Raffaele STANCANELLI

Policy topics Raffaele STANCANELLI is active on

What Raffaele STANCANELLI has said (25)

• 2026-01-27 “Answer given by Executive Vice-President Fitto on behalf of the European Commission 12.5.2026 Written question 1. On 10 April 2026, Italy requested assistance from the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) [1] . The Commission is carrying out a thorough assessment of the submitted information. If the assessment confirms the application’s eligibility, the Commission will make a mobilisation proposal to the European Parliament and the Council and mobilise the determined funding swiftly. Beyond financial support, at the request of the Italian Civil Protection, the Copernicus Emergency Management System provided a series of products across several areas of southern Italy to depict the delineation of flooded areas and help in damage assessment. There is a need to act beyond disaster response since extreme events will intensify until climate change is arrested. The first EU Climate Risk Assessment [2] identified Southern Europe as a hotspot for climate-related risks. The Commission will propose an integrated framework for climate resilience in the fourth quarter of 2026 to support Member States in preparing for and managing the impacts of climate change. 2. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) [3] programmes for Calabria, Sardinia and Sicily currently include EUR 352 million to prevent and manage the risks caused by natural disasters. As of 31 December 2025, EUR 196 million have been allocated to selected operations, while EUR 156 million are still available to support new interventions. The Commission is available to discuss with regional authorities how this financial envelop could be used to address the consequences of these events. [1] Council Regulation (EC) 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32002R2012). [2] ‘European Climate Risk Assessment’, European Environment Agency, 2024: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment. [3] Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32021R1058.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Colleagues, the regulation fighting unfair trade practice is now up for approval in a vote. Is there a clear and necessary step forward in protecting our farmers and re-establishing a balance of power down the food supply chain in agriculture? And we are combating here an imbalance that for too long penalized producers as against the major multinational purchasers, and strengthening the role of the Member States here that can also act to make a formal complaint. This is a choice of political responsibility. We know that many farmers do not report abuse for fear of repercussions or because of the costs or red tape involved. This will no longer leave farmers in the lurch. By improving cooperation through an internal market, information system between different member states will combat the fragmentation that often has allowed unfair trading practices across borders to go unpunished. In Italy, we've seen specific cases where certain multinational buyers have quashed the producers, and here we send out the signal that a single market cannot be without rules. And hereby we are strengthening Europe's economic sovereignty by protecting our primary sector and restoring balance to the industry. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you very much, president. Thank you for being with us. Commissioner colleagues. On Monday in committee, we voted on the report on the future of agriculture. We voted in favour of more than 50 compromises from the Patriots group, saying no to a single fund, saying yes to sufficient funding and yes to simplification. However, we were not happy with the way direct payments will be treated with the 50% for eco schemes. So we wanted to loudly, uh, complain about that. Now, there was a suggestion that we could basically not vote in plenary on this and just vote in committee. I think that that's the parliament renouncing to its role. I think that we're in danger of undermining the very idea of supporting our farmers by subjecting aid to conditionalities. What we need to do is to support incomes, and we should remove all of those elements that are damaging incomes. It's time for the EU to move towards a different policy than the one proposed by the Commission. In 2024. Farmers raised fundamental issues and we should listen to them. Commissioner, I call upon all parliamentarians to do so. The speaker is cut off.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioner. The slow situation of Russian energy is a very delicate issue. There are three important factors energy and dependency, security and especially energy prices. Importing energy from abroad does have an inherent risk with respect to security of supply. For this reason we've got to be very pragmatic and look at things in a balanced way, considering the other all priorities, without being too focused on ideology. It would be to the benefit of Europe to be independent for energy. We all agree. But, uh, totally cutting imports would be vulnerable. A situation of vulnerability now. Russia should not be using his energy as a weapon, but they are dealing with the US. The UAE and Africa are also in risk. So totally, absolutely. Stopping Russian imports for gas would not make sense politically or economically. Geopolitically. Eliminating totally one of our suppliers could give us. Make us even more vulnerable from the economic standpoint, this instrument might be damaging to European consumers rather than the Russian economy. We do not want European industries to die out. So there are other aspects with respect to the concrete possibility. There's a problem. Uh uh, the third countries could carry out what they call re importation and re exporting then. So you'd have certain parties selling it to the EU. Uh, in a certain way they'd be selling Russian gas through their imports. So we really need to see what we would do about that specific possibility to get around this ban that we'd like to make. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the representative of the Court of Auditors. Thank you for your work. Now, I read I've read the opinion very carefully, and I've noted a few things on the basis of the presentation that we've been given. So let me go by headings. The court has, uh, looked at some critical points, the elimination of a dedicated cap fund and then overcoming the two, moving away from the traditional two pillar structure. Now, this and other changes, according to the court, mean there'll be less predictable in overall funding and more dependency on national decision making, as well as a reduction in the visibility of resources intended for the cap, and also potential delays when it comes to payments for farmers. So I think you can see the terrible situation that's coming. I mean, the court has shown us that in their technical report. So moving on, the court has also said that the new mechanisms can lengthen approval times, be delays in plans, may lead to delays in payments. Thirdly, greater traceability will cause problems for member states or trying to ensure traceability will be problems for member states. So there are going to be major issues for farmers now on financial predictability and the substitution of expenditure. The court says that, uh, this, uh, threshold of 25% of resources reduces the possibility for long term investment. And obviously, you will be aware of what that means for farmers. Now, this, uh, discretion given to member states may well lead to disparities in support, provided increases in differences between farmers, and may well move away from the traditional nature of the cap. So let me. I haven't got much time, but in the light of this court of justice opinion, should the. Commission not accept what we've been saying this committee for about a year, i.e. we should have a different cap than the one that's being proposed because it goes against the interests of European farmers. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, chair, and welcome to Minister. I, um, listened to your presentation and I agree with a lot, but I'm just going to ask three questions, which I would like a concrete answers to as well. First of all, how does the presidency intend to guarantee environmental standards, which are very often complex? We don't want these to hinder the competitiveness of EU farmers. And how will you ensure policies for the green transition will not compromise the economic sector? I think this is a very important question. In light of declarations and statements made. Tomorrow there will be a large Italian protest of farmers and I would like to have concrete answers. Second question. The imbalance of EU standards risks jeopardising our companies and farmers who are already under a great deal of pressure, particularly when it comes to Mercosur. So how does the presidency ensure protecting our farmers and ensuring that we keep a level playing field without harming the EU trade balance and our EU consumers? And the third question has already been asked, but I just wanted to reiterate it. So cutting red tape in the agricultural sector this is an essential issue. We have raised it on several occasions. And all of this administrative burden is negative for agricultural farms and holdings. And the Danish presidency has said that they want to improve this. But can you give us a timeline and more details on how you will go about this process? Thank you very much.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “President. Commissioner. Colleagues. Well, today I'm bringing you. A cry for help from many Italian and European businesses. We're seeing problems when it comes to international industrial production. Now Cbam needs to be beefed up because otherwise our businesses will be damaged and Chinese and US businesses will be further enriched. The Green Deal wants to impose new technology which is struggling to be implemented. Now gas is a pollutant source of energy, but it's used in Europe and it will continue to be used because it's the only energy source which is useful for certain industrial products. Pushing the green agenda will just lead to more offshoring. We have European instruments that are causing problems for our businesses, and as a result, we're seeing a reduction in industrial production, which makes us poorer, poorer and weakens us. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you very much. We need to be a bit more realistic. We need to recognize that the price fluctuations are really problematic, and we are not matching supply to the prices. And therefore, we really do need to have stronger producer organisations that can manage the requisite changes. We are going to need to support farmers to reduce their production level, as we did in 2016. And the longer we delay, the more it's going to cost. We really got to put together a proper safety net now because if we don't, goodness knows what could happen. Surely the commission should be taking a close interest in the butter market and the wider dairy market. It seems to me that there is some speculation in the market, which is very worrying, and so I would ask that the Financial Markets Authority also is involved in this.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Colleagues, it's been economically proven that free markets bring economic benefits and well-being. So that's something that we're in favor of in principle. But agreements need to be fruitful for both sides. And that's not the case for the Mercosur agreement. Farmers are desperately trying to make us understand the serious impact that this agreement could have on their activities. Our farmers would be in a position of economic disadvantage. They wouldn't be able to compete with large South American farmers. In addition, you've got a massive contradiction in the commission. On the one hand, there are stricter rules being placed on our On our farmers. But on the other hand, they're allowing our markets to be invaded by products that aren't respecting the standards imposed in Europe in terms of environmental and social sustainability and sanitary and phytosanitary product use. So we think that, okay, free trade agreements do provide benefits. But the Mercosur agreement as it's structured, damages our farmers, cattle breeders, producers and consumers. Perhaps it would be best not to close ourselves in our ivory towers and to go out there and listen to our farmers who work the land and produce wealth. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Minister. Minister Panayiotou, for your presence here today. Welcome. I listened carefully to your presentation. I read the programme of the Cyprus Presidency as well on agriculture. I do have two questions. Now, references to the simplification of procedures. And I'd like to find out this is a problem, which of course has been brought up repeatedly. Now the Cyprus presidency, how does it intend in real terms, to deal with the simplification of procedures in order to boost productivity? Overall? This is a key issue because many of the regulations, some of them have been referred to. How are you going to deal with the procedures issue and the speeding up of procedures and simplification of them as well, and the increase in the budget, because, as you mentioned, uh, your island as well, the new generation has difficulties, uh, because we have this issue over all of generation or renewal, which is a serious problem. Now, how do you intend to deal with this? And do you feel that the resources are out there in order to deal with this particular question? The second question concerns the objectives, uh, bringing together sustainability with productivity. How does the Cyprus presidency intend to deal with this particular issue? Uh, uh, dealing with this issue, however, in a way that would respect producers, not create additional burdens for producers and farmers as well, particularly take into consideration the new the agreement with Mercosur, the reciprocity that exists between European producers, which are which have been burdened with the issue of the green economy issues and protecting the environment sustainability. There's a huge, huge burden there for farmers, and I simply wanted to ask how the Cyprus presidency intends to deal with this particular question. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much. It's very nice to see you back here. Commissioner Barnier, I listened with interest to what you had to say in your introduction, and I'd like to raise two points. Food security and the use of pesticides would be the second one. We very much appreciate what's being done to try to simplify procedures, controls and checks. We obviously do need to do that, but we certainly do not need to reduce food security checks. And this is something which is, I think, quite critical. So we need to increase our vigilance there, whilst at the same time streamlining and reducing bureaucracy elsewhere. You talked about strengthening controls in certain areas. Maybe you could expand on that. We do, I think, need to have better checks and controls and surveillance in general outwith the European Union so that we make sure that products which are coming into the European Union meet the same high standards we exact of our producers. This, I think, is absolutely fundamental. And I think that there is still some action required for us to meet that standard. The commission needs to take some action in the context of trade agreements. So could you please tell us what your plans are there? Then my second question, which is on pesticides, as I said, of course we trust Efsa's evaluations, but others have said before me that sometimes they are short of funds or they're short of staff, and they sometimes can't be quick enough in turning around references that are sent to them on various matters. Various substances which are critical to farmers and producers. So what can we do to help Efsa to speed up their work? I personally feel that it's very important that we have appropriate systems. We need to have standards and controls in place. We need to have prompt response from Efsa, and we need to have prompt, effective controls on all the products that are coming into the EU to make sure that they meet the high standards that we expect of domestic intra-eu producers. So these are the points I'd like you to expand on, please. Thank you, thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides · Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Director general, I'd like to make a number of points in relation to something that Commissioner Hanson said. And I think that. In the very first presentation, this point wasn't reflected regarding the numbers 400 billion, but that's only on the basis of the letters of the Commission president. And we and farmers need to know for sure that these resources are there. And that and legally, we don't have that certainty yet. And then the whole approach, we are looking at it in terms of fact that there's a the Cap resources being deployed at national level. So there's a minimum requirement, but there's no definition of the exact amount by member states, and that introduced an element of uncertainty. So there's this thread of uncertainty running through this. And this becomes a problem because it weakens the general use of the cap as a genuinely common policy. Now, as the aggressiveness, you're talking about, the cap resources in certain member states being determined in the light of the prosperity gap and the need within the overall measurements to identify which regions are most in need. And this actually doesn't take into account the specific nature of different models. So Italy too would be penalized by this third problem, which I'd like to mention is the climate policies. Now, we all agree on this. But as we said earlier in yesterday's debate on the GAC, it's clear that if the climate policies are all borne by the farmers, then they won't work. So I would like the director general to respond to these points of mine.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, president. Ladies and gentlemen. The agreement on phasing out Russian gas being discussed here. We've heard several people saying that this is a historic victory, but this is really the triumph of hypocrisy at the cost of citizens. There are two critical aspects that have been lost sight of. And the commission has lost sight of this as well. What about price? Importing LNG makes everything very expensive going through pipelines. It's not just the cost of the primary materials, it's liquification transport by ship and regasification. We need to make sure that we have appropriate supply and that supply chain becomes more, becomes more and more expensive. And this is something that is passed straight on to the utilities bills of our Citizens and we're raising inflation for energy bills. The second problem is that gas is fungible, and that we know that through gas we are having to exploit third countries. Russian gas is going to come into the EU via, via, and we won't have any mastery over that. So we need agreements that are going to make us stronger. But these haven't been devised appropriately and are going to make us poorer in the end. We need to be more practical and pragmatic. This is going to a bill that's going to have to be footed by people and companies. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you. My thanks to the representative of the Court of Audit for his report. And I think we can draw some conclusions. Rules exist, rules exist. But some countries, how can I put it, respect them for the most part. This has been the case, I think, for Spain and Italy. Others don't respect them. So I think. If we can be part of this, we will have a bill to draw on our great tradition. Thinking about what the representative of the court said is not just cultural and traditional, but also very important economic sector. So think about all the shortcomings which have been highlighted by the representative whom I cannot but thank. But all of these things must be taken up by the Commission to try and make all of the production and all of the controls more homogeneous. But there is a point I'd like to make. Share one thought with you. I think it has been said between the lines by the representative of the Court of Auditors, because. From the oil which comes from outside Europe. What about that? I think we need to tell the Commission that it needs to take this in charge, because if we don't actually deal with this seriously, what producers have to respect very high, very stringent measures. And we said these are often not respected The things needs to be checked, but we have the duty. To impose those controls. And it's been said that those controls on pollutants, on traceability of oils which come from outside Europe is is missing is quite terrible in its absence. So we need to be very precise about this. It cannot simply be that we know that that we impose strict rules on our own producers, but allow any old producers to produce from outside to the EU without respecting these other countries face inexistent tariffs, and they export they exploit these loopholes. That's simply not acceptable. So when it comes to food safety, as things pass and time moves on, I think the commission must take the initiative and it must respond to the concerns of this Parliament.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. Good. Uh, agriculture and environmental conditions are one of the main instruments for the Common Agricultural Policy to achieve its environmental goals, protection of the land and biodiversity and so on, and protection of water resources. And these are things that nobody in this room calls into question. But the implementation of the gaec means is causing some problems for farmers, especially for small and medium sized farmers. In many cases they are seen as rigid impositions. Take no account of the diversity around Europe and crop rotation, non-productive services, non-productive land and sometimes they have a direct impact on income of farmers. And then there's the administrative burden, the controls, the rules, the risk of penalties for even for formal irregularities. And this discourages farming activities rather than supporting it in the ecological transition. The case of Italy, this is very clear in marginal internal areas where these environmental impositions are added to additional problems. And it is it risks reducing activity and abandoned farms. So if guac is meant to be a proper transitional measure, then you need to have greater flexibility in the implementation. Improve proportionality between obligations and economic income and the territorial aspect have to be taken into account. So you have to take into account economic and social sustainability for farmers. Without farmers, there will be no green transition nor food security. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you. President, Commissioner, colleagues. Tomorrow will be voting on two highly significant files, first of all, on simplification and then strengthening the position of farmers in the food supply chain. We're talking about the daily lives of people who work the land. We depend on them for our food security in Europe. Here we're defending farmers and defending the value of our production to make sure that they have a fair income, they have dignity and prospects for the future. We need to make sure that they have security. Otherwise red tape weighs them down. We here need to reduce that administrative burden. The cap that we have at the moment has created disastrous effects, not just organizationally, but also politically. Here we're representing citizens and we are their voice. What we have at the moment is the cap is a source of shame. We it's something that doesn't take into account territorial specificities. What is produced where and all of the groups on on the ground know how serious this issue is. We need this to be a turning point, to have a real reform. We need if we want to defend our farmers commissioners, we need to change course. We need to give these people dignity and make sure that they have a solid future in Europe. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Mr. chairman, I'll be very brief. It's clear that any initiative. Which is in the interests of producers and farmers, is something we would see in a positive light. And that this goes for the observatory, because the aim is to protect the food chain and the producers, and I fully agree with that aim. The composition of the observatory with Copa-cogeca as a member does reassure us that there are farmers representatives. But the issue that I'm wondering about, and I'm sure this is the case for everyone, is the specific solutions which can be provided by the observatory. For example, cutting red tape. The. Obviously those working the land are those who Receive less from. The prices paid by consumers. So we'd like to know about the massive earnings for some and how they can. Better go back to those at the start of the chain. And how can we give returns to those who actually work the land? We are positively disposed to the observatory, but. Obviously we need to make sure that there are real investments made for the For the benefit of the producers. So how are we actually going to get positive results out of this.