Bert-Jan RUISSEN

Policy topics Bert-Jan RUISSEN is active on

What Bert-Jan RUISSEN has said (80)

• 2026-06-17 “(10:23:28 – 10:24:41): Thank you, president. Honorable members, migration is 1 of the items on the agenda for the upcoming summit. Quite rightly, the asylum migration pact may have entered into force. We may get a deal on the returns regulation. However, we're nowhere close to getting migration flows under control. What we now need to do is deliver on pledges made. Border countries must stop allowing asylum seekers to travel onwards in Europe unscreened. Rejected asylum seekers must actually be expelled. We need returns hubs outside Europe. When it comes to asylum application, should we not also consider a far more burning issue whether certain cultures or religions are compatible with Europe? Genuine asylum seekers do need a safe haven, but Muslim countries should step up when it comes to Muslim asylum seekers. President, if we don't take action, the new asylum and migration sack is is a pact is also doomed to fail.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2026-03-11 “Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1.6.2026 Written question The Commission would like to recall that the provisions in Article 25 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 [1] (as amended) set targets for the uptake of renewable energy across the transport sector, aiming at reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions. To that regard, there are no specifications per individual transport mode and Member States have flexibility in how to achieve the objectives. Accordingly, it is for the Netherlands to decide within this framework, whether to allow for the cross-subsidisation of HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) supplies to certain sectors through schemes such as BIDO tickets. The Commission remains committed to support the decarbonisation of the transport sector. On 5 November 2025 it adopted the Sustainable Transport Investment Plan (STIP) (COM(2025) 664 final [2] ), which aims to de-risk investments in the production of renewable and low-carbon fuels and to increase their availability for the aviation and waterborne sectors, including the inland navigation sector. Increased supply is expected to contribute to lower costs over time for all relevant sectors. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/oj/eng. [2] https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2025)664&lang=en.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport · Biofuels (RED II)
• 2026-03-11 “Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question The (TEN-T) Regulation 2024/1679 [1] sets out minimum requirements for the trans-European transport network, applicable to all transport modes, including inland waterways. Under Article 24, it identifies the modernisation and expansion of infrastructure capacity -specifically, mooring and rest places — as a priority, recognising that these facilities are vital for supporting multimodal transport operations, both within port areas and along waterways. However, it is important to note that the responsibility for planning, deploying, and establishing the norms and standards for mooring infrastructure remains within the jurisdiction of individual Member States. Nevertheless, the Commission has actively provided financial support to Member States for building and upgrading mooring places along TEN-T inland waterways, under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). Good examples can be found on the Seine-Scheldt Network or on the Danube River; in the latter case, CEF has supported several projects with EUR 47 million which also include mooring. The CEF has also supported an o vernight mooring facility Spijk on the German-Dutch border with EUR 11 million. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1679/oj/eng.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration · EU funding for transportation
• 2026-03-10 “Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission 13.5.2026 Written question The Commission’s follow up to the Citizen’s initiative ‘My Voice, My Choice’ falls within the EU’s supportive competence. Any support must comply with the limitations in Article 168(7) TFEU. One of the specific objectives of the of the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), set out in Article 4(1)(k), is that of enhancing equal and timely access to quality, sustainable and affordable services, including the access to person-centred care including healthcare [1] . Therefore, the ESF+ can support initiatives, selected at national level, that aim to ensure and enhance equal and timely access to healthcare services. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held that the Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services include the freedom for recipients of healthcare, including people in need of medical treatment [2] . With regard to medical termination of pregnancy carried out in line with the law of the country where it takes place, the CJEU has found that it ‘constitutes a service within the meaning of Article 57 TFEU [3] . The EU has in place ambitious legislation on maternity, paternity and non-transferable paid parental leave, through the Work-Life Balance [4] and Pregnant Workers Directives [5] . The Commission will also contribute to combatting poverty through the upcoming EU Anti-Poverty Strategy. Since ESF+ is in shared management, the Commission is not diverting any resources, as Member States define their specific objectives for the use of the ESF+ funding. [1] Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013, OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, pp. 21-59, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1057/oj. [2] S ee Recital 26, Patients’Rights Directive, as well as judgments of 31 January 1984, Graziana Luisi and Giuseppe Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro, C-286/82 and 26/83, ECLI:EU:C:1984:35 and judgment of 28 April 1998 Kohll, C-158/96, paragraph 29 and subsequent case law. [3] See judgment of 4 October 1991, Grogan, C-159/90, where the CJEU confirmed that abortion care is a service under internal market law, meaning that citizens can travel abroad to obtain those medical services. [4] Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU, OJ L 188/79, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L1158. [5] Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, pp. 1-7, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1992/85/oj .”
  EU competences on health · EU competences on human rights
• 2026-03-10 “Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission 15.6.2026 Written question In line with the principle of shared management, it is the primary responsibility of Member States to ensure compliance with the applicable laws when it comes to their national programmes under the European Social Fund+ (ESF+) [1] . To this end, Member States authorities carry out management verifications and audits to ensure that the expenditure is legal and regular. The Commission also ensures that Member States have management and control systems that comply with the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) [2] and that these systems function effectively and efficiently during the implementation of the programmes. The ESF+ strand is implemented jointly by the Commission and Member States. However, the ESF+ legislative framework leaves the responsibility for setting out the eligibility rules for support under the ESF+ to the national and regional authorities of the Member States. They have to do so within the limits set out in the regulations applicable to the ESF+ and in respect of other relevant EU legislation and Treaty principles. Therefore, it would be up to Member States, if they choose to do so, to define the conditions under which eligible women can access safe and affordable abortion care in their territory, and how such funding would be delivered, in full compliance with the relevant EU legislation and Treaty principles. When implementing the ESF +, Member States need to respect applicable law. This includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as the United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (UNCRPD). [1] Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013, L 231/21, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R1057&from=EN. [2] Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy, OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, pp. 159-706, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj.”
  EU policy on disability inclusion & accessibility · Abortion policy
• 2026-02-12 “E-000630/2026 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU remains committed to supporting the Syrian people through their challenging transition. This includes financial assistance to address the urgent humanitarian and socioeconomic needs they face in Syria and neighbouring countries. The pledge of EUR 5.8 billion at the ninth Brussels Conference in March 2025 by the EU, Member States and international partners focuses on responding to humanitarian needs and supporting the country’s inclusive political transition and recovery after 14 years of civil war and most of the funds are dedicated to support all Syrian people. The President of the Commission and the President of the European Council have strongly reiterated during their visit to Damascus in January 2026 the request that transitional authorities commit to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Syrians without any kind of discrimination. There can be no peace and stability in Syria without a genuinely inclusive transition, capable of fulfilling the aspirations of all Syrians, and in which everyone is protected and represented within the state institutions based on equal rights as citizens. The recent developments in North-East Syria further expose the country and the region to the risk of Da’esh resurgence. The EU has called on the Syrian Transitional Authorities to take ownership of the situation, prevent further escapes or uncontrolled releases from camps and prisons, protect all civilians and the internally displaced persons who should return to their homes and cooperate with the Global Coalition to counter Da’esh threat. The EU will continue following the situation in Syria, remaining vigilant about the respect for human rights, and supporting comprehensive accountability efforts for all perpetrators of violations regardless of their affiliation.”
  EU-Syria relations · EU relations with Kurdish people · EU engagement with Christian communities inside and outside the EU
• 2026-02-02 “E-000409/2026 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission All proposals selected for funding in the 2025 European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant call underwent peer review in accordance with the ERC’s established procedures and were selected solely on the criterion of scientific excellence, in line with Article 28(2) of the Horizon Europe Regulation 1 . In addition, each project selected for funding by the ERC under Horizon Europe undergoes an ethics review procedure. This ensures that all research activities included in the proposal conform to ethical standards and relevant national, EU, and international laws, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights and its Supplementary Protocols. The ethics review focuses on the research proposed by the applicant. The proposal in question has successfully obtained ethical clearance. For more information on how the ethics review process takes place, please see the relevant Information for Applicants 2 and Annex A of the ERC Rules of submission and evaluation under Horizon Europe 3 . During the preparation of the corresponding grant agreement, the ERC Executive Agency (ERCEA) received allegations concerning certain public statements attributed to the person mentioned in the subject of the written question. The grant agreement has not been signed yet. The ERCEA and the Commission are presently assessing these allegations, including the relevant facts and their possible implications for the grant’s implementation, applying due process and proportionality. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0695. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/information-forapplicants_he-erc-stg-cog_en.pdf. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/erc-rules-forsubmission-and-evaluation_he-erc_en.pdf.”
  Recruitment policies in the EU
• 2026-02-02 “E-000404/2026 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission The EU legislation on road infrastructure safety management, Directive 2008/96/EC 1 , sets out the procedures applicable for road projects and for the built infrastructure. It applies to the design and management of roads on the trans-European road network, to motorways, to primary roads connecting major cities and regions and to EU funded interurban roads, but does not extend to decisions regarding winter driving conditions and local safety management, which remains a matter for the Member States. It follows that the possible use of road salt falls within the remit of national and local authorities, which are best placed to tailor solutions to their specific road traffic conditions. The Commission is aware that different Member States adopt varying approaches. There are Member States that, like the Netherlands, detect ice and adjust salt spreading accordingly. Given the diverse winter conditions across the individual Member States, tailored actions are required. 1 Directive 2008/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on road infrastructure safety management (OJ L 319, 29.11.2008, p. 59).”
  EU policy on water management · Road transport environmental policy
• 2026-01-30 “E-000396/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States are fully responsible for the organisation of their education systems and for the content of teaching. The Commission is supporting curricula developers and educators by providing dedicated resources, including through financing the project ‘addressing antisemitism through education’ implemented by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) 1 . The EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021-2030) 2 invites schools across the EU to ensure that all pupils learn about Jewish life in Europe, the Holocaust and antisemitism and mark the annual International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The Commission will develop an EU citizenship competence framework to strengthen curricular development in this area. The fight against antisemitism is funded under various funding programmes, for example the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme, Creative Europe, the Erasmus+, the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe, the Internal Security Fund and the Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Project applications are examined and approved in compliance with the applicable eligibility rules. If there is evidence of a beneficiary acting in violation of applicable legislation, EU values, applicable EU acquis and international law, in the implementation of a project, the Commission and Member States consider the available means to terminate the cooperation and recover the EU funds. Based on a College decision of December 2019, the Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life, together with three staff members, currently leads the implementation of the EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021–2030). As part of mainstreaming the fight against antisemitism, an array of colleagues in many other Commission services contribute to the implementation of the strategy through relevant actions. 1 Strategies to counter antisemitism: a handbook for educators, UNESCO, 2025: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000396116. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52021DC0615.”
  Role of education (social change vs. tradition) · Jewish culture and antisemitism
• 2026-01-21 “P-000238/2026 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/788 1 on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) provides for rules on transparency from the group of organisers on the sources of funding. Based on the information published 2 by the organisers of the said ECI, the sources of funding are available for transparency and accountability. Amongst its listed sponsors, only the Zavod Raziskovalni inštitut 8. marec is a beneficiary of EU funding 3 . The Zavod Raziskovalni inštitut 8. marec is a member of a consortium that has been awarded funding for the implementation of an action grant to foster active civic participation among youth and civil society across the Western Balkans. Any EU funding received through a grant agreement has to be used for the purposes specified in this agreement, in accordance with the objectives of the relevant EU programme. Therefore, all the costs reported by the consortium during the reporting periods must be linked to the activities described in Annex I (description of the action (DoA)) of the grant agreement. The Commission does not instruct beneficiaries to support particular positions in their described activities. It requires the activities to be carried out by beneficiaries in accordance with the DoA Furthermore, the Commission has issued guidance 4 applicable to all spending programmes clarifying that advocacy activities in relation to EU legislation and policy should not be mandated as a requirement or condition for EU financing. 1 Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the European citizens' initiative (Text with EEA relevance.), http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/788/oj. 2 https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000004_en. 3 Project ID 101253246, https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/projectsdetails/43251589/101253246/CERV?order=DESC&pageNumber=1&pageSize=100&sortBy=es_SortDate&prog rammePeriod=2021%20-%202027&frameworkProgramme=43251589&topicAbbreviation=CERV-2025CITIZENS-CIV. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/guidance-fundingdev-impl-monit-enforce-of-eu-law_en.pdf.”
