Cristina MAESTRE

Policy topics Cristina MAESTRE is active on

What Cristina MAESTRE has said (43)

• 2026-07-14 “(16:53:26 - 16:55:17): Thank you very much indeed, madam chair, colleagues. The amendments that I have tabled as shadow for the Socialists and Democrats have 1 key objective, to ensure that the new fund will boost rather than watering down the CAP and this income security for our farmers at a time of great uncertainty. Firstly, we propose putting forward specific CAP NRPPs with, its own pillar within the fund, with its own rules, with, self governance and its own budget. That will avoid the CAP being absorbed into a general fund and will ensure the full legislative and economic autonomy of the CAP. Secondly, we stick to the principle of direct aids under pillar 1 being funded a 100% with an EU budget without additional national co financing. Our amendments on article 20 and the CAP interventions list make plain that the EU continues to take up the full responsibility of supporting basic farmer income and key sectorial interventions. Thirdly, we guarantee the continuity of aid in the transition period for 2027, 2028. New article 35 a bans, tacking on additional funds or extending until 2027 and means that the commission will have to make specific decisions for farmers. And in this way, no operational program or producers' organizations should be left behind because of delays at institutional level. Fourthly, we have boosted flexibility if a crisis were to arise. The go to aid would be buffers”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-07-14 “(16:55:24 - 16:56:52): Fourthly, we are boosting the flexibility in case of crisis so that the go to fund will come from EU funding and only as a last resort, reprogramming the NRPPs. This protects agricultural funding and means that if there is a market or a natural disaster, there will not be use made of cuts to aid for farmers going through those crises. We will also be enhancing the social and territorial aspect of the CAP. We want a simpler and fairer CAP that's better oriented that will include agricultural workers. We want rural areas and scarcely populated areas to be recognized since they are in decline. And we want to see multilevel governance that is real with the involvement of local and regional authorities when it comes to planning. What this is all about is about the European Commission continuing to shoulder the responsibility, the responsibility it has towards farmers, but also towards rural areas, and that it won't wash its hands of that responsibility. It's also about legal and financial security for European farmers and farming. It's about contributing to a model that will truly boost, our rural areas and provide support to farmers now and in the future.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2026-06-29 “(15:44:05 - 15:45:30): Thank you very much, chairman. Just very briefly, I'd like to thank, the rapporteur, mister Linz, for all of his work. I'd just like to highlight just how important it is to help improve this regulation. In my view, we need to think about the sectors that are most weakened after the reform. What about the funding of certain sectors? And, for example, send sectoral interventions with our fruit and vegetables, we need to see the funding recovered by the European Union. Also about wine as well and generational renewal, that's a little bit unclear what's planned for that. Now when it comes to degreissivity and capping, these are vital tools in order to strike a balance, especially if we look at, degreasivity in the regions or many other factors as well. We must ensure there is proper flexibility and not complicate farmers' lives in member states. And to conclude, I would like to mention the definition of farmers. Often, get the impression that when we talk about professional farmers, we're talking about large scale farmers. I think that small scale farmers are also very important. They make a very important contribution, and they also need to be taken into account when we have when we set out the definition. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-06-29 “(15:44:05 - 15:45:30): Thank you very much, chairman. Just very briefly, I'd like to thank, the rapporteur, mister Linz, for all of his work. I'd just like to highlight just how important it is to help improve this regulation. In my view, we need to think about the sectors that are most weakened after the reform. What about the funding of certain sectors? And, for example, send sectoral interventions with our fruit and vegetables, we need to see the funding recovered by the European Union. Also about wine as well and generational renewal, that's a little bit unclear what's planned for that. Now when it comes to degreissivity and capping, these are vital tools in order to strike a balance, especially if we look at, degreasivity in the regions or many other factors as well. We must ensure there is proper flexibility and not complicate farmers' lives in member states. And to conclude, I would like to mention the definition of farmers. Often, get the impression that when we talk about professional farmers, we're talking about large scale farmers. I think that small scale farmers are also very important. They make a very important contribution, and they also need to be taken into account when we have when we set out the definition. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-06-25 “So that leads to uncertainty also in terms of programming. I mean, as Mrs. Capdevilla said, there are decisions that have to be taken early by farmers so that then they can appropriately plan how they're going to run their farms and their access to funding. So we are going to continue to insist on recovering this predictability that we need, and also covering sectors that will struggle without the appropriate funding. And we heard from Mrs. de Villa. Who mentioned two examples that are very key for Spain fruit and vegetables and sectoral interventions for wine. These are essential. And then just to conclude, chairman, I'd like to mention something that we often forget. We talk about the cap, the single fund investments which are hanging by a thread, but we need to make an effort together to convince our colleagues and also the Commission about the importance of including this idea of including the CIP funding under competitiveness. This is something that we can't have, because I think that many of these decisions that were taken here could be affected if we consider this a strategic sector. Thank you very much.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2026-06-25 “Thank you very much. Well. I'd like to thank our speakers. I think they've given us. A clear message, a cold dose of reality. Because listening to them, I must admit I'm left with more concerns than I had previously. We're talking about a dilution of the cap, and we're talking about how this radical change is actually going to be implemented. I was more focused on whether member states had the financial capacity that the Commission wanted. But actually, this goes much further. We're talking about a lack of predictability for farmers. And as Mrs. Capdevilla said very clearly, it's not only about predictability, it's also about the massive efforts that member states are going to have to make without a clear, well defined Well-defined structure. That means that resources can be optimized. And also there is this concern that she was expressing with regard to coordination at different levels and the change in model. There are now different now, different focus when it comes to complying with objectives. So this actually raises an awful lot of questions. For a long time now, we've been trying to respond to requests from farmers, which is to have a less bureaucratic and more flexible cap. But actually, with this model, one of the major risks that we're hearing about from operators in member states is that we may well end up with more bureaucracy and less and less flexibility for farmers.