Maria NOICHL

Policy topics Maria NOICHL is active on

What Maria NOICHL has said (28)

• 2026-02-23 “E-000732/2026 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) serves multiple purposes, including identifying and assessing relevant negative welfare consequences by using animal-based measures associated with on-farm conditions and providing recommendations to prevent or mitigate the identified welfare consequences. The Commission is engaged in an impact assessment with a view to modernising the existing legislation on the welfare of animals on-farm, with a sector-by-sector approach, based on the latest scientific evidence and taking into account the different economic, social and environmental impacts of envisaged changes. No decision has been taken yet concerning the scope of the proposal as the impact assessment is still ongoing. The European Partnership on animal health and welfare 1 , co-funded under Horizon Europe, with EFSA as a member, is already performing some research on welfare of turkeys, including on animal-based indicators, and more may be performed where necessary. 1 https://www.eupahw.eu/.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2025-07-17 “E-002984/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission is not aware of the details of the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Members and therefore cannot comment on it. 2. The Commission has received several complaints concerning the transport of unweaned calves in various Member States and is concerned by the alleged practices. The investigation of these complaints is ongoing. Animals must be handled in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 1 , which governs their protection during commercial transport. The enforcement of EU rules on the protection of animals during transport is primarily the responsibility of the Member States. It is important that the competent authorities in Member States take appropriate measures to prevent the mistreatment of this vulnerable category of animals. 3. In December 2023, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on the protection of animals during transport 2 , which provides for stricter rules aimed at ensuring higher protection of calves and other vulnerable categories of animals during transport. The proposal aims to facilitate better enforcement of these rules through clearer provisions. Further development of digital tools used for administrative tasks, aims to improve data collection and transparency regarding the transport of animals. In addition, the proposal introduces a new approach to harmonise sanctions in the event of rule infringements on animal transport. The debate is ongoing, and the Commission remains open to working with the co-legislators in this area. 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97; OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1–44. 2 COM(2023)770.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “Thank you very much, colleagues. We're talking today for the first time about this, a key proposal of the commission to have a tracking and performance measurement for all EU programmes. I'd like to first make a few basic points as rapporteur. This isn't about the how this is done. Technically, it's not a technical matter, but it's people tell me all the time it's a technical file, but I think it's mainly about trust and political, political effectiveness and political credibility of the union. But why is this proposal so important for the budget? It's because the budget is under increasing pressure. Massive pressure. Firstly because of geopolitical crisis, climate change, social and economic transformation. Citizens who rightly expect that it be transparent and efficiently communicated how European monies are being spent. It's about visible results for every euro spent. It's about the core purpose of the regulation, which is uniform tracking for all expenditure across all programmes. Better focus on performance, on effectiveness, not just on the flow of resources. And I think it's very important that we make clear that the political priorities are commensurate with the with the measurable results. And we as Parliament have not in the right, but also the obligation of budgetary control so as to politically assess and the efficiency of this. I think that the this represents an opportunity, and it's also a responsibility for us to see if this works, because as clear as the tracking is, is so as difficult as it will be to present it simply in simple terms, so that the member States can handle it. So the agencies that deal with the projects can apply it.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Colleagues. Madam Commissioner. Well, yes, the commission is currently preparing a plan for protecting bees, and it's important that that should remain a priority. But the most recent proposals from the European Commission on the Common Agricultural Policy are going exactly the opposite direction. Bees are not dealt with by any other place in the Parliament other than the Agriculture Committee. And it seems that deregulation is the direction the pollinators strategy and the nature restoration law seem to be being wound down. They're being attacked under the agricultural policy. Moves are being made. The Agriculture Committee is the one that is responsible in the Parliament for bee health. Now we know that there's a big issue with intensive farming. We also have problems with climate change. We also have the intensive forestry as well. All of these, uh, dangers can only be resolved by taking a holistic approach, not just having little bee hotspots. We need sustainable, extensive agriculture across Europe. Agriculture is bee policy and we need it every single day. Thank you very much.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Y equal pay for equal work. Why is it so important? Uh, of course, it's very important for the economy, but it's most of all important for women. For women, it's important to be at the same level as men overall. And it's totally perverse. And it's awful when we see that in Europe, there are so many different families where the man works and the woman as well, but she makes less. And at the same time she's taking care of the children, and the children see that their mother is making less than the father. And, and, and of course, this is unacceptable. This means that we have also domestic violence, sexual violence, uh, bodily violence, sexual harassment as well. Is this economic violence on top of that, when in a family, uh, people are reduced And when there's no equality or there's no balance, or a woman can't really release herself from some sort of situation of bondage because she doesn't make enough money. So this is what's taking place. And this has to do with what you're making. And it's so sad that so many women in women can't live alone. It's our it's our promise to all that we are here to be able to have to provide for women so that they can be independent, so they can live on their own. And for that reason, okay, the economic side is very important, but the social aspect is much, much more important.”
  Gender pay transparency
• “That's the multifunctional aspect of agriculture. That's the basis in Europe for us. It's not just filling stomachs. Rather, agriculture is someone who fills stomachs and protects bees. And so we can't just say, well, I'm not hungry anymore, so that's fine. So we don't care about the bees or the water in the future. So this is why I want to pick up another point. Perhaps there are things that aren't covered enough and I'm happy to cover those points. However, let me say this very clearly. If you want to make this division and and to say, if you if you're somehow more of a friend of agriculture, if you're not looking carefully at the spending. Well, I don't think that is the right division to make. I think that's false. And I think we have to look at the scientific aspects, the economic aspects, the social aspects. And I think let me mention one more point. If you don't follow the money carefully, sufficiently, and then in seven years, there's going to be less money in the budget for it, because the citizens have the obligation. We have the we, we, we have the obligation, and the citizens have the right that we follow the money very carefully and see what happens to it. So of course, I know it's technically difficult, but still, I hope that we can find a compromise, a good way to find a path to work together. Thank you very much.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Y equal pay for equal work. Why is it so important? Uh, of course, it's very important for the economy, but it's most of all important for women. For women, it's important to be at the same level as men overall. And it's totally perverse. And it's awful when we see that in Europe, there are so many different families where the man works and the woman as well, but she makes less. And at the same time she's taking care of the children, and the children see that their mother is making less than the father. And, and, and of course, this is unacceptable. This means that we have also domestic violence, sexual violence, uh, bodily violence, sexual harassment as well. Is this economic violence on top of that, when in a family, uh, people are reduced And when there's no equality or there's no balance, or a woman can't really release herself from some sort of situation of bondage because she doesn't make enough money. So this is what's taking place. And this has to do with what you're making. And it's so sad that so many women in women can't live alone. It's our it's our promise to all that we are here to be able to have to provide for women so that they can be independent, so they can live on their own. And for that reason, okay, the economic side is very important, but the social aspect is much, much more important.”
  Gender pay transparency
• “How can you be so lacking in empathy? War is underway. People are dying. Ukraine needs us. So many volunteers are helping Ukrainians living in different member states. It is true that farmers may have to play their part too. How can you show such a lack of empathy? Here in the European Parliament, which should champion human Right. I am so angry to hear what my colleagues have to say, particularly on the far right. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukrainians. I'm not saying we need new regulations covering Ukraine, but for the for as long as this war lasts, we need to show empathy.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Commissioner. Colleagues, Europe is always proud of the fact that we have great consumer protection and that that's something we stand for that. What's on the label is what's inside. But here it says simplification. But that's not what's inside this paper. When you go through the text in detail then it isn't really simplification. It's actually mislabeled. It's when it says simplification on the outside and when it's just getting rid of grassland protection, when it's saying in the future, then you're not going to be having to employ environmental laws, and it's something that is actually a retrograde step for farming in the future. If then you look at those amendments tomorrow, the ones that have come from the right and the far right, and if they go through, then it will have been mislabeled as simplification. I don't think that we can vote in favor of this kind of simplification. And then the fact that when we talk about veggie burgers, we're taking the debate in another direction.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Third point, the spending target for climate, environment and biodiversity. By 2026, there is already a target of 40%. I think we could be more ambitious. As a result, we should raise this target to at least 50%. If we look at article four, we should remove the exception for security and defence expenditure there. And then a final point. Rio Marcos, which we're probably all aware of. You either get or you can get one. We can get 40 or 100%. So this is a climate reporting device, which doesn't suffice. This is a proposal from elsewhere, and the proposal is that we move from a three step to a five step approach. The aim is to ensure greater transparency, and we would have to amend annex one of the regulation. Now, the commission's proposal is a good basis to begin with, but we need to work on it. We want transparency. We want honesty. We want to track performance better and we want to see where improvements are needed. So as I say, we've got a good basis. We need to improve it. I want to thank everyone who's worked with me and who has helped me on the opinion. As the chair said, you have to submit amendments by the 15th of April, and then we will vote in committee on the 14th of July. Thank you very much.”
