We have received apologies from an Teachta Dála Réada Cronin.

Session 1 is from 12 p.m. to 12.30 p.m. and is engagement with Ms Jessika Roswall, European Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy. On behalf of the committee, I am delighted to welcome Ms Roswall to the meeting. This is the second time we have met. We also met at Teagasc in Ashtown where we had a very good engagement. There are many areas in this committee that fall under the Commissioner's portfolio. We look forward to an informative and engaging discussion. The Commissioner is joined by Mr. Jan Ceyssens, deputy head of cabinet. He is very welcome.

I remind all members to ensure their mobile phones are in silent mode or switched off. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity. Therefore, if a statement is potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity the speaker will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that any such direction is complied with.

I now invite the witness to make an opening statement of roughly five minutes, if she can. Once that has been delivered, I will call on the members of the committee in the order they indicate to me to engage with the Commissioner. We will try to do it in groups of three. Let us try to do it the way we worked in Ashtown for the previous meeting. It is an engagement rather than a very formal structure. I ask members to limit themselves to three or four minutes and we will do a second round, to give the opportunity for engagement. We have a rota system and we will do it based on how people have indicated. Please note that the duration of this meeting is 90 minutes. The Commissioner has an engagement after this and must leave at 1.30 p.m. sharp. Therefore, the times must be strictly adhered to. I ask everybody to focus on their contributions.

I invite the Commissioner to read her opening statement.

I thank the Chair and the honourable members of the committee. It is correct that six months have passed since we last met in another place. I am very happy to be here. During these six months, I am afraid that the world has continued to experience geopolitical turmoil. We have real wars and trade wars, climate instability and economic uncertainty.

However, amid all this volatility, some things are certain. The first thing is that these are shared challenges. We can only overcome them together. As the saying goes - now it gets difficult - ní neart go cur le chéile. I practised so many times. I have been sleeping with this because I really wanted to get it right. It was very much better before. My Irish will be better next time.

We appreciate you trying.

I understand that it means there is strength in unity, even though the committee did not understand when I tried to say it.

The second thing is that Europe is far too exposed to vulnerable supply chains and far too reliant on other countries for critical raw materials. Of course, we all agree that this needs to change and we need to break the dependency on fossil fuels.

The third thing is that it has become clear that environmental policy is economic policy. Water resilience, the circular economy, healthy ecosystems, biodiversity and access to natural resources are environmental issues, but they are also the building blocks of our resilience, prosperity and competitive economies. Not only that, they are also the foundations of our national and economic security. I really look forward to hearing the members' views later and having a discussion. I will try to keep to my five minutes but there are some things I want to put forward in the beginning.

We are now putting the final touches to the EU Circular Economy Act that will help us to recover and reuse critical raw materials we already have in our economy. It means we can cut waste and reduce the EU’s material dependency. It will also ease the pressure on our ecosystems and give the opportunity to build a stronger economic base here in Europe. I know that Ireland has a new circular economy strategy, which is vital for this journey. We in the Commission aim to propose our new Act during Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union. I look forward to close collaboration on this.

We are also working to develop Europe’s bioeconomy, which will also help us to replace fossil-based imports with homegrown, bio-based alternatives. We picture a world where locally produced biofertilisers feed and underpin our farming and agriculture, instead of the oil-based versions of today. We can imagine the economic savings, environmental benefits and protection from geopolitical shocks and supply chain ruptures we are now experiencing. Ireland already has a growing bioeconomy, which I saw when I was here the last time, but the potential for Ireland and Europe is enormous, especially for farmers and rural communities. The upcoming Global Bioeconomy Summit here in Dublin is an opportunity to showcase Ireland’s leadership on this.

I also want to mention water. Everyone knows that water is our lifeblood. It feeds our ecosystems, fuels our industries and powers our society. We urgently need to do more to protect it. The European water resilience strategy is our blueprint to do exactly that and we have been busy with its roll-out, including digitalisation of the water sector, boosting efficiency and increasing protection under the water framework directive. As we discussed at our last meeting, I know that Ireland is facing significant water challenges, when it comes to both quality and pollution. I also know, backed by EU funding, that Ireland is investing in water infrastructure when it comes to leak reduction, wastewater treatment and much more.

We all need to work harder and also smarter on safeguarding our water resources. I welcome the Government's plans to prioritise water resilience during the upcoming Presidency.

Let me finish with an overarching priority. Clear, simple rules are easy to implement and easy to invest in. That is why we also put forward our environmental omnibus and want to make our laws work better in practice on the ground for citizens, society and the environment. Our proposal is to cut administrative burdens by nearly €1 billion a year while also protecting the substance of our environmental rules. Simplification, if done right, is not the enemy of ambition. It is what brings ambition to life.

In these challenging times, there are also enormous opportunities to grow, adapt, innovate and develop sustainable solutions with strong partnerships, bold practices and sustained investment. Ireland’s leadership is crucial here during its Presidency and beyond. I assure Ireland that it has my full support. Today, of course, I am also here to listen to questions. I hope I said the last time that I have been a parliamentarian and in today’s world, the role and voice of national parliaments has never been so important. That is also why I am eager to listen to the inputs of members. I thank the committee very much and apologise for my Irish.

Not at all. I thank Commissioner Roswall for her statement. The first speaker is an Teachta Whitmore.

I thank the Commissioner for coming today and I welcome her to the committee. It is really important for us to have these discussions and debates. It was very welcome when the Commissioner was here previously and we discussed the nitrates derogation. Unfortunately, the result and the decision from that was not what I had hoped for. I had hoped we would have a view to a more sustainable form of agriculture and an off-ramp for farmers from the more intensive farming we have seen over the last 20 to 30 years. I am not sure if the Commissioner is aware but unfortunately there has been a major fish kill in recent weeks, which has been attributed, as far as I am aware, to agricultural run-off. There are a lot of difficulties in this area and I hope we will come to terms with and be able to tackle them.