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-06-25 “Thank you very much, chair. I. We have continued to say this regularly. We believe, and I believe that, uh, this, uh, model cannot be allowed to weaken the Common Agricultural policy setting priorities, which are too difficult to implement. We have this proposal and the conclusion, even when we look at the radical model proposed by the commission, is really going to weaken the cap and not just increase the legislative burden, but also the administrative burden. So there are a lot of things that are going to remain outside our possibilities. Now let's have a look at what the council said. The commission is going to wash its hands of it. It put forward a model and it then pushes on everything to the fabric of the administration of the member states. And I think that in the Council we have to really make our stand, because we are the ones that are going to pay. So as shadow rapporteur of the single fund, the proposal that we have made is to ask the Commission to keep the funding exactly as it is. Otherwise Member states are going to pay. It's not just a question of differences between member states, but we have to think of the single market here and we cannot accept this offloading of responsibility. I am concerned, and I should like to put this to the sector, why we need this radical change in the model. I've noted that there's a lot of talk about this, but I haven't heard anybody to whom I've been talking over the past months and year say that they necessarily want to change the model. Copa-cogeca was talking about a national plan, and we have a specific see a plan here. The S&D have tabled a lot of amendments to this. It's not just a question of pillar two, which funds a lot of very important interventions and investments, and we can't see this being able to happen. When we are looking at the way the plan is modeled and also the ring fencing. So we've tabled amendments, but we do have considerable doubts. We feel that this is watering things down considerably. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2025-10-21 “E-004135/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission shares the concerns over water scarcity, especially in regions most acutely affected. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) 1 provides a mechanism to balance environmental protection with socio-economic needs. It requires compliance with ecological flows, understood as a flow regime compatible with the achievement of good ecological status. Where ecological flows are not respected, the biological quality elements cannot attain good status, which would be contrary to the environmental objectives set out in Article 4 of the WFD, unless an exemption under Articles 4(4) to 4(7) applies - subject to strict conditions. The Commission is aware of the relevant case law of the Spanish Supreme Court on this matter. As outlined in the Vision for Agriculture and Food 2 , a steady and safe water supply is key for future-proofing the agri-food sector. The European Water Resilience Strategy (WRS) 3 reiterates that access to clean, affordable water is a human right, while recognising the need to curb demand and over-abstractions and to improve water efficiency and reuse to avoid supply disruptions. As outlined in the WRS, desalination 4 can be part of the solution to address water scarcity in the most affected regions. Therefore, the EU will support research and innovation towards more sustainable desalination processes in 2026, so as to reduce energy consumption, greenhouse gases emissions, and environmental impacts. However, as stressed in the Recommendation on guiding principles of water efficiency first 5 , published concomitantly, increasing water supply should be the last resort: reducing consumption, enhancing water efficiency, and reusing water should be prioritised, when possible. 1 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 2 Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A Vision for Agriculture and Food Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations, COM/2025/75 final. 3 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en. 4 if done sustainably. 5 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/commission-recommendation-water-efficiency-first-guidingprinciples_en.”
  EU policy on water management
• 2025-08-27 “E-003320/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission takes very seriously its role in ensuring that online platform providers comply with their obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 . The DSA aims to create a safer digital space where children are protected, and establishes clear responsibilities for providers of online platforms, including platforms such as Roblox. At present, the Commission is closely monitoring compliance with the DSA of designated very large online platforms (VLOPs), those with more than 45 million monthly active users in the EU and has opened investigations into several VLOPs regarding the protection of minors, including TikTok, Instagram and Facebook as well as four porn platforms 2 . These investigations are ongoing. With monthly active user numbers in the EU under the threshold of 45 million, Roblox is currently not designated as a VLOP and therefore not subject to Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA. According to Article 56 of the DSA, competent authorities in the Member State in which the main establishment of the provider of intermediary services is located shall have exclusive powers to supervise and enforce the DSA. The Dutch Digital Services Coordinator (DSC), the Netherlands’ Authority for Consumers and Market (ACM), is the relevant authority to ensure compliance by the provider of Roblox with the DSA. Lastly, it should be noted that Article 82 DSA does not empower the Commission to suspend services. Rather, it empowers the Commission to request national DSCs of establishment to act pursuant to Article 51(3) 3 . The use of powers under Articles 82 and 51(3) DSA follows strict procedures, clarifying that the power to temporarily restrict services always lies with a competent national judicial authority. 1 Regulation 2022/2065 - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng. 2 An overview of designated VLOPs and enforcement cases is available here: https://digitalstrategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/list-designated-vlops-and-vloses. 3 The suspension of the service is subject to strict conditions. In particular, (i) all other powers under the DSA must have been exhausted and (ii) the infringement has not been remedied or is continuing and is causing serious harm, and that infringement entails a criminal offence involving a threat to the life or safety of persons.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online · Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• 2025-06-30 “E-002615/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. The ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-399/22 of 4 October 2024 1 has clarified that, in application of the current EU legislation, the labelling of fruit and vegetables harvested in the territory of Western Sahara must bear the indication ‘Western Sahara’ as country of origin. The control of the conformity to marketing standards (including origin labelling provisions) of fruit and vegetables marketed within the EU is the competence of Member States. The Commission has informed Member States of the outcome and the consequences of the ruling of the Court. 2. On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in Joined Cases C779/21 P and C-799/21 P 2 , annulled the Council Decision 2019/217 3 concluding an agreement in the form of an exchange of letters whereby the same tariff preferences granted by the EU to Morocco were extended to products originating in Western Sahara. This Council decision applies only to the amendments of Protocols 1 and 4 of the Association Agreement between the EU and Morocco in relation to products originating in Western Sahara 4 . The 2012 Agreement on reciprocal liberalisation measures enabling the liberalisation of certain fruits and vegetables traded between the EU and Morocco 5 is not the subject of the joined court cases, and it continues to apply including all necessary safeguards upon import into the EU. With regards to the annulled Council Decision, its effects continue to apply until 4 October 2025. 1 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=C294F130F5EC41294E44BA520F4F2A05?tex t=&docid=290679&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=16244129. 2 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C779%252F21&for=&jge=&dates=&language=en&pro=&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%2 52C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&oqp=&td= %3BALL&avg=&lgrec=en&lg=&page=1&cid=8987194. 3 Council Decision 2019/217 on the conclusion of the agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the EuroMediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2019:034:TOC). 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019D0217. 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22012A0907(01) .”