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll respect my time. Don't worry. I would like to thank the rapporteur. Because I support the work he's done. In terms of the political message that comes out of this report, because it's imagining a promotional policy as an instrument for internationalization and competitiveness, and that's what our European products need on the markets. And then also because it focuses in particular on SMEs and on rural and marginalized areas, in other words, those that most need the marketing that comes from Europe. Now, according to the rapporteur, these programs should be more accessible. Yes, I can agree with what our colleague Nadella was saying on that they have to be more flexible and more market oriented because if we have an accessible, flexible policy we can support our producers. The main points in the report are there to strengthen multi-program simplify administrative procedures. That's important. As has been stressed here, on every occasion when we've been discussing this, we have to look at target markets and improve indicators and evaluation systems. The rapporteur has focused on those issues and that's why we support the approach he's taken. One sensitive political issue in this is that promotion policy should not be subordinate to other EU policies. It has to be autonomous because it's a crucial policy to get onto other markets. The rapporteur raises two aspects, which I think are important for farmers as well. Those are the new eligibility eligibility criteria which need to be respected in the marketing and also a restrictions for certain product categories. There shouldn't be any restrictions, even ideologically. Obviously, there are certain associations which certain ideologies would like to see for which some would like to see certain products excluded. I will keep it at that. But the Patriots in general are in favor of this line, but we'd like to provide some input in order to improve this and ensure that we can all work together. Thank you.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• “Thank you chair. Thank you, Executive director. I'd echo the compliments of previous speakers and the work that you've done in Parma, our city. Where the agency is sited. And it's very important to underscore the good work you're doing and the fact that across global markets. We're looking at European farmers produce that is considered to be high quality, where food safety is important. And because food safety is so crucial that we need to make sure competitiveness can work well. That would be advantageous to us. We know that there needs to be information and transparency for consumers in Europe and the rest of the world, and they need to understand the role of food safety. And obviously the Efsa has that crucial role to protect human health. Um, but as has been underscored, it's not just human beings we're talking about, but also health and welfare of animals and the health of plants. There are issues that you raise concerning how should I put it of an organism nature and of a financial nature? Of course, today and Mr. Dorfmann mentioned this, we need to look at the real problems that are facing citizens out there and how farmers can deal with parasites. For example, at a time when many standards are being established and preventing certain active substances and chemicals from being used, that would help food safety, surely. And that must be one of the problems that Efsa has to face in the coming times, because we shouldn't put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage, neither when it comes to food safety, but neither when it comes to farmers being able to use certain products, and certainly not allowed imports to come from those who are using those chemicals when we can't. So I think we need to look as well at the new Mercosur agreement. If we look at free trade, that's one thing. But also agriculture more specifically, certain sectors are going to be put under pressure and given the potential import of products which do not respect food safety standards. So I'd like to know what can we do to make sure checks are in place to stop that? Thank you.”
  Pesticides & trade
• “Thank you very much. I would like just to ask you something about plant protection products. When I talk to farmers, one of their frustrations is that there is a lack of harmonisation about what is actually authorised in various countries. In the Netherlands, certain items can be used, but they can't in Belgium and vice versa. Therefore, I think really it's the Wild West out there. It's not a level playing field so far from it. We've got effective products that have been approved by Efsa, but certain substances have to be separated separately, authorised and there's far too much disparity across the countries, and the farmers just don't understand that, and I can't explain it to them. How do you see your role in this area? How do you, as commissioner, envisage producing a genuine level playing field in the area of plant protection products? Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you very much, chairman. I've got three points to make. First of all, it would have been nice if we could have had Mrs. von der neuen here in the room with us. Now she has come to see us three times, and she's given us various assurances. But the result is the one we see before us. In all three of your presentations, I see there's a lot of enthusiasm for the work of young farmers, but the reality that young farmers have to deal with is a tough one. Mrs. Tarango said, correctly, that there are lots of nice measures included in the document, but this is contradicted by two points. First of all, the cap is losing about 25%. So where are we going to find the money to do all these nice things? And secondly, there's a lot of confusion out there. We don't know which fund to apply to. So having heard the three presentations, my question is how can we have certainties from the EU? You'll find a lot of solidarity in the Parliament, But I'm afraid that you won't find enough solidarity in the commission.”
