MIL Publishing Engine 1

The Commission carried out a risk assessment for t he silver-cheeked toadfish (Lagocephalus sceleratus) under the Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Regulation[1] and proposed its inclusion on the list of IAS of Union concern in 2022. However, the proposal did not obtain the necessary support from the Member States.

Measures addressing Lagocephalus sceleratus may be covered by the European Maritime, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Fund ( EMFAF)[2], in the framework of sustainable fishing activities, under the conditions set out in the EMFAF Regulation[3], provided that the Member State has set out such action in its Operational Programme.

For instance, in Greece, under Specific Objective 1.6, EMFAF funds initiatives for ecosystem protection and IAS management. Measures aim to enhance knowledge and address IAS, mitigate their impact on biodiversity and consumer safety. Compensation for affected fishers is supported through impact assessments to ensure proper allocation of financial assistance.

Action on IAS is a priority of the EU programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE)[4]. LIFE funding for the silver-cheeked toadfish will depend on whether relevant proposals are submitted and selected for funding in a competitive process.

• [1] Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species, OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35.
• [2] https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/funding/emfaf_en
• [3] Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004, OJ L 247, 13.7.2021, p. 1-49.
• [4] https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en

The Commission has not proposed new requirements for solid fuel local space heaters and has not taken any final position on this matter.

All ecodesign measures are established in a transparent process with extensive stakeholder participation including the discussion of working documents. The current review started in 2023 with a Consultation Forum meeting.

Since then, the Commission has engaged with stakeholders to gather information and their opinions. Meetings are still ongoing with relevant associations, manufacturers and certification laboratories.

The Commission is preparing an impact assessment for possible ecodesign measures for solid fuel local space heaters. This is assessing the technical and economic aspects as well as the environmental ones.

The ecodesign Directive requires that ecodesign measures do not have a significant negative impact on the affordability or the life cycle cost of the products. Concerns over technical feasibility and cost will therefore be discussed and addressed in future consultations.

The Commission will also carefully assess any implications for consumers, notably regarding the affordability or the life-cycle cost of such products.

In addition, as for all ecodesign measures, any requirements will only concern new appliances, not those already installed in citizens’ homes.

While recognising the value of sustainable biomass as an affordable and secure energy source, Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1185[1] requires the Commission to review the measures for solid fuel local space heaters, including an assessment of air pollutant emissions.

• [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/1185/oj/eng

The Commission has received several complaints regarding the allegedly wrong application of EU environmental law regarding offshore wind farms, including those being developed in France.

Upon examination and for the moment, the Commission has not identified any problem that would justify further investigation. The Commission also notes that complainants in France have sometimes referred such matters to administrative courts to challenge development permits, including environmental authorisations.

For the reasons outlined above, the Commission has not requested any information from the French authorities about possible environmental damage to wild flora and fauna caused by offshore wind farms in French marine waters.

The EU is supporting research to further understand and mitigate the environmental impacts of offshore wind farms, notably through its recent Horizon Europe call for proposals for ‘Minimisation of environmental, and optimisation of socioeconomic impacts in the deployment, operation and decommissioning of offshore wind farms’[1].

It is expected that the findings of this research will further enhance knowledge on the impacts of offshore wind farms on biodiversity and help minimise those, among other environmental impacts.

• [1] https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/restore-our-ocean-and-waters/minimisation-environmental-and-optimisation-socioeconomic-impacts-deployment-operation-and

In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91[1], the use of a leghold trap, defined as a device designed to restrain or capture an animal by means of jaws which close tightly upon one or more of the animal’s limbs, thereby preventing withdrawal of the limb or limbs from the traps, is prohibited in the EU.

Additionally, Annex VI to Council Directive 92/43/EEC[2] lists the means of capture and killing prohibited under Article 15 of the directive, which include traps which are non-selective according to their principle or their conditions of use.

If a trap is designed to kill only certain animal species, it can be considered as selective according to its principle of use. However, its conditions of use must ensure selectivity, i.e. it must be set in a manner which does not allow non-target species to be trapped.

The Commission has sent a letter to the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the EU on 14 April 2025 to remind them of their obligation to implement and enforce these legal requirements.

The Commission will also encourage Member States to take measures to limit the possibility of purchasing such traps, for example through controls in specialised shops, and to empower forest guards to confiscate and destroy any illegal traps.

This is without prejudice to any infringement action to be taken by the Commission in case of non-compliance with the regulation and to remedies in national law, including bringing the matter to the competent national authorities and/or before national courts, where appropriate.

• [1] Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 of 4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards, OJ L 308, 9.11.1991, p. 1.
• [2] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

The management of the EU external borders is an important EU priority and a shared responsibility between all Member States and the EU.

The Commission supports external border management through policy, funding and operational support. This support includes the multiannual strategic policy for European integrated border management by the European Border and Coast Guard[1], strengthened Frontex operations, and deploying digitalised systems such as the future Entry Exit System[2] and the European Travel Information and Authorisation System[3][4]. These efforts are backed by EUR 6.3 billion in funding[5].

The Commission also enhances cooperation with third countries and implements mechanisms to address irregular migration, human smuggling and security risks.

Finally, the management of EU external borders is linked to the Pact on Migration and Asylum, particularly through the Screening Regulation[6] and contingency planning.

The Commission adopted a proposal[7] for new legislation in the area of returns on 11 March 2025 which needs now to be negotiated by the co-legislators.

The aim of the new regulatory framework is to increase the effectiveness of returns of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the EU.

The Commission aims to achieve this through simplification, clarity and more efficiency of return processes, including by reinforcing the obligations of returnees to cooperate, and the measures to prevent absconding and unauthorised movements.

• [1] The national authorities of Member States responsible for border management, including coast guards to the extent that they carry out border control tasks, the national authorities responsible for return and Frontex constitute the European Border and Coast Guard.
• [2] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/smart-borders/entry-exit-system_en
• [3] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen-borders-and-visa/smart-borders/european-travel-information-authorisation-system_en
• [4] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen/effective-management-external-borders_en
• [5] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/funding/borders-and-visa-funds/integrated-border-management-fund-border-management-and-visa-instrument-2021-27_en
• [6] Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 introducing the screening of third-country nationals at the external borders and amending Regulations (EC) No 767/2008, (EU) 2017/2226, (EU) 2018/1240 and (EU) 2019/817, PE/20/2024/REV/1, OJ L, 2024/1356, 22.5.2024.
• [7] Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union, and repealing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, Council Directive 2001/40/EC and Council Decision 2004/191/EC — COM/2025/101 final.

The EU agri-food chain observatory (AFCO) was launched in 2024 as one of the actions that aim to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain and reinforce trust between actors.

As set out in its Terms of Reference[1], the purpose of AFCO is to advise the Commission and to exchange information and discuss, based on available evidence and facts, with a view to establishing a common diagnosis of the situation across markets, and bring increased transparency on prices, cost structure, margin distribution and added value in the supply chain, while respecting confidentiality and competition rules.

Expert groups, such as AFCO, provide advice and expertise and do not engage in policy discussions. In line with its Terms of Reference, any recommendation of the group would only represent an input to policy making, providing facts and data to inform policy responses by the Commission and other policy-makers. Such analysis can support legislative proposals and discussions by the co-legislators.

Members of AFCO are Member States’ authorities and organisations representing stakeholders operating in two or more EU Member States, and active in at least one stage of the food supply chain.

Stakeholder organisations were selected by the Commission through a public call for applications in line with rules for the creation and operation of Commission expert groups[2].

The objective was to gather experts from all along the food supply chain. The European Parliament’s Secretariat of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has an observer status to the group and regularly participates in its meetings.

• [1] https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?lang=en&groupID=3949
• [2] C(2016) 3301 final.