  EU policy on country of origin food labelling
• 2025-06-27 “E-002605/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission fully agrees on the importance of the sufficiently precise and accurate information on food origin in order to prevent misleading the consumer. Member States’ authorities are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of Regulation 1169/2011 1 which lays down rules on the provision of food information to consumers, including the indication of the country of origin. While indicating the country of origin is currently obligatory at Union level for several food products, with the most recent specific rules updated and harmonised for honey 2 as an example, there are no specific mandatory Union labelling requirements for rice. Therefore, the origin indication for rice falls under the general rules of Regulation 1169/2011 which allows Member States to adopt additional national measures concerning the mandatory labelling of foodstuffs, as long as these are justified by reasons specifically defined in the Regulation. Of relevance in this respect are Articles 26, 39 and 45 of this Regulation. The Commission acknowledges increased interest of consumers in the origin of the food products they consume. In its Vision for Agriculture and Food 3 , the Commission already indicated that it would propose an extension of country of origin labelling in line with sectoral specificities and Single Market rules. This work needs to find a careful balance between the need to provide adequate information to consumers and the need to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market, by considering also the administrative burden for operators. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/oj/eng. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/110/oj/eng. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0075.”
  Food labelling harmonisation at EU level · EU policy on country of origin food labelling
• 2024-11-25 “E-002648/2024 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission On 14 November 2024 1 , the EU requested to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body to authorise the imposition of countermeasures due to the United States (US) lack of compliance with the Panel report 2 . As provided by Article 22.6 3 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), the US are entitled to request an arbitration on the level of the countermeasures proposed by the EU. The EU will do its best to enable a swift conclusion of the arbitration proceeding. Once this step is finalised, the EU could proceed, in accordance with the WTO and EU framework, to adopt countermeasures. To support the table olive sector, possibilities exist under Rural Development Programmes 4 to help operators adapt their production processes to other market opportunities. There is also support for the sector under the promotion aid scheme. Besides, under the rules concerning de minimis aid, a Member State may grant support to a single processor within a period of three fiscal years. In addition, companies can receive aid without prior notification to the Commission as regards research and development, training and investment aid under the conditions of the General Block Exemption Regulation 5 . The EU will continue to engage with the new US administration in order to achieve a solution to this dispute which is in the interest of EU exporters. 1 WT/DS577/20; https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds577_e.htm 2 WT/DS577/RW; https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/577rw_a_e.pdf 3 https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/WTO/US.Open.Stmt.Arb.Mtg.%28as%20deliv%29.fin.%28public %29.pdf 4 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/rural-development/country_en 5 Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty, OJ L 187, 26.6.2014, p. 1–78; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/651/oj”
  Export of EU agri-food products · EU-US trade relations
• 2024-11-20 “E-002600/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission Member States are bound by the duty of sincere cooperation to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from the Treaties 1 . When blockades and disturbances occur, such as the protests in question, national authorities must take all necessary and proportionate measures to ensure the free movement of goods on their territory 2 . This duty is reinforced by a series of obligations contained in Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 3 . The Commission has acted promptly to ensure that EU rules are respected. Following press reports and a formal request from the Spanish authorities under the above-mentioned Regulation, the Commission, on 21 November 2024, requested information from the French authorities concerning the details of the incidents that had occurred, as well as the action they had taken and/or would take to prevent these recurring. On the question of compensation for the losses caused by the destruction of goods, the Court of Justice of the EU has developed a general principle of state responsibility regarding compliance with EU law. The conditions for an individual to obtain reparation for damages caused by a breach of EU law attributable to the state are set out in this case-law 4 . 1 Article 4(3) of the Treaty on EU. 2 Judgment of 9 December 1997, Commission of the European Communities v French Republic, Case C-265/95, EU:C:1997:595. 3 Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States, OJ L 337, 12.12.1998, p. 8-9. 4 Judgment of 19 November 1991, Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic, joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, EU:C:1991:428 and Judgment of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du Pêcheur S v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others, joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, EU:C:1996:79.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• 2024-11-14 “E-002543/2024 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission considers that the new Administrative Agreement (AA) between the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) and the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) does not go further than what is provided under the new Geographical Indications (GI) regime. The administrative agreement was concluded in a transparent manner as it has been shared with the co-legislators and stakeholders and will be the object of an annual information point to the European Parliament and Council. As regards the pre-assessment of applications, it is limited to a non-binding opinion by the EUIPO. The Commission remains fully responsible on the decision in each individual file and on the content of official correspondence with Member States and other interested parties. At the request of the Commission, the EUIPO does an initial administrative screening identifying possible non-conformities. DG AGRI uses this opinion, along with those from other consulted Commission services, to perform its assessment. It helps the Commission achieve efficiency gains and respect the deadlines that have been set by the co-legislators. All applications are fully treated by the Commission in Brussels. Concerning the Honourable Member suggestion for the EUIPO to strengthen the protection of GIs, both the EUIPO and the Commission are strictly bound to respect their competencies. In this regard, potential conflicts between GIs and prior existing trademarks are to be assessed in light of the applicable legal provisions. The AA only recalls the existing practice between the EUIPO and the Commission to address the issue early in the assessment phase in case of a potential conflict.”
  EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
• 2024-09-27 “E-001850/2024 Answer given by Ms Kyriakides on behalf of the European Commission While infection with bluetongue virus (BTV) is a disease regulated by Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases (‘Animal Health Law’) 1 , Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1882 2 categorises BTV as a category C disease. As such, it is a disease subject to optional eradication by the Member States, with the objective of gaining disease-free status. That option is subject to the decision of the competent authorities of the Member States that may vary depending on the Member State in question. BTV is therefore no longer subject to compulsory immediate eradication despite this having been the case under previous EU rules. As it is a disease subject to optional eradication, EU funding for BTV, including vaccination, is not envisaged for 2024, nor for 2025 to 2027 BTV eradication programmes in accordance with EU rules 3 , neither for emergency measures given that financial resources are allocated to the control and eradication of other major priority animal diseases such as highly pathogenic avian influenza or African swine fever, peste des petits ruminants or sheep and goat pox. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/429/oj 2 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2018/1882/oj 3 Regulation (EU) 2021/690 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing a programme for the internal market, competitiveness of enterprises, including small and medium-sized enterprises, the area of plants, animals, food and feed, and European statistics (Single Market Programme) and the work programmes (adopted as Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 3467 of 2.6.2022 for 20232024) and Commission Implementing Decision C(2024) 2098 of 2.8.2024 for 2025-2027).”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• “I know it's not a panacea. I know it's not. But I think it is a way forward and it helps to Also strengthen their position. Commissioner, Union is our strength, our force. We need to be united, stand together here, farmers cooperatives, etc. that's the most effective way of making sure that farmers get fair pay for their work throughout the supply chain and therefore we shouldn't dilute dilute their power. And this is also something that we'll be making quite clear in our vote. I think that in the general report, there's a good balance, and I commend the rapporteur. I know she's made a real a real effort here, particularly in the in the final stages of the procedure. So thank you for the agreement that's been reached with colleagues regarding written contracts. Thank you for that. Also anything that has to do with certificates of origin, that too is very important to me. I know that, Commissioner, you've incorporated this into the reform of the common organization of the market for two years time, and I appreciate that. Finally, thank you to the rapporteurs and also Andres Rodriguez. I would like to commend him in particular for his great work on simplification. It's really important, together with the reform of the common organisation of the market, we're sending a good message to our farmers. We're listening to them and we're responding.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. Chair. It's quite shocking what we're hearing. And the commission is really barely a helping here. It's quite alarming what we're hearing here. The sector in Spain is suffering from this. The government of Spain also took initiative because the commission was not to speak with China, to persuade them to reduce those duties. Luckily, in some sectors, this is now around a 6% 4%. But in any case, the damage is very clear. Spain has lost 50% of its exports to China. In Spain we have also lost will. The sector has lost so much and the Commission has does not seem to have any data on this at all. And the the impact this is having. But the Spanish sector has lost more than €200 million per year because of this. So what is happening? What measures will be taken at the WTO? Is arbitration being requested, WTO what is going to be done? Thank you.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. In 2025, that will be the year that the work will begin at the new cap take into consideration the long term possibilities of the budget. Now there's increasingly information about to the effect that there may be cuts, cuts in the cap. These are the what about the conditions for that? Is this one of the priorities of the Commission? Isn't it the Commission's priority to bolster the cap? And it's not. It's just one year since the historic protests of farmers. And actually, as far as the future presentation or the future. Yes, indeed, the future presentation of what the agricultural policy is to be a that still hasn't been completed. We have issues such as the generational change. We have also different types of reforms that are to take place in the agricultural world. Also management crisis in agriculture and the environment. Nothing has said about this. Nothing was said about this in the commission work programme and as concerns the budget for the cap. Nothing about that either.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. Welcome again. We're talking about a reform on the common organisation of the market. It is quite unique, and it's supposed to support the position of farmers in the supply chain, the value chain. I think we need to prove that this will be the case. And I think that that is what the vote will tell us as well. I have a question. Really? I was wondering whether all the members of the EPP in this chamber actually are on the same line here, because it seems to me a little bit strange, if not incomprehensible at this point, at this point, at this stage of progress, the fact that there are some MEPs who are opposed to written contracts, I'm astonished because, Commissioner, I would find that essential. We've heard that from you. We've also heard it from the rapporteur, Mrs. Emmott. You know, surely we all want contractual relations. You know, last week, for instance, I hired a car. I had 6 or 7 pages of a contract just for hiring it for one day. So that is a given, you know, why is it that farmers would have to make do with oral agreements? It seems to me that this is essential for us. It certainly is in my country since 2013. You know, we do have written contracts and it's perfectly organic, if you like. It's been accepted by our farmers. They had no problem with it.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you very much. Now to point the finger at the food sector. When it comes to exorbitant prices in general. It is unfair. Why are we talking about fuel, housing and others? Farmers don't set gas prices or transport costs or interest rates. They are producing under pressure with tiny margins. We have inflation on so many fronts. There are high interest rates, uncertainty and many other factors. And farmers don't hold the key to these problems. And then of course, the issue of unfair commercial practices and the relevant directive. But we also have to focus on this not only for farmers, but for all the others, that we mustn't demonize. Those who transport food also face high energy costs. What about those who are responsible for packaging? They have to pass on the cost as well. What about those who work in the supermarket? They need to earn wages. We mustn't look for scapegoats and we mustn't point the finger at the Green Deal. We need fair solutions and talk about the real root causes of inflation.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Muchas gracias. Thank you chair. Thank you Commissioner. First, I'd like to thank. With the issue of unfair competition and the need to increase audits. I think the budget is very important to make sure that these audits can be carried out. I'd like to know what you think about the possible harmonization of controls between member states to avoid differences. Sometimes we have member states who take it very seriously that carry out their controls very seriously. But then products are coming in through other member states which may be prohibited. Then I would also like to know if you see any difficulties related to achieving zero residues. And should we have a complete ban on these prohibited products? And do we need to modify the law in order to achieve this? Finally lumpy skin disease. The sector is calling for changes in regulation. So so that it's more adapted to reality. Livestock breeders have to sacrifice huge numbers of their animals currently. Thank you.”