  Agricultural funding
• “President. Commissioner colleagues, we are very interested in these supposed simplification proposals in the omnibus package. The Commission has said that in terms of our political agenda, we need to decarbonise, but without industry we'll have economic desertification. We need to simplify permitting. Initially, it can take up to ten years to get an industrial plant going. We're talking about dozens of gigawatts of capacity, but the infrastructure which is needed to interconnect and bring them into the grid is not there. So we're wasting energy while others are calling for subsidies because energy prices are too high. So it's a question of organisation. And as legislators, we should make their lives easier, not harder. This should not be a pretext for imposing more centralized standards. Member states should have the freedom to implement this in the best way possible for their national interest.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, if we were not to think of the interests of agriculture, we could say this evening, after what we've heard from the representative of the E s C that we were right. But actually, no, what we do here in this Parliament, in this committee, not just us, but most representatives of political groups and means that unfortunately, this analysis that's come from the Committee on the proposed cap proves us right, but it doesn't satisfy us because we have to see what we can do to protect the farmers in the EU. So there are some very critical voices out there, but we've heard that the cap will seriously reduce financial resources. It may compromise The actual character of the cap doesn't have clear, coherent objectives for certain sectors, and the substantive cut to the budget about 20% in nominal terms. So and it weakens the role of the cap under article 39. Well, basically we are here now. So we have to ensure that the European Commission also understands that it's not us, the Patriots and the other political groups who have invented this criticism about the Cap proposal. There are interests there as well because basically it represents producers, farmers here and the work that goes on there. And there's been a cry of pain, which has come out clearly this evening. But it was already clear, and we would like that to make the commission think. Not just Commissioner Hanson, who apparently agrees with us, but nonetheless has to follow the president von der Leyen's line. But farmers are right now facing a very, very difficult situation, I will conclude. We've seen three scenarios proposed. I think the third one proposed by the committee will be the one that this committee should approve. In other words, the increase in production and prices to support farmers and a decrease in the environmental aspects, which shouldn't be illogical. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Commissioner, as you know. You know, I've been quite sympathetic towards you from the outset when you came to our committee, I'm sure you'll remember we started cooperating. Operating today, however. From a personal and political point of view, it's a pity that I need to say this. You know, if you were a farmer in Europe, you wouldn't have said what you said today. How can you today tell us that this is a success story? And I'm not going to rehearse what my other colleagues have already said. But how can this proposal be sold as a success story when we've gone from €386 billion to €302 billion, and that even includes the fisheries fund? I mean, that's quite absurd. And I'm sorry to have to tell you that I'm sorry that you have to come here and put these figures to us. It's not a great look for you, but also it's not great news for our farmers either. Now, you said that you had agriculture, you know, at the centre of everything, that you came from a family of agricultural entrepreneurs, but this proposal goes against our farmers. It's true for the single fund having a single fund, which means we will know nothing. Now you have this link to national governments. That means there's no certainty then, that we'll have those additional resources. The same goes for direct payments and then the conditionalities under the single fund. Now, of course, I'll have to look at the proposal in detail and scrutinise it and look at what it really means. But at first glance, I have the impression that your proposal or that this proposal from the underlying commission is one which goes against Europe's farmers and certainly the farmers in Italy. And please believe me, I've not seen worse in this Parliament and I won't accept this particular proposal. Irrespective of where you stand on the various political on the political spectrum.”
  Agricultural funding
• “President. Commissioner colleagues, we are very interested in these supposed simplification proposals in the omnibus package. The Commission has said that in terms of our political agenda, we need to decarbonise, but without industry we'll have economic desertification. We need to simplify permitting. Initially, it can take up to ten years to get an industrial plant going. We're talking about dozens of gigawatts of capacity, but the infrastructure which is needed to interconnect and bring them into the grid is not there. So we're wasting energy while others are calling for subsidies because energy prices are too high. So it's a question of organisation. And as legislators, we should make their lives easier, not harder. This should not be a pretext for imposing more centralized standards. Member states should have the freedom to implement this in the best way possible for their national interest.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU