 This first session of the Green Post-Corona Talks, organized by the Green European Foundation. I'm Dirk Holmans, your host, co-president of the Foundation and director of OICOS, the Flemish Green Think Tank. As we all know, the corona crisis is, in the first place, a health crisis, which has to be tackled in the best way. That's priority number one. But at the same time, the corona crisis is also changing our societies and has resulted in a huge economic crisis. But we shouldn't give up hope. On the contrary, the aims of these post-corona talks is twofold. First, to achieve a better understanding of what is happening also in different parts of Europe. Second, to explore how we can imagine and realize a better world of the corona. That's really, I think, the perspective we have. And before we go to our first speaker, I want to say that you can submit questions with the hashtag of the Green European Foundation, post-corona talks and then I will see the questions on my screen and later I will pose them to Hans. So now I want to welcome Hans Brennings, executive director of the European Environmental Agency. Many thanks for, I think, in very busy times to have time for this live interview. And as a start, I would like to refer to your editorial, what you wrote in your last newsletter of the agency, which has an appropriate title reflecting on climate neutrality ambitions in Europe in times of COVID-19. There you, of course, also say that taking care of Europeans' health is now the first and foremost priority. I think we all agree on that. Next you point to the effect of the COVID-19 measures on the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, which are going down. But you also mentioned the evidence that long-term exposure to air pollution can contribute to chronicle lung and heart diseases, which could mean that people with such existing preconditions could even be more vulnerable during this period. And so, yeah, do we already have any reports on this? Is there material comparing certain regions of Europe? Because, of course, it can be an extra argument to reduce air pollution. First of all, thank you for having me on this first session of a series. It's a pleasure to be with you and thanks also for the question, the opening question. I think it's a very important question and we've known for some time. It's established knowledge that living in bad air quality indeed has an impact, of course, on our respiratory system, but also on heart conditions, cardiovascular, but also on the immune system through impacts on the brain. And so that is long-established knowledge. And it's evident that if we see a crisis like the corona crisis, that people start to look for patterns and causality. And indeed, there are at the moment several studies that are hinting rather strongly at this. And one study is done by the University of Cambridge, which has come to the conclusion that the London area, but also the Midlands and some of the industrial areas in the UK where you have poor air quality, that there are more people dying or suffering grave consequences. There is another study from the University of Siena and the University of Orhus in Denmark that has looked at Northern Italy and that comes with similar results or correlations at least. And then we've got a Harvard study which looked at 3,000 counties in the US and is also linking air quality to the corona crisis now. They come to the conclusion that there is at least very strong indication that living in poor air quality is a contributing factor to understanding the impact of COVID-19 on people's health and on the impact of COVID-19 and that means serious consequences and people dying also. Now it is equally clear that we will have to wait for larger scale studies that are more of a broad-scale epidemiological nature to understand the full impact and weigh it off against other factors. But the indications are rather clear for the moment. Okay, thanks. That's all I think important knowledge and let's hope that further studies can give us further information and correlations. In your editorial also of course mentioned that the current crisis has a strong effect on the production and consumption patterns. For instance, people taking less their car, there are no planes you can take, which of course reduces the emissions of greenhouse gases, but there's no certainty this will be a long-term effect. So Europe has to achieve its goal of climate neutrality in another way, really building a resilient economy. And then the question is, in this crisis, which is of course horrible, are there new opportunities for this? Well, of course, we will have to support the most affected people. First of all, I think it's rather clear and we also wrote it in our newsletter. I mean, this type of societal cost of the current crisis can of course not be the way to reach long-term sustainability objectives on climate or environment. That is obvious. This is not the way to do it. At the same time, I think it is leading to reflections on what are the systemic origins of this type of crisis. What is it telling us about our consumption and production? How can we reflect on ways forward that go into more fundamental questions about our energy system? If you look at the prices on energy markets now, I mean, if you're talking about the need for disruptive solutions in the future, it's not this type of disruption that we want. But at the same time, it makes us reflect. I've read half a dozen articles at least about the price of oil and what signals it is sending about moving in a post-carbon framework. The same can be said for other things. Another thing which I find very encouraging is that there is quite a bit written, but also in the political discourse about the crisis, about indeed the distributional aspects of it. Which groups is it hitting more than others? Not only in the medical impact, but also job-wise, which are the fragile people on the labor market? And how can we take them into account when we are providing stimulus packages? So I'm encouraged by the fact that when people talk about the future that they keep an eye on these long-term sustainability trajectories, but also on the social