  Maximum residue levels
• “Thank you. And thank you to the commission representatives here. I'd like to start by recognizing the value of the efforts that the Commission is making. And particularly, particularly Commissioner Sefcovic and the president of the Commission. Given the circumstances, given the constant changes that we're seeing from the Trump administration, we are showing an openness to negotiate. We're demonstrating intelligence and patience in these highly sensitive negotiations. We all bear a huge responsibility towards our producers, our importers. This trade war could have devastating consequences for our economy. So, yes, the Commission needs to take a prudent approach. Use the art of negotiation. The Commission has been valiant with this list of counter measures. Um, more than €1 billion. From what I've heard with regard to possible products for countermeasures. It looks as if the approach that's being taken is very intelligent and very practical. It's always the food sector that is hit hardest and loses out most. You talked about diversification. Well, we all have to diversify. But I'd like to know whether the commission has said that. Tell us that if we open up to Mercosur, India and others, it would make up for the possible loss with the United States this big gap. I'd like to know, too, whether you have analyzed the impact that the US, UK agreement might have on our situation, whether there could be an effect on the European Union. And finally, thank you for your flexibility. Now it is possible to use the to try to defend our products to against the Trump administration. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. Chair. Indeed. This summer, forest fires. Were prominent in Spain. And it's something that happens every summer in the south of Europe. It's getting worse and worse. And, uh, the result is thousands of burned hectares. Farms that are destroyed. Families that see their futures disappear in a matter of hours. And the consequences that are most closely related to agriculture are. Soil degradation, ecosystems being destroyed, pests, the loss of biodiversity, and so on. First of all, I would like to thank the European Commission for the support that Spain received in this forest fire fighting campaign. We're grateful, but let's be honest, we still have to talk about the same thing. Prevention. Structural prevention. Prevention. Um. Mountain restoration. That type of investment. Well, we're always. We're still in the same situation. It's being financed. And I don't like the perspective for the years to come when we look at the structure proposed by the Commission. With this single fund, where member States are going to have to decide with a very, very tight budget that has to finance so many different things, if they're going to focus the money on internal, uh, country priorities for agriculture or for prevention and of fires. I think that this new system doesn't make any sense. And instead of improving the situation, it's going to worsen it. We need to think about that.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you very much. Chairperson. Well, what we're what we're hearing here, what the Court of Auditors is telling us is what we've been talking about for quite some time. We are seeing a gradual breaking up of the Common Agricultural Policy. They see that is less visible, less priority on a political level, more uncertainty. The indicators are difficult to understand. They can't be compared to different member states. The funding is not linked to true production costs. So that's quite a bit, isn't it? I mean, that's quite a bit to finally hear the commission say to us that what they're doing is creating synergies to, to to use euphemisms like the creation of synergies is an insult, in my opinion, not only to our farming sector, but as well to the citizens of Europe. And I think that this renationalisation is the way the European Commission is making sure that member states can have the responsibility that they are trying responsibly, they want to get rid of. And so we are seeing that the cap is being actually dismantled, is being taken apart, and it's a way of weakening the role of regions as well. We've talked about national. So it's got it's national and regional partnership fund. But these reforms don't take into account.”
  Agricultural funding
• “It completely ignores the important that the regions have in this new format. So I would like to ask the members of the Court of Auditors, first of all, thanking them for being here and for explaining things so clearly and offering us support really in our positions. What can we do? What would you suggest that we do? How can we intervene to turn this crazy situation around, which is creating such a huge change in the structure and architecture of the cap? I would also like to ask the commission, since you say you're looking for synergies or or at least you're trying to justify this by talking about searching synergies, how can you reach objectives? I mean, if we've created a common agricultural policy and I emphasize the word common and how can you how do you think that you're going to continue to defend the agricultural policy with this model where you seem to be just washing your hands and leaving the cohesion system lost in some sort of Tower of Babel and leaving the member states lost in this whole system. It's really breaking apart, breaking down the values that this whole system was set up for. Thank you very much, Christina. And now Maria.”