  Climate efforts
• “Dear colleagues, I think it's quite clear that the people in European Union don't want GMOs on our fields. Uh, votes and opinion polls have shown this in all our member states. It's quite clear. And there's one thing I'd like to say to Mr. Buda. Mr. Buda, Buddha. It's quite scandalous. On the one hand, in this particular case, you stand behind the Efsa and then and we have GMOs coming onto our plates. But when it comes to animal welfare, you, um, um, condemn Efsa because I can remember during a recent debate, uh, this was your opinion. You can plain chastise the Efsa. We are representatives of the people of Europe, the European Union, the Europe, and the people do not want GMOs on our fields. And I expect of the Commission that when it comes to all these applications, that they say no to them, because at some stage we're in the European Parliament are going to be forced to say yes. And I think they ought to be greater democratic legitimacy of what we do. A clear message to the Commission.”
  GMOs
• “Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Y equal pay for equal work. Why is it so important? Uh, of course, it's very important for the economy, but it's most of all important for women. For women, it's important to be at the same level as men overall. And it's totally perverse. And it's awful when we see that in Europe, there are so many different families where the man works and the woman as well, but she makes less. And at the same time she's taking care of the children, and the children see that their mother is making less than the father. And, and, and of course, this is unacceptable. This means that we have also domestic violence, sexual violence, uh, bodily violence, sexual harassment as well. Is this economic violence on top of that, when in a family, uh, people are reduced And when there's no equality or there's no balance, or a woman can't really release herself from some sort of situation of bondage because she doesn't make enough money. So this is what's taking place. And this has to do with what you're making. And it's so sad that so many women in women can't live alone. It's our it's our promise to all that we are here to be able to have to provide for women so that they can be independent, so they can live on their own. And for that reason, okay, the economic side is very important, but the social aspect is much, much more important.”
  Gender pay transparency
• “Thank you very much for me being able to take the floor as well. I didn't vote in favour of the reform a few years back, and I would just like to echo what Mr. Hausling has said. All of those who celebrated that reform are now leaving the sinking ship. Now looking at simplification and cutting red tape. That's going to lead to higher CO2 emissions from agriculture. We're not talking about that, are we? The proposals are a poison chalice to the European farmers. This poison chalice is going to undermine the basis on which they make a living, because environmental changes affect farmers first. Anyone who thinks they can get around that is wrong. This is a disaster. The fact that this minimum protection for wetlands is being done away with is a disaster. There's no impact assessment. The commission is looking at how much money is being saved in administration, but the Commission can't forecast what this will mean for the climate goals. No impact assessment. And then the right, the far right are applauding. That should give you pause for thought as to whether or not you're on the right track. What are the long term effects of this package? Money for agriculture is being questioned again and again, and that is a disaster for farmers. I'll fight for money for farmers, but only when it's useful.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Minister, you have come to Brussels and I don't want to talk about a particular issue, but I want to say that from the start of your presidency, you have massively overstepped the terms of your presidency. And we've seen a fall in trust in Europe. We have a lack of trust in Europe. In terms of Hungary, Mr. Orban has done exactly the opposite of what he preaches. He talks about competitiveness in the EU, but he does nothing to make Hungary independent of Russian energy. He talks about enlargement while he leaves the leaves Ukraine. Hungary. He talks about. Corruption. And he is at the same time stealing European money. And I want to say stolen, because we know that money that goes to Hungary does not go to the people for whom it is destined. So you can see there is an empty room in front of you because there is very limited trust in you or in other politicians in Hungary. We don't trust you to implement European legislation. What have you done in the last 2 or 3 months? What are you going to do to win back trust? Because if Hungary always acts against the interests of the EU in order to fight for its own interests, then it's not going to be a valid partner. So I would like to know your response to that question, sir.