Roma, 3 giu. – Good morning. Our guest on this episode of Askanews is Federico Pizzarotti, candidate of Renew Europe with Azione, the party of Carlo Calenda. We thank Dr. Pizzarotti for being here with us today. Good morning everyone, thank you for having me. Just a brief introduction. I am Federico Pizzarotti, mayor of Parma for ten years. Today, I am engaged in this European challenge because I believe that we need to move from the cities to Europe.
Q: You are a candidate in the North-Eastern list with Carlo Calenda’s “Azione.” What do you appreciate about the work of the past legislature, and what do you think could be changed in Europe?
Well, the past legislature was quite atypical, and I hope it doesn’t happen again because it was marked by the pandemic, wars, and other issues. It’s hard to evaluate it as a normal legislature. It started with the Next Generation EU, which gave a positive outlook on Europe, not just in terms of objectives but also in terms of funding. This initiative helped to counter the common perception, often expressed in Italy, that “Europe takes from us and doesn’t give back.” It was a positive signal, in my opinion, providing direction, a shared program, and resources. Then came the pandemic, followed by the war. It’s clear that the adjustments with the Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) represent an opportunity that we need to see if we can fully exploit, but this is more of an Italian issue than a European one.
What is missing? Maybe we’ll come back to this later, but the general hope is to make Europe as an institution more effective. To achieve this, we definitely need to change some rules. Therefore, in the next legislature, I truly hope we work towards this goal: removing the veto power of individual countries to allow for qualified majority voting. This would prevent a single country from blocking decisions that affect all other countries. Especially with potential expansions to include more countries, the situation is already complex. If we reach 35 member states, it will be even more complicated in terms of organizing commissioners and delegations, as well as voting, effectiveness, and timely policy decisions. So, the goal is to continue with the proposed treaty revisions. Considering the strong presence of national and nationalist right-wing parties, it’s difficult to move in that direction. However, it’s the only way I see for Europe to become more competitive and cohesive on an international level. We need to compete as a continent with countries like China and others. Having a myopic view of individual national interests ultimately harms everyone’s interests.
Q: If you are elected, which Committees would you like to be a member of?
The objectives I am focusing on are definitely agriculture, the environment, and food safety. Parma hosts the EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, so having direct contact is certainly facilitated. Foreign policy is also important to me, not just in terms of other countries’ dynamics but also in building relationships between Europe and cities. Major and minor changes that Europe wants to implement for the better often go through the dynamics of small and large cities, in terms of transportation, energy efficiency, and relationships between countries and people. Therefore, this aspect should be more emphasized than it has been in the past. But the main priorities are agriculture, the green deal, both environment and energy, as they are two sides of the same coin. In a context like this, I would define it as: we need a policy for climate compensation. We are already experiencing effects on our European territories such as floods, landslides, and hydrogeological instability that need to be compensated for, and we must also work on reducing, mitigating, and limiting climate change. But for the effects we are already facing, we need to intervene as much as we do in preventing new and worse effects, so emissions are a key issue.
Q: Touching on some hot topics, agriculture will be a priority. The Commission will be called to address the issues of many citizens and farmers. What are your thoughts on this? Will you address this issue?
The priorities are a mix involving multiple Committees. Regarding agriculture and its protests, while some are politically motivated as with any protest, Europe provides substantial funding to agriculture, one of its largest investment areas. However, this is clearly not enough. Simply saying that we are already doing enough and that farmers must adapt is insufficient. The real problem lies in the composition and distribution of funds, which often favor large-scale operations and intensive farming over smaller ones. European countries have diverse geomorphological conditions, with some having advantages and others disadvantages. The biggest issue today is the value chain and distribution of revenue. Producers earn less for raw materials while consumers pay more, indicating that profits are absorbed elsewhere, particularly in the various stages of sales and large-scale distribution. We need a fairer distribution of profits, which is a fiscal and economic issue along the entire chain. Producers must earn enough not only to live but also to invest in reducing emissions, soil rotation, new technologies, and water efficiency. This requires both funds and a greater return on agricultural products.
Q: Despite the encouraging data from the 2023 State of the Energy Union report, one of the EU’s biggest challenges is energy. How do you think the Union should accelerate the shift towards renewable energy sources?
