Eric SARGIACOMO

Policy topics Eric SARGIACOMO is active on

What Eric SARGIACOMO has said (50)

• 2026-01-28 “E-000360/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Honourable Member refers to the judgment in case T-399/23 ClientEarth et Collectif Nourrir v. European Commission (29 October 2025). The position summarised by the General Court in point 109 of the judgment concerns Article 118 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 1 which does not empower the Commission to prescribe to Member States how to design or implement certain interventions or elements of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans (SPs). The Commission’s role is to assess SPs designed by Member States, and if those SPs are compatible with that Regulation, approve them. The judgment does not provide any indication that the Commission would be ‘powerless’ as regards approval of the SPs. It states that the control by the Commission covers some specific requirements (point 112) and explains the basis for and the scope of the Commission approval of SPs. While the proposed delivery model for the next Multiannual Financial Framework grants flexibility to Member States to design their National Regional Partnership Plans, similar to the current CAP SPs, it is exercised within safeguards. The proposal lays down common EU objectives that cover food security, fair standard of living for farmers, and vibrant rural areas. Furthermore, through CAP national recommendations the Commission will steer Member States’ ambition to ensure attainment of common EU objectives. Rules related to certain ringfenced interventions that are fully financed by the EU will ensure, among others, a level playing field among Member States. This aims at ensuring stability, predictability and commonality when it comes to the income support, while allowing for tailored approaches to meet national and regional challenges and opportunities. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj/eng.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2025-11-14 “E-004553/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission Annex IX to the Renewable Energy Directive (Directive (EU) 2018/2001 1 ) was amended through Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2024/1405 2 , which added additional feedstocks. Currently, no further amendments to the Annex are planned. The Annex includes several feedstock categories, including certain types of waste and residues. The Commission will continue to strive to ensure a harmonised interpretation of the coverage of the Annex. To this end, the Commission will assess whether the list of feedstocks set out in Annex IV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/996 3 , which includes feedstocks that can be considered to be already covered by Annex IX to the Directive, should be extended. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/oj. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir_del/2024/1405/oj/eng. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/996/2025-02-24/eng.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2025-10-08 “P-003934/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The rules on the distance selling of excise goods are set out in Article 44 of Council Directive (EU) 2020/262 laying down the general arrangements for excise duty. The Commission is aware of the need to simplify and harmonise procedures for the distance selling of alcoholic beverages, as highlighted in the Letta report. Under the Fiscalis 1 programme, a group of Member States is currently working on the development of a more efficient solution partially based on a one-stop-shop system for the payment of excise duties in the country of departure. The Commission will examine the conclusions of their work with a view to simplifying the legal framework and removing tax obstacles currently affecting the functioning of the internal market. A detailed cost/benefit analysis of the solutions put forward should then be conducted before the amendment of the above-mentioned legislation can be envisaged. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/847 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the ‘Fiscalis’ programme for cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1286/2013https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0847.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2025-07-29 “E-003125/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission In the past 60 years, including during COVID and the war in Ukraine, a series of instruments embedded in the EU policy framework 1 have ensured food security in Europe. The European Food Security Crisis preparedness and response Mechanism (EFSCM) 2 strengthens the structure in place and the EU stockpiling strategy will further improve access to essential goods under all circumstances. The strategy involves assessing the possibility of establishing virtual stockpiles and entering into arrangements with private sector operators for the provision of specific goods, in times of crisis. In that context the Commission will consider options such as virtual stockpiles of agrofuels. Moreover, there are mechanisms to mitigate food security risks in the EU energy policy. Notably, the Renewable Energy Directive (REDIII) foresees limits to the amount of biofuels produced from food and feed crops that can be counted towards the overall share of renewables and provides incentives only for waste-based biofuels. Efficient stockpiling management includes practices for rotating and replenishing goods and using donations of items close to expiry. The European Social Fund Plus can co-finance Member States’ support to food banks in providing food assistance to the most deprived. Such food may be obtained from the use, processing or sale of products disposed of in accordance with Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 3 (Common Market Organisation - CMO), provided that this is economically the most favourable option and does not unduly delay the delivery of food to the most deprived persons. To further enhance levels of preparedness and to ensure availability of supplies in times of severe crises, the Commission has just adopted a proposal amending the CMO 4 . 1 The Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the Single Market and others. 2 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/agri-food-supply-chain/ensuring-global-foodsupply-and-food-security_en. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj/eng. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2025:553:FIN.”