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• “I simply wanted to really, really direct or redirect your speech and your address to those particular women that are victimized. My message to these women is, is that they are to imagine a tomorrow when they want to get up and say to their husband, I don't want you anymore. Or when the man turns to them and says, I don't want you anymore, I want a slim, young blonde wife. So, uh, all men have to be at the sight of women. It's an issue of partnership and friendship. My partner, my partner has to be at the same level as I am. If there's no balance or equality in partnership, there is no partnership.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much. So first of all, I would like to say that I appreciate the proposals, but they don't go far enough. We need to deal with the long term challenges and they have to be sustainable in an economic terms. For example, um, production Prices for milk are not covered by the income that they receive. And so we have many we have many farms that have been closed 64,000 because they could not meet their costs. Now there is also the aspect of mandatory contracts. I do think that that has to be implemented as far as as fast as possible. There is something, however, that I need to highlight. We must say that there will not be any exceptions. In Germany, for example, we see associations that are that are applying rules that are defined by the farmers themselves. However, in other cases, we have associations or organizations that are ruled by large businesses. And the fact of the matter is that we need to stop this. The cooperatives have to take priority. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “I simply wanted to really, really direct or redirect your speech and your address to those particular women that are victimized. My message to these women is, is that they are to imagine a tomorrow when they want to get up and say to their husband, I don't want you anymore. Or when the man turns to them and says, I don't want you anymore, I want a slim, young blonde wife. So, uh, all men have to be at the sight of women. It's an issue of partnership and friendship. My partner, my partner has to be at the same level as I am. If there's no balance or equality in partnership, there is no partnership.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much. If it were up to me, then we could talk about forests every month. Because it's an important topic, and in the future, it's certainly going to remain a European topic. Looking to my own member state. It makes it clear that the state of forest is worse and is worsening and is of concern. We can see reduction in biomass and we can see that the ecosystems are under pressure. We've seen a massive reduction in growth. And for the first time, we've seen a carbon sink that is lower than the level we need. We can see the crowns of trees suffering damage, and that shows what is actually happening under the ground to the roots. Normally, if there's a problem with the crown, you can see that in the roots as well. So there's a clear signal from Germany that the forest is not healthy. And I think it remarkable or strange that here in this chamber But when we're talking about problems of forests that farmers feel attacked, I'm not accusing farmers because the forests aren't doing well. I'm not pointing the finger, but I want to get out of this dilemma. And obviously we can only support financially, financially, forest farming if it's going in the right direction. It is important to do this job properly and then European money can go to that. Those activities. And my question to the commission is do you have an idea about this? Do you have clear information or rather is it just going to be the watering can principle?”
  Management of EU forests
• “So on the one hand, we're saying that soil is the main mission in Europe, but on the other hand, we don't have 100% funding through the cap. Um, and member states are supposed to put something in there as well. But what about member states that don't have the funding? Um, so in the future, I think, um, we have to ensure that there will be, um, funding and, uh, we should have 100% support for, uh, well cultivated soil. But then obviously this question of soil monitoring as well. Uh, obviously, um, what are we supposed to do with that? We've seen a bit of a belly flop beforehand, but, uh, you were talking about mission, uh, and the question of links to climate, water, uh, cancer, the things, What are the links? Because you were saying that there are four different points, but maybe cancer. Leave that on one side. I'm not a doctor, so I won't say much about that. But soil, climate and water are not three separate missions. It is one single mission. So I wonder whether anywhere this has all been linked together or whether we have these individual pillars, one next to the other. So thank you very much indeed for doing something in the commission about soil because it's urgently needed.”