dimension that is part of, I would say, any public investments in the economy. And also on how governments can steer distributional issues in a future-oriented economy that is not only low-carbon and circular and takes care of our natural capital. But that also leads to a fair society in the future. Okay, I think that's really crucial. And the agency published at the end of last year, it seems now already a long time ago, a quite important report stated outlook of Europe's environment 2020. And I must say, although of course we are all aware of it, it was still quite a wake-up call. Because the report really stated that we need a change of direction, not only in the face of the climate change challenges, but also the degradation of nature and the overconsumption of natural resources. Also, the report shows that the European Union has already achieved significant results, for instance, in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. But it also shows very clearly that we are not on course for our goals for 2030 or 2050. So what is the most urgent needed to be able to achieve these goals? I think the report comes to four conclusions when it comes to how we can imagine reaching those 2030 objectives and then looking beyond 2030 towards 2050. And one conclusion is that we need to implement better what we promise. There are serious implementation gaps in many policies in Europe, including in climate policies, even though overall Europe has made significant progress by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20% since 1990. And so better implementation. That is of course a key responsibility of national authorities and then the sectors that are part of that. The second conclusion I think is very fundamental. It states very clearly that even if we would implement better, this is not going to be enough to make these necessary fundamental changes towards sustainability. In other words, we have to come up with more integrated systemic transitional type policies. If we want to reach our 2030 objectives whether they are framed in a global sustainable development goals perspective, or now in the European Green Deal perspective. The third conclusion, if I may, is that there is a risk that we make the wrong investments. That we think that by perfecting making current technologies a bit more efficient or making current business models function better, that we will reach the 2030 and beyond objectives. And I think we need we need to move away from this logic of making increasingly costly marginal efficiency gains in systems that we know it's costly and it's a dead end street marginal efficiency by its very definition as engineers and economists will tell you has a limit. And we need we need to start going from a high cost, dead end street logic to an investing in breakthrough technologies that will lead us to 2030 but open pathways to 2050. And the last conclusion was that this is clearly not something for governments only you cannot do this from Paris and Berlin and Brussels and Rome, you will have to do this with society, this is a societal transition. So the engagement with with societal actors will be absolutely critical. If you then look at that yes we're we're on the way to framing ambitious 2030 and 2050 objectives they're politically embedded in the European Green Deal. It will take quite a bit of innovation and not only technological innovation also business models and social innovation to reach them and I think keeping the focus on the systemic longer term objectives and making the necessary changes in policy in our financial systems but also in our governance from local level to to the European level will be absolutely critical. Okay, thank you for this clear four points. I would add to this that if you want really system change we also have to stop doing the wrong things. And you mentioned already the extremely low price of oil but at the same time we are still subsidizing fossil fuels. Isn't it now really the time to stop this policy and use the money for urgent climate goals. Yes, I will answer this question immediately, but let me pick up this thing of stop doing things and and I think subsidizing the wrong things is one of the things we need to stop it. The whole idea of going through the sustainability transition of course the term speeding up and scaling up. One of the good solutions in the good practices is is key language. In order to facilitate this speeding up and scaling up and to create a space for that. We will indeed have to stop doing things. And the more we are willing to do that. The later we create or the more we create a space for the good solutions and when we then go into the energy field. As you mentioned it's part of a broader discussion that has been with us for two decades at the environmentally harmful subsidies debate, or the OECD I think played a critical role, but also a lot of economists have written about, you know, cost mitigation and how subsidies go against that fundamental principle. It's also mentioned numerous times in EU documents and studies including the European environment agency so yes. We really need to speed up moving out of subsidizing the unsustainable. We have to pay twice we subsidize something now and we have to fix what is unsustainable later so it's also from that perspective. And that is of course true in the field of of energy but you could also say that is true in the field of mobility it works in some economic sectors. We need to use the money that we now use to subsidize move that in the direction of supporting those who are on a different trajectory that is sustainable so I don't think the message in our reporting. In our studies is that take the economy, take the money out of the economy. That is not the European model in the mixed economy. The message is with a credible and rather fast trajectory that moves that money in a fundamentally sustainable direction and that is where the sustainable finance initiative, I think can play a critical role. And so you talked about the risk of choosing for goals 2030 and then create a kind of lock in. So I think this also refers to gas which is sometimes proposed as kind of midway solution but it can