 with us. I hope he's still with us. Now we're going to have a debate on the revision of the EU legislation about urban waste water treatment and ambient air quality and adoption of two opinions. It is my pleasure and honor, although we are late, to welcome Commissioner Sinckevichos to our meeting and thanking him, first, for taking the time to be with us. Second, to share with us, for sharing with us, is views about this issue, and third, for having the patience to wait because of our delay. We have with us here in the table also 10 minutes, Commissioner. Would that be okay? You have the floor for 10 minutes. Thank you very much, and good afternoon, dear President, Rodeiro, rapporteurs, Wilkstrom, and power colleagues. First of all, my sincere thank you for this invitation. These two files are extremely relevant for Europe's region, so I'm following your views with the great interest, and I'm much hoping for your continued support essential to ensure real implementation on the ground. I'll speak on both files, starting with the air quality. So first of all, my warm thanks to the rapporteur for the excellent work on this draft opinion. We all know that clean air is essential, but too few Europeans understand the consequences of poor air quality. Air pollution is still the number one cause of environmental health impacts, and although we speak of 300,000 premature deaths, the picture is actually far worse. There are countless other health complications with severely disabling effects, and that's why in European Green Deal and the Zero Pollution Action Plan, we committed to tackle these issues with ambition and urgency. And we are following up that commitment with these plans for tangible change. The new directive that we propose will strengthen the legislative framework for air quality and step up the protection of citizens, health and the environment. It also supports the crucial role played by regional and local authorities in this battle for cleaner air. The new standards we propose are ambitious, but they are also achievable by 2030. They offer a clear, predictable and dynamic path that will take us towards zero pollution by 2050. The proposal comes with a very solid impact assessment that explains the rationale for this approach. It shows the complexity of the challenge, the successes we have, and so far what we have achieved in reducing air pollution. And most importantly, what we can realistically achieve in the decades to come. We are also promising regular reviews of these standards so that we can move to full alignment with WHO recommendations as soon as possible. And we can only do that, of course, in line with social, economic and technological developments. So the impact assessment shows that the proposed standards can clearly be achieved in most areas of Europe. And although a small percentage of areas around 6% will find it more difficult due to local conditions, that's why the proposal provides for additional time to comply, provided certain conditions are met. And implementation will require significant efforts all across the union. But the case is very clear. Improving air quality is imperative for our health and for our environment. And it is also clearly the right thing to do from the economic perspective as well. The cost of achieving this proposal is around 6 billion euros per year. But the benefits are at least seven times greater than the cost. So to realize those benefits, we need action at all levels and in all sectors. That includes tackling commissions at source, through sector-specific legislation, and here the commission has already delivered. It also means action by regional and local authorities. That means that the authorities you represent will be key players in these efforts. They will be the ones implementing effective solutions to bring pollution down. To help you in that process, we are making available considerable funds. In fact, nearly 150 billion euros will be available for clean air either directly or indirectly over the current funding period of 2021-2027. And that's why we are confident that the standards we propose for 2030 are not just ambitious. They are also entirely possible to achieve. I'm very grateful to the committee for its commitment to this file, and I very much look forward to hearing your views. I now turn to the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. This vote today takes place just one month after a very lively debate in the European Parliament on Europe's water crisis. And I say crisis because that already is the right word. We are now dealing with droughts, floods and water pollution all at the same time. And we can't solve all those issues by revising the directive on wastewater treatment, but it will make a substantial contribution to reducing problems like eutrophication, micro-pollutants in our water bodies, and heavy rainfall events to name just free. It will also improve access to sanitation, especially for vulnerable and marginalized populations. And it opens the way to using wastewater treatment to track pandemics. I've read your draft opinion very carefully, and I'd like to thank you for your steadfast support on maintaining the overall ambition of the proposal, and especially on the principle of extended producer responsibility. Putting a price on pollution gives industry a strong incentive to develop more green products, so it will be vital to maintain this approach in the new directive. So I feel very strongly that we should not delay in implementing these changes. We need to act now, and there is no reason to wait. I would also ask you to maintain an ambitious approach towards nutrients. Eutrophication, which is partly due to urban wastewater discharges, is still a major issue across the EU. We have the technologies. We have the knowledge that we need. It's time to put a stop to this sector being a contributing factor in the pollution of our rivers and seas. And lastly, I want to make a plea for an ambitious approach on energy neutrality. I completely agree that all energy produced by the wastewater process should