I will talk about nature and nature in Ireland specifically. Nature in Ireland is on its knees and has been for many decades. It is something we have not protected sufficiently. We have never had the real political will to do that. I mentioned at our last meeting that this is one of the reasons I am a very proud European and believe in the European project. What Europe can bring to Ireland and to Ireland's nature is a level of accountability that may not come from within our own system. When we look at how we can apply different environmental protections, we need someone to hold us to account if we fail to do that. Unfortunately, we have a record of not upholding legislation and directives.

Looking at the recent infringement notices, in May there was one in relation to single use plastics; an infringement opened in relation to Ireland completing its network of marine Natura 2000 sites; and in recent weeks, Ireland has been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to peat extraction. Europe performs a really important function in that regard. I am very worried with the direction that Europe and Ireland appear to be taking when it comes to the simplification of these rules. The difficulty is more so in relation to enforcement of a lot of these rules. How will the Commissioner balance that? I understand the want and demand for simplification, but I am worried that this balance will not be achieved and what we will actually see is an undermining of environmental protections and even further difficulties caused. As I said, we have not in this country been good at enforcement. How will the Commissioner ensure that balance is maintained?

Does the Commissioner want to respond on that question first? That is probably the best way to do it.

I thank the Deputy for the question. Regarding simplification and regulations, I think we need to do both. We have a lot of very important regulations on nature, the environment and health. It is linked to all of this. We all understand why we have these regulations. Nobody wants to take away the regulations for air pollution, or for clean water or habitat preservation. I have not met anyone who wants that. At the same time, I meet a lot of different stakeholders who also say that to reach these, the rules also need to be coherent, easy to apply and feasible to apply. That is where simplification comes in, or how I see what we are doing when we are doing simplification. It is linked to all the things we try to achieve.

We also know that one of the priorities the Irish Presidency has is security but also competitiveness. These are linked to each other, especially when it comes to my portfolio. I am very mindful, when I am looking at putting things on the table, that they do not lower the ambition on protecting the different objectives that we have. We also need to be very mindful that if we want to have change and want to reach the objectives, we need to see that people understand why we do this and that the objectives are achievable. The omnibus we put forward was about finding exactly that balance, according to me, and to take away unnecessary administrative burdens that do not necessarily add value. That was the goal and that omnibus is now in negotiation with the European Council and the European Parliament. Of course, it will then also be implemented by the national parliaments. I think it is doable but I sometimes feel that people mark me as saying that simplification is deregulation. That has never been the case. For me, it has never been the case that you cannot do a green and clean transition and not be competitive; you can do both. Circularity is a good example in that we are addressing both the planetary boundaries that we are living with but also making Europe less dependent, tackling our climate change and protecting our environment.

I totally agree with the Deputy when it comes to what the EU can bring to all our member states. As I said, no member state can solve by themselves the challenges we are facing today. We need to do them and tackle them together. Here the EU is our main answer. That is why I am also so happy that the Presidency rotates because then everybody, including people and national member state parliaments, are also getting involved. That said, it is not always easy to find the balance, but it is possible and has to be possible to do both. You cannot only do one thing. You cannot only do everything that is green and not think about security and competitiveness. They have to go hand in hand.

I thank the Commissioner. I call Senator Noonan. For the information of members, we are aiming for three minutes in the initial round.

I welcome the Commissioner. I will continue on the nature theme and the simplification agenda. There is a Eurobarometer report that states that 80% of EU citizens support nature restoration, while 89% support retaining the status quo in protecting nature and for us not to be impacting or going into the birds and habitat directives. As my colleague said, many of the issues here in Ireland are around enforcement. The directives work well but there is an issue around enforcement. I was proud to be in the previous government leading out on the nature restoration plan. We have had a very good process in Ireland for public engagement. It is held up in high regard in terms of public participation. However, what is going to disenfranchise a lot of people and a lot of the stakeholders, such as the fishers, the farmers, the foresters but also the environmental organisations, is the fact that there is no money to go with any of this. The multi-annual financial framework does not propose anything. The 10% ring-fenced funding for nature is gone.

We had an important session here on LIFE funding, which is that dedicated and ring-fenced funding for nature we are deeply concerned about. In Ireland there was also a promise of funding from the Government, which also seems to be gone. How can we bring people with us and square up a simplification agenda about driving economic growth, which in itself has a negative impact on biodiversity? How do we meet the European ambition on the nature restoration regulation? How do we bring the key stakeholders in particular with us when in Ireland the vast majority of our land is privately owned and actively farmed?

I thank the Senator for a relevant question. It is one I think about a lot. I do not have full answers, but the Senator is right. A lot of the regulations we talked about earlier have been here for a long time, but we have not yet reached the goals. We also need to do more. We know the environment is rapidly degrading, so we need to act. I feel the urgency. There was a good consultation on the nature restoration regulation, and I salute that that has happened. I will take that with me and spread it because that is not how it looks in all member states because it is sometimes polarised. I do not know why. I think everybody I meet cares about nature. We do not always come to the same conclusions, but I will take that with me. I turn to funding and bringing people on board. The LIFE programme showcases exactly that. Real success is to bring people on board and have a bottom-up structure. That is easier said than done. It may be easier in smaller areas than big cities. We then see a change and explain why we are doing things. Spreading these projects and best practices is one way. We also need to see that revenue invested in nature goes back to the one who put in the money and effort. That is easier said than done, but it is key. If we want to have farmers, foresters, fishers or landowners on board we need to say that while investing in the rewetting of peatland costs money, it is for a better course for Europe. How can we get people on board? I do not have the perfect answer. One thing we are doing is looking into innovative financing structures like nature credits, for example. How can that be rewarding for the one doing it? That is one thing. It is not the answer for tomorrow, but it is the long-term answer. That brings me to how we as the public need to see this as an investment in the future. We are responsible for the long-term budget in the EU and the multiannual financial framework, MFF. In the next one, 35% will have to go to environment and climate investments. For me, that says overall that this is something important to defend. The other thing is that public money will not be enough. I always talk about the nature credits, and what I am doing to get people and industries on board. It is a risk to not invest in nature. We know that 75% of all corporate loans taken within the eurozone depend on at least one ecosystem. It is not only an economic risk but a security risk. The Senator, me and other policymakers have a common interest to communicate what we are talking about. I am green so I understand, but we also need to communicate that this is a bigger picture, which is the nature we share.