Tourism is indeed contributing approximately 10% of GVA (Gross value added) to the EU, employing over 20 million people.

The Commission has been working together with tourism stakeholders in supporting resilient, sustainable and digitally-fit European tourism along the priorities and actions agreed together under the Transition Pathway for Tourism and European Agenda for Tourism 2030.

Transnational projects are supported by several EU programmes, such as Interreg, LIFE, Single Market Programme. For example, the Eurovelo project supported by the LIFE programme and managed by the European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF), is developing a network of 17 long distance cycle routes that cross and connect the whole of Europe.

The 2021-2027 Interreg programmes have allocated almost EUR 2 billion from cohesion policy funds to finance projects under the specific objective tourism and cultural heritage, a key area for cooperation and regional development.

There is a strong link between tourism and other EU priorities, such as enhanced research and innovation, environmental protection, and competitiveness.

For example, INTERSMART is a transnational cooperation project co-financed under the Interreg Black Sea Basin programme where partners are working together to create a transnational Network for Interdisciplinary Solutions for Smart Sustainable Tourism and Services in the Black Sea Basin.

Albania and North Macedonia, as EU candidate countries, and Kosovo*[1], as a potential candidate, are all expected to gradually align with the EU environmental acquis, including EU nature protection legislation such as the Birds[2] and Habitats[3] Directives.

Both Albania and North Macedonia are also Contracting Parties to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats[4] and must comply with its requirements, particularly the strict protection provisions benefiting the Balkan Lynx, since the species is listed in its Appendix II.

The Commission closely monitors the efforts of enlargement countries and regularly discusses the proper alignment with the EU nature protection acquis with national authorities.

The Commission further provides guidance and recommendations to ensure a swift and efficient alignment, among others by means of the annual enlargement reports.

In the nature protection section of these reports, the Commission repeatedly stresses that it remains essential for the countries to advance quickly with the identification and pre-designation of sites that will be covered by the Natura 2000 network.

The Commission will continue to monitor and push for sufficient implementation and enforcement capacities at central level in all candidate countries and potential candidates.

• [1] *This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.
• [2] Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7.
• [3] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
• [4] Bern Convention: https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention

The Commission is dedicated to strengthening EU competitiveness and growth while upholding high standards and achieving economic, social, and environmental goals.

For this, it aims to streamline rules and reduce the administrative burdens for businesses by 25%, and by 35% for small and medium-sized enterprises by the end of this mandate.

The Commission will continue to systematically evaluate EU legislation, including opportunities to simplify and reduce administrative burden, without undermining its policy objectives.

Dialogue with stakeholders is key. As indicated in their mission letters and the 2025 Communication on implementation and simplification[1], each Commissioner will host at least two Implementation Dialogues a year.

Regular exchanges between the Commission and the advisory councils[2] also provide an opportunity to jointly explore ways to simplify EU legislation and reduce administrative burden that stems from it.

The Nature Restoration Regulation[3] (NRR) does not impose direct obligations on companies or stakeholders. It leaves wide flexibility to national authorities to identify in their national restoration plans[4] the measures needed to achieve the different restoration objectives . The implementation of the NRR is still at an initial stage.

It would be premature to draw conclusions regarding its impact on stakeholders. The Fisheries Control Regulation was revised only recently, and the focus should now be on its implementation.

On the basis of the empowerments granted by the co-legislators in the revised Fisheries Control Regulation, the Commission is currently preparing the relevant delegated and implementing acts. Simplification and limiting red tape are guiding principles in this process.

• [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0047
• [2] https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/fisheries/scientific-input/advisory-councils_en
• [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj/eng
• [4] The national planning efforts will be supported by a digital tool, currently being development by the European Environment Agency, that will reduce administrative burden for Member States to the strictly necessary, notably by reusing existing information (‘report once’ approach) and allowing for a bottom-up approach, where feasible.