also be kind of looking. Yes, and we actually did a report. Two and a half years ago if I remember well on lock ins in energy investments and we did a very detailed analysis at the company level even energy companies where we look in. Lock ins financial lock ins and stranded assets the potential for stranded assets in coal fired power plants but also in gas plants and generating electricity. The estimate is that about 20% of those investments could be stranded assets by 2030, not only in coal but also in gas so I think gas as a short term transitional and variable factor in the energy system. And it will be with us, but it will be a matter to use the current potential as good as possible, and to reflect very carefully on not making the wrong investments that will indeed lock is in an energy trajectory that is by now, no longer compatible with Europe's key climate and energy priority for 2050 and that is becoming the first climate neutral continent so one has to reflect very carefully on one where one uses the billions that are required to be invested in the energy system for the future. And we talked about the money you need for investing in the new things. So I guess we also have to European and but also of course then at the national level. We really have to change our fiscal policies and system. Because we are taxing we're taxing labor and almost. There are almost no taxes and let's say the use of the environment. Indeed, and here again we are talking about the debate that that is really old environmental tax reform has been in the in the policy language for at least 20 years, I would say. There are students of studies and reports analyzing only what is happening but also how it can be done and implemented also in a socially just manner. And how we can move from taxing societal goods like people having an income from a job societal bats and how we can use that to drive the shift to a to a more sustainable economy. And this by and large not showing up in a in a significant increase in taxes in Europe. It is still around five and a half 6% of the tax base you know two and a half 3% of the GDP. And most of those taxes on top of that are not on pollution. They are on fuels. And so the full potential of environmental tax reform. I think it needs to be used by the way it is an advice that is coming from the OECD and the European Commission to countries for quite some time. It is very difficult to integrate that national tax systems but I think it is a critical component indeed of moving the production and consumption habits in a certain direction. And at the same time reflecting very carefully how in a society where the tax base is changing because of people getting older. The demographic, but also in changing of industries from production industries to more service industries, more fluid industries that that are spread out on the planet like the digital economy. And that can provide for a tax base that that provides stability for all the functions of the government, including stimulating a more sustainable society. Okay. Well you already talked about really the need for system change. Also the subtitle of the report we are discussing is knowledge for transition to sustainable Europe. Is this concept of transition. Do you see this reflected in the new Green Deal the European Commission has put on the table. It's really systemic changes. Literally, yes, I would say in the term transition is a key term that is used in the European Green Deal it says literally that Europe needs to lead the transition towards a more sustainable society. So it is, it is a term that has meaning and I think that the agency's work has contributed to giving it meaning at the European level in a in a policy context. But it's also in my opinion deeply embedded in the ambitions if you look at carbon neutrality by 2050 if you look at the circular economy. If you look at a world leading biodiversity strategy, the ambition of a zero pollution Europe, a biodiversity strategy that that that really underpins society. I think just stating those ambitions implies that we will go to systemic transitions, we cannot do it with the current systems of production and consumption. It is mentioned in the language with a particular meaning, but it is also for me deeply embedded in the ambitions that are framed under the European Green Deal. We will not get there with incremental marginal policy improvements, or with, you know, meddling in the margins, we will have to reconsider the fundamental system components if we want to reach those ambitions. Okay, that's very clear. And of course, and we already saw it from reactions from countries like Poland, who are still dependent on coal. One crucial dimension of this Green New Deal is the just transition. How can we make sure that all regions in Europe can win by this transition, and we don't make divides or the existing larger. So, I think I don't know whether it's also in your report, but this focus on just transition seems really crucial to me. Yes, and I think the term just transition if you go through the origins of environmental justice. It is linked also to pollution and its impact on various, you know, social groups in society, linked to income distribution. And so there is a long history there, but under the current understanding in the Green Deal, it is indeed linked to this understanding that's for some regions and some parts of Europe making this transition might have this proportional impacts on jobs and on income of people. And if economists say that they don't want stranded assets, I think as a society we need to be equally firm and say we also don't want stranded regions. And we also don't want stranded workers. And so I think that the key way of doing that is by including this from the start in the policy trajectories, the systemic trajectories that we are envisioning this sort of impact on workers and on regions should not be the next externality. Yeah, at the moment that we fundamentally start internalizing climates and environmental issues and material consumption into our models for the future. We should make sure that we then do not end up with the next externality. And that is, oh, we made