The Commissioner is welcome. I am based in County Mayo on the west coast of Ireland. It is a county that contributes a lot in terms of different climate goals and targets from both wind energy and peaty bogland areas. I thank the Commissioner for her work on the extension of the nitrates derogation. I know there are different views here. For the record, there was no suggestion that the recent fish kill in Louth was related to nitrates runoff. It was agricultural discharge, but it had nothing to do with nitrates. I have raised here and in my home town of Ballina the River Moy, which flows through that area. It is one of the most abundant and salmon-rich rivers. It is world famous for its fishing. However, a decline in salmon on riverways across Europe and the world has been seen in recent years. We have raised and asked for consideration of a LIFE project for the River Moy that would have a constructive and holistic approach to protecting a precious ecosystem. I have been working on this with Neil Cruise, who is a local councillor in Mayo. He proposed it at the time. Senator Noonan has also spoken about the LIFE project and the benefit of funding. Is consideration currently being given to further funding of LIFE projects or is the Commissioner under pressure to defend the budget she has?

The LIFE project is a popular programme. It is well recognised and successful. As I mentioned briefly, it is also bringing people on board with what we are doing, so you then have the change. It is very good spending of taxpayers' money. In the current MFF budget there are of course ongoing LIFE programmes. We are also using the change in the cohesion fund for investments in water. I do not know exactly how Ireland is using this, but it is a possibility. You can also use CAP funding for nature restoration and sustainable practices. That is one thing I will say, and I know it is well recognised. It is often said to me that the LIFE programme is not in the next MFF. I argue that it is still there. I repeat myself again, but the 35% spending on environment and climate is important. That will also help investment in projects. I do not know if this the right programme, but that is not for me to decide. It is about how we spend our money on what we know will serve the common wealth. The LIFE programme is also mentioned in the natural analogues. This is something you can use. You can use the programme schemes. That will also be possible in the future if our member states and the European Council decide. That is not me. I am defending and it is important to see we need to have this certified reserve spending. This is more than is in the current MFF. For me, that is really important. I am sorry to be repetitive, but it is about linking it to the situation we have in Europe today where we see that nature is degrading and can see that is a risk for our competitiveness and security. That is how I see it. It is also to protect salmon in rivers like the River Moy, which I have not yet visited.

I welcome the Commissioner. We are all committed Europeans here and we welcome her. It is important for us to express our concerns with the simplification agenda and what we here see at a high level in Europe as a move away from environmental concerns and ring-fenced funding for nature, including the LIFE fund, as has been articulated, and a move toward a certain element of militarism and increased funding for that.

These changing priorities at a European level, which we certainly hear from our constituents, are issues of big concern. I echo the points that were made by my colleagues in relation to the lack of funding for LIFE and the simplification agenda.

One separate point is in relation to water resilience, which was mentioned. This committee has focused a lot on water quality over the last year or so. Some 40% to 50% of Ireland's water bodies do not have a good ecological status. I wonder how that compares with the rest of the EU and where we sit there. Something we do not talk about enough is our water security. I am interested to know what kind of work the Commission is doing on that and what kind of preparations are being made at European level for any water shocks that may occur due to climate change or due to El Niño coming. I would be very interested to hear the witnesses' thoughts on that please.

I thank the Deputy for raising the simplification agenda. I also want to recall why the Commission is doing this. It started with the European Council and all the political leaders from all our 27 member states saying that we need to work on simplification, together with the Parliament, with the broad majority saying that the Commission needs to work on this. We know where that comes from. Maybe all of us in this room, but not everybody in the world, will have read the Draghi report and the Letta report showing Europe's challenges at the moment. One of them is that we need to work on simplification because some of the rules, we have to admit, are very complex and burdensome. That puts Europe in not as good a position as other regions in the world. This is what we also need to do, and that is what we are now implementing. Both the European Council and the European Parliament have said it. It is also because it is the correct analysis. We know the disease, if I may say so, and now we are trying to care for that situation. For me it is very important to stay high on the ambition but that does not mean that we cannot also do simplification. This is what we are trying to do.

On water quality and water as such, I am the first Commissioner with water in my title, which does not mean so much maybe, but it does mean that it is a political sign that the European Commission and all the member states cannot continue to take water for granted. Now I am in Ireland of course and it has water but Ireland also sometimes has droughts, in some parts if not in all of it. If I am in Spain, 75% of Spain is at risk of desertification, while 50% of that is probably irreversible. I take water very seriously when it comes to quantity and quality. You are right when you say this. I am probably not allowed to say "You". Is it "honourable member"? I am sorry-----

It is okay. It is fine, go for it.

I have been called worse.

I am sorry.

There has been a lot worse said in this building.

On the global scene, mention was made of water shocks. I used a word the other day, which I stole from a UN report, when I said that we are facing water "bankruptcy". This is also true for parts of Europe. If we do not tackle water quantity then we will have a bigger problem in the future. I sometimes compare it to us being in an energy crisis again, but we also need to tackle this other crisis so we do not end up in the same situation as energy in the future. This is how I see it. Of course, in the world it looks even worse, which makes it a challenge. I have talked about the community in Europe, which is our main working model, but this is also a global issue. We say in the water resilience strategy that we need to fix the broken water cycle, and that is not only European water; it is global water. It is also linked to security. I sometimes refer to the UK's MI6 report that came out after the new year, which says that the main risk for national security in the UK is biodiversity loss and water scarcity. That drives conflicts. Ireland is an exporter of a lot of agrifood but it also imports, and Europe is definitely not self supplying. We are interlinked and this is why we need to tackle water.