be taken into account irrespective of the place of production. But if we allow unlimited purchases of green energy from the grid, we remove a major incentive for energy neutrality. And as we know, some countries like Denmark are already moving swiftly in this direction. So they are an example to follow. I'll stop here. Thank you very much, and I look forward for the debate. Now the floor goes to Membar Vickström, which is a rapporteur of the opinion on the revision of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. You have the floor for three minutes. Thanks. Thank you very much, President. And thank you very much to Commissioner Sincayvich's, no, pure water, fresh oceans and seas is something we all want to have. And throughout Europe, there's municipalities are responsible for wastewater. And so of course, we're very involved in this because wastewater treatment happens at the local level. So if there isn't sufficient wastewater treatment, of course, that has a local impact. So revising this directive is necessary. We need to make adjustments to live up to today's technical changes and potential. For example, you have to look at pharmaceutical residues and microplastics. So there's a need to reduce the burden on the environment. But the directive has to be flexible, and it has to be based on scientific facts so that all member states can apply it correctly and benefit from it. And as you know, regions are different throughout Europe. They have different preconditions. So we need a reasonable amount of time to make this transition and apply it at the local level. We need an ambitious directive. But if it's not flexible enough, then the consequences are serious at the local level. There'll be very great cost for investment, but not a lot of benefit to the environment. For example, in Umeå, in northern Sweden, we don't have nitrogen sensitive waters. And so to remove the nitrogen from the water, you have to warm the water up to 15 degrees. So in Umeå alone, that means enormous extra costs in energy and investment and more than 150 million euros of investment. But it's not going to be a great benefit. However, it's going to mean more use of energy and chemicals. So this is one reason that you have to have an exemption for cold climates in order to have good results of getting rid of phosphate from waters. 96% of the phosphate has been removed from our waters in Umeå. And the gases provided can then be used. And this provides quite a lot of production. So we need to increase our potential. But it costs time and money. One size doesn't fit all if we want to implement the directive as fast as possible. And then finally, you need flexibility for different ways of achieving objectives. Because the way you achieve these goals vary from member state to member state. So even if you need to do this rapidly, we still need a reasonable amount of time to implement this. If this is going to happen in a way to benefit everyone, both for citizens and the regions, and everyone feels they can contribute. Thank you. Thank you. Now the floor goes to our member, Una Power. She's a rapporteur on the opinion on the revision of EU ambient air quality legislation. Una, you have the floor for three minutes. Thank you, Mr. President. It's not hyperbolic to say that pollution in all of its forms has profoundly detrimental impacts on our lives and the environment within which we live. Pollution destroys ecosystems, creates poor health outcomes and hinders our ability to live prosperously as a society. I'd like to thank the commissioner for his words. He's absolutely correct that there is a lack of understanding amongst the public when it comes to air pollution and its negative consequences. We need to address air pollution and ensure that we have clean air for the health of our citizens and for our natural world. Air pollution is considered one of the greatest environmental threats to health, with around 300,000 premature deaths in the EU alone. According to the WHO, though, air pollution is also attributed to an increased risk for many other diseases such as stroke, heart, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cancer. It's also linked to cognitive impairment. And I would say that air pollution hurts us from cradle to grave, but this would actually be underselling the problem. Air pollutants have been found in babies in utero and are also linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. The danger cannot be overstated. As already stated, air pollution is also a significant threat to our environment. Acidification resulting from air pollution has damaged forestry and water bodies across Europe. Utrification resulting from deposition of nitrogen exceeds critical loads and two-thirds of ecosystems across the EU, damaging our biodiversity. The knock-on consequences of such for our economies, agriculture and citizens' health are substantial. But it is not all doom and gloom. And I think it's important that we take note of that improvements are possible and evidence where work has been undertaken. In the EU over the past three decades, thanks to joint efforts by the EU and national, regional and local authorities to reduce the adverse impacts of pollution, showing that interventions work, that interventions policies when implemented do work. In my opinion, I am calling for ambitious action on an ambitious timeline. The health of our citizens and our environment depends upon swift and radical improvements in air quality. The immediacy and urgency of the problem of air pollution cannot be overstated. I do realise that with ambition comes huge levels of work and many challenges must be overcome. I also know, as do the people sitting in front of me, that when it comes to taking the necessary action, it is the local and regional authorities who are at the forefront. This is why in this opinion I'm also looking for supports to be committed to LRAs, from planning to financial, to help us achieve our targets. Whether in urban or rural areas, air pollution impacts us all. I'd like to thank my colleagues for working with me and I hope that you can join me in voting for strong, ambitious action on air pollution. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Now the floor goes to the chair of our and the commission member Traskalski. The Zero Pollution Act plan aims to tackle pollution comprehensively across different sectors. Cities and regions, of course as always, are at the forefront of addressing pollution and environmental challenges, as they have direct responsibility for managing water resources and wastewater treatment facilities, as well as the possibility to implement strategies to improve quality. An effective implementation of the Zero Pollution Ambition needs adequate resources and this is incredibly important. Technical support and funding. This is relevant especially for the revision of the urban wastewater and the ambience quality directives, since local and regional authorities are required to put measures in place to reduce water and air pollution. This is also an excellent opportunity to enhance cooperation and coordination between cities and regions, promoting capacity building initiatives and knowledge exchange platforms, encouraging inter-regional collaboration can also foster innovation and the development of new technologies. And I wanted very much to thank the commissioner for good cooperation for setting up and co-chairing the Zero Pollution Stakeholder platform. When it comes to urban wastewater, the wastewater directive faces new challenges, environmental degradation and climate change impacts, and of course all of these have to be tackled. The revision aims to be cost-effective so that the investments, particularly in infrastructure, are proportionate to the environmental benefits provided. Its implementation should be financially and technically supported and should not add an extra burden to local and regional authorities. At the same time, certain degree of flexibility should be granted since cities, towns and urban areas can have very different characteristics and needs. That's why the introduction, the controlled source is important and that's why the introduction of the clear framework for extended producer responsibility is so very welcomed. The revision should also embrace the principle of circle economy. When it comes to ambient air quality, the European Environment Agency reports we've all heard their results and they have been mentioned here. The Committee of the Regents has been active in this field with an outlook opinion on the future of air policy, a regional hubs consultation opinions on the Zero Pollution Act plan and on the revision of the industrial emissions directive. We have to revise the EU legislation taking into account the new WHO guidelines in order to save lives in our cities. Air pollution does not stop at borders and villages have a big city might suffer from pollution but not have powers or resources to prevent it on their own. Local and regional authorities need specific and targeted financial support and tailored technical guidance. And finally, some areas of difficulties to respect pollution limits for specific local regions, reasons such as site-specific dispersion characteristics, orographic boundary conditions, adverse climatic conditions and transboundary contributions. And that's why we need to welcome Article 18 of the European Commission's proposal providing for additional time to comply with standards in those areas. We also need support to help with such zones to achieve quality objectives. Thank you very much. Thank you. Member Marcula, you have the floor for two minutes. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you to the rapporteurs and the President of the NV Commission. I would like to focus on the excellent cooperation that we've had. However, above all, the concrete points that we can actually carry out in the EU missions and in the innovation programs, we can find new solutions because all of these necessary technologies don't yet exist. So there are two topics which we have here. So thank you very much to the rapporteurs who have demonstrated that with these positions we need more innovation, we need more research. This demonstrates that we need more private investment as well. And from enterprises, in order to find new solutions, the preconditions in Europe, of course, are quite different from Member State to Member State. And this is something that has to be taken into account with the opinions. And that's why the EPP is moving some amendments. We would like that all regions are working from their own situations and achieve that way the objectives set for them. This is the only realistic way to make progress. So we have to do this together with the mission actions. In my city, we've already addressed this for the entire Capital Region. We've had an investment of more than 500 million euros for a new wastewater treatment project. And in certain situations, we still have to warm up the wastewater in order for this system to function. And 70% of the electricity comes from this process if we use modern. And we'll have the floor for two minutes. Thank you. This is an extremely important topic. We've worked significantly in my region. We've worked in trying to improve the air quality. Because, as you said, air quality is a source of many deaths and many diseases. A number of amendments have been tabled by our group. And I think the rapporteur for taking these into account, some compromise amendments, have been drawn up in relation to the entry into fossil directives. Some people wanted the WHO in 2035. But we did think it was realistic with the democracy and values of good governance. We, a local and regional authority, should take decisions in light of all information. Experts have said that, even in the best conditions, we need more time. We need 2030 to make sure that we are in line with the limit value set out by the WHO. We need to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. We want clean air, but we need to implement the necessary measures to achieve that clean air. And we want this if we want to be able