  CAP delivery architecture: ring-fenced common fund vs integrated national plans
• “Thank you, Mr. President. This wine package. Contains proposals that emerged from the high level group on wine, and this is a good thing, but it'll be no use if there is not obligatory and stable European funding for sectoral interventions in the wine sector. And there's another major error. There's no full recognition of the role of cooperatives. Now, I'm from Castilla La mancha, as you know, and this is a region that produces around 60% of Spanish wine. There are thousands of jobs in the wine sector in rural areas. And cooperatives are the pillar that supports this sector, which produces jobs, which processes, which exports and which keeps our villages alive. However, the fact that this there is no focus on cooperatives means that the focus is on producers organisations and means that our cooperatives have to deal with structures that are inappropriate. So if Europe wants a strong wine sector commissioner, it has to ensure obligatory financing its own budget and recognition of the cooperative model. Thank you very much.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Yes, thank you very much, chairman. And thank you to, uh, Leopoldo. I have no doubt that you have an enormous responsibility on your shoulders during the course of these negotiations. And the negotiations are very difficult, very tough. But it is true that the United States, in the person of President Trump, has shown us how he plays the game on the basis of threats and blackmail. And people. In my country, there's a saying that basically would along the lines of the fact that he's more dangerous than a monkey with a crossbow. The problem is that Mr. Trump only answers to power. He's trying to rob sovereignty from us. He's trying to impose his agenda on our own agenda. When it comes to manufacturing and the economy, I think we have to stand firm and we have to play the game and play to the rules. Speak the same language as Mr. Trump. The American citizens, I think, also have to be able to see just what it is that their president is doing and this running counter to the interests of the American economy, because if we take a look at the tariffs, 30% would be a total ruin for our industry. And I think what we have to do is not think in terms of the, um, or the what we're trying to achieve, but the means to do this and perhaps go to the WTO and turn to Mr.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Gracias. President. Thank you. Mr. president, the Commission has been negotiating in good faith defending the interests of Europe. We very much value the huge amount of work which has gone in by Commissioner Sefcovic. But we know that what Trump is up to, we won't give way to his blackmail nor the facts in place. The tariffs are an unjustified attack on multilateral order and a flagrant violation of the WTO rules. And the worst of it is that while Trump is attacking European industry, farming and our sovereignty, there are groups on the far right who applaud and back this threat of disproportionate tariffs. Europe does not deserve such disloyal representation. We defend dialogue and negotiation. But if Trump insists on trying to impose rules of this kind, then we ought to be willing to stand up for our industry. We have a wide range of reprisal tools, including the anti coercion instrument. If dialogue and diplomacy are worth nothing to Trump, then perhaps we ought to have retaliatory measures, and he can then answer to his citizens and businesses. So all the best, Commissioner. You count on our support and keep negotiating to the end. And otherwise we need to be smart and strong.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. Chairman. Commissioner, I would like to ask you some questions. Are you happy with what you're presenting this afternoon? Are you happy with these cuts of more than 20% of the cap? Are you happy with this single fund, which is a black hole? Let's be clear about this. We still believe, or we want to believe that you are here to defend farmers and that you support those out in the field. Everybody here, we've all supported you. We've said we want to support you against von der Leyen, but this is leading farmers farms and rural areas to their ruin. Let's face up to this. This is a historical moment for the better or for the worst. Up until now, we hope that you're on the right side, supporting farmers and those who support them. The Cap has always been the ultimate European project. We can't simply disregard the enormous work which our farmers do every day, so please support us.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you president. One of the key impacts of the war is being felt in the oil price and in the cost of fertilisers. The president of the commission hasn't said anything about the negative impact. We've seen a 60% increase in the cost of fertilisers, and the fertiliser sector in Europe has seen its activity drop by more than 70% in recent times. So we have to do something about it. It's not just the farmers who are having to pay the price, but also everyone, all consumers with their grocery shopping. So we need to deal with this through the customs duties that we applied to fertilisers, so that we can temporarily bring down these overheads for the agriculture sector. Of course, we need to look at organic fertilizers as well and see this sector, this industry as a strategic sector that needs our support. And finally, we need to support farmers. And the Spanish example is one that could be followed and emulated elsewhere.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Senor Commissioner, I think that you're doing your best, but I think your president's plans are different cuts and a single fund. And Ursula von der Leyen is in danger of going down in history as the president of the commission that destroyed the cap by making farmers bear the cost of the next generation EU. And that is wrong because it is the farm sector that was feeding us when we were locked down in Covid. It's the farm sector that saved us from food shortages after the war, and that is what enabled us to be a major food exporting power. Cutting subsidies will mean that thousands of farmers will be left without support, and whole regions will be left without a means of earning money and a future. This renationalisation the cap destroys the single market. It's a huge political error. Why propose a reform without waiting for the support of the European Parliament, the representatives of the European people? We're hearing the sounds of tractors outdoors once again, the protests of farmers. So please, just take these ideas out of your head and stand by the farmers.