  Sexuality and reproduction · Abortion policy
• 2026-01-19 “Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission 27.3.2026 Written question The conditions to participate in and receive funding under Horizon Europe (HE) are set out in the regulation establishing HE [1] including in its Article 19(1), namely that the actions carried out must comply with ethical principles and relevant EU, national and international law, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights [2] and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Supplementary Protocols [3] . Any legal entity applying for funding under HE, either on its own or as part of a consortium, must comply and continue to comply with the eligibility criteria and other call conditions for the duration of the action. Furthermore, the legal entity must declare not to be in any of the exclusion situations set out in Article 138 of the Financial Regulation [4] . When becoming a beneficiary, the legal entity must respect all the obligations set out in the HE grant agreement [5] . In case an exclusion situation or non-compliance is established, the responsible authorising officer has the right to take appropriate measures, which may include termination of participation. Pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Association Agreement to HE [6] , Israeli entities participate in the programme under terms and conditions equivalent to those applicable to legal entities established in the EU. Accordingly, any termination of the participation of Israeli grant beneficiaries on the sole grounds of their nationality would amount to discrimination. Under the HE grant agreement, the EU granting authority has the right to take appropriate measures in case of an improper implementation which may include the termination of the grant or a reduction of the grant amount [7] . [1] http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/695/oj. [2] https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter. [3] https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG. [4] https://commission.europa.eu/publications/eu-financial-regulation_en. [5] Horizon Europe model grant agreement — https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/agr-contr/general-mga_horizon-euratom_en.pdf. [6] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2022/323(10)/oj. [7] The same principles apply also to the grant agreements awarded under the international dimension of the Erasmus+ programme.”
  Jewish culture and antisemitism · Relations with Israel - Palestine
• 2026-01-05 “Answer given by Ms Šuica on behalf of the European Commission 8.4.2026 Written question In the Letter of Intent between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Commission dated July 2024 [1] , the PA committed to undertake substantial and credible reforms including for the education sector, with a focus on improving the quality of the education system that encompasses the development of educational materials and high-quality teaching and learning. The annex to the Letter of Intent listed the adoption by the PA of an action plan to improve quality education as key progress indicator by the end of August 2024. The said action plan was adopted in mid-August. In the following months, the PA developed, in coordination with the EU, a Joint EU-PA Reform Matrix that included a sequencing of clear benchmarks, as the basis for disbursements under the Multiannual and Comprehensive Support Programme for recovery and resilience for 2025-2027. The Reform Matrix agreed by the PA and the EU in November 2024 included milestones focusing on the education reform. These milestones complement and upgrade the benchmarks contained in the Letter of Intent. The PA President, at the UN General Assembly in September 2025, reiterated the commitment to fully transition to learning materials aligned to UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) standards within the next two years. The PA has made initial revisions to grade 12 and more comprehensive revisions to grades one to four to align with Unesco standards. Revised learning material in the format of ‘educational packages’ has been published on the Palestinian Ministry of Education website in December 2024 and October 2025 respectively. Substantial changes in the curriculum for grades one to four have been noted and revisions are currently being assessed by experts contracted by the Commission. The EU remains engaged with the PA on curriculum and broader education sector reform and EU disbursements are linked to the PA’s achievement of key reforms identified in the Reform Matrix. [1] https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/letter-intent-between-palestinian-authority-and-european-commission_en.”
  Conditions to access EU humanitarian aid · Relations with Israel - Palestine
• 2025-11-26 “P-004705/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission Tracing all lots of fishery and aquaculture products at all stages of production, processing and distribution, from catching or harvesting to the retail stage, ensuring that such lots are accompanied by a minimum set of information, and requiring operators to maintain ‘systems and procedures to identify any operator from whom they have been supplied with lots of fishery and aquaculture products and to whom these products have been supplied’, are obligations that have been in force in the Union since 2011 1 . The revision of the fisheries control system, culminating in Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 2 , builds on these rules while strengthening the recording and transmission of traceability data. Article 58(6) of Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 requires such data to be recorded and made available ‘in a digital way’, a technologically neutral formulation that allows various means of digital transmission without mandating any specific systems or tools across the supply chain. This minimum technological standard does not prevent stakeholders from using more advanced solutions, as already done by several operators, including through interoperable standards and systems. The 2026 implementation deadline established by the co-legislators in Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 cannot be modified through secondary legislation. The Commission will keep working with stakeholders and Member States to develop supplementary rules supporting their work and further harmonise and simplify the traceability framework, without undermining the objectives of the fisheries control revision. 1 Council Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 (the ‘Control Regulation’), Article 58(1) to (5). Please, note that Article 124(a) of the original Control Regulation deferred the application of Article 58 until 1 January 2011. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2842/oj/eng.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2025-11-03 “E-004308/2025 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission This project 1 is funded by a European Research Council (ERC) grant through Horizon Europe 2 , a programme ensuring Europe produces world-class scientific results. Since 2007, the ERC has funded over 17,000 projects and over 14,000 researchers 3 in various fields, leading to more than 2,400 patents and 220,000 articles in scientific journals. It is worth mentioning that ERC grantees have earned 15 Nobel Prizes, 7 Fields Medals, 12 Wolf Prizes, and other prestigious awards. Selected by independent scholars through rigorous evaluation procedure based on scientific excellence, the project explores human rights aspects in abortion law debates. It analyses how human rights arguments gain traction through legal, social, and linguistic processes, contributing to academic debate on human rights interpretation and implementation across cultural and regional contexts. The project focuses on specific countries in Africa (Mozambique, Senegal), Europe (Poland, Ireland) and Latin America (Argentina, and Honduras) and involves advocacy groups, policymakers, and legal experts, targeting scholarly circles while addressing civil society and stakeholders. The principle of subsidiarity is respected insofar as this project is funded under the Horizon Europe programme, whose main objective is to maximise the Union added value and impact in research and innovation, while focusing on objectives and activities that cannot be efficiently realised by the Member States acting alone. This may take the form of funding academic research and debate, which differs essentially from adopting legislation or shaping policies. All ERC-funded projects are closely monitored to ensure progress and compliance with relevant EU legislation and ethical principles 4 . 1 For an overview of the project’s results, please consult https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101044421. 2 Horizon Europe is the 9th Framework programme for Research and Innovation: https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/horizon-europe_en. 3 Principal Investigators. 4 This includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the European Convention on Human Rights and its Supplementary Protocols.”
  Abortion policy · Sexuality and reproduction · EU competences on human rights
• 2025-09-18 “P-003620/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is ready to facilitate a consultation with Member States to obtain additional information on the question raised by the Honourable Member. This consultation should aim at obtaining more information on the extent of the export of used fishing nets for the sake of drone protection in Ukraine, as well as on whether and how Member States consider the export of these nets as an export of waste under the EU legislation on waste and waste shipment 1 . As indicated by the Honourable Member, the rules on export are different if these nets are considered as waste, or not, and the Commission is willing to work with Member States towards a common, harmonised interpretation of this issue at the EU level. While coordinating and facilitating defence donations for Ukraine fall under the national responsibility of Member States, the Commission could explore to possibly support projects aimed at repurposing civilian products into military counter products subject to Ukraine confirming the operational value of a respective project. The EU supports its circular economy transition through dedicated programmes. These include Horizon Europe 2 , the flagship framework programme for research and innovation, the EU programme for the environment and climate action 3 , and Cohesion policy funds 4 , including the European Regional Development Fund 5 and the Cohesion Fund 6 , which are managed together with national and regional authorities. These programmes can fund projects focused on sustainable design, waste prevention, resource efficiency, reuse and recycling. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on shipments of waste, amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 2020/1056 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, OJ L, 2024/1157, 30.4.2024. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/horizon-europe_en. 3 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/eu-regional-and-urban-development/financial-support-projects/structural-andinvestment-funds_en. 5 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/european-regionaldevelopment-fund-erdf_en. 6 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/cohesion-fund_en.”
  EU-Ukraine relations · Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• 2025-09-09 “E-003479/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the importance of the Chinese export market for EU exporters of certain pork products, and of the severe impact that recently imposed duties have on EU pork producers. The unfoundedness of this investigation is regularly raised in bilateral contacts at all levels, and the EU’s concerns on trade issues were also raised by the Commission President in her meeting with China’s Prime Minister end of September 2025. Since the beginning of this investigation, the Commission services actively intervened as interested party to defend the interests of EU pork producers. Following the announcement of provisional measures, the Commission immediately submitted comments to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, detailing the shortcomings of the investigation leading to these unwarranted measures, inter alia questioning the method for applying the excessive duty of 62.4% to most exporters and requesting the investigation to be terminated. In addition, the Commission is carefully assessing all the information available, also in view of compliance by China with its obligations under the World Trade Organization and is looking into all options to protect the interests of the EU sector. The Commission is also monitoring the economic impact of Chinese duties on the EU pork sector. If needed, steps may be taken to respond to market disturbances through EU measures financed under the agricultural reserve.”
  Trade relations with China · Export of EU agri-food products
• 2025-07-23 “E-003057/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025 1 (GES) underpins the Commission’s commitment to end gender-based violence (GBV) and reaffirms that women and men, girls and boys, in all their diversity, should be safe both offline and online. An outstanding deliverable under the current GES is the commitment that the Commission will facilitate the development of a new framework for cooperation between platforms to protect women’s safety online 2 . Since the presentation of GES, the Digital Services Act 3 (DSA) and the Violence Against Women (VAW) Directive 4 have been adopted. The DSA includes several measures that address GBV. The DSA requires that hosting service providers put in place notice and action mechanisms to notify illegal content 5 . Additionally, providers of very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large online search engines (VLOSEs) are obliged to assess 6 and mitigate 7 systemic risks, which can include measures to mitigate the risks related to cyber offences provided for in the VAW Directive. The Commission is continuously monitoring the compliance with the obligations imposed on providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs under the DSA. The DSA notes the possibility of drawing up voluntary codes of conduct involving VLOPs, VLOSEs and other intermediary services to contribute to the proper application of that Regulation. Codes of conduct may be integrated into the DSA framework after positive assessments by the Commission and the European Board for Digital Services. Under the VAW Directive, Member States shall encourage self-regulatory cooperation between relevant intermediary service providers. This allows the identification of where further cooperation between online platforms could provide the most added value. 1 COM(2020) 152 final. 2 The Strategy includes the following footnote connected to this deliverable: ‘Based on cooperation under the EU Internet Forum, which led to the adoption of the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online.’ 3 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council Of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and Amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act). 4 Directive 2024/1385 (Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence). 5 Article 16 DSA. This clearly includes illegal hate speech, as explained in Recitals 12 and 40 DSA. 6 Article 34 DSA. 7 Article 35 DSA.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• 2025-07-16 “E-002928/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission To date, the Commission has not been formally informed about Ireland’s intention to adopt any measure falling within the scope of the common commercial policy covered by Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which by virtue of Article 3(1)(e) TFEU is an exclusive competence of the European Union. As per the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a measure falls within the scope of the common commercial policy and thereby within the exclusive competence of the European Union, if it concerns trade with third countries as well as aims to promote, facilitate or govern such trade and has direct and immediate effects on it 1 . There are, however, certain limited exceptions provided by the TFEU itself and secondary legislation, which enable a Member State to adopt measures affecting the common commercial policy. In its answer to written question E-002393/2025 2 , the Commission has already indicated some possible exceptions. Prior to considering any legal action, the Commission has to examine in detail the measure in question and its compliance with European Union law. 1 With more references: Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 October 2024, ECLI:EU:C:2024:910, paragraph 56. 2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-002393_EN.html.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• 2025-07-16 “E-002916/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU has been alarmed by violent incidents that have occurred in Syria over the past few months, and strongly condemned the horrific crimes against civilians. The EU condemned in a series of statements the coastal violence in March 1 , the terrorist attack against Mar Elias Church 2 , and the violence in Southern Syria 3 . The EU welcomed a recent Commission of Inquiry report 4 and has called for transparent, credible and impartial investigations, and for all perpetrators to be held accountable. In May 2025, the EU lifted economic sanctions on Syria to genuinely support Syria’s economic recovery and inclusive transition, while maintaining sanctions related to the Assad regime and those based on security grounds 5 . In May 6 and June 7 2025, the EU also introduced sanctions against human rights violators. Now is imperative to step up dialogue and to actively promote and advance a truly inclusive and peaceful, Syrian-led transition that guarantees human rights and fulfils the aspirations of all Syrians from all ethnic and religious backgrounds. The EU continues to call for the implementation of the transitional authorities’ initial commitments in this regard, and for the full, equal and meaningful participation of all Syrians in all spheres of political life and society and will continue to follow closely developments on the ground and remain attentive to the actions of the transitional authorities. The EU follows developments in the education sector, including reports regarding the contents of textbooks. It will continue to engage with Syrian authorities and other partners to promote inclusive, non-discriminatory education in line with international standards. Syria's educational system should serve all children regardless of their background and contribute to reconciliation rather than division. 1 Syria: Statement by the High Representative on behalf of the European Union on the recent wave of violence, 11 March 2025. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/03/11/syria-statement-by-thehigh-representative-on-behalf-of-the-european-union-on-the-recent-wave-of-violence/. 2 Syria: Statement by the Spokesperson on the terrorist attack in Mar Elias church in Damascus, 23 June 2025. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/syria-statement-spokesperson-terrorist-attack-mar-elias-church-damascus_en. 3 See footnote 1. 4 Syria: Statement by the Spokesperson on the Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Violations against civilians in Coastal and Western Central Syria in January – March 2025; 15 August 2025. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/syria-statement-spokesperson-report-independent-international-commissioninquiry-violations-against_en. 5 Syria: EU adopts legal acts to lift economic sanctions on Syria, enacting recent political agreement, 28 May 2025, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/05/28/syria-eu-adopts-legal-acts-to-lifteconomic-sanctions-on-syria-enacting-recent-political-agreement/. 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202501110. 7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202501255.”