  Food waste
• 2025-06-02 “E-002194/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) 1 can support compensation for the temporary cessation of fishing activities caused by the implementation of certain conservation measures, or in case of exceptional events causing a significant disruption of markets. Regarding energy transition, EMFAF can support the development of new solutions for the fleet through innovation and testing of new technology as well as investments in technology to modernise the fleet. The issue of energy transition in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors will remain central in the future. The Commission strongly encourages Member States to set up financial instruments through their EMFAF programmes as they offer a business-friendly approach for productive investments. Moreover, following the Communication from the Commission on the Energy Transition of the EU Fisheries and Aquaculture sector 2 , the Commission is continuously exploring with other institutions, including the European Investment Fund and European Investment Bank, possible ways to mobilise and leverage private financing for the development and adaptation of new clean-energy technology in vessels and aquaculture sites. At the same time, the Commission continues to work in direct collaboration with the Energy Transition Partnership in EU fisheries and aquaculture, that is currently developing recommendations for the energy transition in the sector. The outcome of this work, including the forthcoming recommendations, will be used for shaping the Commission’s roadmap on the energy transition for EU fisheries and aquaculture to be published by the Commission in the first half of 2026. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of 7 July 2021 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52023DC0100.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture · Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2025-05-28 “E-002162/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission In accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 24(7) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 1 , in November 2024 Germany transmitted to the Commission and the Member States an application for the inclusion of potassium phosphonates among the active substances for plant protection products authorised in organic viticulture. The Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production (EGTOP) concluded in its assessment on two earlier applications on the same subject that the use of potassium phosphonates would not be in line with the objectives and principles of organic production. The pertaining EGTOP reports were made publicly available in 2014 2 and 2020 3 . The EGTOP is currently assessing the abovementioned last request submitted by Germany. The relevant documents of the ongoing discussions can be found in the EGTOP register webpage 4 . This new assessment by EGTOP is still ongoing and will be finalised by the end of July 2025. On the basis of the outcome of this technical assessment, the Commission services will consider whether any further action would be appropriate on this regard. In the meanwhile, the current EU legislation bans the use of this substance in organic farming. 1 Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (OJ L 150, 14.6.2018) ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/848/oj. 2 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/af301f0f-450b-4952-b8d7e267887acea4_en?filename=egtop-final-report-plant_protection_products-ii_en.pdf. 3 EGTOP Report Plant Protection Products V: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/cd388930d904-48b7-a064-b05dd52e79a8_en?filename=egtop-reassessment-of-use-of-potassiumphosphonate_2019_en.pdf. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expertgroups/consult?lang=en&groupID=3794.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• 2025-05-07 “P-001840/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Strategic Dialogue calls for a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that is fit for purpose. It recommends that CAP support should be delivered in a more targeted way, ‘moving away from current non-degressive area-based payments’. This should not be read as a call for abandoning area-based payments, but rather as recommending a more targeted distribution of CAP support across beneficiaries. The Commission’s Vision for Agriculture and Food 1 reflects this recommendation by announcing a fairer, simpler and more targeted support under the future CAP, relying notably on an enhanced use of measures such as degressivity and capping. The setting up of a dedicated task force on the targeting of income support is not envisaged. The Commission services possess robust and published 2 data and analysis of the distribution of CAP income support that will be used to design the future policy. On 19 and 20 May 2025, the Commission discussed the future of the CAP, including the targeting of direct support, with the newly created European Board on Agriculture and Food (EBAF) 3 . A further EBAF discussion on the CAP is planned for 19 June 2025. 1 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/overview-vision-agriculture-food/vision-agriculture-andfood_en#:~:text=The%20Commission%20presents%20its%20Vision%20for%20Agriculture%20and,fair%20agr i-food%20system%20for%20current%20and%20future%20generations. 2 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/8707d160-1fed-45b1-aba8bc9a6eca9846_en?filename=summary-report-implementation-direct-payements-claim-2022_en.pdf. 3 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/committees-and-expertgroups/ebaf_en.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) · Agricultural funding
• 2025-02-19 “P-000761/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission As specified in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 1 and indicated in E-002397/2024 2 , maximum residue levels (MRL) are set for commodities listed in Annex I to this Regulation. Annex I lists several commodities that can be food or feed, including soybeans. A MRL of 20 mg/kg has been established for soybeans based on the Codex Alimentarius maximum limit and not on an import tolerance request. Currently, specific feed-only products are not yet listed in Annex I and no MRLs are applicable for products or part of products exclusively used for animal feed production due to their low impact on consumer health. Controls of pesticide residues and enforcement of MRLs are the responsibility of the Member States. Member States carry out official controls 3 on pesticides residues, monitor compliance with existing EU MRLs and assess consumer exposure to pesticide residues. Soybean imported from third countries can be controlled at the border, on the market or at operators’ premises. The control frequency depends on the control programme of the Member States. Member States submit the results of the analysis of samples tested during official controls to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). According to the most recent annual reports of the EFSA on pesticide residues in food, in 2022 4 , glyphosate was analysed in 31 samples of soybeans. The majority (23 samples) did not contain residues of glyphosate at all. In 2021, 93 samples were analysed and 63 did not contain residues of glyphosate and in 2020, 11 samples were analysed and none of them contained residues of glyphosate. No samples contained residues at levels that were non-compliant with the applicable MRLs in these three years. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/396/oj 2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html 3 In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/625 (ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/625/oj) and Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/396/oj). 4 The 2022 European Union report on pesticide residues in food https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8753”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU · Maximum residue levels · Glyphosate