to fight atmospheric pollution. I think it's very difficult to understand why the provisions from the EU are so lacking in ambition. We could have been a lot more ambitious. Why we waited so long for these measures as well? The fact that we've had so little ambition in this area, now we haven't asked for more time. You have the floor for two minutes. Thank you very much. Mr. President, against every scientific evidence, we are facing a potential paralysis which can stall the EU climate package. At the end of this policy cycle, ahead of the next European Parliament elections in June 2024. But the climate and biodiversity crisis will not pause. They're actually accelerating. And we are all experiencing this on our territories. The PS Group did not change its mind and its ambition about the need of a strong and affordable green deal for our communities with cities and regions at its core. We still believe that this is an unprecedented opportunity for Europe to appropriately address our interdependent environmental crisis and boost a robust, sustainable growth that leaves no people and territory behind. On the wastewater treatment directive, we regret that the rapporteur did not accept our compromised amendments on the targets. We think that the deadlines set by the Commission are too tight. We propose extension of the deadlines set by the European Commission for additional two years, but not as the rapporteur proposes to delay them systematically for five years, sometimes 10 years. This is a directive, not a regulation, and we'll need additional years before entering into force. Thus, by refusing our amendments, Committee of Regents will send the message that we do not care about the urgency of the crisis we are experiencing. This is not a good message, and PS does not want to be part of it. If the amendments tabled jointly by the PS Renewed and Greens would not be adopted, the PS Group will abstain on the final vote. Thank you. Thank you, Member Sensi. You have the floor for two minutes. Thank you very much, President. Thanks to the rapporteur as well. These are key issues, both of them. And we think that both of these directives on water and air quality should be supported and expressed as clearly as possible in the rules. This revision is necessary, especially given the most recent data from the WHO in 2021, and we would like to align with those. We do, of course, need to support a periodical revision of that data. However, I have to confess that I come from a region that has a big environmental problem, the Po Valley. So I would look very favourably on looking deeper into those difficulties. Looking at these limits, they're very hard to reach. So those regions that need it should be able to have some extra help to reach these targets. Rather than sanctioning these areas, we need to help those regions to bravely and ambitiously reach these thresholds. That doesn't mean we're going to slow down. It's not an excuse. This needs to be a way of supporting brave and sometimes unpopular measures to reach these goals. So thank you, rapporteur, and thanks to all the local representatives who are supporting this because air quality knows no borders. So we have to be as ambitious and as brave as possible. Those who have the wind behind them have to move forward with determination and help those who are in more difficult situations to move forward. You have the floor for three minutes. Let me start by thanking the rapporteur and thank our colleagues in the NV Commission for coming up with a really excellent opinion. Here we're really raising the level of ambition vis-à-vis the parliament and the council. I think this is an important precondition for municipalities and regions. We should be ambitious. We should be progressive vis-à-vis zero pollution, vis-à-vis the implementation deadlines, and we should also be ambitious, at least for nitrogen and phosphates. I think adding the fact that this water should be 12 degrees water to be clean for nitrogen, I think that's a good addition because there we can still have ambitious objectives. So I hope there is support for amendment 29 where there we are trying to have these ambitious value limits. It's important that we take the lead and take responsibility. I think I would also like to emphasize that we need to keep the comment on the water framework directive. In the commission we had a good discussion about this and what can be expected with a new urban wastewater treatment directive and a new framework directive, and that means these requirements can actually be a hindrance to find a new path because even the most modern equipment can't always live up to the water framework directive. So I think we should be voting against amendment 43 so we can keep the comment in the opinion that it can be necessary to make some derogations from the water framework directive. So dear colleagues, let's remain ambitious, vote in favor of a rapid implementation so we can then vote on the entire opinion. Thank you. Now the floor goes to member Chambetti for two and a half minutes. Thank you. Commissioner, president, members, I'd like to talk about the directive on air quality and reiterate that improving air quality and reaching lower concentrations of pollutants are of key importance. Better air can protect the health of our citizens and helps the environment. However, on behalf of the ECR group, we would say that reaching near zero limits in such short time is actually impossible. It's a utopia. Member states need time to transpose the directive and approve air quality plans, which are very complex because they affect many and varied sectors. The directive should be a reference point, at least in the medium term, in order to allow member states to plan and implement structural correction measures without constant changes in air quality standards. The new proposal for a European directive raises some concerns because there are structural mistakes in its assessment of the feasibility of reaching these limits and it doesn't adequately assess some other key points. According to the