With regard to how water quality looks in Ireland compared to other countries, I would say that in Europe we have had regulations for a long time. We have a lot of regulations. The water framework directive is our mother regulation but then we have a lot of others on bathing, the wastewater directive, the drinking water directive and so forth. We know the water quality in Europe is better on some measures but generally it is not looking as good as it could. We need to address that. This is why I have said that I am doing structural dialogue with each and every member state on the enforcement of the regulations. What I see is not that we lack regulations, as we have a lot of regulation, but that we need to implement them.

I thank Ms Roswall.

The witnesses are very welcome. I was just going to mention one item, which is the LIFE funding, but I could not possibly do it any better than some of my colleagues, so I do not need any reply in relation to it. I agree that it brings people on board and helps to address depopulation in rural areas. I cannot emphasise enough how important the LIFE funding is. In my county in the south west of Kerry we have severe challenges in our rivers from forestry, from Sitka spruce, from climate change and from flooding. I must emphasise how important the LIFE funding is to rural areas and as part of a just transition. I thank the witnesses for coming and listening to us.

I welcome the Commissioner. I have a lot of questions. I would like a little bit more on the LIFE programme funding. Specifically, I do not think the 35% for environment and climate within the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, generally addresses that. Environment and climate could include mining or it could include a range of activities. We are talking about ring-fenced funding for nature and specifically for biodiversity and for nature. A fact, which was very well mentioned, is that this is a crucial part of just transition and a crucial element. It really is essential that we do not have the LIFE funding brought into a competitiveness fund where it is up against things that deliver immediate profit for anybody or somebody.

On the point made about the language of polarisation, I do not believe that is true. I think there are lobbyists who frame it as polarising but when we look to the statistics and the figures, not just the percentages we heard on Ireland but looking at the Eurobarometer, 89% support the current framework and managing big projects. They want to see the environment protected. Only 9% say economic development should take precedence over our environment and climate laws. I see this in the Eurobarometer but I was also part of the Future of Europe process and I heard it from citizens from right across Europe, from rural areas and from every kind of area in Europe. It is really important that the Commission listens here and that they listen to what they are hearing about the LIFE funding, about that kind of funding, and about the need that this be designated. It is not sufficient that country by country we see what falls out of the competitiveness fund: maybe it will be the climate and environment project or maybe not. We need to know this because this is an area where when things are lost, they are often lost for the very long term.

I have specific questions on the water directive. Ms Roswall talked of the "mother" directive, and suggested that it is not that the directive is the problem; it is that the directive has not been implemented. Ms Roswall mentioned enforcement. I would like to know what the plans are for stronger enforcement. Frankly, giving the nitrates derogation to Ireland following a deterioration of water quality here does not speak to good accountability, from my perspective. I believe Ireland should not have got that derogation when we look to the water quality we have. I have some very specific questions. Can the Commissioner rule out that any changes to the water framework directive would dilute the non-deterioration principle, would weaken the good status objective, would extend or normalise exemptions, or would reduce public participation rights? Those are the specific questions that I have.

Regarding the EU water resilience strategy, I am a bit worried. We mentioned both quantity and quality but there is also the question of biodiversity and the ecological piece. It is not just a water supply issue when we talk about water resilience. Can the commissioner confirm that hydromorphology, which involves the changes we are seeing to rivers, the river restoration, and the ecological and nature restoration objectives that are attached to the water framework directive will be protected and strengthened in any water resilience framework?

I see it maybe a bit differently because I see a problem with funding. We have a gap in the funding for nature, environment and circularity, which I think is also a-----

I have questions on that too but I knew I would not get away with putting them in this round. I will have to wait until the second round to ask them.

The answer is that I see a problem with funding. The 35% that I am talking about is one of the answers. We are all politicians. We all represent different political groups. I have been a minister. I know that governments of whatever colour have different priorities and then one has to argue for one's priority, which I think we have managed quite well on this 35%. We can discuss if that was correct or if it is enough of a safeguard or ring fence. That is one thing. That said, as I said earlier, that will never be enough. All governments, member states, regions and municipalities also need to invest because this is a joint interest that we have.

We are also looking into innovative solutions because even with that, it will not cover the gap. We also need to look at innovative solutions, for example, the nature credits. We need to get industries also investing in biodiversity because they are also dependent on clean water, clean air and healthy soil. I am trying to frame this as something that is long term.

The other tools I have in policymaking are the budget and regulation. Regulation is about spending this money wisely, for example, the nature restoration regulation, which is our key regulation to achieve the goals we have in Europe but also globally. The budget is one thing. We are arguing to get enough money for the environment and then we are using the rules. The main one at the moment is the nature restoration regulation. We also have the habitats directive and the other nature regulations.

On polarisation, that is my political environment, to be frank. I have it both in the Council and the European Parliament. We need to move away from that and have an adult discussion on why this is important, without getting into polarisation and the argument that someone is either for or against. That is why this kind of dialogue is important to me. I am trying to have dialogue with a lot of stakeholders. The example the Senator gave with regard to the nature restoration plan is a good example of how we do not always agree totally but we move forward. My political environment is very polarised and it is important that we put all the things on the table, communicate and get people on board to say "This is why we do this". It is not that we just want to make it complicated for people to live in this world. We are doing this because we think it is good for nature but also for health and competitiveness.

Regarding enforcement, one of the reasons I like my portfolio so much is that it is has policy and some funding but it also has an infringement part. I do not like to take infringement proceedings against any member state. We are trying to avoid that. We made these regulations together in the Council and the European Parliament because we think they are important but then sometimes as the Commission, we are the guardian of the treaty. This is important for me. We must also see that the regulations that we have on the table are enforced. This is something that we are prioritising in the Commission. That is also why I said that I am not in the water sector, for example. I have not put forward new regulations. We have updated. There is advice, for example, on micro-pollutants in the water framework directive. It is not that we are doing nothing, but that we are focusing on implementation and enforcement.

I was asked if I can make a promise. The honest answer is that we are assessing. We had the call for evidence in the water framework directive and got 3,000 answers, which we are now assessing. That work is ongoing. I was asked earlier outside this committee what my red lines are. My red line is that we all want and need clean water and that is something that we will never step away from, but we also need to see that the law is fit for purpose. That challenge is in the regulation. It is not, for example, reaching the goals of less dependency on fossil fuel. We also need to see if the rules are in accordance with that. That is how I see it but that is an ongoing process, so we are in the process of assessing the answers. It is in process.

I will now take questions from non-members.

I wish the Commissioner well. I am sure that when she was on her way into the meeting, she saw the lovely green grass that we have. There is beautiful growth in this country at the moment. We can see all the biodiversity that we are doing with the hedgerows. I am part of that because I am a working farmer. I thank her for the derogation.

What concrete measurable outcomes does the Commissioner expect from Ireland's EU Presidency on the circular economy policy and how will success be judged at EU level? Europe has committed to the circularity targets for a long time but material consumption is still high. What is the Commission doing differently that will actually change production and consumption patterns, rather just setting new targets? Will the forthcoming circular economy and bio-economy measures add new regulations for SMEs? What legislative gaps does the Commission still see in waste reduction and product design that Ireland's EU Presidency could help to close? On biodiversity-----

Those are four pretty substantial questions, so let us take those and we can come around again.

I put a lot of work into them.

I have high expectations for myself and the Commission about when we are putting forward the circular economy Act. I have high expectations for the Irish Presidency and the committee to push the change from the linear model we have had for hundreds of years to a circular model. It will not happen tomorrow but the change has to come now. Ireland has a circular economy strategy, which was recently updated. It is very good and has a lot of concrete measures. The Commission is putting forward a circular economy Act in September. There are a lot of things in that, one of which is how we can make use of the Single Market, harmonisation of the rules and simplification.

All member states and the President have important work to do to help us to turn to a single market for waste instead of having 27 and sometimes even more. That is one thing, and it is maybe linked to the last question about whether we need legislation to reduce our waste or consumption. We need to treat waste as a resource. It is easier said than done, of course, depending on what waste we are talking about. Some waste, for example aluminium, is always collected. I know Ireland has a deposit scheme. It also applies to other materials which are easy to recycle or reuse. Other waste is more difficult. How we can make a reduction is more how we can see the waste as an opportunity and resource.

On the changing of habits, if I understood properly, that is a really difficult question. In the EU, secondary usage is 12%, which is too low. The goal for the EU and Ireland, because it is in Ireland's circular economy strategy, is to double that by 2030. I think we will need a change of mindset here, for me as a policymaker and as a consumer, but also in our industries. We need to think twice and see that it is more costly to reuse the materials and that labour costs are an issue. How can we do that? The current crisis shows that dependencies cost and that the time to move to a circular society is now. There are many things that we can do to increase and create the business case for waste, for example, using public procurement. Today, a lot of markets and different products are seeing that there is this supply of recycled plastic, but there is no demand side. We need to help the market to function. Public procurement is one way.

The bioeconomy is linked to the circular economy. Bioeconomy fits well into both in Ireland because Ireland has a big bioeconomy already and can showcase that it is not a niche or something in the future, but is happening here, now. It is often SMEs. Last year, we put forward a bioeconomy strategy. One thing I have heard from many industries, especially SMEs, is the problem of scaling up or having access to the Single Market. Here, we are also trying to see the possibilities to speed up the authorisation and get more capital into this so the scale-up phase is possible. We are doing many things to increase the bioeconomy because this is an opportunity, especially for our rural areas, and in a time when we are so dependent on fossil products and need to make use of the homegrown resources that we have, which the bioeconomy also addresses.

Cuirim fáilte roimh na finnéithe. On the circular economy, unfortunately Ireland still has not transposed the previous industrial emissions directive, giving EU member states options to promote plug-in solar products, due to our ISO standards and a report that was done in 2024, with multiple submissions which were published this week. Is the Commission monitoring which member states have or have not acted? At what point does the Commission consider making this option mandatory rather than discretionary for plug-in solar products?

Energy is not in the Commissioner's brief. Perhaps we could get an answer back from the Commission.

Plug-in solar products are inherently circular, as they are modular and portable, require no structural installation, and can be used across multiple homes and tenancies. Renters can, when they move, bring it, so that is circular economy in action at a household level. I am wondering if the Commissioner has an opinion on it.

The honest answer is that I do not know, but this is showcasing that the circular economy cannot only be from one Commissioner, committee, Minister or member state, but has to be more horizontal. I was saying that we are only 12% circular today and need to be better. My view is that when we are talking about the circular economy, we have looked mainly from an environmental perspective, which is correct in one way, but it cannot be only that. It is so much broader. It is about resilience, competitiveness and climate change, of course. If it is possible to send the question to us, I will get some of my colleagues, maybe Dan Jørgensen, who know this better, to respond. I assure the Deputy that all the Commissioners are working on circularity from our different perspectives, with our different responsibilities.

I thank the Commissioner. I appreciate that. Apologies that it would not be specifically under her remit. For me and the committee, the report was published this week. We can now see the submissions that were given in 2024. We have an energy crisis at the moment where prices are constantly going up and there is this very good solution for renters who cannot access rooftop solar. I will send the Commissioner the question immediately.

Regarding the Commissioner's brief, I see she did work in the Nordic countries. Does she have any opinion on the circular economy of district heating and waste heat utilisation? I understand Ireland is doing a lot of work. I have been submitting many queries to Departments and I welcome the statements of the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, on it. The Commissioner will be more familiar with the Nordic countries than me. I know they already had a district heating system installed, which would reduce and make it much easier to add to it. Does she think that a district heating system at small scale for waste heat from data centres, industry, cement, or anything, is a viable solution? Is the Commission working on that heavily?

It is not in my remit but of course I know a lot about district heating, because I still live in Sweden. My answer is that, again, we are in an energy crisis. That showcases how important this is. We have a lot of regulation on how to decarbonise our society, not only because it is important for the climate, which of course is very important, especially for a Continent, including Ireland, which is hit hardest by climate change, but also because of dependency cost. We are now dependent on fossil fuels. For me, it is important that we do structural changes to get rid of dependencies. That means home-grown energy. I am a Commissioner, so I do not get involved in how member states do their energy mix. That is one thing. The Deputy mentioned data centres, so I want to add one thing, since water was raised earlier. This is a question that we also need to address, because data centres, AI and so on are really important for Europe for being competitive and secure, but we also have to be very mindful of how we distribute or use water in a smart and efficient way. I do not have a more particular answer on district heating even though I know a lot about it. If you ask a Swede, they have high energy costs, but it is lower than many other countries.