• 2024-11-27 “E-002690/2024 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Food stockpiling has been discussed by the European Food Security Crisis preparedness and response Mechanism (EFSCM) on several occasions, through exchanges of best practices and surveys. The topic also features in its 2025 work programme with a view to further assess and discuss potential needs. This is in line with recommendations in the Niinistö 1 and Strategic Dialogue 2 reports. The Commission fully shares the ambition and main recommendation of the Niinistö report, including the importance of preparedness for vital societal functions. World Trade Organization (WTO) rules allow public stockholding for food security purposes programmes without limits provided that stocks are acquired and released at market prices. Developing countries may also acquire and release stocks at administered prices under the standard limits on what in WTO terminology is considered ‘trade distorting support’ 3 . These limits are meant to prevent circumvention of commitments on trade distorting support and avoid distorting effects on other WTO members, in particular net food importing Members. These, as well as all other aspects of agricultural support are under negotiations with the aim of reducing trade distortions. So far, no proposal related to public stockholding for food security purposes has gained consensus. The EU will continue its engagement with other WTO Members considering the importance of this topic for the overall negotiations on agricultural subsidies as well as taking into account different approaches to food security related policies. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/5bb2881f-9e29-42f2-8b778739b19d047c_en?filename=2024_Niinisto-report_Book_VF.pdf 2 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/main-initiatives-strategic-dialoguefuture-eu-agriculture_en 3 WTO Agreement on Agriculture (1994), Annex 2, paragraph 3.”
  Nutrition
• 2024-11-04 “E-002398/2024 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Common Market Organisation Regulation 1 (CMO) contributes to strengthening the position of farmers in the food supply chain, including through enhanced cooperation within producer organisations (POs) or through the possibility for recognised POs in the milk sector to collectively negotiate contracts on behalf of their members. Such cooperation also permits to protect farmers from direct contact with purchasers where they could undermine the collective placing of products on the market. For this reason, the Commission’s recent proposals to strengthen farmers’ position in the chain aims to reinforce this protection 2 , including through a proposed amendment of Article 153 CMO 3 . The Unfair Trading Practices (UTP) Directive 4 offers further protection to suppliers of agrifood products, including POs or cooperatives, vis-à-vis stronger buyers e.g., by prohibiting unilateral changes in supply agreements or threats of commercial retaliation. It is for the national enforcement authorities to end and fine infringements. The Commission is working on an evaluation of the UTP Directive, which will feed into a report to the Parliament and Council to be presented by November 2025, accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals, in line with the recommendations of the Strategic Dialogue 5 . Such a proposal could add additional trading practices that would be prohibited, if considered appropriate. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1308 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_6321 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2024%3A577%3AFIN&qid=1733826263870 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0633 5 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/agriculture-andgreen-deal/strategic-dialogue-future-eu-agriculture_en”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• 2024-11-04 “E-002397/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 1 sets maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticide in food and feed, covering the commodities listed in Annex I to that Regulation. The MRL Regulation thus covers products not only used for food, but also for feed, such as cereals, soybeans or oilseeds. In its presentation of 4 September 2024, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) referred to feed commodities exclusively used for feed production such as grass, hay or straw, for which exceptionally, no MRLs are established due their low impact on consumer health. However, the uptake of pesticide residues by livestock via feed and the possible transfer of residues from feed to food of animal origin is an important element in EFSA’s risk assessment prior to the approval of active substances. The possible accumulation of residues in the environment, in particular in soil, and the uptake of these pesticide residues from the soil to crops used for food and feed is also assessed. If necessary, restrictions are implemented in the approval conditions to limit the presence in the environment and/or the presence in food and feed. Member States carry out official controls on pesticide residues in order to enforce compliance with the MRL Regulation. The presence of residues in feed is therefore controlled directly by analysing products used for food and feed purpose and indirectly by analysing food of animal origin. The Commission has recently initiated discussions with Member States on possible options and procedures to set MRLs for specific feed products in the framework of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed 2 . 1 Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC; OJ L 70, 16/03/2005, p. 1–16. 2 https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/committees/paff-committees_en”
  GMOs