commission's impact assessment, even with the greatest possible reduction of emissions by 2050, it wouldn't be enough to reach the limit values proposed for some European areas. In that case, even five years would not be enough to reach those limits. It's important that the new regulation should offer flexibility to those cities or regions that need to make a bigger effort to control air pollution because of factors out of their control. We should adopt a realistic approach to make European air cleaner. Just a few days ago at the Lombardy Regional Assembly, Lombardy set out a lot of concerns about this initiative. We want to set achievable goals. We want to initiate programs that really will help the health of our citizens. But we shouldn't establish limits that are absolutely pie in the sky. We need to take a realistic approach to make European air cleaner and that will protect our citizens' health without dreaming. Thank you. Now the floor goes to Member von Lohl for two minutes. Thank you, Mr President, Commissioner. Now clearly here we are talking about a problem which is linked to drought and wastewater. There's lots of climate events as well. Now here in Europe and in Flanders we've seen that it's a real problem. We cannot just pretend that the problem doesn't exist. We're trying to take measures at a local level but it's not always easy. We are a region where there is a lot of industrial and agricultural activity. So water and wastewater is a major challenge for us. The regional government is trying to invest in innovation. We think this is the best approach. Specifically we have a blue pact with significant amounts invested in relation to the shortage and scarcity of water. We're trying to filter water. We have groundwater, water basins, circular water, circular use of water in industrial processes. So we have a blue deal and this has been a success. We've seen that 6,000 hectares of water should be restored and there's a vast amount of water which will be reintroduced and so the losses will be reduced significantly. Now so the local government is determined and we will address this and this is obviously with support of other actors as well. I'd like to encourage the European Commission to make this blue deal something that we can share across Europe. We need to address the issue of droughts as well. The blue deal can be one way of overcoming this and hopefully the Commission will learn from what the experts are saying. Two minutes. Thank you very much Mr President and a big thank you also to the two reporters for their excellent work. According to the first zero pollution outlook report which was published in December 22 there is still a very long way to go in reducing the harmful effects of pollution and particularly pollution in wastewater. Both the urban wastewater director and ambient air quality are both very important instruments to achieve the targets that are set in the zero pollution program but I will particularly focus on the wastewater. As greens we feel it is very unfortunate that the opinion proposes to set back important deadlines on planning monitoring energy neutrality and treatment of urban wastewater. Yes ambitions are high but these are also based on solid research and yes we realize that these ambitions and the feasibility of implementation do not always meet. The greens together with pests and renew table tabled several compromise amendments on the timing because we do believe that we sometimes have to take into account differences in the context but it is therefore also that we really regret that the reporter did not meet us halfway with the amendments. We still believe that we should not compromise on the ambitions and therefore we tabled these compromise amendments to meet halfway. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. The floor goes to the young elected politician Sara Brizolara. One minute. Thank you very much President. The best way to deal with environmental issues is to make sure that all citizens who are affected by it are involved. The Aris Convention is the only international instrument that is legally binding. It transposes these principles. It gives a real body to the concept of environmental democracy. I'm from Monza. It's a very industrial area in Lombardy. There we're working on participation and the community aspect of energy production. We are developing energy communities there with initiatives and meetings to spread awareness and involve civil society and NGOs. We're also working on environmental education particularly in schools as well as recycling waste management and energy consumption and renewable energy. These approaches all aim at changing behavior and attitudes starting with awareness of the seriousness of the climate emergency but also the benefits of our environmental behaviors. Giving people this information you get excellent results which go to join regulatory and technological advances too. Encouraging people is better than punishing them. Today is a step forward in regulating air quality. Human health and environmental well-being cannot be competitors. We have to inform people on how to read this data as well. Anybody participating in this project has real-time data and numbers on air quality. This awareness of the data helps people to use public transport and bicycles and makes further changes in their daily life. Our gas speaker, Commissioner Sinkovichos, has to leave because he has previous appointments and before he leaves give him the chance to have some final remarks from his side and then we'll continue with the debate because the debate is also important for the opinions we are discussing. Commissioner, if you want you have five minutes. Yes, thank you very much. I'll be brief but first of all, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for these valuable suggestions and questions that you have put. Let me briefly reply to some key points that you have phrased. First of all, on air, I hear concern about the levels and the timeline and the fear that we are being overly ambitious. As I said earlier, the impact assessment fully recognizes difficulties but we know that some 6% of monitoring stations would be at risk of not meeting the proposed standards by 2030 without significant extra efforts. And for example, as it's been said by one of the speakers in northern Italy, for example, the very specific geographic circumstances mean an increased accumulation of air pollution and this is aggravated by elevated emission levels from residential heating and agricultural emissions across the Paw Valley. So that is exactly why in the proposal we are careful to mention the possibility of postponing the attainment deadlines in specific situations and under very specific conditions. But it would be a huge mistake to allow local exceptions to slow down the progress of Europe as a whole. So there is a price to pay for any exception and it is paid by victims who are exposed to poor air quality. And if we delay these changes, quite simply we prolong the suffering of a far greater number of EU citizens. And I'm sure we can agree on the need to avoid a situation like that. And with that in mind, the Commission will continue to support authorities at all levels as they strive to reach for higher standards for ambient air. Thank you too for the many useful comments on the Urban Waste Water Directive. I'm very pleased to see a groundswell of support for the proposed revision. It's also good to see the growing appetite for modernizing the sector, for improving its energy efficiency and most importantly increasing transparency. One area where I would particularly appreciate your support is with extending producer responsibility. This is a very powerful tool which proved already working very well in Europe. This is a tool for change and it has great potential in this sector too. So your support there would be extremely valuable and especially so once the trial ox with the European Parliament and Council begin. I'll stop here. Thank you very much. It was my privilege and pleasure to address you today. Well, thank you so much, Commissioner. It was our privilege and our honor to have you with us. And once again, I apologize. Member Florian Schutz, you have the floor for one minute. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. These proposals are often very technical. However, you always have to find a balance between the necessary level of adaptations for the environment and the technical potential which already exists. For example, in Austria we have a very good wastewater treatment system and I think some of the provisions here are not concrete enough so they're going to be difficult for us to implement. We think in Vienna this is going to have a cost of 1.4 billion euros and I think this has to do with the difficulties in finding the technical and constructive solutions for the implementation. So for municipalities and cities they need support in implementation. And I think you have to keep this in mind when we're looking at the emissions directive. They have to be in alignment. The funding has to be in alignment with the demands being made. So also the question of extended responsibility. I think the municipalities are not responsible and they're, this is not. Thank you very much, Commissioner. If you still hear us, Bavaria has wonderful clean rivers and seas. You can swim in all of them and that has a result of urban wastewater treatment. We have used three billion euros for this in recent years to take these measures at the municipal level. So here we're listening very closely to the mayors and the criticisms they're making about the commission proposal. For example, if you have a mixed system you have to ensure that we can, we have nitrogen reduction objectives that can actually be met that they're realistic and we need different deadlines for this, different levels of cleaning. And demanding this by 2040 is completely illusory. It's not feasible. So we don't understand why you shouldn't have a reverse burden of responsibility. And the implementation has to be done in a way that's feasible and leave it to national actors at the floor for one minute. Thank you very much, President. I will focus on the opinion on the air quality directive. One point, my values are in defense of the environment, especially when it comes to local environment. I will defend it with all my strength. But I do want to speak practically. We need to be far away from ideology and utopia. Lombardi represents 25% of Italy's GDP and it's one of the economic motors of Europe. It's bordered by the Appennines and the Alps. So there's no through air flow and we need to take that into account. Another thing is, the life expectancy there is 83.6 years, which is above the European average. This context, I think, means that the reporters should take those facts into account and try to make a fair transition that doesn't discriminate against any regions because these could become an economic sanction that we cannot accept. Thank you very much, President and Commissioner. This can affect young people and old people air quality. This is an extreme phenomenon and it affects our everyday life. We receive a dust from Africa in the air and it creates various problems and various types of cancer. The hottest regions of Europe, such as South-East Europe, are hit by wildfires every summer due to high temperatures and it affects regions of my country, Cyprus. This pollutes the air. It causes illnesses and hundreds of deaths a year according to the WHO statistics. Thank you. Thank you, Member Zitali Ferrari. You have the floor for one minute. Well, in mercy, I would like to support the Commission's commitment to have this focus on wastewater. Having said that, we also need to take into account the effectiveness of very deliberate legislation. We need to ensure that demands are not set too high because we don't want to be counterproductive if we can't meet the aims. We should not forget that there are different contexts in different countries of the EU. So, aims for one country may not be set at the best level for others. The aims are very ambitious. That's very good. We're also reducing nutrients at a very low level. We also need to have energy neutrality. We also need to have a look at emerging pollutants. And this is something where there's major uncertainty. So, therefore, the Committee of the Region's Rapporteur is very correct in her approach. The European Parliament seems to be stepping away from the reality of context local level. We want to see a final agreement which is useful and realistic. Thank you. Member Caputo, you had the floor for one minute. Thank you very much, President. The proposals on the table are a significant step forward in reaching the zero pollution aims of the Green Deal, but we need to be rational and take into account the regional specificities of every year 300,000 people die every year of this. We want to reduce this by 75%. And that's the right direction. But they need to be matched by air quality rules that take into account technological progress and new data. We need energy neutrality by 2040 and improve our processes to make a truly circular economy. Of course, producers have to pay for their own waste to be removed along the polluter-based principle. Mr. Konrad, you have the floor for one minute. President, dear colleagues, I would like to say something about the air quality legislation. And of course, we're aware that this is of great importance for the health of the citizens and for an intact environment. So we appreciate the Commission's efforts to improve air quality. But many cities have made huge efforts recently and have had quite great successes as well. However, there are many cities where they have a very serious background of a difficult pollution situation. So the fact that this is a cross-border problems shouldn't just be placed on the shoulders of the cities. You have to take into account the microclimates and specific conditions. And the proposal of the Commission in order to have a class action suit replace the individual responsibility, we are against that. And we have to see that we have to... Thank you. You have the floor for one minute. Thank you, Mr. President. As a member of this committee and Mayor Pavo de Varzin, that's something that's always in my heart. We need to look at environmental sustainability. And I have to look at this issue of wastewater and air quality to say that our reality is very difficult. This is the beginning of last year. We've seen our well-being significantly affected. There is a waste facility which has been, which costs 15 million. Unfortunately, it's acting in an unsustainable manner in relation to how we should be doing. It's not implementing the necessary additional measures that are required. So this debate comes to a very important time. We need a regulation, which is more demanding. We need to avoid this situation so that in the future, this situation will not be repeated. We need... Member Strugala, you have the floor for one minute. Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to speak on the directive of on wastewater treatment. A lot has been said already, but I do not share this extreme optimism in terms of deadlines that have been approved here. And even the most ambitious scientific research is really, sometimes it does not really correspond to the actual practice. And I would like to refer to those areas which are not seen by the directive because the directive would be extended in scope to all the cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants. These have been noticed, but the provisions do not really correspond to the areas with a lower number of inhabitants. We need to have more in-depth analysis on that. I believe that the wastewater treatment directive should be subject to a more thorough revision so that also those areas could be covered. Thank you. Mr. Sosa Silva, you have one minute. Thank you, Mr. President. Today we are debating the European legislation in relation to waste of water. It's urgent to say that in certain member states, including Portugal, there is no harmonisation in relation to VAT on wastewater. The European directive on VAT says that there should be a reduction of VAT in relation to provision of drinking water, but this is not always the same case for wastewater. That's why each member state has a different interpretation. I think this is leaving to very unfair situations across Europe. For example, in Europe, there could be zero rate VAT if the service came from the municipality or only reduced VAT, but some VAT still comes from a private service provider. Therefore, it's absolutely vital that the European Commission defines very clearly that drinking water is part of the urban cycle over water. So, can we deal with it in a tax manner in the same manner? Member Dragishi, you have the floor for one minute. Member Gotthard, you have the floor for one minute. Member von Kalben, you have the floor for one minute. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to say something about the Air Quality Directive. Our basic point of view is it's very important to follow these guidelines and have an ambitious plan. It's expensive, however, I'm certain doing nothing in the long term is much more expensive, and it's less like Holstein, despite the fact we have a lot of fresh air. There are certain areas where children really suffer from diesel exhaust, and these children suffer regardless of the strength of the economy. So I think we have to follow the scientific advice. We haven't done this always in the past. So right now, with the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis, time is running out. So people are saying we need realistic goals. However, realistic goals is accepting what has happened, and then let's be ambitious vis-a-vis air quality. So we don't run out of air quality. Member Easthold Rease, you have the floor for one minute. Thank you very much. Recently, the two largest seas in my region were designated of being the best water quality, and we can thank the European unions and their directive for this. So some things have happened in recent years with municipal water, and so I think it's good that right now the Commission has a plan to adjust the urban wastewater treatment directive on the new circumstances. I think it's very important to address microplastics, for example, and the pollution pays principle has to be implemented, and extended producer responsibility also should be enforced, as the commissioner has said. And they should apply also for urban wastewater. The new rules have to be flexible so we can use them throughout the EU. However, they have to also be something that the regions and municipalities can afford, and that's why we need longer deadlines, and I'm not alone with that. Many have already said that we need to do that. Thank you. Member Gottmans, you have the floor for one minute. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I continue in Estonian language. Thank you to the rapporteur and others for taking on this important topic, which is important for us and for future generations. The mistakes that we have made, the things that we haven't done, will affect us for decades, if not hundreds of years. Our work needs to be ambitious, but also possible to actually complete, and it has to take into account climatic specificities. And in this area, we need more reinforcement from European Union resources, and I would like to propose that we do this together. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And we obviously know the importance of all the topics that have been debated here today. I'd like to focus on the issue of the review of the urban wastewater treatment and mayor. But also, we have a specific body which was created to try and hit the environmental aims that we are all trying to achieve. It will also support what colleagues as Silver said, this clarification in relation to VAT rates to be applied to wastewater treatment. We want to see harmonisation in the VAT rates used for wastewater. I also want to say that it would be important and also fair that a body set up by the municipality should apply VAT at the same rate as everyone else, and should apply the reduced rate of VAT for wastewater treatment. Now I give the floor to Rapporteur Wichström for final remarks in two minutes. Thanks. Thank you very much. And a warm thanks to all of the colleagues with all of your interest, both today and throughout my work on the opinion. Of course, water doesn't know any borders, and I think that's why we have to have ambitious objectives. And the question of wastewater treatment is important. And of course it affects the municipalities to a great deal. And I think the importance of the directive is to be flexible so that all regions can implement it according to their own preconditions. And so I think we've made different kinds of progress in our work. And I think a lot's happening with the technical development. However, there's a higher level of awareness of how important this actually is. I think people have been talking, just simply taking wastewater treatment as a matter of course, and haven't really thought about it very much. But there's a great deal of information available about what's actually happening. The current directive came into force more than 30 years ago. And there's been a lot of change since then. So I think we will end up with a very strong opinion from the Committee of the Regents. And this will be our contribution to making this topic fit for future. And I think this is very important. But at the same time, we hope we're not going to make progress here. We have to keep many ideas in mind at the same time. So let me thank very warmly my Swedish team and our colleague from the EPP and from the Secretariat as well. Without you, this wouldn't have been possible. And thank you very much to all my colleagues for all of your interest in this matter. I hope we can continue to work together in the future as well. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much. It is now time to move to our vote. And I'm here to propose you'd like to... I think I'll come back in now. Okay. Please go ahead for your final statements then. Thank you so much. And thank you to everybody for their contributions on the debate. It's very good to hear from everybody who's read through and consider the points of the opinion. Just to address the concerns of Mr. Chiamberti and Mr. Bianchi, we're aware of the regional and structural issues that are in place. However, Article 18 of the proposal from the Commission does allow for derogations and for flexibility. So we need to keep that in mind. But I do want to point out as well, Ms. Chensy, who I worked with already and spoke to on this, that yes, we take that in mind, but this is a reason for us to come together and help these regions and give them more support financially, structurally. And I think it was good to hear again the Commissioner today speaking about how there is money to do this and we should use this money to do it. And it's called for in this opinion to help with that. I'd like to thank the members as well for the work that we did together in the amendments. And I hope that the Rapporteur amendments have come to some good strong compromises on this opinion as well, while also maintaining the ambitions that are in it. I'd like to address Ms. Brizolara for her speech as well on citizen science and the importance of involving people. We do note this in the report. Obviously it's complementary to the science and data that must be done, but I think getting people involved and knowledgeable of the environment around them is incredibly important and I'd love to hear more about your project. Thank you very much for your contribution to highlight just how much we have to be ambitious on our health and environment. Earlier today my son was up in the gallery looking at me there. He's only 19 months old. And when I think about the idea of utopia, I'm not sure it's utopia. I'm just asking for a healthy world for him to grow up in. I'd like to thank my team. I'd like to thank my expert, Margarita Sanna in our group in the Greens and Stefano in the secretariat for all of their work on this. Thank you. Thank you very much.