this green transition, but now we have a, we have a social situation that is unacceptable. The idea of systemic and integrated policies is of course to take that from the start as one of the key dimensions to bring to the table. And yes, that requires investments as well. And I think that's where the justice fund is looking to contribute in this debate. Okay, another very ambitious element of the Green New Deal is the Farm to Fork strategy. Sustainable food production, good income for farmers, a strategy which is connected with climate and biodiversity. It is highly ambitious. And I can imagine that some groups in Europe are not really fond about it. So how do you see what are the chances we also here see this needed system transition. I think, in all honesty, I think this will, this is a hard not to crack him for different reasons. I mean, food is is highly personal, it's cultural. It's the biggest part of the European territory in terms of land use. There is an incredibly long history of how this system has developed. It's deeply embedded in the identity. So it is a really big challenge. But I think if we start from two points, I think we can get some grip on it. And the first part is that I think it's terribly unhelpful. What is often done is to limit the debates to farmers and to agriculture. Agriculture is only one stage in a whole food chain discussion. Yeah. And the farmer is often already part of a big inputs that comes before him and that's the agrochemical industries, then you've got to those who buy agricultural products and transform them into food because most of the time in the supermarket. We don't buy directly agricultural produce, we buy food. Yeah, and then there is the distributors and in some countries that's only a handful. And then you've got the consumption part of it. And so I think if we would focus on on the whole chain, the food chain and look where we can come in with governance approaches that drive sustainability along the chain would already be a big advantage. So that that that is partially what I think what the farm to fork wants to do, because it's terribly unhelpful to be a stigmatizing one link in that whole system. That is, that is often a rather weak link in the system. And that brings me to a second point. I think at the moment we pay for our food at least four times and we subsidize farmers, which if you think of it the people who are producing the basis of our food, which is rather fundamental to our existence. They often don't make a decent living. We need to subsidize them. That is a really bizarre thing if you think of it. You could say we pay for our food when we pay when we buy it. And thirdly, you could say we pay for our food when we are dealing with the environment and climate consequences of our current food system and they are multiple and profound. And fourthly, we pay when we go to the doctor because Europe has a very safe food system by and large arguably the safest on the planet. It's necessarily the most healthy habits that we have as consumers. Now, there must be a better way in the 21st century to deal with a food system than to pay four times for our food. Yeah. I think we need to reflect in a systemic way how we can bring food in line, the food system with climate objectives, with energy objectives, with objectives on our natural capital biodiversity, but also with broader societal objectives of health and well being. And I think the farm fork strategy can play a significant role in opening up that debate in Europe, because I think it's fair to say that the debate has been rather closed for a long time. And we have now, I think one extra dimension, which is also the expected impact of climate change on food production in Europe. Also, this I think something very crucial. Yeah, indeed. We did a recent report where we look at the impacts on the food system. And if you look at the expected harvests for a number of the really important agricultural products, the crops in Europe, it is going to be very, very significant with losses, especially around the Mediterranean basin that are 20, 30, 50%, which also will have an impact on on the very feasibility of agriculture in those regions where that is a really important part, not only of the economy, but also of cultural identity and of landscape, you know, features, and also economically on the price of agricultural land. We, we, in our report mentioned very significant losses of agricultural, of the value of agricultural land and not the Mediterranean basin of course, will be will bear the biggest burden because of eat waves, droughts, water shortages, mean those things, but it goes well into Europe, it goes well into France and into central Europe, and into Belgium and even the southern part of the Netherlands. And this is by 2030 and 2050 so this is not, this is not science fiction for centuries to come this is impacts that that we expect to be very significant in the next. Decades so adaptation will be necessary in the agricultural and food system. That will of course be only possible if we stick to very strong mitigation measures and this, you know, zero carbon or carbon neutral Europe, and even then the impacts will be significant on the food system. Okay, thanks and of course climate change also will affect the already difficult situation in the field of biodiversity by diversity loss. Also there the European Union has by diversity by diversity strategy. Do you think that the corona crisis would slow down the Green New Deal or this biodiversity policy or because it's a lot together of course with tackling the corona crisis. Well, I think there we have to listen to what the top policymakers are sending as signals, and I think the, the most senior people in the Commission, President von der Leyen but also executive first Vice President Franz Timmermans. They have made it very clear that they are fully committed to the European Green Deal and to the digital economy as the key drivers of their strategy but also as the key drivers come out of this crisis. There has also been significant political support coming from ministers of several member states from people in the European Parliament in support of that