Since there are two pivotal elements in a forward-looking perspective, one is, once again, considering what the proposal for a unified army could be, here too, thinking in terms of energy in a comprehensive way. It’s evident that there are energy mixes resulting from various countries’ investments over the years, which, in my opinion, cannot be left to individual country considerations. The decision made by Germany before the crisis, before the war in Ukraine, to shut down nuclear power plants then put them in difficulty and they had to restart coal-fired power plants, which certainly didn’t help with the energy mix and climate emissions. So, once again, is it a decision of a single country, since the effects of any kind ripple across the entire continent, both in terms of energy prices and emissions themselves, or should a more cross-continental approach be taken? I believe we need to gradually move in this direction. This is the line of changing the approach to the energy problem. The other aspect is certainly where to invest. One of the primary goals is definitely to shut down coal-fired power plants and not restart them across Europe. To achieve this, we need to reassess, especially in Italy more than in other countries, our energy mix, nuclear energy, renewable energies, on which we need to continue investing in research because today, the issue of efficiency and intermittency is evident. The sun doesn’t shine at night, and the wind isn’t always blowing, depending on geographical areas. Therefore, I believe the best approach is a mix, technologies related to wave motion, for example. There are many factors of natural forces that we can exploit, on which we still need to invest. But without forgetting a continuous source, which can be continuous, and which many countries in Europe have always used, which is nuclear energy. Something that Italy has banned for many years, then becoming dependent on other countries. So, I think it’s the energy mix that needs to be tackled in a pragmatic way, especially also considering the real life cycle of energy production.
Q: In relation to the somewhat ideological approach that characterized the Commission’s work, particularly in the way the Green Deal was conceived, do you think there will be an opportunity to reconsider objectives and deadlines? Specifically, is there room to revisit emission limits and the halt to the production of internal combustion engines by 2035?
Well, I hope not so much for the calculation and margin on emissions, but for the timing. I campaigned with an electric car, mainly for the benefits related to the possibility of entering historic city centers and parking facilities. However, I will eventually chronicle the time spent thinking about when to charge because, as you know, it’s a heavy vehicle, and when I think about the plans for electric trucks, I can’t help but smile. I have to hope to find a charging station above 50 kilowatts; otherwise, I spend more time charging than actually moving. So, I would encourage those who haven’t already done so to have this experience to understand how it’s not about demonizing but continuing to invest in battery research and efficiency. But also, the infrastructure charging network has significant limitations today. And if we think about transport-related issues, such as trucks, which might have to be all-electric by 2050 due to current limits, a 500-kilowatt truck, for example, needs a charging station of at least one megawatt; otherwise, it’s no longer efficient to transport goods. So, there’s certainly a mix of issues here, but to come to the question about emissions, concerning electric vehicles today in Italy, if we provided incentives to replace old Euro 2 to Euro 6 vehicles, we would have a much greater emissions benefit than putting 1,000,000 electric cars on the road, which is already a considerable number economically and in terms of people who need to buy them. So, it’s about accompanying, because no one denies the effects of emissions and the need to limit them, but it’s all about a mix. For those living in cities, the problem isn’t just replacing the car; it’s not using the car and using public transportation, whether it’s the subway, bus, or bicycle. It requires a change in habits, not just a switch from combustion to electric cars, which still congest cities, and electricity still needs to be produced.
Q: There will also be many health-related issues to address. How should the Union approach this delicate sector?
Exactly. There’s also a gap in this area, given the importance of the topic. What the European Union can do today without having the mandates, let’s call them, to operate is crucial because it has taught us that having capabilities at the European level is a significant advantage. But until we align the Commission’s capabilities, we need to think in terms of guidelines. So, the hope is that on policies developed in individual countries, the European Union can establish guidelines that take into account all the critical issues and specificities of different countries to provide common guidelines. Today, regarding the approach to subsidiarity in healthcare, I continue to be proud of what Italy does in terms of assistance, unlike other countries. But again, if we want to think continentally, we need guidelines that can guide all countries in the same direction. There are emerging diseases and symptoms, such as post-pandemic mental health issues and the approach of younger generations to this topic. There are certainly areas that can be developed in a less ideological and more pragmatic manner across the board.