  EU-Syria relations · EU competences on human rights
• 2025-07-16 “E-002915/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission A listing of a group or entity under any EU regime of restrictive measures has certain legal and political requirements. As regards the possibility of a listing under Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (2001/931/CFSP) 1 , the main legal requirement is a decision by a national competent authority for the involvement of the group or entity in terrorist acts as defined by the same Common Position. If that legal requirement is met, a proposal to list a group or entity is adopted only if there is unanimous agreement by the Member States in the Council. As regards making the counterterrorism sanctions instrument more effective, the Council could consider various options. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, all discussions on restrictive measures to counter terrorism are classified. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/compos/2001/931/oj/eng.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• 2025-07-11 “E-002841/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Alcohol is an established risk factor for non-communicable diseases including cancer. While Member States are mainly responsible for national alcohol policies, the Commission supports them in addressing alcohol-related harm through the strategic framework of the ‘Healthier Together’ EU non-communicable diseases (NCDs) 1 initiative and the Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan 2 . Under these initiatives, the Member States received funding of EUR 76 million 3 via the EU4Health Programme 4 , to support them in addressing health determinants and risk factors for NCDs, including harmful alcohol consumption. Another EU-funded project led by the World Health Organization 5 supports the implementation of alcohol policies in Member States. In line with the political guidelines of the President of the Commission 6 , the Commission is stepping up its work on preventive health, in particular on cardiovascular diseases. The Commission is about to finish its consultations to launch an EU Sustainable Tourism Strategy in 2026 7 , with Member States and Parliament also having the chance to share their views on the topic. The Commission supports the voices in the tourism industry who claim that a sustainable and resilient tourism sector should be based in a supply of increasing quality. Funding for such type of projects is available under various EU instruments. 1 https://health.ec.europa.eu/non-communicable-diseases/healthier-together-eu-non-communicable-diseasesinitiative_en. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/promoting-our-european-waylife/european-health-union/cancer-plan-europe_en. 3 https://health.ec.europa.eu/non-communicable-diseases/cancer/europes-beating-cancer-plan-eu4healthfinanced-projects/projects/ja-preventncd_en. 4 https://health.ec.europa.eu/funding/eu4health-programme-2021-2027-vision-healthier-european-union_en. 5 https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2023-8230-48002-71090. 6 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf. 7 https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/TourismStrategy.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.) · Drinking regulation
• 2025-07-09 “E-002812/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission 1 and 3. In its judgment of 14 May 2025 in case T-36/23 1 concerning an access to documents request, the General Court found that the Commission should have provided a more detailed explanation in its decision that it does not hold documents of the requested type. The Commission has decided not to appeal the judgment in case T-36/23 of 14 May 2025. In order to implement the judgment, on 28 July 2025, the Commission has adopted a new decision C(2025)5429, providing a more detailed explanation as to why it does not hold documents of the requested type, which has already been sent to the applicant and published on the Commission’s portal 2 . 2. Transparency has always been of paramount importance for the Commission and its President. The Commission remains committed to timely process an increasing number of access to documents request under Regulation 1049/2001 3 . Since the introduction of the Electronic Access to Commission Documents (EASE) platform, the Commission has been publishing all documents released under the Regulation on the public portal 4 . It constantly strives to implement proactive publication whenever this is possible and to improve the functioning of the portal. On 4 December 2024, the Commission adopted its new Rules of Procedure and the Annex on access to documents 5 , to improve the clarity, predictability and consistency of the Commission’s access to documents policy. Finally, the Commission has a robust record-keeping policy as laid down in Commission Decision C(2020)4482 on records management, and in its internal guidelines, which aim to ensure the integrity of the Commission's records and full transparency, by making sure that important documents drafted or received by the Commission are easily retrievable and can be made accessible to interested EU citizens. 1 Judgment of 14 May 2025, Stevi and The New York Times v Commission, T-36/23, ECLI:EU:T:2025:483. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-request/search/document-details/16708; https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-request/search/document-details/16710. 3 In 2024, there were 6 938 initial applications and 641 confirmatory applications: https://commission.europa.eu/publications/annual-reports-commission-application-regulation-10492001_en. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-request/search. 5 Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3080 of 4 December 2024 establishing the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and amending Decision C(2000) 3614 (OJ L, 2024/3080, 5.12.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/3080/oj).”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Covid-19 vaccines procurement
• 2025-06-10 “E-002324/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of a decline in European vegetable production which raises legitimate concerns about the sector’s sustainability and resilience, especially in the face of climate change. The Commission monitors the fruit and vegetables sector through various instruments, including specific market observatories, expert groups and statistics notified periodically by Member States. The Common Agricultural Policy supports the sector through various instruments, such as direct payments, eco-schemes, rural development interventions (e.g. investments, risk and crisis management, cooperation, etc.), and sectoral interventions specific to the fruit and vegetables sector. The latter is based on operational programmes managed by recognised producer organisations pursuing the objectives of better concentration of supply, higher market penetration, greater bargaining power vis-à-vis business partners, swift adjustment to demand, improved competitiveness and quality of products, higher protection of the environment, and better prevention and management of market crises. EU policy also supports the sector by ensuring the integrity of the single market, improving the bargaining power of farmers and strengthening farmers’ position in the value chain. Under the Common Market Organisation Regulation, the Commission can adopt exceptional market measures when deemed necessary in case of major market disturbances or serious specific problems affecting the sector. The Commission is continuously working with stakeholders and Member States to identify adjustments to the policy enhancing the stability and growth of EU vegetable production.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• 2025-05-28 “E-002138/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. The issue of the use of electric prods during loading and unloading of animals during transport is being discussed in the ongoing inter-institutional negotiations on the legislative proposal on the protection of animals during transport 1 . The Commission sent a letter to the Member States urging them to stress their concerns at the Council rather than focusing on national measures. 2. Article 1(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 1/2005 2 allows for ‘any stricter national measures aimed at improving the welfare of animals during transport taking place entirely within the territory of a Member State’. Article 52 of the Commission legislative proposal on animals during transport maintains this principle by allowing Member States to adopt stricter national measures for transport that takes place entirely within the territory of a Member State, provided those measures do not interfere with the proper functioning of the internal market. The proposed ban does not apply to the loading of animals for transport from the Netherlands to another Member State. 3. The Commission takes note of the contributions made by several stakeholders regarding this notification. 1 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, COM/2023/770 final. 2 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.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2025-05-22 “E-002057/2025 Answer given by Ms Šuica on behalf of the European Commission On 14 April 2025, during the High-Level Political Dialogue between the EU and the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Commission announced a proposal for a multiannual Comprehensive Programme for Palestine 1 (2025-2027) worth up to EUR 1.6 billion, which includes up to EUR 620 million in direct financial support to the PA. This support is anchored in the PA’s own reform agenda. EU funds to the PA are disbursed through the PalestinianEuropean Socio-Economic Management and Assistance Mechanism (PEGASE), one of the EU’s most rigorously controlled and audited frameworks. An incentive-based mechanism within PEGASE links disbursements to PA’s progress towards key reform milestones selected from the PA’s own reform agenda, as well as the related Reform Matrix agreed in November 2024, and building on the EU-PA policy dialogue on reforms. If reforms stall, disbursements will be delayed or reduced. This system creates a direct and transparent link between EU financial support and reform progress. All disbursements from the Commission to the PA are subject to strict ex-ante and ex-post verification, audit and screening procedures (including against EU restrictive measures and sanction lists) to ensure full traceability and compliance, guaranteeing necessary controls and safeguards for the final recipients of EU support. The EU has never contributed to the Palestinian ‘Martyrs Fund’ of the PA, which was discontinued with the new social protection law entering into force on 10 February 2025 2 . The Commission’s extended screening vetting system ensured that no EU funding went to the beneficiaries of the Prisoners Fund. The detainees and families (a list is provided by the PA) were categorically excluded from any payment made through PEGASE. The new social protection law regroups all allowance schemes under a single framework, where allowances are based only on vulnerability criteria, as requested by the EU 3 and other international partners. 1 https://north-africa-middle-east-gulf.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-announces-multiannual-programmepalestinian-recovery-and-resilience-worth-eu16-billion-2025-04-14_en. 2 Decree-Law No (4) of 2025, which amends Decree-Law No (1) of 2019 regarding the Palestinian National Economic Empowerment Institution. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fi/statement_25_535.”
  EU Development & Humanitarian Aid · Conditions to access EU humanitarian aid · Relations with Israel - Palestine
• 2025-05-14 “E-001917/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. The issue of high temperatures is being discussed in the ongoing inter-institutional negotiations on the legislative proposal on the protection of animals during transport 1 . The Commission sent a letter to the Member States urging them to stress their concerns at the Council rather than focusing on national measures, asking them to refrain from adopting national measures in the area of animal transport. 2. The Commission agrees that diverging national rules do not ensure a smooth functioning of the internal market. The adoption of national rules while inter-institutional negotiations on the Commission’s proposal for new legislation on this subject are ongoing can have potentially negative impact for the level playing field of operators. One of the objectives of the legislative proposal is to ensure a clearer legal framework and one that avoids the need for diverging national rules. 3. According to the provisions of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 2 , it is at the discretion of the Commission and the Member States to issue a reaction on draft technical regulations notified by a Member State. The Commission takes note of the contributions made by several stakeholders regarding this notification. 1 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, COM/2023/770 final. 2 Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (codification), OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1-15.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2025-05-14 “E-001947/2025 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission Research activities involving human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) under Horizon Europe can be funded, subject to strict conditions in accordance with the ‘Statement of the Commission on ethics/stem cell research – Artikel 19’ 1 . The scientific evaluation experts must ascertain that there is a necessity to use these cells to reach the scientific objectives. The conditions on the use of human embryos (hE) are even stricter. No activities leading to embryo destruction can be undertaken. All proposals with hE/hESCs undergo an in-depth ethics assessment by independent ethics experts, to ensure compliance with relevant EU and international regulations, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Horizon Europe Regulation. All resulting requirements become contractual obligations. Proposals that put at risk human embryos or promote eugenic practices are ineligible. Each proposal is subjected to the approval by the Member States (Programme Committee) via the Comitology procedure. Only then are the contracts concluded. The Commission and funding bodies closely monitor ethics deliverables during project implementation. Relevant project information is publicly available via the human pluripotent stem cell registry 2 and EU CORDIS 3 . hESC-based models provide unique insights into early human development or disease pathways, enabling the creation of advanced, human-relevant in vitro systems that offer greater predictivity than conventional animal models. Responsible and tightly regulated use of hESCs contributes to improving human health and supports the principle of human dignity by upholding strict ethical safeguards and by advancing medical innovation that better respects and protects human life. 1 Statement 2021/C 185/01:https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021C0512(01). 2 https://hpscreg.eu/browse/projects. 3 https://cordis.europa.eu/.”
  Sexuality and reproduction
• 2025-04-28 “E-001687/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The placing on the market and releasing in the environment of genetically modified (GM) animals in the EU is subject to the GM Organisms (GMO) legislation 1 , regardless of where the genetic alteration is carried out. The legislation does not preclude modifications to feature traits of extinct animals. Any GMO (including GM animals) can only be released after authorisation, following a comprehensive risk assessment concluding that there are no risks for health or the environment, and in conformity with any conditions required. This assessment routinely includes, among others, animal welfare and potential implications for animals and nature. In addition, specifically for protected habitats and species in the EU, the effects of any deliberate release into the environment of GMOs must also be considered in relation to the EU law requirement to maintain or restore the favourable conservation status of the protected species and habitats 2 . In the event of the deliberate release of a GM animal without authorisation, or instances of migration of such animals into their territory, Member States must take the necessary remedial action, and inform its public, the Commission, and other Member States. The GMO legislation recognises that Member States may take into consideration ethical aspects in this context 3 . It also allows consultation of relevant committees on ethics, such as the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, on the ethical implications of biotechnology, either on the Commission’s own initiative or at the request of the European Parliament, the Council or a Member State. Based on the above, the Commission considers that the current EU legislation is adequate to handle cases such as the one described by the Honourable Member. 1 Directive 2001/18/EC - http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/18/oj. 2 Article 22(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 3 Recital 9 of Directive 2001/18/EC.”
  GMOs
• 2025-04-02 “E-001341/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The High Representative/Vice-President is well aware of the situation of religious minorities and women and girls’ rights in the Arab Republic of Egypt. The EU engages regularly with Egyptian authorities on the implementation of Egypt’s national and international commitments in the area of human rights and the rule of law and freedom of religion or belief. Human rights remain a priority in the EU’s relationship with Egypt. The Association Agreement 1 and the partnership priorities mutually agreed in June 2022 2 define the political framework for the EU’s bilateral relations with Egypt, where both parties commit to ‘further promote democracy, fundamental freedoms, and human rights, gender equality and equal opportunities.’ This is also referenced in the Joint declaration of the Strategic and Comprehensive Partnership 3 . In addition, the EU supports capacity-building and legal assistance initiatives, responding to multiple forms of discrimination that Coptic women experience – including access to justice, social services, and public representation. The EU continues to engage with the Egyptian authorities and systematically raises issues of concern through its diplomatic channels in the framework of different bilateral dialogues or in multilateral fora. The visit to Egypt by the EU Special Representative for Human Rights from 4 to 5 November 2024 was an additional opportunity to raise human rights concerns, including legislative reforms related to all forms of violence against women and girls, in addition to freedom of religion and belief 4 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L:2004:304:FULL. 2 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-2803-2022-ADD-1/en/pdf. 3 https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/joint-declaration-strategic-and-comprehensive-partnership-betweenarab-republic-egypt-and-european-2024-03-17_en. 4 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/egypt/eu-special-representative-human-rights-mission-egypt_en?s=95.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion · EU engagement with Christian communities inside and outside the EU · EU-Egypt relations
• 2025-03-10 “E-001018/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU has condemned the actions of non-state armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and subjected several of its senior leaders to restrictive measures, namely an asset freeze, a travel ban to and through the territory of EU Member States and a ban for EU persons to make any funds or economic resources available to them. These measures complement existing United Nations sanctions. Ending the violence and tackling the drivers of conflict in Eastern DRC which feed and are fed by these armed groups requires a holistic response to be applied to the region. The EU is contributing by strengthening the Congolese security and law enforcement apparatus, supporting politically and materially local and regional conflict mediation initiatives as well as activities aimed at tackling hate speech and extremism. The EU is also financing several projects to support displaced persons, stabilise border areas and improve the resilience of populations in eastern DRC. The EU has supported the decision by the United Nations Human Rights Council of 7 February 2025 to establish a fact-finding mission on the serious human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law committed in North Kivu and South Kivu since January 2022, to be followed by a commission of inquiry. As announced by High Representative/Vice-President on 24 February 2025, the EU is reviewing the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Rwanda on a strategic partnership on sustainable raw material value chains signed on 19 February 2024. All factors are being taken into account. For the moment, the EU has no evidence the MoU has itself fuelled violence against Christians or any other group in the DRC.”
  EU-Congo (DRC) relations · EU-Rwanda relations · EU engagement with Christian communities inside and outside the EU
• 2025-03-10 “E-001034/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is dedicated to strengthening EU competitiveness and growth while upholding high standards and achieving economic, social, and environmental goals. For this, it aims to streamline rules and reduce the administrative burdens for businesses by 25%, and by 35% for small and medium-sized enterprises by the end of this mandate. The Commission will continue to systematically evaluate EU legislation, including opportunities to simplify and reduce administrative burden, without undermining its policy objectives. Dialogue with stakeholders is key. As indicated in their mission letters and the 2025 Communication on implementation and simplification 1 , each Commissioner will host at least two Implementation Dialogues a year. Regular exchanges between the Commission and the advisory councils 2 also provide an opportunity to jointly explore ways to simplify EU legislation and reduce administrative burden that stems from it. The Nature Restoration Regulation 3 (NRR) does not impose direct obligations on companies or stakeholders. It leaves wide flexibility to national authorities to identify in their national restoration plans 4 the measures needed to achieve the different restoration objectives. The implementation of the NRR is still at an initial stage. It would be premature to draw conclusions regarding its impact on stakeholders. The Fisheries Control Regulation was revised only recently, and the focus should now be on its implementation. On the basis of the empowerments granted by the co-legislators in the revised Fisheries Control Regulation, the Commission is currently preparing the relevant delegated and implementing acts. Simplification and limiting red tape are guiding principles in this process. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0047 2 https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/fisheries/scientific-input/advisory-councils_en 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj/eng 4 The national planning efforts will be supported by a digital tool, currently being development by the European Environment Agency, that will reduce administrative burden for Member States to the strictly necessary, notably by reusing existing information ('report once' approach) and allowing for a bottom-up approach, where feasible.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2025-02-20 “E-000799/2025 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission In 2024, the Commission allocated EUR 237 million in humanitarian aid to address the needs of vulnerable Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank 1 . EU humanitarian aid is delivered according to the humanitarian principles of humanity, independence, impartiality and neutrality 2 . These funds were allocated by the Commission to certified non-governmental partners and international organisations, including United Nations organisations 3 . Humanitarian non-governmental partners are thoroughly assessed by the Commission on their capacity to observe basic principles and obligations, including respect of the relevant EU, international and national law, as well as compliance with transparency, accountability and internal controls, including risk management mechanisms 4 . Furthermore, humanitarian partners have taken measures to secure aid delivery, such as securing warehouses, ensuring presence during distributions, and coordinating routes used for movement with Israeli security forces through the Humanitarian Notification System. The Commission is in regular contact with its partners on the ground. Despite the dramatic situation, they are doing their utmost to ensure due diligence, monitoring the situation and their activities. Reconstruction goes beyond humanitarian aid and requires a long-term ceasefire as well as other conditions, such as governance and security arrangements, to fall in place. With the ongoing hostilities between Israel and Hamas during 2024, the EU was not able to finance any reconstruction activities in Gaza in 2024. 1 https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/where/middle-east-and-northernafrica/palestine_en#how-are-we-helping 2 https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/who/humanitarian-principles_en 3 Funded partners operating in Palestine in 2024 were the United Nations Children's Fund (United States), the World Food Programme (Italy), United Nations Relief and Works Agency in the Near East (Palestine), Norwegian Refugee Council (Norway), International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (Switzerland), International Committee of the Red Cross (Switzerland), World Health Organisation, War Child (Netherlands), International Rescue Committee (Denmark), Relief International (France), Humanity and Inclusion (France), Action Against Hunger (Spain), Care International (Austria), Médecins du Monde (France), World Vision (Denmark), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Switzerland), and International NGO Safety Organisation (Netherlands). 4 https://www.dgecho-partners-helpdesk.eu/ngo/humanitarian-partnership-2021-2027/eu-humanitarianpartnership-certificate-2021-2027”
  Conditions to access EU humanitarian aid · Support for international humanitarian organisations
• 2025-02-20 “E-000797/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission Hamas has been listed on the EU terror list since 2001 and continues to be so. Following the brutal and indiscriminate terrorist attack against Israel on 7 October 2023, a new dedicated sanctions regime against Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad was set up in January 2024 1 . Since then, two packages of listings have been adopted. The EU has also made use of the CP931 2 /EU Terrorist List to designate leading figures of Hamas as terrorists 3 . The EU also adopted sanctions under the Global Human Rights sanctions regime in response to sexual violence committed by Hamas 4 . The EU has been clear that there must be no future role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza, and that Hamas should no longer be a threat to Israel. The EU will continue its political and financial support to the Palestinian Authority and its reform programme to help it prepare for its return to govern Gaza 5 . 1 Sanctions against terrorism: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-against-terrorism/ 2 Common Position 931' (CP931) is the Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and designating entities as terrorist organizations. CP931 mandates EU Member States to enforce specific measures against groups involved in terrorism. 3 See footnote 1. 4 Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad: Council extends restrictive measures by one year: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/01/13/hamas-and-palestinian-islamic-jihadcouncil-extends-restrictive-measures-by-one-year/ 5 Statement by the High Representative on the Arab Plan for Gaza: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/statementhigh-representative-arab-plan-gaza_en”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• 2025-02-03 “E-000443/2025 Answer given by Commissioner Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Commission must register a citizens’ initiative if it does not manifestly fall outside the Commission’s powers to propose a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. The Commission registered the initiative in question because financial support for Member State action promoting health could fall under Union supportive competence (Article 168(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU). Any such support would need to comply with Article 168(7) TFEU whereby Union action must respect Member States’ responsibilities for the definition of their health policy and organisation and delivery of health services and medical care; this includes sexual and reproductive healthcare. Therefore, the registration decision 1 specified that a financial support mechanism cannot have as its aim or effect the undermining of the public order legislation of Member States, or more generally healthcare and ethical choices made by Member States in exercise of their competence in health matters. It is only if the organisers collect the necessary valid statements of support that the Commission will analyse the substance of the initiative. The registration decision does not affect the assessment of whether the concrete substantive conditions required for the Commission to act, including compliance with the proportionality and subsidiarity principles and compatibility with fundamental rights, would be met (recitals (10) and (11) of the registration decision). In any event, the Commission is not obliged to take action in response to an initiative. Therefore, it cannot be stated at this stage what action, if any, the Commission would take. Organisers are legally required to report funding over EUR 500. Funding information is published on the initiative’s webpage. The Commission provides in kind support to all initiatives, notably the online collection system and guidance from the European Citizens' Initiative Forum 2 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024D1158 2 https://citizens-initiative-forum.europa.eu/_en”
  Sexuality and reproduction · EU competences on human rights
• 2024-12-18 “E-003034/2024 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission Rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 724/2010 1 for the implementation of real-time closures of certain fisheries in the North Sea and Skagerrak were agreed upon in consultations between the EU and Norway and documented in an agreed record signed on 3 July 2009. Any modifications to these rules, including the trigger level and sampling methodology, would require the Commission to engage in consultations with Norway and the United Kingdom (UK) - now an independent coastal State, based on a position from the Council. The Commission is committed to ensuring that all regulatory measures are based on the best available scientific advice. Should this scientific evidence indicate the need to update those rules to reflect a new biological reality, the Commission is willing to discuss appropriate actions with the Member States concerned as well as other coastal States in the North Sea. The Commission will continue to uphold the principles of the Common Fisheries Policy 2 in its cooperation with the UK and Norway, including the establishment of measures based on the best available scientific advice. 1 Commission Regulation (EU) No 724/2010 of 12 August 2010 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of real-time closures of certain fisheries in the North Sea and Skagerrak, OJ L 213, 13.8.2010, p. 1–5. 2 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22–61.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2024-12-16 “E-002969/2024 Answer given by Mr Síkela on behalf of the European Commission In Pakistan, the EU has been supporting education reforms in Balochistan until 2025 1 , and in Sindh until 2024 2 . This EU support extends to the school education departments of the provincial governments, which oversee financing and operations of only the state schools. The EU support is focusing on institutional capacity strengthening and school rehabilitation, training of teachers, and learning. It does not directly focus on curriculum related matters such as curriculum review or development. To ensure that the EU support does not favour certain religious content, the subjects and content for teachers’ training are selected to remain neutral. For example, the teachers’ training support to Balochistan School Education Department covers the following subjects: English, mathematics and science. Any actions which aim to reinforce the state capacity of Pakistan to manage education programmes and schools more effectively can be expected to provide Pakistani students with further options to follow state-led education rather than religious-led one. Notably in selected areas of Balochistan, EU support also facilitates the provision of formal education to students enrolled in religious seminaries through a fast-track government-recognised primary or elementary certification. This has the potential to ease the transition to state schools for these students. There will be no more bilateral projects on primary education in Pakistan under the MultiAnnual Indicative Programme 2021-2027; the focus is on technical and vocational education training. The EU scrutinises its projects including those on education via field visits, reporting, results oriented monitoring missions, evaluations and other monitoring mechanisms. 1 ‘Balochistan Education Support Programme II (BES II)’ adopted in 2019 as part of the Annual Action Programme 2019 – C (2019)7736. 2 ‘Development through Enhanced Education Programme’ (DEEP) adopted in 2017 – C (2017)8796.”
  EU policy on Islam · EU Development & Humanitarian Aid
• 2024-12-10 “E-002841/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission sees the negotiations of the Pandemic Agreement (PA) and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) as important opportunities to address gaps exposed by COVID-19. In line with the negotiating directives (addendum to Council Decision (EU) 2022/451 1 ), the Commission, negotiating on behalf of the Union, prioritises prevention, including the One Health approach. The aim is to strengthen prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR) to pandemics and other public health emergencies. No PA proposal or agreed amendments to the IHR affect the Member States’ responsibilities for the definition of their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care as enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU 2 . Sovereignty stands as a guiding principle in the PA proposal and remains unchanged in the amended IHR. No new specific ‘PPPR mechanism’ is foreseen under either instrument. The amended IHR created the Coordinating Financial Mechanism which will support the identification of, and access to financing. Many Commission initiatives support and contribute 3 to PPPR, including participation in the Pandemic Fund. The Commission committed EUR 427 million to the Pandemic Fund 4 , and the Fund aims at increasing health system resilience and adapting to local contexts, with a One Health approach. The Commission has three priorities in the 2022 Global Health Strategy 5 : deliver better health and well-being; strengthen health systems and advance universal health coverage; and prevent and combat health threats, including pandemics, applying a One Health approach. 1 Council Decision (EU) 2022/451 of 3 March 2022 authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, as well as complementary amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005).), OJ L 92, 21.3.2022, p. 1. 2 Article 168(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. 3 Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, GPEI-Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, programmes for health with partner countries and regions. 4 This represents 7.9% of EU commitments to global health development assistance (2021-2027). 5 https://health.ec.europa.eu/internationalcooperation/global-health_en”
  EU competences on health · Vaccination
• 2024-11-12 “E-0002496/2024 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the Commission 1. The Commission is committed to improving the health of all European people. The Commission is not funding specific projects related to the introduction of legal abortion in Member States, nor projects aiming to introduce more liberal abortion legislation. 2. Two organisations receive funding from the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme in the form of operating grant, i.e. funding for their core support and everyday functioning (not for specific projects), namely the European Women’s Lobby and the International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network. In the last five years (2019-2023, the last closed year) they received in total EUR 6 945 159. 3. The objectives of operating grants provided to civil society organisations from the CERV programme in the field of EU values and gender equality are to support, advance and implement comprehensive policies to promote women’s full enjoyment of rights, gender equality, including work-life balance, equal pay between women and men, women’s empowerment and gender mainstreaming.”
  Sexuality and reproduction · Abortion policy
• 2024-10-11 “E-002025/2024 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Borrell i Fontelles on behalf of the European Commission The EU Delegation in India (EUDel) continues to monitor the situation in Manipur. The Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) continue to meet in Brussels with visiting civil society organizations and activists familiar with the situation in Manipur. The 2024 EU-India Human Rights Dialogue (HRD) was scheduled for 20 August 2024 but had to be postponed at the request of the Indian side. The EUDel is in touch with the Ministry of External Affairs of India in order to reschedule it. Indian government officials, including the Indian Ambassador in Brussels, have expressed India’s committment to rescheduling the HRD at the earliest convenient date. A Commission of Inquiry (CoI) was established in June 2023 by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to probe the ethnic violence in Manipur. The deadline for the submission of the CoI report to the MHA is on 20 November 2024. The Commission and the EEAS will continue to follow the CoI process closely. The EUDel is regularly in touch with the Indian authorities regarding the situation in Manipur, including on possible humanitarian assistance needs. The Commission’s Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations department (DG ECHO) has been operating in India since 1995. Between 2011 and 2024, the EU has contributed over EUR 42 million in immediate emergency assistance.”
  EU competences on human rights · EU-India relations
• 2024-07-25 “E-001427/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission Imports of agricultural products from any third country into the EU are subject to Union’s rules on sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS). In addition, bilateral trade in goods between the EU and Ukraine is governed by the Association Agreement 1 , and companies, such as MHP, are required to comply with these requirements when importing goods into the single market. According to Regulation (EU) 2017/625 2 , the competent authorities of Member States are responsible for carrying out official controls on goods introduced into the EU. Ukraine is making important progress in aligning to EU legislation according to the SPS roadmap. In particular, Ukraine has reconfirmed that it is on track to align to EU animal welfare standards by 1 January 2026. On 13 May 2024, the Commission issued a statement confirming its intention to engage in negotiations with Ukraine under Article 29 of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement 3 . For this review of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, the Commission considers it appropriate to link the further opening of the EU market with the respect of EU production standards in Ukraine in view of its path towards EU accession. Poultry is also one of the seven sensitive products covered by the automatic safeguard mechanism under Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1392 of the Autonomous Trade Measures for Ukraine 4 . The Commission is closely monitoring the thresholds for activating the automatic safeguard. Once activated, most favoured nation (MFN) duties will be applied to poultry imports until the end of 2024. 1 Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part (OJ L 161, 29.5.2014, p. 3–2137, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2014/295/oj). 2 Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products (OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, p. 1–142, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/625/oj). 3 Statement by the Commission on the Review Process under Article 29 of the Association Agreement on the occasion of the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2024/1392 of the European Parliament and of the Council on temporary trade-liberalisation measures supplementing trade concessions applicable to Ukrainian products under the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part (C/2024/3550) (OJ C, C/2024/3550, 3.6.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3550/oj). 4 Regulation (EU) 2024/1392 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on temporary trade-liberalisation measures supplementing trade concessions applicable to Ukrainian products under the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/1392, 29.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1392/oj).”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports · Import of agri-food products in the EU
• 2024-07-25 “E-001426/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission considers that Algeria’s introduction, in June 2023, of the additional halal certification measure significantly hinders trade with the EU. In addition, Algeria does not yet apply the measure on equal footing with all third countries. This restriction comes on top of other significant market access barriers for EU exporters. The Commission is sparing no efforts in working towards improved trade and investment relations with Algeria, which remain very challenging overall. After Algeria’s decision to impose new requirements for the import of halal products, the Commission contacted the Algerian authorities on several occasions, expressing serious concerns about the measure and urging the Algerian authorities to reconsider it, while stressing the serious negative effects on exports of agrifood products to Algeria. The Commission also raised the issue in meetings with the Grand Mosque of Paris. The Commission is continuously assessing and monitoring the situation in close cooperation with the Member States and EU businesses. The Commission is not directly addressing the issue of halal certification as part of the ongoing dispute settlement case launched in June 2024 1 under the EU-Algeria Association Agreement 2 , but it engages with Algeria on all market access irritants, including on this particular issue, and will continue to do so at both technical and political level. 1 https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-begins-dispute-settlement-proceedings-against-algeria-defendeuropean-companies-2024-06-14_en 2 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=2002036”
  Trade relations with Morocco · Export of EU agri-food products
• 2024-07-24 “E-001410/2024 Answer given by Ms Simson on behalf of the European Commission Under the REPowerEU plan 1 , the EU aims to phase out its dependency on Russian fossil fuel imports, including natural gas. The share of EU gas imports coming from Russia has already reduced from 45% in 2021 to 15% in 2023. The EU-Azerbaijan energy cooperation contributes to this goal. Gas supplies from Azerbaijan to Europe through the Southern Gas Corridor have increased by more than 40% since 2021. Azerbaijan exported 8.1 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to Europe in 2021, and 11.4 bcm in 2023, increasing from 2% to 4% of total EU gas imports. It has been instrumental in avoiding the worst effects of the energy crisis and diversifying away from Russian fuels. In this sense, Azerbaijan has acted as a valuable energy partner for the EU. The Southern Gas Corridor that supplies the Georgian, Turkish, and EU markets is only connected to Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz gas field, not to the whole of Azerbaijan’s national gas system. Therefore, the Southern Gas Corridor does not transport Russian gas to Europe. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/repowereuaffordable-secure-and-sustainable-energy-europe_en”
  EU-Azerbaijan relations
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you very much for the excellent presentation. I have two questions. One, on the use of antibiotics in the Netherlands, for example, from 2009, the use of anti. Biotics was reduced by 20%, principally because of self regulation by livestock holders and veterinarians and the sharing of good practice and voluntary action programs. Do you think that that could be successfully replicated in the rest of the world? My second question concerns vaccination. We see that where it is chosen to vaccinated, that that encounters resistance and that countries don't accept vaccinated meat. And that leads to trade problems. For me, one of the main that's one of the main sticking points with vaccination. Now, what advice can you give us in this regard and how can we deal with the problem with the sale of vaccination of meat from vaccinated animals, how can we overcome that? Can you suggest any ways to help us?”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “Well. Thank you very much, chair. And thank you for that very clear presentation. I think we should have more of these sort of workshops to discuss things upstream of the new cap. But there are three important terms that I think will be useful for the Common Agricultural Policy of the future. First of all, will there be a sufficient budget set aside for this? I think this is going to be under huge amounts of pressure I fear in coming months. Secondly, simplification. We have to make sure That farmers can deal with the red tape. And thirdly, continuity and stability would be good because if you talk to farmers, sometimes they say how they're so frustrated by all the changes that come in. There's some instruments that work well. Then of course, we should keep those instruments in place if that's the case. I do have a specific question and that refers to the agri environmental measures. I do recall that we did have a previous discussion about the level of remuneration, because the level of remuneration was quite low. And sometimes you look at the costs incurred and the income that you're remunerated for. Obviously there needs to be some sort of reward in that payment for the agri environmental measures. So that's my question. Have you looked into that? Have you any idea about that? Do you? Have you built in sufficient level of incentive payments so that that would help? Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “That will mean that we can assure a sufficient funding in order to provide a continuity and certainty within that chapter. We also need specific funding to be earmarked for the agriculture, food security and bioeconomy sector. And that is, in my opinion, too. A new framework programme is also an opportunity to bridge the the gap between research and the actual applicability of research results, on the other hand. And this is on farm practice and this should be reflected in the research programme. So I would advocate a multi-actor approach which would ensure that farmers and end users are more closely involved in the research cycle. So we this must be active participation, I believe, and not just a signing off or a document or ticking a box. It must be active participation, active involvement in the in the research programme. It goes for itself that the participation of primary producers, the farmers, that their time and expertise should be appropriately compensated. So if we can succeed in bridging the gap between research and practice, then we will have achieved a great deal to maximise the impact of research innovation in the field of agriculture and food security. I look forward to good cooperation with all the shadow rapporteurs. And I'm very interested in their opinions and their, uh, potential amendment proposals. So we have a great responsibility here to better, uh, anchor agriculture in the Horizon Europe programme. I look forward to cooperating with the shadow rapporteurs and coming up with a widely supported opinion. Thank you. Chair.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much. Chair. Chair. When I look at Mercosur, I can only reach one conclusion. European farmers Especially more sensitive sectors are basically being used as a bargaining chip in these negotiations. They always have to pay the price. They always have to deal with unfair competition. Lower tariff quota, zero tariff quotas worse products that do not comply with our animal welfare or production standards.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for that explanation. When it comes to these anti-dumping tariffs from China on Pigmeat. Well, unjustified. You said Commission. And of course, yes, it is unjustified. There's no reason for dumping. There's no reason for anti-dumping tariffs. And the tariffs actually were reduced. But that still means that the European sector, our pigmeat sector, uh, is um, uh, is having to deal with these trade obstacles. And, uh, you know, when it comes to parts of the, uh, pig, China is a very important, uh, market. Offal we just heard. So it's a problem we have to deal with. The big question is, what is the commission doing listening to the commission's representative today? Well, they are monitoring, apparently. But they're not demanding specific, uh, Measures. The Commission has said we are thinking possibly maybe to go to for a procedure at the WTO. But what were you waiting for? Commission. Why does it take so long? Why are you not being more assertive? Uh, to, um, to defend our pigmeat producers. And you see that China is using this instrument for geopolitical reasons. You can see this by the way, they are working, uh, especially in Africa with African countries. You can see that China has reduced the import tariff there. So it's very clear that China is using this tool as a geopolitical tool, as an instrument to support and protect its own sector. So basically we need more assertiveness from the commission. Why have you not started a dispute procedure at the WTO? So again, we'd like some information there. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I also thank you for these very clear studies, which are very comprehensive and cover all the important aspects affecting the fisheries policy. There is one important aspect that I want to focus on which is the energy transition. What do we need to do this well? I think one thing we need to begin with is a good and robust discussion about fishing methods and techniques. My question is what existing methods fishing methods have you encountered in your research that could contribute to the energy transition and which at the same time can enhance selectivity and ensure less contact with the seabed? Can I say that in Scotland at the moment experiments are being. A conducted with electric pulse fishing for bivalve mollusks. This research is expected to continue until 2025, so I think it's useful to look at research of this kind. I'd like to know what you think about this, and whether the commission is also prepared to take on board the results of such research in order to create space for the introduction of new fisheries techniques in Europe. So I think a discussion on that is important. Secondly, money, the researchers rightly point out the need for investment in the energy transition that's going to require funding. And unfortunately, the CFP budget is perhaps not sufficient for this. So the other question that comes up is where is the money going to come from for the necessary investments? And the third aspect, which I think Require some adjustment to the rules. And I would like to ask the researchers what they think of this is what changes are necessary in the definition of fishing capacity. I think the definition of catch capacity is extremely important. It has an important has important socio economic repercussions. So I'd like to know the opinion of the researchers and the commission on that. Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you very much, chair. I will speak on behalf of our shadow rapporteur colleague, Buda. First of all, I would like to thank Madame Rapporteur and her team for the work done so far. We have not yet had political discussion on this file, but at a technical level, we have received compromise packages on the first ten articles of this regulation. We can see that the rapporteur continues to to pursue a very specific interpretation of this regulation, with a strong focus on environmental tracking, including expanded impact indicators, biodiversity related spending targets and the do not significant harm principle. In our view, however, this regulation should establish a balanced expenditure tracking framework. It should not become a vehicle for introducing additional layers of environmental conditionality across the EU budget, and certainly not through guidance that have not yet even been been defined. In the compromise amendments, we see a strong focus on environmental objectives, while competitiveness, economic resilience, food security and the viability of productive sectors still receive far less attention. The ECR Group advocates for a more balanced approach, including a stronger recognition of economic resilience and food security considerations, as well as greater proportionality and legal certainty. We do recognise that several ECR concerns have been reflected in the compromise amendments. We appreciated. We appreciate references to proportionality, the avoidance of parallel reporting systems, food security considerations and some efforts to limit excessive delegated powers. This shows that constructive dialogue is possible. However, for us, the real test will be article four and five as well as annex one. These provisions define the overall philosophy of the framework, how climate and environmental spending is tracked, how the do not significant harm principle is applied, and which indicators and coefficients ultimately shape spending priorities. So if we can achieve a more balanced framework that properly reflects economic resilience, competitiveness, food security and the realities of agriculture, then acceptable compromise packages remains possible. If not, it will be difficult for the ECR group to support the final outcome. Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “I'm going to speak in English, in Dutch. Sorry. My mother tongue. Um, if, um. Thank you. I represent the agricultural committee in this meeting, and I make opinions for the for them. And so, obviously, I'm very much involved in agriculture and food. And what is a very important point? Concerns. Uh, predictability. We really have got to know what to expect. And we've got to make sure that research funds have got to be focused. Uh, it can't be that certain priorities like food and agriculture are ignored. And swept away by new priorities. So how can we ensure predictability? How can we ensure that the budget for the food and agriculture budget will be maintained adequately. And how can we ensure that research funds, uh, stay at the adequate level? Do you have any ideas about that? And then regarding the gaps between practice and the applicability of the results of research and the actual research itself? And I have some questions about that. Now, what what ideas do you have about that? How can we ensure that farmers or other people who benefit? How can we how can we involve them more right from the get go in the research cycles in research planning? How can we get them involved? Because I think it's very important when it when it comes to applying results in practice. And I just wonder what your ideas about all of this are. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much. My colleagues from the ECR have said something very important, but let me add a few words. The rapporteur said that what we're talking about impact indicators and that's what we should be using. That sounds like a good idea. Yes, of course, we always want to achieve. And in fact. So you want to have a performance indicator. But I have a I have a great question I'd like to raise because there are many factors that interplay here. So that's why it's difficult in order to draw a direct connection between our measures here and the precise effect it has out in the field. So these indicators, you have to be very careful with them. Secondly. I'm going to make an amendment on the support programs. My. If you wanted to make financial corrections or if you want to impose penalties or withdraw payments, etc.. That should be in a different regulation. Perhaps the Commission can say something. But if if you use this regulation for for, for example, to impose fines. Well, I really think that should be in a different regulation, but that's really a question for the commission.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “And thank you, chair, and thanks to the Commission for the study and for the explanation. I have a comment and a question. First, my comment relates to what the commission called the comprehensive approach. And the presentation that was said to be a great challenge. And in fact, the drawing up the strategic plans was a great challenge. There was a lot of administrative pressure consultation because a lot of things had to be taken into account, consultation with stakeholders and all that kind of thing. So it was a big challenge. Now this big challenge is. Is being replicated and magnified many times at national level with all the regional plans, because you have to have consultation in terms of all the regional policies and all the different aspects. So it's magnified completely the challenge of the original plan. We've seen all the administrative pressure that's It's created. And we saw this at our first meeting with the Budget Committee and Energy Committee and Agri Committee. We had there was 21 different shadow rapporteurs talking about administrative burden, and that's just the preparation of the legislation. So this meeting of 21 rapporteurs, you'll see that all around all the 27 member states and at regional level.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you. Commission. The president of the Commission, Rhonda Lyon, promised to enter into dialogue with farmers during the structured dialogue. She said she would listen to them. We've now heard a clear answer as to what the commission's position is, and that answer is very disappointing. And this despite farmers out demonstrating in the streets of Brussels, farmers who are extremely concerned, I fully understand their concern. If you take a look at this proposal, this clearly jeopardizes the stability of the European Union. The plan, which the underlying Commission has put forward for European farming post 2028, represents. A U-turn in terms of policy. If we look at article 39 of the treaty. We shouldn't allow this simply to be disregarded when it comes to trying to shoehorn farming into some kind of comprehensive fund. The need for strong and a strong common farming policy, which is based on food security and stability. Fair income for farmers. Reliable prices for consumers, and progress that has led to a situation where there's enormous uncertainty in the farming sector. Farmers are expected to sit and wait a while to see what their government's proposed within these national and regional partnership plans. When it comes to income support, support for young farmers, support for sustainable practice all that is good news. However, chairman, the question is what will be left over once the budget has been reduced, accompanied by ever less certainty when it comes to money being available in member states for farming. We need a level playing field between the different member states. The problem is this is unlikely since member states can make their own choices. So that concept of level playing field is really under pressure. The Commission has clearly chosen evolution rather than revolution. It seems to me, however, that von der Leyen's choice here clearly goes in the direction of a revolutionary change of direction, whereas the European Parliament has always been in favour of greater stability and reliability for farmers.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you for a very clear presentation for the CPV. I want to emphasize the role of our plant breeders and the breeders. Right. And these are very important for the development of new breeds in the years ahead. We have to commit strongly to the development of new breeds, which will be necessary to produce more food and crops with less inputs, fewer inputs. And we'll have to new the use the new energy. In 2023, we saw a decline of 10%, the number of registrations of new breeds. My question is how is how has the trend been in the last years? Has this declining trend continued? And then if that is so, that would be concerning. And I would then ask what sort of solutions would you have to reverse this trend. Because we sorely need new breeds. And how can we improve policy in terms of research and development in plant breeding? I would also like to emphasize that the Parliament sees the breeders right as the right way to protect intellectual property in plant breeding, and particularly in relation to the breeders exemption, which is essential and allows access to plant material for further improvements. And I would emphasize that this should not be undermined or overruled by patent. Right. And the European Parliament has been very clear about this. It's essential that the protection of intellectual property rights by breeders is it doesn't threaten breeders. Right. And breeders exemption. The commission is currently working on an evaluation of the British rate regulation. And from your experience and expertise, how would you envisage further improvements to the breeders? Right. Thank you.”
  Sustainable use of seeds in EU policy
• “(11:19:23 – 11:22:14): Thank you very much, chair. I'd like to very much thank the co reporters for their draft report. I think there's a lot of very good things in there, but I think, chair, we need to go still further. As the Agri Committee, we have often taken the view that the CAP should not be part of a single fund. Now the commission is trying to put the CAP within an NRPP. Let me be clear. We should not fall into this trap. I think that we are not strong enough in our report on that. It's good that when you look at the content that is being transferred to the CAP regulation. But as I see it, we need to take a step further. We need to look at the financial provisions and the content of the CAP. That should all be managed by the CAP regulation. Furthermore, there is a threat here. There is the threat of the phasing out of the CAP, especially in some member states, such as my own member state, where a lot of people want to put agri money elsewhere. I am in favor of a strong agri budget and a level playing field. We need to ensure that the CAP has a future because it is of strategic importance. There's a couple of tangible points I would like to make. First of all, in terms of the budget, the budget for the producer organizations, as I see it, there needs to be a budget for that at a European level, at EU level. Those budgets should not be placed in the national envelopes. Producer organizations and sectoral interventions play a very important role in terms of strengthening the position of farmers. And we've chalked up some very good experience with that, and we need to continue on that line. So this should not be part of a national envelope. Secondly, I'd like to refer to the importance of good water management in some areas. There's increasing issues linked to drought and the lack of availability of water. We need to make sure that water is available for the agricultural sector. And I think it is very important that we look at how we can ensure a reliable supply of water. We need to make sure that enough money is made available for that purpose. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chairman. And thank you for a very good report. A lot of topics being covered here that we've talked about during the hearings, and a lot of the topics and concerns that have been raised include mine here. I'm speaking about the worries about the RF and some of the colleagues have mentioned as well, the increase in debt, which is a heavy burden overhanging us. It needs to be addressed, and I think we need to go one step further in this report and not just point out that this is a problem, but have to say there are ramifications to this. We're going to have to call for a stop to new loans being drawn down and new debts being entered into. We need to learn lessons for the future. I have a great deal of concern about the high level of error rates, especially in cohesion funds. You can see that the Commission has reacted to this by saying formally, we're going to resolve this by simplifying it, making the rules easier and simplification per se is a good idea. I think we in our report and the Parliament need to point out that this is insufficient. However, we do expect of the Commission that they will tighten up financial management. And here I'm also thinking of the recommendation from the European Court of Auditors to work with net financial corrections. I think that's a very useful recommendation, and I would recommend that we include that recommendation in our report. Another point is the lack of possibilities that we have to check and monitor to see if money is going away through UN organizations. That is up for question as well. We've heard from the Commission and the Council as well that there is insufficient amounts of control or tools for control to look at how money is being spent via UN organizations, because there might be an agreement with the UN in which it's agreed that the EU doesn't need to look into that in too much detail.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much. Chair. I will speak on behalf of our coordinator Carlo, in the current context marked by geopolitical Political tensions and instability in international markets, and increasing competition from third countries. The promotion of European agricultural products is becoming increasingly, increasingly strategic. It is not only a matter of enhancing the quality and sustainability of local production, but also of strengthening the European Union's food sovereignty and assuring a competitive presence in global markets. While, of course guaranteeing high quality and controlled foods. In this scenario, it becomes crucial to allocate an adequate budget to agri food promotion, one that aligns with objectives of a truly independent and targeted Common Agricultural policy. Our question is, how can appropriate investments in the promotion of agricultural products contribute to defending the EU's strategic interests, both economically and geopolitically? And how can it strengthen the autonomy of European agricultural and the face of the external pressure, or the dynamics of the global market? Thank you very much.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• “Thank you. Chairman. My thanks to the Minister for joining us this morning. I am rapporteur in this Committee on the horizon programme, and I have a question in this regard. We're looking at the total budget for Horizon Europe. It will go up. But if you look at the cluster for Farming Research. It has not been increased. I think that horizon research in farming must be anchored. We need to earmark funding under horizon specifically for farm research. Can we count on your support in this respect? Horizon is incredibly important for farmers and the farm sector in general. We need to ensure better anchoring of farm research in Horizon Europe.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Another aspect I'd like to stress is that you said there's an intention to enter into new debts, to draw down new loans, which means that the burden of debt is going to grow. And a report that you drafted, chairman, on the discharge, I think you put your finger on the point there and said the overreliance on debt is making our budget vulnerable. So I think that's something that we have to mention, and I will certainly be tabling an amendment along those lines. My final comment. Amendment 33 struck me here that the rapporteur was talking about the political priorities of the of the commission. Now a bit nonplussed here. I don't think it's up to the European Commission to define the political priorities. It's up to the two arms of the legislative authority, the Council and the Parliament, to define the political program. And maybe we're touching here on the core of the issue here when it comes to green subsidies, for example, where the Commission has established its own priorities. I think the Commission is meant to be at our service. And the priorities, I think, should be established by the legislative body rather than deciding their own. I, I think that the rapporteur could probably agree with me on that one. Thank you.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Thank you very much. Chair, thank you very much for to the FAO for that very clear presentation. You're doing some very important work. The figures from the FAO are very important for us and for Europe in making sensible choices about where you have to have more management of species and where there's room for higher quotas. It's nice to see that a lot of species are being managed in a sustainable way. But at the same time, worldwide, there are a number of species which are in danger that are overfished. You look at the long term in particular. If I look at the Northeast Atlantic, we see that the sustainability of fish species has been improved significantly over the last few years. It's gone forward by leaps and bounds. I think that has a lot to do with the whole quota system, which is a very valuable system in order to ensure that fish stocks can become healthy again. So the question I asked I would like to ask is this. How do you feel about the possibility of increasingly working with Multi-annual quotas? At the moment we see quotas changing every year. I think we could get more stability in the management of stocks, but also more stability for the fishers. If we had multi-annual quotas, I'd be interested to hear your views.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you. I want to talk about the content, but we also have to talk about the budget. And unfortunately, we have to note that the commission, despite the huge challenges for farming, the European Commission is choosing for a huge reduction in the budget in the Netherlands. In nominal terms, it'll be 24% lower. We have calculated in real terms, it's even a harder blow to farmers. The commission refers to the possibility for member states to top up these amounts and contribute from the NRP P funds and some countries will and some countries won't. And according to your letter, we talk about huge differences between member states. And you talk about threatening the level playing field. And this will also happen in terms of your proposal for a couple support. You want to breathe new life into coupled support, which some member states will have more to pay for this couple's stones. I see this as a retrograde step back to macsharry premiums, which we had gradually dismantled. So my question is you have looked at the WTO conformity in relation to your coupled support proposals. And finally, chair on the budget for the producer organisations, is there still a central budget for the producer Organizations, or will this be covered by the national envelopes? And if so, how is that taken account of in the calculation of the national envelope?”
  Agricultural funding
• “Mr. Chair. Our shadow is Carlo Fidanza and I will speak on behalf of our shadow rapporteur. He asked me to replace him. So, dear colleagues, the European wine sector is an important sector. It is part of our culture, our economy and our identity. Wine represents tradition, quality and excellence admired worldwide. Yet today, this pillar is under heavy pressure. Under heavy pressure. Market crisis, increasingly aggressive international competition, geopolitical tensions, extreme weather events and changing consumer habits, often fuelled by policies that risk discrediting wine. This is why our group has tabled 25 amendments to the wine package. Concrete proposals born from listening to wine growers and aimed at strengthening the sector's competitiveness and sustainability. The key points of our amendments are clear less bureaucracy and more freedom for producers. Simplified procedures. Replanting without disproportionate penalties. And freedom of choice regarding varieties and techniques. More transparency and protection of quality labels must be clear, especially for the alcoholic, for the alcoholic wines, and we must strengthen the protection of pdos and pgis, which embody the soul of our territories. Stronger support for international promotion, EU co-financing up to 80% and continuity of promotion tools. Because our wines must be constantly supported in global markets and more effective crisis management measures that are fast, clear and truly usable by Member States and producers. And last important point for us better protection of wine health because diseases can devastate entire regions. Really, really, really need long term structural support to combat them. Thank you very much, chair, and sorry for being a bit too long.”
  Agricultural funding
• “It's actually going to take us to a situation where we're not able to properly apply our policies, particularly in the regions. Where we have looked at many studies and been on many visits. And we've seen that these. Are only going to create more problems. They're not going to bring about any solutions. Something that's important in this proposal is that we need to look at a system that's performance based. I have a question for the Court of Auditors on this point. What happens if then? A performance a service isn't carried out because of external reasons, because of an external operator who is not able to complete the contract because of some kind of problem along the way. In that case, what do we do? Is it that they won't be paid? How can the Court of Auditors help us prevent this situation occurring? Here, there's a high degree of flexibility for the member states to disperse the financing, and that's going to lead to inequalities. How can the European Court of Auditors ensure that the system is the same for all of those participating? Then another point within this architecture. There's an underlying idea that this should all of this financing should be based on loans. And this is going to increase debt a lot. What do you what do you think about that.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “So, Mrs. Stella Runner, for your presentation for being with us today. Um, today we have a general debate about the human rights situation in the world. It's a general debate. And you spoke about gender, about gender equality. You spoke about climate, but you did not speak about, uh, what's, in my opinion, a very crucial point. The fact that all over the world, freedom of religion or belief is under pressure. There are a lot of people, uh, Christians, 316 million Christians worldwide are persecuted. So my question today is, do you do you agree with me that indeed freedom of religion, of belief is under pressure all over the world? And do you agree with me that, um, fight for freedom of religion, of belief has to be one of the priorities also for the coming years and is a, um, external servers willing to cooperate with us in that field? Thank you very much.”
  EU engagement with Christian communities inside and outside the EU
• “Thank you. President. Ladies and gentlemen, in the discussion about CSR and CS triple D, we, as the ECR have always said, keep it practicable and exempt SMEs from the scope. And that's exactly what we're talking about in this omnibus. So we see this as the sort of correction we were looking for on policy that had been adopted, where the bureaucracy really became exorbitant. But there are still questions that we need to put on this particular point. For example, how does the Commission intend to deal with issues on child labour and slavery? How are they going to counter that if companies don't need to go any further than their direct business relations? So I'd like some clarification on that specific point. In the meantime, I'm also calling on the commission to come up with more legislation. For example, what about the nature restoration law that's just gone through And strengthening the antiquated Nitrate Directive. And these are things that affect agrarian lives. We cannot restrict our simplification to what is on the table at the moment.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Thank you very much, chairman, and thank you to the Commission and others for the update on the pollinators initiative. That's very helpful. It's really important that we have a serious focus on this. We need action programmes, quite rightly. They're vital because pollinators are vital to maintaining biodiversity and food production and the ecosystem. From the agricultural perspective, there are two more important points that I want to flag up. One is precision agriculture. This is something which is quite topical. The use of pesticides can be managed in a carefully calibrated way to ensure that it is minimised, but the various different methods for protecting pollinators have also got to be factored in. Farmers have got to be able to develop precision agriculture, but at the same time, with a close eye on what the implications for pollinators are. Could you tell us how many member states are using precision agriculture extensively, and how many of them intend to? Could you tell us what your level of subsidy is going to be for that? Then the second point is what are the alternatives in which we could invest? We have, I think, got to focus on developing sustainable alternatives, and the Commission's suggestion that we focus on things like biocontrol, greener policies, greener investment is very important. I might say that there are, of course, a lot of hold ups and obstacles in the process of getting the assessments done for these alternative methods to be authorised. So what does the Commission intend to do? Thank you.”
  Digital and precision farming
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. Dear colleagues. Today we're discussing two important topics simplification of the cap and adjustments to the market organization. Both proposals are crucial to strengthening to strengthen the profitability of farms. It's good to see that the new commission is paying more attention to this. But I have two comments I'd like to make. First of all, simplifying the cap is good, but we need to take a broader view. We are faced in the area of environmental and nature legislation with unnecessarily restrictive regulations. Here I'm thinking of the Parliament's call to revise the nitrates Directive. Reactive. We must give farmers much more scope to achieve their social objectives, at their own discretion, based on their own technical knowledge. This requires more leeway. As an alternative to detailed means based management, rather than having to then concentrate on means instead of targets. Here, written contracts can help to strengthen the position of farmers, but it shouldn't be at the expense of healthy market forces. We didn't seek to regulate everything by law. There can be good practices which will be undermined, such as agreements within cooperatives or other value chains. That doesn't really serve anyone's interests. That hence my plea for appropriate exceptions, and I hope that they will be followed in the.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. The availability of water is really a major challenge for agriculture in my own country, the Netherlands. We have the problem in coastal areas of deposits, and it's about getting fresh water into the right areas because of these deposits. And I think basically that the challenges differ greatly from country to country, which is why my plea is to say, let's please not add another layer of legislation. I don't think that serves any one interest, anyone's interests. The strategy really needs to be targeted towards improving our capacity for innovation. We need smart solutions to deal with the availability, storage and irrigation of water. So I would call for the necessary budget to be made available for this, and for money to be earmarked under the horizon programme. Could I also insist, with the Commission, that circular use of nutrients needs to be part and parcel of the water strategy? The current Nitrate Directive is outdated and promotes the use of synthetic manure, or artificial manure, rather than natural manure. So could I invite you to carry out a revision of the Nitrate Directive?”
  EU policy on water management
• “Thank you very much. Madam president. Commissioner. Dear colleagues, if we want to keep agriculture in Europe, we need to really reduce the administrative burden for farmers. The simplification measures are voting on this week are a step in the right direction. Member states will have more flexibility to adapt to the rules or take into account unexpected circumstances. There is also compensation for conditionality with peatlands in Gaec two. I would call on member States to use these options available to them as soon as possible. If we really want to reduce the administrative burden that weighs on farmers, this package is not enough. If we really want to review the administrative burden, we'll have to look again at obsolete European legislation. The one on nitrates, uh, habitat or the Water Framework Directive. I would call on the commission to get to work and to present these modifications. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to Mr. Hoetink as well for his draft opinion. He's worked a lot on this. He's put in a tough shift with a good 37 amendments. Thank you for that. And a lot of the amendments are ones that I can agree with. The main approach here, I think is a good one. And I think it underscores the importance of having sound financial management, of having a sound system for checks and balances and oversight. And I think that's what we're meant to be focusing on in this committee, in this framework. I think what's important is to stress, in our opinion, that a good and robust system has to be in place and has to remain in place, a system That, if you like, is focused on financial corrections at a time when we're talking about irregularities. For example, it has to work as a deterrent vis a vis the member states. There has to be an extra push in there, I think, to maintain good overview of the use of resources. An important point here in the new MFF is the shift that they're trying to achieve towards performance based. A performance based approach. And that's what we're seeing in the corona. R f now, we haven't had overwhelmingly positive experiences with this. So I'm a bit hesitant about this, a shift towards a performance based approach.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to Mr. Healy For this excellent opinion. I think we should really take this to heart. This opinion. Excellent recommendations included in it and the e s c is is clearly pointing out the weaknesses. This is clearly directed criticism. The SC says it completely rejects the Commission's proposal. So they are really demonstrating some strength here. And I think the Parliament should do exactly the same thing, but I don't. Unfortunately, we've gotten in a very difficult situation. It's going to be difficult to get out of it. And especially thinking about the coupled cap on national and regional partnership plans. And. I think that's a bad idea. There's going to be more oppression and it's going to be a more complex system. So I think this decision has been made. It's difficult to get out of it, but it's not too late yet. So if the parliament really takes action, then then we can end this system being proposed for the new cap. And with, in the opinion from the Eeas, with the First Amendment, they are proposing that we should break this link. And for that reason, we should continue to work on that basis. And the reporter also the rapporteur, also correctly says that this budget has to be unitary budget. And I think this is something we need to repair. And concerning the budget, one of the biggest problems is that the producer organisations are going to then be placed in the national envelopes, and that means a significant reduction in some member states. Wouldn't it not be better? And here I'm turning to the Commission to keep these budgets separate. That's what we wish to say. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much. President. Colleagues. Commissioner. Were the Arabs to lay down their weapons today? There would be no violence anymore. Were the Jews to lay down their weapons today there would be no Israel. This was something which was attributed to Golda Meir, who was prime minister of Israel as of 1969. And that is the situation. And unfortunately, 55 years later, this is still the sad situation. Jews and Israel are being threatened by Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis. And let's not forget about Iran. As long as these threats are there, there will be no peace in Gaza. And in the Lebanon, there is admittedly a cease fire at the moment, but the danger is still there. The priorities for Europe must therefore be to, and indeed also priority for, Israel and the whole region to disarm Hamas. This is the second stage of the peace plan to disarm Hezbollah. This is an important task for the Lebanese Army and to brand Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorist organizations. It is amazing that this has not yet been done by the EU. Only by doing this can we lay a basis for a sustainable peace in the region, for the Palestinians and the Lebanese as well. Thank you.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “Thank you chair. Good morning everybody. In my capacity as Deputy coordinator of the ECR in agriculture, on behalf of our group, on behalf of the ECR Group, I would like to propose Miss Veronica Genova for the position of chair of the agri committee. Thank you very much.”
  Recruitment policies in the EU
• “I really think we should question that, and I will be preparing an amendment along these lines. Also, a question of amendments concerning the Middle East and Palestine. Palestinian In textbooks pay for slay. And my final comment is about the NGOs. Where I have difficulties is when we're looking at the fact that the Commission is using NGOs and all forms of lobby lobbyists and lobbying activities, and they are carrying out activities there where I believe the EU has no competence for. And I think we're not dedicating enough attention to that. We can see very clearly it's set out in the treaties what Europe is meant to do and what it's not meant to do. And I'm very surprised to learn to give you a concrete example, that Europe is busy working in favour of abortion, where there is absolutely no competence in the treaties on that. I do find it Incredulous. It costs a lot of effort to try and have a view over contracts. Look at the detail of contracts that concern this sort of thing. If we're doing our job properly, then I'm sure. We, as the Budget Control Committee, must be able to have transparency in these sort of contracts, even if the majority of this committee doesn't find these contracts interesting. As an individual member, I believe that if I need to see a confidential contract, there must be a possibility to give me that opportunity. I find that possibility too restrictive at the moment. I just wanted to flag that. Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you. Chair. We have already said that we have a great deal of concern about the fact that agriculture in this. That we do not see that there is any kind of advantage of moving over to this large fund. I only see disadvantages in your draft proposal, the requirements for these plans. Everything has to be taken into account. It's extremely complicated. And one thing is already clear to me. That is it will take hours and hours of our time to set this up to to supervise it. And I personally don't see. That there will be any kind of advantage for farmers. We are concerned about the budgetary situation for the for farmers. There will be a a reduction in the funding available. And if you look at the challenges that will face agriculture, this just can't be justified. So they need continuity. They need stability for our farms. They need to have minimum amounts. And having these in place, these minimums and these maximums, that is a concern for us. To in the present system we have in area based payments. Will they take into account what the price is for land. But with the new system this will be capped. So it seems to me is this this does this system, is it going to lead to a level playing field? I have my concerns that it wants Some of the member states have much more, uh, free areas available than others, and so they will be able to provide more support. And that means that there will be a differentiation. 55 billion. The commissioner was saying that some member states will have available to use and others won't, and that will lead to discrepancies. And I think from we won't be able to talk about having a level playing field.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much. And thank you to the representative of the European Court of Auditors for this very good opinion. It's very useful for us in looking at the legal proposal from the of the legislative proposal, from the Commission. We all want an effective policy, and we want to achieve the goals of the European Common Agricultural Policy. But the question is whether this really does that. The court of the order talks about the risk, the risk that we end up with a policy where we have a number of indicators. And if we live up to the indicators, it's good enough. But there's absolutely no guarantee that this is really going to achieve the real objectives that we're trying to reach. It all depends how the indicators are formulated. The Court of Auditors also warns against extra red tape at the member state level and at the level of the beneficiaries. The question is how can we prevent this? A very logical route would be to reduce the number of indicators and reduce them drastically. What is the opinion of the Court of Auditors on this? How can we cut back on the red tape, all the extra red tape? I agree with Mr. Dorfmann. We're talking about the indicators that are very unilateral and does not a lot about strengthening competitiveness. Another question that I have in this whole context is, is it always possible for agriculture to work with output indicators? I'm saying this because in agriculture there are a number of external factors which have an impact on the output. For example, the weather and time has a significant impact as well. I'm thinking, for example, of efforts to improve the quality of the soil. You can do that by growing cover crops, green crops, but before that actually is translated into increased organic matter in the soil, it can take years and years. It's very difficult to measure that. Would it not be better to focus on measures rather than output? Because output is very difficult to determine. How does the Court of Auditors feel about that?”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you. I'd like to thank the UK and the European Commission. This is an important subject to follow performance for the coming years, and there are lots of questions that are being raised. There is one article on horizontal principles. Because here we're talking about a climate. We're talking about biodiversity, environment, social issues and gender equality, as if these were the fundamental principles of the European Union competitivity, strategic autonomy, security and defence. But we're not talking about these things, but these are the horizontal principles that are enshrined in. This is where we're seeing the error. This isn't the only question I wanted to ask regarding this performance framework. I wanted to say that the principle that we're evoking here is something that we agreed on largely, but it's quite vague. It's not it's not detailed. And who will carry the burden because we're being this could lead to a court cases. When we're talking about uncertainty, we're talking about do no significant harm. But basically who will be in charge of applying this principle. This will lead to so much more complexity. So who's going to be accountable for that? For the ECA They rightly observe that for many fields of intervention they are insufficient indicators. These are indicators that are so insufficient that we're not seeing actually any achievements. And so what are we going to do about that? Because it's very difficult to know what actually is being measured. And then there are completely useless indicators 418 for example representation of women. This is the only thing. Is this the only thing the Commission has examined? What are we doing with this money? What services are being achieved? We've got no idea. 427 support for the inclusion of gender equality policies. All we have is a number of actions but no actual measures. What are we supposed to do with that? It's difficult to force people to take accountability when we don't have any indicators.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Thank you president. Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, how can we keep our oceans healthy and deal with polluted marine ecosystems such as the Baltic, and restore them? We have to have a broad, integrated approach where all users of the seas and oceans have to assume their responsibility. And that's really what the Ocean Pact is all about, and I think this is a very appealing approach. However, there are a few points I'd like to raise here. First of all, I'd like to send out an appeal. Don't bring in more restrictions for fishermen and closing areas. Let us provide prospects for fishers through using and promoting sustainable measures. More efficient motors, more selective fishing gear. The EU then has to make sure there's enough budget set aside for that. Secondly, I'd like to call on the idea of having more tailor made solutions. In some areas. You need to be very cautious with bottom trawling by way of example, but in other areas that's much less of a problem. I'm pleased that the Commission recognises this as well. But why in the annex are we still talking about phasing out of bottom trawling in all marine protected areas? That must be a mistake, surely. Finally, president, I'd like to call on a broad study of the effects of wind parks on ecosystems. It's a neglected topic, I think, in this ocean packed with appropriate joined up approach for Europe. We shouldn't be looking away from these issues either.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you for this initiative to speak about the performance based model. Um, this is extremely important because, um, if we, uh, those of us who work here, uh, we have to, of course, ensure that we adapt this model to the rest of the budget. So it's very important that we discuss it here today. Uh, I have a few concerns. Uh, largely to do with the fact that under the new model. Um, it's. We barely looked at the actual, um, practical costs. Um, the, um, Court of Auditors has, um, set out a project. And I think that the actual costs are hundreds of millions lower than the amount that was paid. But then, uh, nothing was clawed back. So I think this raises huge questions. So my question to you is as follows. Would you agree with me that if we're doing this, then we also have to have a clear idea of the actual practical costs that we can't pay out more than is actually needed? And also, would you agree with me that this new performance based model is more sensitive to fraud? Or could be. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Well, the Safe program relates to defend investing in defense, so it's absolutely necessary. But at the same time, in Europe, there are many question marks over safe and its structure. I mean, for example. It needs to be funded through joint loans. Well, that's a pretty dangerous choice because the investments that we make now. She will then be based on money that has to be paid back by future generations. So yes to investment in defence. But there are major questions as to how safe is funded. Thank you.”
  Defence spending