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you very much. I'm speaking on behalf of Camila Lauretti from our group, because she's not able to be here this morning. First of all, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the excellent work done hitherto. It's a very good, basic premise for us to continue our work. It's very important that we focus on women if we want to keep our outermost and rural regions alive and functioning. All too often we don't recognise the role that they play. There are too many barriers in their way, and we need to tear down these barriers as fast as we can. Eurostat statistics and agriculture confirm what we know, which is that it's a primarily male occupation. Only 31% or so are female. In 2023, the FAO flagged up that women's working conditions in agriculture tended to be inferior to those of men. They were working irregular, part time hours, low qualified jobs. They also then have difficulties in access to land technology. Support. And so discrimination against women and also young people is being eradicated far too slowly. This is what underpins the whole problem of inequality across the genders. So we need to tackle this and redouble our efforts to make sure that there is not such an adverse impact on women. The new Cap proposals are intended to include gender as a policy area, but only eight countries have actually got any legislation or proposals on this. This includes Spain, I am glad to say, in terms of agriculture and food, the Commission has said that they're going to introduce a platform for women in agriculture, but we're still awaiting that. It's really important that we have specific, targeted initiatives access to credit, land and resources, improving market outlets, supporting women in all the initiatives that they might want to take. Disseminating best practice, enhancing opportunities, and giving women opportunities to training. Social conditionality should be integrated, and we also need to make sure that women can participate constructively in all the work that goes on in the regions where they live. Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you. President. Well, the question we need to be asking ourselves is, do we want to be a strong power, or do we want to isolate ourselves in a competitive world? Do we want to be an industry industrial continent, or do we want to give markets to the US or China. Do we want to be paying high tariffs? Or do we want to open up free markets? We are in a difficult situation. The far right support Trump's tariffs, but they don't want to see an open market Latin America. This is something they're going to have to explain. Now we also need to provide guarantees to our sensitive sectors. We need certainty and transparency for our farmers. We have to boost safeguard measures for sensitive sectors. We would like to see more controls at the border to ensure that the quotas established are complied with. And obviously, we need to protect our sensitive products. And above all, you should tell us where this compensation fund money is going to come from. And is it going to be enough?”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. Chair, um, for giving us, um, the 14 um. Turns without them being given to us. I wanted to say, just listening to all of this, a lot of the proposals here were already on the table for a number of years. They haven't borne fruit. Um, there's no reason to present them again. There's a lack of coordination with previous strategies. So it would be good, um, for access to land funding, etc. all of this to be considered. But I agree with my colleagues. If this doesn't go hand in hand with enough funding, it doesn't make any sense. So I would like to ask you. Um, given that generation generational renewal, renewal is, um, important. Why isn't funding, um given more importance for young people? If generational renewal is so important for you? So I think you need to think about that. I think what you're saying is very interesting, but it doesn't it's not coherent with the new cup.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you. Commissioner. Thank you for presenting your proposals. And the one of the most pressing needs that farmers tell us is that they want to strengthen their place in the value chain, which is very important in the food supply chain. There are abusive and controversial and unjust practices that lead to agriculture not being profitable. This is why tackling unfair competition is vital. Now, more concretely, we're concerned with some changes in the CMO regulation, specifically the requirement to do things in writing. This is very important In in Spain, it's already done all the time, with no exception. But we see that there is a large room for manoeuvre here. I don't know in Europe, but in Spain 95% of farmers are SMEs and it really leaves them unprotected when it comes to strengthening farmers associations. This is very positive because it will really concentrate supply, especially in strategic areas such as fruits and vegetables. But I should also say that I am concerned by the possibility that non-recognised farmers associations could also be playing under the same rules. So what incentive are we giving farmers associations to be officially constituted? And I'm very happy with what you've announced for the wine sector, but I'd like to know if that would fit in this reform. We need to act very quickly and very urgently because that sector is in crisis and it requires, uh, that the EU help it, as it should. Now, 70% aid for natural disasters of for fruits and vegetables and the use of the crisis reserve. This is good, but this is key. This should be accompanied by a proper budget for that reserve crisis and for the utps. I think this is a very needed reform, and especially in border areas, we need coordination with member states and we welcome that. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. President. Honourable members. European agriculture has three main issues with fertilisers one dependence on third countries, two prices. Now fertilisers are 70% more expensive than they were a couple of years ago. And farmers and citizens are paying the price for this. And third, a model or rather a lack of a model, a stable model. If we are we're asking farmers to be more circular, but the rules in place actually penalise organic products. Meanwhile, chemical fertilisers or synthetic fertilizers playing different roles. We talk about green ammonia, green hydrogen, but there's a lack of support from the commission. And the regulation is extremely complex and bureaucratic. And the plan put forward today by Commissioner Hanson. And today we feel it's on the right track and we can support it. But our understanding is that in addition to long term measures, we need urgent measures. We need to get rid of the tariffs. They've been suspended. That's good. We need to maintain predictability for the harvest. And we need to ensure that there's fairness in prices across the chain is.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. I would also like to turn to the Commissioner for agriculture with questions along the same lines. Do you not feel it's serious that with this single fund you are destroying the agriculture fund with this horizontal regulation? I'm sure Mr. Serafin would like this, but I think what's clear is that the cap, the CMO that will no longer be the future of the sector and income support, generational renewal, crisis management. All of this is in this regulation. And are you comfortable with the fact that the cap is no longer going to be common, is no longer going to be strong. And it's the way that it looks here, it will no longer be common. It's going to come down to national policies. So. There is an unbalanced approach, and what is important is to guarantee support for farmers and that if this fund. That the commissioner has to keep turn back to. We've seen her over the course of recent weeks. I think unfortunately, this is not going to work. And in fact, the farmers are coming back tomorrow.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. President. This reform was born out of the May 2024 protests of farmers and the message was clear. Less red tape, more flexibility. Standards that are adapted to the land. And I'd like to congratulate you, Commissioner Hansen and the rapporteur. It is strengthening the farmers. Young farmers by increasing up to 3000, and it rejects the crisis payments as opposed to direct payments. It also assists in cutting red tape. And it also allows, uh, organic farms recognition. It corrects some rigidity for the sector. But. Hansen for how long will the sector trust you? It is good that the Commission has regarded that. But they will take to the streets again. And the cap that is, um, has more flexibility, but it shouldn't shrink because Commissioner Hansen would like to call on you to withdraw the cuts to the cap. Thank you, Mr. Domoto.