We will be doing three minutes of an additional round, with a second round, time permitting, Deputy. From my perspective, Commissioner, there are a couple of items. The LIFE funding situation has been highlighted already. It is clear that it is important from this committee's perspective. Some of those LIFE-funded projects have had real community support, success and buy-in, and it is important that we see that community piece continuing. The circular economy is an area that this committee has not looked at in great detail, but it is on our radar.

If we can marry the sustainability and economic agendas together, that is the sweet spot in relation to the circular economy. I welcome the Commissioner's thoughts on how we can do that. She mentioned waste and waste management, which is the end of the circular economy. Traditionally, that is where it all happened but we are trying to move up the chain. The area of plastics – in landfill, in incineration and single-use plastics – is something we have not done enough of as a country. Where is the Commission on that in respect of the circular economy? Is it trying to encourage the removal of plastics from those waste streams? The Commissioner’s opinion on that would be useful.

On water bodies, this committee has looked at Lady’s Island, a water body in the south east which has had a difficult issue with pollution for a long time. There are moves afoot to try to restore it over time. It will take time. Specifically on those larger water bodies, it would be useful to hear where Ireland is relative to the European countries. Can we get some insight into other countries as to who is or is not doing well and what they are doing? We may have particular circumstances to deal with in Ireland, but a comparison with other countries would be useful.

The last question is difficult. I thank all the members for being so strong on LIFE. I see their point. I would ask them to continue to support it. As I said, the LIFE programme has not gone. We know it has had effects. It is in there and I am arguing for the 35%. I will not repeat myself.

The Chair asked about waste management, plastic and whatever you do with it. To begin with, in an ideal world, we would not have landfill. It is not good for the environment or people’s health and it only pushes things for the future. That is why we try to get rid of that. There is a lot of infringement of it all around and we are getting much better on that. The other thing is waste incineration. I understand we will still need to use incineration for some waste and we also have waste to energy, which is helping with district heating, for example. I have not heard of waste management which wants plastic. Plastic is from fossil fuel. We need plastic, whether we like it or not. It is a material which is used a lot in products, including health, and it is all over digitalisation and security, but we need to treat it as a resource and use it for longer. Also linked to the water board and getting rid of PFAS, the forever chemicals, incineration is one of the techniques. Whatever waste we are talking about, we are encouraging cleaner waste streams. Member states are really important on that because when I talk about recyclers, and that is of different materials, to have a business case they need clean waste streams. All of us need to be better on that. We need better product design, collection and sorting. Then there is removing things. With incineration it is things we do not have an alternative for. That is my mission. We are not there. I also understand the investment that has been done for a long time and it also takes some time to make this change. We are trying to see if there might be legislation. Taxation is not a Commission competence but we are seeing if there are things we can do to support innovation and push all industries and member states to move into a world where we only incinerate the things we do not have an alternative for.

On water bodies, as the Chairman said, Ireland is an island, it is green with a lot of water. It is not easy to compare with a lot of other water bodies in Europe. There are a lot of things we can learn from each other and follow best practice. We should be very proud that in Europe we have a water sector that is novel and is very big on patents, but the problem I see is that we do not scale up and share these best practices. I thank the Chair for the question. The Commission should look at how we can facilitate a way by which more member states can come together and make changes around this. That is my answer today but I will take that question with me. In the water resilience strategy we tried to merge the capital in particular with other good ideas. I will take that with me.

I thank the Commissioner. We will do a quick second round.

I will return to the issue of water security. I liked the phrase the Commissioner used earlier of “water bankruptcy”. She said we do not want to end up with the equivalent of an energy crisis in the water sphere. Given the millions of litres of water used every day by data centres, it appears that she has some concerns around the proliferation of data centres around Europe. It is a debate we are having in Ireland currently. Might the Commission propose regulations on the proliferation of data centres or does the Commissioner think it is a good idea? Is it something we should be looking at a European level?

Yes. I recently read the United Nations University report for the second time. We have had a lot of discussions recently on data centres, and I also refer to another UN report on both energy and water consumption. However, we also need those data centres for society and technology and there is a need to use water in a more efficient way. It is more complex than saying simply we will not have them or we will have them. We must also be mindful of where we place them. That is very much up to the member states and not the Commission. The question is broader than data centres. We need to be smarter in how we use the water and we need to reuse water more. There are regions in Europe that are better than others for reusing water. Also, although not in relation to data centres, there is the question of smart metering in homes. Sometimes the biggest consumers of waters are farmers, industry or consumers, but it looks different in different member states. On smart metering, we have taken water for granted in some countries more than others. I am from Sweden where we also have a lot of water. We have tools we are looking into.

I have a couple of questions. The Commissioner mentioned nature credits. It certainly will not make up the funding gap required for funding Natura and, particularly, the nature restoration plans that will be set across member states. If we look specifically at CAP funding, which is predominantly responsible for about 75% of environmental funding but not all of which goes directly into environmental supports, there are questions in this country about the redefinition of what is active farming. In our view, that is concerning from the point of view of farmers west of the Shannon, for instance, who are predominantly benefiting from these LIFE projects because they are marginal farmers. If there is a redefinition of active farming, they will be seen as hobby farmers when they are not really. This is going to cause significant challenges with land abandonment and takeover of smaller holding into bigger holdings, and it is not going to help us achieve our objectives, particularly on Natura lands.

I would welcome Ms. Roswall's view on that.

Separately, I know there was a challenge in her country in relation to the wolf and the Bern Convention. I have a concern that other species could follow suit in terms of their status being downgraded.

Another question I need to ask relates to the bioeconomy and the recast of the urban wastewater treatment directive. Will the Commission mandate member states towards phosphorous removal from wastewater treatment plants? In this country there are some pilots in terms of phosphorous removal, but I think phosphorous is going to be a really big challenge in the context of our agricultural needs. We are going to have a serious challenge with phosphorous within the next decade and most of it or a lot of it is coming from volatile regions in the world. My questions relate to the recast of the urban wastewater treatment directive and the implications of that for wastewater treatment in a member state like Ireland, and the issue of phosphorous removal.

I thank the Senator. I have to admit I am not an expert on aqua-farming and I have mostly seen hobby farming, to be honest, but I also come from inland Sweden. What I have seen is also about food security. It is an asset we have not explored enough. It can be both an income for rural areas and help us be more secure in the future, whatever we produce in the marine areas. As far as I know but perhaps should not say, because it is a little bit in an area I do not totally know or control, there is more to be seen. I have also seen some live projects. I have only seen one, actually, and that has been successful but, again, we need to scale it up. I will take that with me and share it with my colleagues Christophe Hansen and Costas Kadis, Commissioner for oceans.

I did not really understand the question on wolves. Regarding the phosphorous, we talked a lot about waste reduction earlier. Wastewater is an asset that is underused. I would argue that today we have a lot of techniques that have not been scaled up yet. It is about getting rid of the dependencies. We actually have the asset in our hands but we need to use that good phosphorous or that the phosphorous that is extracted is used better. Back to fertiliser and pesticide, this is lying around and is just for us to use. It is not only phosphorous removal but also a lot of other things that I have seen examples of how we can use the wastewater in hard-to-abate areas or - I have to go back in my memory - how you use the sludge of the wastewater to become methane, for example, for aviation fuel. It is not there yet but I am quite hopeful. Sometimes when we talk about these things we say that the water quality is bad, we say there is derogation near the nature and other things, but I am also very hopeful because I see techniques are evolving. This is making me hopeful. It is also important that we communicate that there is hope. We just need to use this and see this as an opportunity.

I hope the Commissioner has heard from the committee about the ring-fencing for nature within the environment and climate funding message and how crucial that is for nature, for the just transition and exactly for avoiding the polarisation the Commissioner spoke about for the social component measures that may not come across in a competitiveness frame but are very crucial in terms of bringing people with us.

I have specific follow-up on water and then on the circular economy. On water, I was kind of disappointed the Commissioner was not able to confirm that she will be keeping the non-deterioration principle and the good status objective and will not be extending exemptions. For me, that is not simplification; that is a backwards step. If we are not in position to guarantee that we will keep trying not to deteriorate and keep aiming for good status, that is a real problem. Frankly, I think they are crucial points, as is the danger of mass exemptions for areas, including areas like data centres and large energy users, for example. The Commissioner said her red line was that we all want and need clean water. Is that for consumption or that we want and need clean water in our rivers?

On the circular economy I have three specific questions. In the new directives that have been developed, which I am delighted is happening, is there a right to repair and the prohibition of the dumping and disposal of unsold goods? Those are two tools. We know that the right to repair has been in certain countries, as have measures against in-built obsolescence. The other is the idea of stringent measures against the common practice of unsold goods being dumped directly. I really welcome the fact the Commissioner is looking to gather up critical minerals. That is important, but those are two other specific aspects I am interested in.

Regarding public procurement, and I understand the directive is going to be renegotiated during Ireland's Presidency, will there be a stronger emphasis on life cycle costing and on green public procurement? There is a little worry about a slide backwards towards the price-only approach whereas we know the European Court of Auditors said there is not enough use of procurement as a tool, and I was glad the Commissioner mentioned it. Is that going to be reflected or will the Commissioner be pushing for that to be reflected in the public procurement directive in terms of harder measures on life cycle costing?

I thought I had been very clear on all the environmental legislation, whether it is water framework Directive or when we are stress testing the birds and habitat or other regulations we are assessing, that for me, it is never about lowering ambitions or quality. When I say water, I am sorry I was not specific, but for me it is both drinking water and surface water. That is the regulation. I am not exactly hesitating but I will seriously assess the input that has been coming to us now. That, for me as a politician, is very important. That is why I am not clear on that today. It is fair to say it is also about respecting the democratic process.

On the right to repair, that is implementing at the moment. On the unsold goods, for example, unsold textiles and shoes, the ban on destroying that is coming into force in the summer. We are now putting forward the circular economy Act. The bad thing is that we are only 12% circular, as I said earlier, and we have a lot of challenges. The good thing is that we already have some regulations that are coming into force now. We have updated the waste framework directive a year ago when it comes to textile and food waste. We have regulations on PET plastic and on batteries. There are things ongoing. We have platforms for different programs when it comes to eco-design. It takes some time. It is important that we are taking that time, even though I am in a hurry, because the industry needs to be involved in this because, otherwise, we will not succeed. I am also very mindful not to hinder new techniques and new innovations. This is ongoing.

Regarding public procurement, I must explain a little bit. I see in a lot of sectors, construction, for example, but also plastic, where there is a willingness. Many see the business case with recycling to take waste and reuse, but the business case is not really there. The virgin material is cheaper that the secondary material.

My question to the industries is what are the bottlenecks? Why do we only have the supply and not the demand? I am exaggerating a little bit. One tool is, of course, harmonisation and making the Single Market function. We have a problem with transporting waste between our member states; it takes too long. It can take three to six months to ship waste from one member state to another, so there are things that we can actually do in a Single Market. Public procurement is another thing. I do not know which word to use. For me, it is important that we also use public procurement in circular solutions. For me, it is not only price but also adding on. I do not want to go into details on that but for me, circular solutions are the best way of tackling it. This is something that both industry is asking for but also member states see as an opportunity. I really hope that this can also help us to push for a more circular society.

During the public procurement directive discussions in the next few months, that will be-----

The discussion is ongoing. I am not in charge of public procurement, but-----

I hope the Commissioner will have a strong impact in that respect.

Absolutely. Among both industries and politicians, maybe we are not as divided as I said earlier. That is good.

What safeguards are being put in place to ensure that the circular economy initiatives do not become a form of greenwashing through recycling claims which do not reflect true material recovery rates? How will the Commission align circular economy policy with competitiveness objectives without weakening environmental ambition under pressure from industry lobbying? If the Commissioner had to identify one structural failure in the EU's current approach to circularity, what is it, and what change would she expect Ireland's Presidency to help advance? On bioeconomy strategy, how does the Commission ensure that the scaling of biomass use does not unintentionally increase pressure on land use, biodiversity loss, or very importantly, food production?

When it comes to greenwashing, that is something we discuss a lot when we are preparing for the nature credits, for example, because, of course, nobody wants that. I see it as necessary to have more funding in circular solutions, nature and biodiversity. I do not want to see greenwashing. That is why I am also trying to move forward so we can get the method right and have trustworthy systems which do not greenwash, and we have other instruments like the "do no significant harm" principle and other rules. The main problem I have with circularity is that we really do not see that happening at the speed I want to see. The answer is that it is not one safeguard, it is a lot of things we want to safeguard. This is about the planetary boundaries, but it is not only that but also about our resilience, something I see growing more and more. The materials sometimes lie here in Europe, and we need to use them better. That is not greenwashing, it is about using things better.

The circular economy can be an opportunity for Europe as a competitive advantage, because a lot of other materials cost a lot, as does labour. We need to use this in a more competitive way. History has shown us that we are developing, and the new, hopefully more circular business model, if we do this right together with the industry, can be Europe's industry's competitive advantage. Not only Europe is talking about circularity, China, the USA, India and Africa are also. We are all in the same situation. We need to use the materials in a more efficient way. If we do this right, this can be a competitive advantage for our companies.

There are a lot of structural failures. I discussed that a little bit earlier. One thing is that we have not only 27 extended producer responsibility schemes, we have 159 in Europe. Extended producer responsibility schemes are important, but we need to harmonise them.

Another thing I mentioned is how the criteria of defining waste is different in different member states. I understand we have different cultures and I fully understand that waste is very local, but the benefit for all of us if we can harmonise that will be to define what is waste and what is a by-product, so it is not that in one country you are putting it in the waste bin, but in another country it is seen as a resource and used. That is a structural problem or challenge.

On the biomass question, which is a question I get asked often, one thing is that we have a lot of regulations to ensure we use the biomass, whatever we are talking about, in a sustainable way. In one way it is self-supplied. If we do not treat the biomass sustainably, we will run out of biomass. We have a lot of regulation, for example, in the RED directive. We have also written it in our other strategies that we have to always be mindful of using the biomass - as we do with waste - in the right hierarchy, so to speak. With that said, I have seen it all over Europe that this technique is helping us to use the biomass in a more efficient way. It is not like this is the amount of biomass we have, it is extending.

Back to the aquaculture, for example, we are also using new materials. They are not new, because they have been there forever, but they are things we can also use. I am hopeful for the future, but also very mindful to see that we have a biomass in the future.

In terms of Deputy Aird’s question around the trade-off between land use for biomass versus food production, how does the Commissioner see that being resolved? Is it a local matter? There is a trade-off with food production, which is what Deputy Aird is really asking about; the use of land for food production versus the use of land for biomass and feed stock, etc. How does that trade-off resolve itself? How does that trade-off happen?

We need to do both. We need both to have biomass for a lot of reasons, but also food production is our strategic, long-term interest, which we have put forward very clearly in the vision for agriculture and food. How I see it is, we have regulation in different parts. As I said, energy is one thing, we have in the RED how one can use the biomass for the right thing, so to say, but we also have a lot of regulations trying to put the hierarchy where it will be best used. Of course, it is also very much up to the member states as to how to implement this in the best way. I do not think I can point to exactly what to do but, of course, the one resource we have to treat differently is water. The other resources, energy or biomass, are another thing. If we do not have water, we do not have any of the other things we are talking about.

I have one very brief comment on definitions of waste and the recertification of materials, in particular in construction where there seems to be an issue with materials being recertified for reuse. There is a process that allows materials to be reused and this is another area where more commonality could be very useful in terms of promoting reuse.

I am not sure whether this is directly in the Commissioner's remit but there has been underdesignation, certainly in Ireland, of special protected areas, marine protected areas and other designated areas. What measures are being taken to encourage countries such as Ireland, especially when we look at biodiversity at UN level and international level and the sign-up to the commitment to get to 30% marine protected areas? Arguably countries such as Ireland should be doing more on this because there are certain countries in Europe that cannot contribute to marine protected areas. Will the Commissioner comment on this and the need to ensure we do our piece on reaching the collective European targets for special areas of conversation and marine protected areas?

I have had a lot of discussions with the construction sector because we know this sector is important for us. We need housing, especially in Ireland, and I am fully aware of this. There is also the fact that the sector accounts for a lot of emissions and the level of circularity is lower than in other sectors. The potential is, therefore, great. That said, it is true we need to build trust between different areas of the construction sector. Regional co-operation will, perhaps, be the first step because construction is very regional. This week I have had and will have discussions with the construction sector on how to make the sector more circular. I am hopeful in one way.

On the marine issue, we have a global obligation on biodiversity and this includes marine protected areas, with 30% by 2030 - the 30 by 30 strategy. There are a lot of 30s. As I said earlier, the nature restoration regulation is key to achieving this marine protection. Some member states have more challenges in getting to 30% when it comes to the marine while others do not. When it comes to marine areas in Ireland I have had exchanges with the Government on this and on the Natura 2000 networks. Earlier this year we sent a letter to the Government about this, with regard to designating the work that has to be done on marine protected areas. This work is going on. and the next conference on biological biodiversity is coming up with COP in October, where will continue to discuss green and blue biodiversity.

I thank the Commissioner, Ms Roswall, and Mr. Ceyssens for coming before the committee today. We will publish the opening statement on the committee's website and the Commissioner is welcome to come back at any time to engage further with us. Our door is always open. We will now suspend to allow the witnesses to leave the meeting.