  Soil protection policy
• “Thank you very much. I've got three points. I want to talk a little bit about consent. Of course, this is something which we wanted to make clear. Yes, it means yes and that's it. But this covers a lot of other areas as well. Of course. Of course. A picture, for example, should be uploaded to the internet only with consent. For example, photos of children. A parent should not be able to upload photos of their children. They have to be able to give consent. So consent should be the building block for our society. We have to provide explicit consent from the outset, not to providing consent to after the fact. My second point is that there have been a new elections in Hungary. It is in one of the governments in the EU. That's the only one where there are no women in the cabinet. We would like you, a commissioner, to make a contact with the new government, the new Prime Minister in Hungary, and raise this issue. We cannot have a country in Europe which is governed without a single woman at the table. I know we talked in New York as well and the events which took place in March. I would ask you, Commissioner, to ensure that Europe has an invitation to the table in the future if it is not possible to no longer possible to protect women's rights in the U.S., then the next meeting has to be held in Europe because we stand for women's rights. Thank you very much.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Not just a question for the Parliament, the commission. It's a question for those on the outside who will have to apply it. And it's also very important. And I want to emphasize this, that there's not excessive bureaucracy. This mustn't be an additional burden and that the programmes. Thank you very much for the glass of water and that the programs shouldn't fail because of the, uh, performance measurement going too far. It's about quality rather than quantity of indicators, and it's about having long term effects, not just short term successes. And this regulation is not a technical measure, but a strategic approach. It's a strategic tool for the future to make the to make the EU budget work better. Now a couple of points about the agricultural sector. We're not talking about, uh, we're. We, we we can't measure things in the short term. It's not about a single year. We we want to see who the end beneficiaries are of the agricultural funds. So it's not necessarily the farmers. It's very often the owners of the land who are the ultimate beneficiaries. So and it's important to track those, and it's important to make clear that the national priorities have to fit with the European priorities, and that there's a clear priority of a clear hierarchy of priorities. And it's important to make clear that if we do this right, then this tool. It can alert us to problems in advance. I think it's a big task, and I look forward to working with all the partners to making sure we make this work. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “I'd also like to thank the ESC as well for this excellent work, and to come up with a couple of things. Norbert Linz stress this as well. He's been fighting for this as rapporteur to get the two pillar model. Once again. For me personally, it's not about the model. It's more about what the model says. In other words, that to date means for eco schemes, were there 100% financed finance from Europe and farmers had ideas there to produce milk or wheat, but then they could also protect the climate environment in terms of security, this type of thing. So it means that we've changed that and in future that 100% funding there's no possibility of having it anymore for ecological spheres. And that's, I think the biggest error in changing the two pillar model. So I'd definitely like to support that if we come back, if coming back to the two pillar model means that once again, you still have some amount of money for 100% for the environment. Then I think we really have to come back to that two column model. It wasn't the original plan, but that's why I think that I'd be interested to hear from the social committee whether this is co-funding for the question of co-funding for the environment, whether we're seeing the same thing that we're seeing here because we really need to make some huge improvements there. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you for giving me the floor and thank you for the study. It's interesting and it illustrates that it's too easy to or too early to assess the effectiveness of the model. But I still have two questions. Uh, you said that the commissioner said that the strategy plans will be maintained as they have been. And when we need to see There is a big question why is will the future echo scenes be have co-financing? So if we say that this model was applied to 10% more surface area and at EU level, uh, farmers have taken it up in terms of 47%, then it's a success story. And then you're taking your, uh, taking the co-financing away from the success story. That raises a big question for me. And secondly, this new implementation model of the cap, how will, uh, be, uh, how can we monitor this here and, and in the outside world? How can we, uh, uh, assess how these objectives are being achieved with the, uh, major public funding that's being put into it? And how can we look at the, uh, we need measurable criteria such as surface area and so on. But we don't actually at the moment of any measurable criteria to judge things by. So that's my question for the commission. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “(18:30:22 – 18:32:09): On the impact assessment, the commission has gone against the interinstitutional agreement and against better regulation to have an impact assessment and a public stakeholder hearing, is linked to it. Now imagine that's still on the table. You need to answer, and you can't say, well, you now claim that there are only going to be technical adjustments following an impact assessment, but that's not true with this proposals. There are going to be environmental impacts and that's why a full and comprehensive impact assessment is needed. Secondly then, instead of having access to safer and better pesticides and surely that was the objective, which is to improve access to better pesticides. Instead of doing that, you're doing the opposite. You're now making a proposal for chemical and synthetic pesticides to be checked less. If you want something new, you need to keep going over the old ones. It's the same with cars and MOTs. When you don't pass your MOT, that's when you have to buy a new 1. But if you stop having an MOT on your car, you'd still be driving old bangers from the fifties. So surely, having no end to the period of validity is a problem. The fact that there is a validity is what drives innovation. Are you doing the opposite now? This is an impediment to innovation. Those who lower controls create an impediment to innovation. It's dramatic. It goes to against science, against development, and against Europe. Thank you. Berthian Ruchen. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “I simply wanted to really, really direct or redirect your speech and your address to those particular women that are victimized. My message to these women is, is that they are to imagine a tomorrow when they want to get up and say to their husband, I don't want you anymore. Or when the man turns to them and says, I don't want you anymore, I want a slim, young blonde wife. So, uh, all men have to be at the sight of women. It's an issue of partnership and friendship. My partner, my partner has to be at the same level as I am. If there's no balance or equality in partnership, there is no partnership.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much. Uh, yes, indeed. This is a parliament where we have different views, I think yes means Yes. And it's, it's, it's in all legislation and it's in other words, when in other fields as well, for example, when I have. Uh, for example, when somebody comes and snatches my car away and I don't say and I said and they and I've accused of having not said no then no or in any issues that involve domestic issues, the rights of owners as well. Yes. It's always yes in all legislation. And it means that, uh, the same thing occurs in with, of course, rape. It goes into the same category as all spheres and aspects of legislation were. Yes means yes. And of course, when it involves the body of a woman, yes means yes. And I think indeed we need to have some sort of equality as far as legislation in Europe, where in this particular sphere yes means yes, as it does in all legal spheres as well. And know the same thing applies there. No means no when somebody comes and snatches an apple from my garden and and because. Simply because I've said no, it's all right. No, it doesn't work that way. So, uh, indeed, we have to make it quite clear that this is a very, very fundamental aspect of legislation in all spheres and in Europe, of course, as well. Thank you.”
  Sexuality and reproduction
• “Thank you very much. I think everyone has noticed that this is not a simple discussion, but what this discussion does not contain is not are you in favour or against agriculture? I think you have to be very careful that we always end up in this corner and saying, is this person in favour or against agriculture? Rather, you have to look at the position of the taxpayer. You have to look at the promises we've made to them. And as members of Parliament, we are obligated to do this. We have to say to these taxpayers that this money is being spent on farmers, and it's bringing benefits. Bringing benefits is something that we, we, we have to look at how do we invest this money so that it produces a result and which measures produce more results? So I of course, I'm very much the friend of farmers, but who is on the wrong side, someone who wants to do something for farmers is going to be transparent with the figures and make it very transparent to demonstrate where European funds bring the greatest benefit. So the point is to support farmers. So European agriculture, agricultural policy should have the goal of feeding people. But we also have multifunctional agriculture. It's more than just feeding stomach filling stomachs. It's more than just revenue. Agriculture by its very nature, because it's actual soil in the hands of the farmers, it's an obligation to make a contribution to biodiversity, to climate protection. And so it's multifunctional.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much indeed for this and also for the clear statement that soil is important, important, important. I think we're all aware of that, but it's about the fertile nature of the soil, ensuring food security. But it's also related to water. In other words, how water trickles through. What happens there? There's a direct contact context between heavy rains trickling down, etc.. So I'd be interested in. How we evaluate this mission. Soil. You were talking about 100 points where good things are happening. Uh, labs providing information about the condition of soils. But there's something else I would like to ask. Obviously, you're responsible for soils in the commission, and I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that with the new gap, there's a situation whereby everything to do with soil that came under eco schemes beforehand were 100% funded from Brussels, which could support soil has been got rid of and it's now co-financing.”
  Soil protection policy