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “I think it's an excellent agreement. Huge differences. Uh, we've seen whose changes we've seen are very protectionist country now opening up. So I really have to congratulate the commission. Um, Mr. Keener, thank you for going through all the detail here today with us. I think you've explained everything quite well also. The sensitive sectors, farming, for example. We are extremely protectionist. And there was a concern that, uh, this would be an issue. Um, all of the different things being left out, opening up, for example, to wine and olive oil, it's not going to be huge. But there are opportunities there for zero tariffs. You know that's a huge step forward. Uh, wine and spirits I think it was over 100% tariffs. Now we're going to be bringing that down. So that's the positive side of things. I'll get to my questions now. Could you say a bit more about the timeline for application for the, uh, reduction in tariffs? What about, uh, geographic indications? When are you thinking we're going to make some progress there? And more sensitive issues. And I'm finishing here. Chair. What about, uh, um, barriers to trade? When it comes to industry. I know there's been a memorandum of understanding here, but that's also a very sensitive issue. Thank you very much indeed. And well done again.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “(11:03:25 – 11:06:03): Thank you, Chairman, colleagues. This single fund proposal is not just a technical reform. It's a paradigm shift, and it's something that we reject outright. The Commission wants to change the CAP into a single regional plan mixed up with cohesion, fisheries, defense, and security, and this would be one step towards the renationalization of the CAP. We would want the opposite. We want a CAP with its own identity, its own specific architecture, and its own budget, which is clearly identified and not absorbed into an undifferentiated macro fund. We have made significant progress, and that is transferring the new framework to the articles which are directly linked to the CAP, thus avoiding that we lose clear regulations for agriculture. But that's not enough. We have a model here where support for agriculture and rural development depends on national political decisions, which might change and be revised every year in a single plan. The CAP is there specifically in order to avoid that kind of renationalization and to guarantee that we have common rules, a compatible level of support, and real solidarity between member states. And that is why we want to ensure that in the CAP chapters, maintain their identity and that we maintain the link to the budget. We want to maintain full European funding for sectors like fruit and vegetables, wine, aquaculture, and other sectors such as those under the CMOs, which depend on specific predictable budgets. We don't want those budgets to turn into lines incorporated into a flexible plan, could be cut or reorientated based on one-off plans. We also want the CAP to be the key tool when it comes to generation renewal for supporting families and production in rural areas. We need a policy which will support young farmers, which will support cooperatives, which will support processing and marketing of agricultural products and provide stability. We have a single fund here which puts everything in the same basket, facilitating the transfer of funds between objectives and leaving too much discretion to member states. That is something that does not provide that kind of stability. So our message is clear. We want to coordinate policies, but we do not want to dissolve the CAP. We want more European integration in agriculture, not more national divergence. We want a common agricultural policy which is strong, viable, and that is adequately funded. And we will continue to work along those lines with the rest of the political groups to ensure that between ourselves, we can build a solid majority in the Parliament. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Sorry to the interpreter, says the speaker. What I was saying was that it's very important to isolate the outbreaks. Off because of the social economic impact. Also because they lead to obligatory calls, restrictions on trade, on production. And they can also increase costs for biosecurity. Now, apart from the work that the commission is doing, which I would like to praise, I know that it's complex. It's not easy. But I'd also like to Underscored the efforts being made by regional and national authorities. They've put in place vaccination campaigns. I've seen it in Castile-La mancha, my region in Spain, where there is 100% vaccination. That's 100% costs of vaccination, and there's also compensation as well. Many outbreaks lead to bankruptcy or profound crisis in the livestock sector. And so European funds such as the Efr are important. But national and regional authorities have been helping livestock breeders. There's also the fundamental role for the European Commission when it comes to coordinating, preventing and monitoring high risk areas so that we do not see what has happened with the lumpy skin disease in Italy and France, as well as many other outbreaks, the speaker's microphone has been cut off.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• “Gracias, gracias. Thank you. And thank you to the Commission for the explanation. The dairy sector is very vulnerable and subject to a lot of external pressure. We've heard a lot of figures pertaining to a number of different member states. I would just like to ask the Commission whether it thinks that there could be contagion in the markets across the member states because of the downward trend and the low levels and the disparities between countries. I'd like, as Celine, to hear a bit more what you're thinking about doing about the Common Market Organisation. I'm a bit surprised at some of the suggestions that have been made. The Socialist group was in favour of written contracts in the dairy sector, but some people have argued that there should be exceptions. Our experience with them has been that they've stopped such Precipitous falls in prices and they've given a bit more stability to the sector. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you, chair, and thanks for Giving us an overview of this interesting and vital study. The problem of third countries is one recognized and there is an impact on our farmers and producers due to the gap between standards and regulatory obligations. That's absolutely real and tangible. If we want to provide tangible answers, we must have a clear starting principle. We must enact a enact good measures which are legally solid in the debate. You mentioned mechanisms which would mean switching our internal production standards to all producers that there have been before. But rabble rousers have picked up on this. But let's keep our feet on the ground. Wto standards stymie us. These easily made messages. Let's have tangible measures to ensure that ensure there is reciprocity, there must be a protection mechanism to protect our farmers who are, because there is a massive gap between what they are required to comply with in terms of quality standards and so on. At the same time that. There is a gap here, so we must work on bolstering the equivalence mechanisms. This means having an equal level of protection, even though the provisions might not be identical.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU