular economy in a just and inclusive manner. The 8th programme also sets a long-term priority objective for 2050 to ensure well-being for all, while staying within the planetary boundaries, and promotes a regenerative economy that gives back to the planet more than it takes. It reflects our joint commitment to the European Green Deal, which outlines the EU’s environmental and climate objectives. As such, it’s another important building block in our efforts to deliver on the commitments made in the European Green Deal and on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 8th EAP proposes a deal to all our institutions. It supports the delivery of the Union’s environmental and climate objectives with a focus on implementation at all levels of governance and on the monitoring of progress. My services and I have closely followed the discussions on the Commission proposal for the next EAP so far, and we take good note of the amendments tabled in view of tonight’s and tomorrow’s plenary vote. While formally reserving the Commission’s position at this stage of the legislative procedure, I would nevertheless like to share with you some general remarks. The Commission very much appreciate your efforts to respect the lean approach we propose and to ensure that the priority objectives for this decade are ambitious, yet focused. We will carefully analyse the additional ideas you propose to support the green transition taking root on the ground. Some avenues you suggest are already under way, such as the mainstreaming of the SDGs into our better regulation policy and instruments. In our Better Regulation communication from April of this year, we committed to identify relevant SDGs for each proposal and to examine how a new initiative will support their achievement. Links to the SDGs will be included from evaluations and impact assessments. Looking at some of your amendments related to the enablers and legally binding commitments or actions the Commission shall take, I need, however, to be very clear. We must be careful about the legal basis of the proposal, which is limited to environment and climate policies. This means the 8th EAP cannot cover questions for which the Treaty provides a dedicated legal base, and it goes without saying that the provisions of the 8th environmental action programme should also be without prejudice to the Commission’s right of initiative, which is enshrined in our Treaties. I acknowledge Parliament’s efforts to identify an alternative option on the mid-term review than the one proposed by the Council, but still we have to be cautious not to go too far in prescribing what the next Commission, after 2024, has to do, how and when. We also appreciate your strong interest in monitoring of progress and your call to clarify the articulation between the different tools to monitor progress towards our environmental and climate objectives. We take note that you propose a further cross—cutting tool. It’s important to discuss the purpose and the use of each of these tools in order to avoid any duplication. In the context of the upcoming trilogues, we will therefore be particularly interested in better understanding what exactly you aim to capture with the set of Beyond GDP indicators, as those could be numerous depending on the definition of Beyond GDP. Finally, let me recall that the main rules guiding the relations between the Commission and the co—legislators are set out in the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making, which defines the boundaries of the relationship between our institutions. This also includes issues like impact assessment and stakeholder consultation or annual and multiannual interinstitutional programming. The 8th EAP should therefore be in line with our interinstitutional agreement and not include further commitments going beyond. Honourable Members, I look forward to listening to your views and comments tonight, and I can reassure you that the Commission is ready to discuss with the co—legislators and play its role as an honest broker during the upcoming trilogues.

– Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this rich debate, which has shown support for our new fund. To conclude, let me underline the following two key principles. First, in the same way as all the other sectoral funds under the multiannual framework for 2021-2027, the EMFAF will contribute to the European Green Deal. It will support the protection of biodiversity and the full transition to low-impact and sustainable fishing and aquaculture in line with our biodiversity strategy and the common fisheries policy. And second, public support through the EMFAF should deliver maximum collective added value. It should support market failures and suboptimal investment situations, but not duplicate or replace private financing. Instead, EMFAF should facilitate and complement private investment, especially where the private sector is profitable, like the maritime economy in general is. In this context, I see a clear need to use financial instruments in addition to traditional direct grants. Indeed, loans and guarantees can maximise private investments with minimum public support, in particular for energy-efficiency technologies, selective fishing gear and production facilities in the aquaculture and processing sectors. I am looking forward to the final and formal adoption of our fund by the co-legislators. Our attention will then shift to the timely adoption of the national programmes which Member States are currently preparing. As I said before, it is of the utmost importance that these national programmes deliver maximum added value, in particular as regards their contribution to the green and digital transitions and to stronger resilience of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. The action supported in this respect must address strategic needs and deliver clear results. With a fund as small as the EMFAF, it is particularly important that every euro invested generates much more in terms of collective benefits and common good. Let’s make the best use of it to address our key challenges and make it a success.

– Madam President, honourable Members, first of all, let me thank the two rapporteurs, Mr Mato and Mr Millán Mon, as well as, of course, all shadow rapporteurs and the entire Fisheries Committee (PECH) for their good cooperation. Although not present today, my thanks also goes to the former German Presidency, which was instrumental in securing the final agreement last December. The negotiations on the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, the so-called EMFAF, were long and intense. They involved three presidencies and they were not always easy. But in the end, the outcome was good and balanced, which reflected our joint determination to reach an agreement and avoid major delays. Of course, each of the institutions had to compromise. But as we know, compromise is the essence of democracy. I have always been frank that the text is not perfect. The Commission would definitely have preferred a lower financial cap for fleet measures to secure more funding for core priorities such as sustainable fishing, fisheries control, collection of scientific data, innovation or local development. And as several of you said today, we had clearly hoped for a specific binding target or financial ring-fencing for climate objectives or for the protection of biodiversity. But overall, the result was a satisfactory one. I want to explicitly underline the importance of this agreement. First, because in the next decade, with all the challenges it will bring, we will have a new fund to support our fisheries, aquaculture, coastal areas and the blue economy. The post-Brexit and COVID-19 context has put the resilience of our maritime sectors to the test, and the EMFAF will help in finding solutions. Second, because the EMFAF will deliver on the objectives of the European Green Deal as regards the protection of marine biodiversity, the full transition to sustainable and low impact fishing and aquaculture, and contribute to our decarbonisation goals. In this context, as the Commission committed in the statement that accompanies the agreed text, let me be very clear: we will actively encourage Member States to reach the overall ambition in terms of annual spending under the multiannual framework to tackle biodiversity loss. And we will monitor this both during the programming process and during implementation. Where this monitoring shows insufficient progress, we will engage with Member States to adopt remedial measures, including programme amendments. Last but not least, in the end, we have managed to avoid harmful fisheries subsidies. The EMFAF now only contains subsidies that contribute positively to the Common Fisheries Policy and to our Green Deal objectives. This was my commitment during my confirmation hearing before this House in 2019 and I am glad to see that together we managed to achieve this. Nothing in the EMFAF increases the overall fishing capacity of the fleet, contributes to overfishing or encourages illegal fishing. This would have been totally unacceptable for the Commission and for me personally. I therefore welcome the balance we found between investing in the needs of the fleet and including the necessary safeguards to avoid overcapacity and overfishing. I know that some question this interpretation, but I am truly convinced that the EU can negotiate on fisheries subsidies at the World Trade Organization with clean hands. The agreement you will endorse this week puts us in a very good position to eliminate harmful subsidies worldwide and ensure a global level playing field. This, above all, is in the interests of EU fisheries. The new EMFAF will be geared towards the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources in line with our commitment under Sustainable Development Goal 14. It will help us make further progress towards sustainable fisheries. It will promote low impact and low carbon fishing techniques. It will support conservation, management and control measures, underpinned by scientific knowledge. The new EMFAF will also contribute to the sector’s economic and social sustainability. In this regard, the EMFAF will enable investments and innovation and support the development of the skills of our fishermen and women, as well as their safety, which are key enablers for profitability and resilience. The COVID-19 crisis has indeed shown how important it is to increase the resilience of our fishing sector. The EMFAF will also support the digital transition of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. IT and artificial intelligence are not only relevant for new emerging sectors but also traditional ones. The EMFAF precisely aims to unlock their potential and create new business opportunities in the long term. Digital tools will also contribute to modern, efficient and user-friendly fisheries control and traceability systems and are key for ensuring a level playing field for fishers across the EU. I am also satisfied with the results we achieved on small-scale coastal fishing. Even if the initial Commission proposal of a dedicated action plan was not retained, the national programmes will have to address the specific needs of small-scale vessels and develop adequate actions. And I can only reassure you that the Commission will analyse these elements very carefully when assessing the programme prepared by Member States. A key novelty in this EMFAF, compared with the previous fund, is the strategic approach for the outermost regions. The fund will continue to compensate the additional costs stemming from the specific situation of these regions and, in addition, will put in place the conditions for a profitable and sustainable blue economy. The EMFAF will not only contribute to sustainability in the EU, but dedicated funds will also be available to finance EU action on international ocean governance. Last but not least, I want to highlight the significant simplification. Compared with the previous fund, the new framework will be much less prescriptive on eligibility rules and will focus on results. Member States will have more flexibility and with it more responsibility to develop the actions that best respond to their needs. Simplification and monitoring go hand-in-hand and, in this respect, I want to thank the European Parliament for having defended a robust monitoring and evaluation framework. To conclude, the new EMFAF is a key financial tool to ensure that our fisheries and aquaculture sectors will manage the transition towards a green and digital future in line with the objectives of the European Green Deal. We will now monitor and accompany the implementation of the fund very closely to ensure that its objectives are achieved. And I look forward to its final adoption by the European Parliament. Thank you very much for your cooperation and for your attention.