The European Parliament's AGRI Committee on 1 June 2026 debated the European Court of Auditors' Opinion 10/2026 on the EU budget performance framework and questioned the Commission on biofuels and the delegated act on high indirect land use change risk feedstocks under RED, revealing sharp divisions among MEPs on both files.
On the budget performance framework, ECA's Jorg Kristijan Petrovič warned that the proposal simplifies reporting for the Commission but may increase burdens for Member States and farmers, with weak definitions, indicators, and funding-result links. MEPs diverged sharply: Gilles Pennelle (PfE) and Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR) argued bureaucracy remains high, while David Vidanes (DG BUDG) defended harmonisation. On results, Dario Nardella (S&D) and Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left) questioned trust in output-based tracking, while Cristina Guarda (Greens/EFA) pushed for stronger impact indicators including gender. Herbert Dorfmann (EPP) and Christine Singer (Renew) stressed food security and competitiveness over green targets, with Guarda and Arash Saeidi (The Left) defending biodiversity and social conditionality. On DNSH, Dorfmann and Singer warned of legal uncertainty for farm investments, while Guarda rejected exemptions. On climate coefficients, Petrovič cited overstatement of green spending, with Nardella and Flanagan agreeing, but Guarda argued for more precise tracking.
In the biofuels debate, Jeroen Verhagen (DG ENV) defended listing soy as high ILUC risk under unchanged methodology, but Dorfmann, Eric Sargiacomo (S&D), and Georgiana Teodorescu (ECR) argued it harms EU protein production and strategic autonomy. Csaba Dömötör (PfE) criticised Ukrainian biofuel imports. Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left) and Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA) favoured waste-based biofuels, while Benoit Cassart (Renew) saw complementarity between food, feed, and fuel. Chair Veronika Vrecionová (ECR) noted a vote on the performance file on 14 July.
The debate exposed a centre-right vs. green-left cleavage on the budget framework, with EPP and Renew prioritising competitiveness and legal certainty, while Greens and The Left demanded stronger environmental and social indicators. On biofuels, a cross-party majority (EPP, S&D, ECR, PfE) opposed the soy ILUC listing, citing strategic autonomy, while Greens and The Left supported it. The outcome will affect farmers (compliance costs), Member State administrations (reporting burden), biofuel producers (market access for soy), and environmental groups (impact tracking).