direction. Now, I think it is also clear and it has been mentioned in debates in the European Parliament but also by Commission officials that there might be some delay in the agenda. I mean, we should be realistic this crisis is for all the good reasons, absorbing a lot of attention and political capital to bring and hold Europe together around the solutions. And so there might be some delays also linked to the global agenda. The COP in Glasgow has been postponed. The COP on biodiversity that was planted in Kunming China has been postponed. So, yes, but I think there is full commitment to all the key components of the European Green Deal and that includes the climate commitments, the biodiversity commitments, the resource efficiency and circular economy commitments. And I would say the health and environment commitments that are embedded in the European Green Deal. Okay, many thanks. Meanwhile, listening to us have been sending in questions. So I think it's good that we also include them in our conversation and we talked about fiscal system. And one of the questions is on taxing, taxing consumption. Is there a potential unintended consequence of creating dependence upon revenue from behaviors we want to eliminate. Yes, if you tax consumption, I mean, there are several things that one has to keep in mind. First of all, there is distributional issues. If you're very wealthy and you are a family of four you need one bread today if you're a rather poor you need one bread today you tax the bread in the same way. It falls this disproportionately on people that have a low income and so distributional issues are an inherent part of those who are studying of the studies of those who are working on environmental tax reform. The second part of course is, are you not eroding the very tax base that you have just created because if you want to use environmental tax reform. Shift people away from those behaviors that you are taxing yes you are eroding the very tax base so it is by definition a dynamic system of taxation that has to be linked to the broader taxation. The question which I did not fully understand was, are you not risking to stimulate behavior that that you in the end don't want was that the gist of the question. And it was, as you said that if we put, if you put taxes on behavior we don't want. Yeah, and then people stop doing this. And of course, as you say you erode the fiscal basis so I think this was the clear question. Yes, that is now of course there are there are ways of, you could say tightening the screws by by by keeping the tax base and increasing the efficiency requirements that you want. And so you continue, but yeah it is as I said it is it is a an essential part of working with environmental taxes that one has a very clear understanding of how it is linked to behavior and shifts in behavior and thus to an erosion potentially of a tax base that is that is absolutely the case. Okay, thanks we move to the next question. It's about who should take the lead in this transition. You talked about the multi level governance we have of course European Union we have national governments we have cities and yeah, who is now dynamic lead in this. Well, I think it is clear that in an EU setting that quite a bit of the agenda over and this has been the case over the last decades on environment climate circular economy has been set from the European level. But it's equally clear that a lot of the implementation modalities and the responsibility for implementation and driving this agenda has come from the national level, but I think what what is increasingly clear and and I think that that makes me optimistic. Is that at the urban level, there is a lot happening that goes well beyond what countries are often putting on the table if you think of the Covenant of Mayors, when it comes to climate mitigation and adaptation. And they are clearly going beyond what their national governments are, are, you know, putting on the table in many cases. There is also a really dynamic urban system that that is aimed at integrating sustainable urban solutions. That is very functional in a number of cities if you just look at the finalists of the European green capital award. And of course you can look at that as an award and recognition, but you can also look a bit deeper into what that means. And you will notice that all of those cities, very clear view. They're linked to the energy system and what what the urban level can do on that they all have a link to a mobility vision for their city. They all have a link to how they think about food. They work with local knowledge institutions, all of these cities have a university and other knowledge institutions, and they work with local communities and networks that focus on sustainability. Well, I think the urban level indeed and I'm glad it's part of the question the urban level is playing a critical role in this, this whole transition, and then not to forget that I think increasingly we also see with economic actors, the understanding that those who will be in the lead in the next in the future economy will be those who understand that the boundary conditions for being successfully successful economically in the 21st century are very different from those in the 20th century. And so it's those who are willing to make those shifts that that will be in the lead and that will get access to sustainable financial instruments, and that will be prioritized by policies that are driven in that direction. So, I know this is a long answer to the question who who should be doing this, the short answer would have been everybody. I think the crux is to connect to connect the dots at all levels and in all sectors of society of those who are willing and able to overcome the barriers, the hurdles, the lock ins, and to push through these and move things forward. That's where I think the real, the real energy and the real scope will be. Thank you for this answer. There's another question that came in stating to the transition we've we for instance want in the mobility sector, but maybe the corona crisis will change things because of course public transport is often seen as the answer not only for cars, but yeah, people now maybe want to take again their individual cars again so and again, you have the same reasoning a bit for plastic use not reusable plastics. So how can this tension be solved. Look, I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know how long this corona virus will be with us, and at what level and what the impact will be on the necessary and often drastic measures that are taken and on human behavior that is changing in response to these measures. But I start from the assumption that some of the behaviors that we see today and that are rational under the circumstances would be the long term behavioral trends for for four years to come more of the decade so I think keeping an eye on the needle on the compass which means these these shifts also in the mobility system sustainable shifts that that that is where where it's going. It could also make the argument that we are in the middle of the the most massive involuntary experiment with with teleworking, as we notice right now, and that maybe some of that will remain, and that that will have fewer people on the roads, rushing parcels every day or rushing to wherever they need to be at work so we will have to see what stays and what what shifts are temporary and how they will be phased out over over the next months and maybe couple years with corona but I I'm still a strong believer that we understand that that we will need to come with fundamental sustainable solutions for mobility and that that is not getting everybody back into their individual car at the same moment rushing to the same spot in the morning and in the evening. Okay, thanks. There is another question concerning Poland. And it is stated that in Poland, the special Corona law releases from the obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment because of the crisis. Do you think the precautionary principle could be weakened because of the Corona crisis. First of all, I don't know that law in Poland so I cannot comment on it. I think in general the precautionary principle as some people might might know is the is one of the four core principles embedded in European treaties and so we, it is a core principle. And it has been questioned numerous times from various places claiming that it is against innovation that it hampers investments in technologies and their breakthrough. That is not the case. In fact, the agency has done a large number of case studies on uncertainty and precaution. This is from early warning series. It's quite the contrary. It can drive innovation into a sustainable direction. Could it be under pressure in this period now when the focus is on kickstarting the economy again on stimulus. Yes, I think it could be. It will depend on whether we approach this period from what I call a decontextualized place, which means let's subsidize give tax cuts, provide money to those who need it in the economy now and pretend that that is happening in a vacuum. So we look at this whole crisis and and link it to a broader picture which is the European Green Deal which is the role of the public domain with public health with, you know, there are, there's a whole context of this crisis. And if we take that into account, I think precaution pops up as a as a critical issue. Because what we know from people who are specialized in epidemics is that this is not falling from the sky. The economic forum risk assessment, it has been in that risk assessment for several years. It has been mentioned by the World Health Organization for several years, it has been in risk assessments for many countries. So, this idea of precaution and dealing with risk and uncertainty, I think will probably become more important. And that is where I hope we will use the precautionary principle, fundamental and intelligent way to innovate at a systemic societal level to mitigate a risk for this type of impacts in the future. And stepping away from it, I think it's a wake up call to take it very seriously. Okay, thanks. We have another question. It's maybe a bit broader question. It relates to the way the European Commission can push member states, meaning the national governments, harder to start implementing air water and waste management so that the Commission push member states more. I think it's in the portfolio of the Commission indeed to do the compliance and check that with countries and take measures. And of course, going to court over this infringement procedures when it needs to happen, it needs to happen. I think the energy environment is quite clear when it comes to that. Of course, you would prefer that that is not the outcome, because it means that there is a longer term of non compliance and what you want is compliance. And I think what what has happened in last years is that they've come with a new instrument, the environmental implementation review, which is a screening at the country level the member state level. So there are issues there are with environmental implementation, and then entering into a debate with the policymakers to, you know, give clear signals but also in a capacity building scope where we've seen some twinning type exercises between countries that are struggling with implementation and can learn lessons from those who are more advanced. So that is a new type of instrument in the box. Now, it's quite obvious that if there is an clear unwillingness to invest in complying with key legislation on waste or on air quality that the signal from the Commission is still that then infringement procedures are going to be the instrument that they can use. I think in our in our reports we are always rather clear at which countries are reaching the targets and which ones are not what the gaps are, whether they are living up to European standards as agreed in legislation. The agency plays no role in the in the compliance per se. Okay, we had a question from Poland. Now we have a question from Athens, Greece. The question is, what is your opinion about the one health, a more coordinated effort to combine health and ecological protection. I think it's obvious that there is a lot of scope to do this because you could argue that environmental policies are preventative health policies. If you look at your quality but also water quality noise pollution, chemical pollution. They all have an impact on health, which means at a personal level but also at the level of countries having to invest in healthcare systems. So it's clear that that that link is there integrating that in a policy and in an approach is clearly a move forward. This is also increasingly the case when it comes to climate change. I mean there is there is an initiative that has been taken and that is in its early stages of setting up an observatory on the health impacts of climate between the European Environment Agency and ECDC, the European Agency in Stockholm that works on contagious diseases and the control of them. And that plays a big role now in the corona crisis and that is stimulated by the European Commission in a very strong way. Yes, the short answer is yes it makes a lot of sense to bring these areas back together. Healthcare and health is not only taking care when things have gone wrong. Curative preventative healthcare is often a smarter choice as a society and it's in the long run often much less expensive as well, not only in financial cost but also in the human well being cost. Okay, we have two final questions more going back to your agency. The first is, will this corona crisis change the priorities of your organization? No, for the most part because we are currently working on a 10 year strategy for the agency, which is very much in line with the framing of 2030 policies objectives and those are embedded in globally in the SDG agenda. And I think in at the European level clearly in the Green Deal in the climate and energy policies for 2030 and that's what we're focusing on. They also involve the whole breakthrough of data intelligence and, you know, artificial intelligence and integrating satellite, that all is rather stable. Of course, there might be increased attention for this link between health and environment, the link between the origins of the corona virus and biodiversity laws, the link between climate change and environment as I've mentioned. That might be the case. And the third impact but I start from the assumption that that will not be the case is that if the European priorities would change dramatically, then of course that would have an impact on the work that the agency is doing because we are in essence, bringing knowledge to European and national policies. But I start from the assumption that we've got our eyes on the medium and long term agenda on sustainable development. And so that that's what what we are focusing on and where we will invest and where we are working with the member states with knowledge institutions in the countries, but also with with the European Commission to frame as possible knowledge or the most ambitious policy objectives. Okay, we come to the last question in all the other interviews. You mentioned the importance of an ecological public procurement policy. You always give the example of the restaurant of your organization. So what's so special about the restaurant of your organization. And how do you manage to get there. Okay, well, I would say the comment find out we invite you know I we have a canteen in the agency in Copenhagen, and almost invariably when people visit us they always comment very positively, deeply about our canteen, but how different is this canteen. Because it has a really good selection of vegetarian dishes. It has a fruits, fresh fruits and vegetables there. It's, it's all that. Yeah. And the basis of it is public procurement because we have to procure for canteen services. And we have a food policy that in essence fits on a page and even in one sentence we want food that is good for ourselves and for the planet. And that is part of the criteria for our public procurement. And what you notice when you put that into your criteria. The market competes around those criteria. I've been there seven years now we have had three providers for our canteen. And they all organize their, their supply around these things which means that we eat low in the food chain. We try to eat seasonal. We have sort of limits on the amount of meat that can be served. There is always vegetarian options and on Thursday it's exclusively vegetarian. We don't eat a lot of sweets that is kept out of the diet. We local providers. So it's about low in the food chain seasonal low food miles links to World Health Organization sort of limits for intake of food. Very few processed foods it's about it's about all of those things and I'm not saying it's perfect. Yeah, you have a very different canteen than you would have in an average, I would say public ministry or or in in a European institution. That is the case and we we enjoy it a lot and it serves us well and it stimulates others to think that this is possible. Okay, I think this is really great to end our talk with this very, I would say healthy proposal. I think it's something that can be implemented by all organizations all over Europe because you just have to follow the procurement rules of the European Union. So, Hans, I really want to thank you for your time. I know you're very busy. It was a pleasure talking with you. And the thing I really take out of this is that we need systemic change. We need to transition of the our systems with the goal of 2050. And it also has to be just transition. So before saying goodbye, I want to end with two practical things. First is that this was the first but it will not be the last Green Post corner talk. On the contrary, already tomorrow we have our next session with two great people, Philip Lumberts, co-president of the Greens AFR Group in the European Parliament, and also Marga Sia, secretary general of the European Green Party. So please, let's meet again tomorrow at four o'clock. And the other thing is, if you really like this kind of talks, it would be very helpful if you would be able to donate a bit to the Green European Foundation. And you also find a link in the chat about this. So this also we would also be very grateful. I wish you a very good day for the rest and hope see you again one of the coming Green Post corner talks. Thank you very much. It was a pleasure.