Q: Regarding the consequences that some products have on health, such as wine, tobacco, the European Commission has been particularly strict on certain products. Do you agree with this approach, or do you support a less dogmatic approach in this case as well?
But a dogmatic approach never works for me anywhere, from a small town to the European Union, because it only takes the viewpoint of some without considering the complexity and also the freedom of individuals in their everyday lives. There’s a difference between informing people about the issues of consuming or taking certain substances, products, or foods and outright banning or demonizing them. Probably if I drank ten liters of water a day, I don’t know if I would feel great. Yet, water is very healthy and harmless. But it’s always the quantity and frequency with which I engage in a behavior. A simple and humorous example is used to illustrate that not always or only labeling, without accompanying cultural literacy of reading the label itself, can help us. Years ago, we talked about the labeling of Coca-Cola compared to milk, where the properties of Coca-Cola could seem qualitatively more positive than those of milk. But we can see this for wine rather than Parmigiano Reggiano. Surely it has properties that stem from milk, but if I eat a kilo of Parmigiano every day, well, maybe that’s a bit too much. But this applies to anything. So, the point is to understand and increase awareness. In all things, I believe that a word of the future is a mix: a mix of behaviors, a mix of energy, a mix of what concerns food, customs, and traditions, is what can help us. Having only extremism on either side of behaviors always remains something negative for me.
Q: Specifically regarding tobacco, for example, there has been discussion about introducing alternative solutions in the context of the harm reduction approach. Do you think these could be useful tools to try to contain and limit the negative effects of tobacco, while still aiming to reach a point of a smoke-free generation?
But even on this issue, I speak as an asthmatic who has never smoked anything. However, today, technology and information allow for different types of tobacco use, with or without combustion. Some people prefer one form over another. This applies to tobacco as a substance, certainly addictive like other substances. A blanket ban is certainly not the solution, as we’ve seen in the years of extensive prohibitions, whether for alcohol or tobacco. Even when importation was less controlled, let me also mention cannabis, a topic addressed only in some EU countries, and it won’t be the ban that prevents people who want to use it from finding it. So, to avoid ending up in the black market of tobacco and its derivatives, we also need to use technology and science to have a lesser impact and allow freedom of choice by providing correct information. Therefore, there’s also a cultural issue, even before prohibitions, that needs to be addressed. I repeat this as someone who has never smoked, so it’s not a personal issue for me, but I believe it needs to be approached in a pragmatic way. Bans are not the solution.
Q: One last question, what role do you hope Renew will play in the new Parliament?
Well, I imagine, rather than hope, considering the numbers that will emerge from the elections, that Renew will be, and can be, a buffer. A buffer especially with weight in the new balance of the European Parliament, which we’ll see. Maybe there will be particular surprises from the polls; I don’t know the exact landscape of other countries, whether there could be different surprises. But it’s clear that the conservative component will have much more weight than in the past. So, the choice of what kind of government to form? I don’t know if there could be a renewed government, let’s call it Ursula, not so much for Von der Leyen, whom I don’t think will be the candidate who can unite the various political forces, but in the context of a large, perhaps even larger, expanded majority. Or, looking at the numbers, there might be a preference for a conservative EPP alliance, leaving out the S&D, or wanting to stay out. What I hope, instead, is that Renew can act as a binder for its liberal but still cross-cutting positions, because within Renew in Europe, there are forces that are moderately left or moderately right, spanning the entire parliamentary spectrum, so to speak, and thus it can play a central role with even more visibility. It’s evident that often, especially in Italy, the role of liberals, liberal democrats, of Renew, and generally speaking, European families, is definitely a minority in the election choices. People think in terms of “voting for my party, just like in national elections.” Instead, the perspective should also be about which European family you align with and what positions your European family, in which you position yourself, will advocate for. So, I hope that Renew can play this cohesive role.
Interview concluded, we thank Federico Pizzarotti for being with us and for the time he has dedicated.
Thank you for the invitation. I hope I have answered all the questions comprehensively. The European challenge is certainly important. Thank you.