• 2024-09-25 “E-001812/2024 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission asked the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) to assess 1 a Joint Recommendation to reduce bycatches of dolphin in the Bay of Biscay by implementing another closure on the same dates in 2025 2 . STECF concluded that while the measures proposed remain less stringent than the measures advised by the International Council on the Exploration of the Seas as likely to reduce bycatches of dolphin below the potential biological removal level, they are a step forward. Regarding the socioeconomic analysis, STECF observed that the ‘lack of method description’ and the use of unaudited, self-declared data made it impossible to assess the representativeness of the data and added that the analysis had ‘the potential to overestimate the possible economic loss for the value chain’. Pelagis, the French observatory for marine conservation, recently drew up a total estimate of 1 450 dolphins dead by incidental bycatch between 1/12/2023 and 31/03/2024, for the Atlantic coast and the Western Channel 3,4 . By comparison, for the same area and period, the annual average of dolphins incidentally bycaught amounted to 6 100 individuals between 2017 and 2023. It concluded that while the closure is very likely to have made a major contribution to the sharp decrease in dolphin bycatches at winter scale in 2024, it is possible that other factors 5 may also have contributed. The economic loss of the closure is estimated at EUR 22,4 million, of which 71% come from netters. Around 85% of the vessels concerned benefited from financial aid. The recently adopted Delegated Regulation will prolong the closure for dolphins in the Bay of Biscay for 2025 6 . Member States could use EU funding and State aid 7 to mitigate the economic impact of the closure 8 . 1 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/stecf/stecf-plen-24-02 - 76th Plenary report (STECF PLEN-24-02), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024. 2 The context includes both the Commission's ongoing infringement case against France (case number INFR(2020)4036) and the Conseil d'Etat order of 22 December 2023 (case number 489926). 3 Press release https://www.mer.gouv.fr/protection-des-petits-cetaces made by the French Ministry of the Sea and Fisheries ‘Protection des petits cétacés’, 25/11/2024. 4 Bilan des mortalités par capture : hiver 2024 https://www.mer.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/202411/20241115_bilan-des-mortalites_hiver2024.pdf 5 Related to the distribution of dolphins, their prey and, more broadly, fluctuations in the bycatch risk. 6 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3089 of 30 September 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 as regards measures to reduce incidental catches of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) and other small cetaceans in the Bay of Biscay https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202403089 7 In line with the Guidelines for State aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52023XC0323(01) . OJ C 107, 23.3.2023, p. 1–48. 8 Provided the conditions set out in Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 stablishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund are met.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “I'll be extremely brief. Norbert Lins has already said quite a lot. We do need to work together when we're talking about the Cap or the CMO. These are two pieces of a increasingly complicated jigsaw puzzle. There are certain objections that come to the functioning of the EU and therefore through a budgetary roadmap with the objectives i.e. less money into a key policy area. We can't through that change the main objectives of the treaties. We've talked about the Cap. We've talked about Posey. What about cohesion that's in directly linked to all of this, especially when it comes to developing rural areas. So we can't just stay with the commission proposal as it is. Obviously, work will be done with the Co-legislator Council, and I presume we'll have a lot of meetings to talk about all of this, and there'll be differing opinions coming in, but maybe similar to what we've said today, I think each and every one of us has to. Has to listen to what farmers are asking for. You know, they want efficiency in the cap. They want things to be simple. Simple for them, for the beneficiaries. Just to remind you. Article 39 aims there. Obviously you have farming production. We have a farming incomes but also access to healthier food. So you have to look at that as a whole. And obviously we need a specific tool within the budget, uh, as it is in the within the treaty. So work in progress.”
  Agricultural funding
• “What if a situation is recognised? What if a sector is destabilized? What happens? So I don't think we got the full picture from your presentation. Are we going to establish entry prices for certain products? That does exist. We have that for certain vegetables coming into the union. So would you have a kind of entry price system? It's difficult for us to comprehend exactly how this is going to work. Uh, by 2028, hopefully things will get better in Ukraine, but I think we need to hear more from you if we're going to be, um, assured. And there's also the issue of SPS measures. We had imports of products of Bulgar, uh, and there was uh, there were products in there. It was not from a of, uh, from Ukraine. And there were other products in this which had never have been in there. Thank you very much.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “This is an opportunity for me to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. Promotion measures are very important. We should strengthen them. In 2025, over €100 million was earmarked, but this is modest. If we look at all of our exports, which stand at €240 billion, and not many of that is pulses, though we should welcome the fact that there will still be promotion policy in the next cap, and it will be a European wide policy, not in the national strategic plans. But we need to raise the profile of various sectors. I think we should focus on promoting high quality European products, particularly those which bear a quality label. Promotion should be seen as an investment. Look at what it brings back in financial terms. There are some. Sectors such as wine and spirit drinks, which are affected by reprisal tariffs. I'm thinking about cognac 97% 97% is exported. We need to help a product like that.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• “Mr. president, Commissioner and colleagues. Well, tomorrow we're going to be voting on the wine package. And I have no doubt that a vast majority of this assembly will support its adoption. The crisis that so many vineyards in Europe and the world are going through is a deep one. We need to find ways of emerging from this crisis. That was a priority, and I'd like to welcome the work of Commissioner Hansen, who worked incredibly hard to ensure that this negotiation was successful. I'd also like to thank Mrs. Herranz Garcia, rapporteur, whose hard work and experience meant that the atmosphere was one of trust and that her way of working should inspire us for other texts. Now this wine package turns the page on deregulation in the wine sector. In 2008, some people thought it was enough to do away with planting rights and withdraw, grubbing up assistance for everything to be to go well. But that was a major error. Unfortunately, with this reform, we re-establishing the basis for the public regulation of the sector. We're also going to go further to ensure that wine growers can see the end, the light at the end of the tunnel. Now, the wine sector's crisis is too serious for me to say that things are all fine and dandy. Now, as soon as the wine package has been officially adopted, we'll have to implement its main innovations. So it's up to the commission. And Member states to implement what we're going to have decided. And the Commission should also listen to France's request to activate the crisis reserve in favour of distillation. Commissioner. I am sure that you'll be able to provide a response to that as soon as possible. This is an emergency. Thank you very much.”
  Agricultural funding
• “President, Commissioner, your action plan on fertilisers partly seeks to respond to the difficulties which our farmers are facing since the 28th of February. Though those prices have skyrocketed for fertilisers and cereal prices have gone down, which means that there needs to be some kind of compensation or balancing out. I haven't really heard all the figures, but what we have here is is good so far. In the short term, we need to increase our production capacities and our strategic storage. A cbam tax should help us, but we should be looking into suspending it for one year just to make sure that we can do so properly. The action plan has other relevant proposals for trade diplomacy and going back to agroecology. But at the same time, there's an essential point here. We need to make sure that carbon quotas work on the long in the long term to make sure that we don't have unfair competition. And we also need to look at the innovation prices under the cap.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner, trade relations along the links in the agri food chain, anything but just a stroll in the park. The negotiating powers increased as one goes lower down in the value chain. These are unfair. Balance of forces opens the door to unfair trading practices. We need to do something by enhancing the framework cooperation between national authorities. The regulation put forward by our colleague Bonaccini is a step in the right direction. However, we know that that will not be enough. Just two figures. The three main players in the world of distribution concentrate 75% of purchases in Europe, 88% in France. So we need to look reality in the face. Deregulation was meant to bring us the benefits of competition rather than surrounding us up to monopolies. The single market cannot mean freedom and comfortable margins for some, and the absence of decent pay for producers. The return of public intervention is the last bulwark against monopolies. We need to put an end to this concentration, to abuse of a dominant position in trade relations, in order to put an end to these unfair trading practices. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you very much, Mr. Siracusa. I think, though you've given us, you haven't given us a full picture. You've spoken about quotas, uh, sensitive products, low tariff rate quotas for some products. But there are some production chains which are really sensitive, and there's a cumulative impact because of other agreements. Just look at the sugar sector, which has been destabilized by the cumulative effect of trade agreements. So when you took the floor, you failed to give figures, figures and datas. You said that this is a balanced and satisfactory agreement. And it goes without saying that we support Ukraine, given the current situation, a situation that's been going on for several years now because of the Russian aggression. Yet we need to be clear in our dealings with farmers, farmers not be the only ones who foot the bill. So you say this is a satisfactory and balanced deal? Well, I think you need to prove it. And the same applies to the safeguards. I want to believe you, but I need to understand how these safeguards work.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Thank you very much indeed. As you said, Madam Chair. Maria Noichl can't be present, but she asked me to read out what she's prepared. Dear colleagues, I'd like to start by thanking all shadow rapporteurs, as well as the political groups of the intensive work they've put in on this file. More than 700 amendments were submitted, which shows the interest behind this proposal, and the questions on tracking and performance issues is absolutely clear. Many of the amendments address very fundamental issues and go very far in the future. Future shape of the EU budget and monitoring of expenditures attached thereto. We have had two technical meetings on this to date. The next one will be held this coming Wednesday. The first meeting of the shadows is planned in June in Strasbourg, and the vote in the committee is set for July. I'd like to stress here once again that I am fundamentally critical about the timeline established for this file. I believe that discussions on tracking of expenditure and performance measures should actually take place at the end of the legislative process relating to the new MF, as well as the various different sectoral policies. Now, it's only once the political objectives and the clear shape of the programmes has been established, that it will be possible to decide an appropriate way how to measure their impact in implementation. This position, I believe, is shared by a broad majority in this committee. Nonetheless, we have to bow before this timeline and continue our work on that basis. Given the work put in on this report, I would like to stress various points.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “What is the left for me to say? After having heard from my colleagues. Commissioner. I'm sad. I think someone else used that word. Um. I'm disappointed and really profoundly shocked to see that this agricultural policy, which is an objective enshrined in article 39 of the treaties. You know, is now no longer a worry for the commission, a 25% cut to the budget. Who really believes that it's the member states who are going to come to the aid of farmers? When many member states find themselves in financial difficulties, they're asking a sacrifice from an essential sector such as agriculture. Others have made the point that fisheries are included, too, and we can't be happy with that. Of course, there are measures that we could accept which. In terms of the CMO and market regulation are acceptable. But that's not enough.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the rapporteur. Thank you for your work on this, um amendment to the regulation. I think when it comes to organic farming, it's, uh, rests on a solid foundation. It's, uh, there's many years of experience. I think we know the problems that we had with the previous regulation during negotiations. So I think the reform has to be limited in scope in order to leave to the Commission the necessary time in order to renegotiate equivalence agreements with third countries. However, this ten year time limit seems excessive. The commission has to be efficient. It's a question of credibility. I'm sorry. We've lost the speaker. We've lost the speaker. Let me resume. As I say, the ten year duration is excessive. I think the commission needs to be efficient. It's a question of the credibility of the most ambitious logo when it comes to animal welfare sustainability. We're talking about harmonization in Europe, and I think we have that when it comes to organic production. Of course, we have to guard against unfair competition. And when some things are authorized under the EUA stabilization for organic wines, that's not the case in the EU. That, of course, does create problems. But of course the the problems don't always arrive from abroad. And there are some problems facing organic farmers that are home based. When France maintains its support for organic farming, that doesn't necessarily build in any visibility as far as the sector is concerned.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “The next speaker is for the left. One minute. The last speaker for the shadow rapporteur. We've got ESN who's not there. Is there anyone here from ESN who wants to take the floor? No they're EP. Okay, well, in that case, we finished the shadow rapporteurs and we can move on to catch the eye.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much, Miss Ivanova, for this very important presentation. It's a good thing that the ECA is looking at agriculture in the outermost regions, given that there are recommendations about the future of pussy. As you said, these areas need specific support given their characteristics and also the issue of food security for the populations. The imbalance between the traditional sectors and the other sectors, we certainly should not. Do anything that that would enable these imbalances to to, to persist, especially when it comes to, to, to sugar. And I think that speciality sugar should be protected. And the request to activate the safeguard measures. Is something that should be done very quickly. And then in terms of animal rearing, we need to bear in mind that it is not the only possible action. There's also other measures that can be taken to improve food security in the outermost regions, and to encourage cooperation between different agricultural strands. What's been successful in La Réunion should be broadened out to other outermost regions. What do you think of this idea? Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “(16:49:40 – 16:56:56): Yes. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for this presentation. I would like to share some of my thoughts. Indeed, these fertilizers are fundamental. They have an influence on farmers' decisions. But to say that it's an emergency when the bombs fell on the February 28 and it's the June 2 seems a bit exaggerated. Our farmers are suffering because of the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz as well as the cost of fuel. So we know that there's an impact on inflation and food prices, and we already lived through this with the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Now I've already said this to the commissioner during the plenary. In a situation of emergency, the farmers need a strong signal and these €200,000,000 with another €200,000,000 perhaps from the member states is not very serious because if we look at the area involved, even just of cereal, it means it's €10 per hectare. So you can see that inflation is actually much higher. Now as for the long term solutions, I think that the plan is quite satisfying because it considers various elements. We have to consider fertilizers and the carbon tax should help to have a European production, but I don't think it will be implemented soon and yet it's urgent. So we do have to speak of this suspension. And then there is strategic storage. It was fundamental since 2020, since COVID, but in the end, we keep repeating the same mistakes every 2 years. We know that there are problems with supplies at a world level. Cheap supplies are finished, and we need to get ready. Will we be ready for the next crisis, question mark? Yes. Thank you. I think we need to remember the reasons for crisis. It's the EU that's responsible. The sanctions against Russian gas have increased the prices of this, substance that's used for fertilizers and we have seen a degradation of European competitiveness. The adjustment mechanism, the carbon adjustment mechanism in a fragile context in Europe contributes to raising the price of fertilizers, and we are the only group that didn't vote in favor of the CBAM. And what is the commission proposing in this situation? They call it a plan, but it's just a Band Aid on huge wounds, wounds that are self inflicted. Now we're speaking of taking the money that was destined to farmers to compensate the damage created by European policies. Now I've taken various notes, and I see we want to replace mineral fertilizer with biofertilizers, but this isn't very realistic. Let's look at France. The cereal region is in Bosch, but there's no livestock. So where are we gonna find the manure? We could do that in Britannia, probably, but those who want to destroy livestock and cattle are the ones who are now asking us to use manure. So contrary to European Commission, the patriots listened to the farmers. They were there in Strasbourg and they were telling us that the fertilizer plan is not satisfying. We asked to get rid of the sanctions that make gas more expensive. We asked for a sovereign European supply, but to do this, we need to produce decarbonized hydrant from nuclear energy. We need to simplify rules and standards and reduce the burden for this industry. We also have to avoid the next bomb, the next crisis. We have to suspend the CBAM at the border. And I'll give you some figures. If we continue like this in 2030, the tax will be €300 per ton of fertilizer, and this is impossible for our farmers. These are the measures that our farmers need, not these little solutions the commission has found. Yes. Thank you, chair. And I'd also like to thank miss Wagner. This action plan is a step in the right direction, and we had been asking for it for a long time. It recognizes the seriousness of the problem and the need to strengthen strategic autonomy for agricultural input. Amongst the elements we appreciate, we have the recognition of the role of the state. But we have to speak of bio flexes, biomaterials. We must consider them as waste. We need a circular economy that depends less on imported mineral fertilizer. We also appreciate that we recognize the need for nutrients at a European level and at a company level. The transfer of nutrients from countries where there is a surplus to the others is useful, but there are still problems to solve. We appreciate the greater flexibility with cap resources, but we need instruments that can be used in the short term. The prices for these fertilizers are very high, and many farmers are reducing their surface areas. And we need to know what support they will receive before the next crops. Plus, there's the carbon cost. Carlo, you can please slow down. Yes. Fertilizers were excluded from import tariffs, import duties for a year, but they still pay ETS. This means we risk helping them on 1 side, but damaging them on the other hand because European production still has the c o 2 prices to pay for. That's why we want to exclude fertilizers from CBAM and ETS because this is the only consistent solution. That's the only way to protect our companies and European food security.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you very much. To say that I'm skeptical about the commission's presentation is putting it mildly. We're trying and we've been trying for a long time to create a protein Sector for human and animal consumption, and we import a lot of soya from there. However, you've got soya cake on the one hand and you've got soya oil on the other hand. And you're now we're now being told that we can continue to be able to use it for the cake for human and animal feed, but there's no out outlets for soya oil. So that's going to destroy one of the few sectors for protein production. We're being encouraged to import all of our soya cake for animal feed and to leave the oil, go to other countries such as Brazil, who used a lot. I think this is a total failure when it comes to the commission's policy and when the commissioner is Suggesting that we focus on protein production from a vegetable source. I can't understand why in the commission, you can't talk to each other and find out what the efficient measures are. The delegated act makes no sense.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “(15:53:14 – 15:54:40): Merci, madam Thank you very much, madam chair. Well, the commission is just praising the flags. Fantastic organization. They are doing so well in using European funds. All number of, praise, about what they're doing. But what about the future? It's all in the conditional. They could it might be possible that, but, basically, it's gonna be up to the member states. I don't know what you can tell them on occasion next seminar. Well, you just, have to trust your member states. You're gonna get your money. I'm sorry. Nobody will will believe that around this table. Everybody is singing the praises of the efficiency of this mechanism, working very close to coastal and fisheries communities. So, yes, something needs to be done, but seeing what you're proposing here, it's not enough. We we, you know, we don't think that this is gonna be sufficient. I mean, it's all well and good singing the praises of somebody, but if it's a funeral, maybe it's not a good thing. And I think we have to understand that. Putting the ball in the member states court saying it's up to them. They'll find a solution. Well, we won't be there to see what damage is caused. Senor Miyanmon. Mister Miyanmon.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• “President. Commissioner. Colleagues, let's not fight the wrong battle. The vast majority of farmers, like our citizens, do not want simplification that goes hand in hand with deregulation. What farmers can't stand is being given high targets without being given the means to achieve them. And we can understand them. So yes, we must move from constraints to incentives. That is essential. To do that, we need an adequate budget. And we also need protection against excessively low prices and unfair competition. Celine Ima's report is along these lines, notably by strengthening producer organizations. But what will remain of this if in the next Multiannual Financial framework, there are no longer any funds earmarked for fruits and vegetables, viticulture and other sectors? Europe cannot stand idly by and depend solely on the generosity of Member States. Commissioner, this is a Damocles sword hanging over the Cap's greatest achievement in developing cooperation between farmers. We must find a solution to these legitimate concerns, so that the work that you've done and the work that's been done by Celine, EMA and by our colleague André Rodrigues, is respected here in this Parliament. Thank you very much.”
  Agricultural funding
• “In particular. First and foremost, our report is an opinion for the competent committee. In other words, uh, budget and budget control committees. That's why I think we should focus on those aspects for which the Agriculture Committee can provide genuine added value. Our priority has to be as to focus clearly on issues relating to agricultural policy. In this context, I don't believe it would be wise to question fundamental principles about budgetary law in the EU, and that applies in particular to the do no significant harm principle. Of course, we could and should discuss the way in which this principle can be implemented and developed in the future in the within the context of the CAP. But, um, I wonder about getting rid of it. In total from the regulation, we should focus on practical implementation rather than the abolition of a fundamental budgetary principle in the EU. Um, impact. I think that what we have already should be maintained, particularly those relating to income and environmental performance. This is the only way in which to objectively determine whether the Cap is really achieving its objectives. The ECA has once again stressed today during our discussions that in the absence of relevant impact indicators in the future, um, we will only be able it will be difficult to measure whether the policies of the EU and their objectives have been achieved. Add to that the fact that collecting of data in this field is already working and providing reliable information right now. And it's in this context of a future cap, which is more hinged on subsidiarity, that I think it would be contradictory to give up on the database.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you. For the Greens, Nicolae Ștefănuță. Merci. **Nicolae Ștefănuță: Thank you very much. I'm going to speak in Romanian. Dear colleagues, I listened to what the other groups had to say, especially the right and the far right groups. Mrs. Lincoln gave us an idyllic reality where everything looks good. The member states are monitoring everything, and they have very robust systems. Well, it's not only in my country that people are stealing wood and cutting down trees illegally, but other companies and people in other countries are doing this Illegally, and if so, if we don't have a monitoring system that uses satellite images and has clear objectives, we will keep tricking ourselves and the generations to come. I think that this legislation is not a burden at all. It is an intelligent investment in our future. We are simply giving them instruments to use and we are contributing to an easier life for forest owners. It's not only about the environment and ecology. Like our colleague said, it is also about the economy. So I think we should adopt this law, this legislation, these measures are necessary for both parties. Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much, sir, for presenting the report on future simplification. Things are even more complicated, and we already have the second simplification, and we're not going directly, but it will also have an impact on farmers, simplifying things, and things that are going to be easier for patients with a ceiling. This is a good thing, provided the States and Chancellor, and I would like to come and simplify things a lot for the Member States, and then for farmers, the management problems of the Member States that we are subjected to and those of farmers, and I must say to those who think that it is forgotten and things that are climate change. So, I really encourage you, and in everything that is in this simplification, it was not in point, therefore, work on the board.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you to the Commission for the very exhaustive presentation on the state of forests. I think it's important that the commission really looks at forests. We see that this is shared between member states and the European Union. I was particularly struck by what you said about the dimension of forests and and how much that affects our future, be it resilience to climate change, but also the way that economy needs to develop. You showed that we already have quite a lot of information which allows us to monitor the state of forests. But we could go further. And that's the aim of the regulation on forest surveillance, which I'm a co-rapporteur with Emma Vesna, to be able to set up member state cooperation between them and the commission to better use the data, be it satellite or land data. We think that's a vital because we need to have data indicators that are standardized and objective. We need to respect the ambition of the text and its geographical dimension. Some member states already have significant means, but others are lagging behind. So those who are ahead of the game really need to bring forward the others. And I'd like to stress that data is broadly available. The regulation on forest monitoring should enable cooperation and checks between member states. Of all this data, the situation would be better, but new remote detection technologies would help considerably. Again, we need to have a standardized objective data. Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Agricultural products are no longer a taboo subject as they have been in previous years. We must turn the page and the proposal from the commission leads the way on that. We don't want to be nostalgic. We want to be pragmatic. And, uh, I believe that some of my colleagues are very interested in strategic food stocks. Secondly, Mr. Pascoe brought this up the question of the European programme for schools. The school's milk scheme. We have to make a few amendments to that. On the nutritional side of things. But first of all, we do have to have a key programme of partnerships at regional level. We know that the reform of public procurement will allow us to go Local. And if we give this money to a child, €1 to the child, then it's also a euro for the farmer. We have to arrange it so that our farmers get the best prices possible through the cap. And the regulation has many measures in that regard. We do have to find some solutions so that Member States can catch up on the delay that they have had, for example, in milk cows. We have to make important advances in vegetable proteins or hemp and sugar. We have to improve, therefore what is being proposed. And another subject I won't go into too many details, but we have a proposal from the Commission on Meat beef. This is already suspended. Still being negotiated. We also realize that we have to take into consideration the breakdown of certain items in the NRP regulation, and we have to be sure that there is coordination with the Cap regulation.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you chair. Thank you very much indeed, director, for your presentation. Perhaps you've concentrated too much on the omnibus at the moment. Of course. The Commission has been introducing simplified procedure on procedures for pesticides, which we definitely needed. But we need to make sure that we're not rushing too far ahead. We need to have simplification for bio controls for the least worrying substances. And then companies shouldn't have to go through very cumbersome procedures, which then means that farmers are losing out as they are in terms of copper. Then I'm wondering how we can have unlimited authorisations for low risk substances. How will we define that level of risk? How will we be able to use the latest scientific knowledge to define the risk? How can Efsa then modify its position if it doesn't have any of these self mandate initiative rights? And that would be something we need to know before we can approve the omnibus.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “You know, all zones are are relevant. All marine zones are relevant even at the high seas. Now, the issue of funding, that's not necessarily completely covered. Another issue is that we want to have a secretariat on European territory. Some member states would like to host this secretariat. And then should there be a whole article on surveillance and monitoring? But what about the resources to do that? Will there be resources in the future to ensure the monitoring needed under this legislation? That's an important question. Then there's also the issue of the rfmos where we must pay close attention. Now, look, we don't want to rewrite this agreement, but we want some tightening of the wording. And for that reason, I will be sending in some targeted amendments.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “But there are certain points that relate to sectoral interventions for fruit and vegetables. That doesn't work, as is the case for the wine industry. I think we have to look at the specific nature and history of each sector, and I think having the funding managed at the national level, as is the case for wine production, is interesting in terms as a tool. It's also because in member states, producers organisations, um, involvement is low. But however, this renationalisation does mean that sectoral policies are at risk in the Commission proposal. There are some measures which are outside ring fencing and there's going to be obligatory national cofinancing. Some of those involved are concerned that member states will therefore mobilise less funding for these sectors. So I think we need to reflect on some kind of non-regression clause for these operational programmes that are currently 100% funded by the European Union. In any case, those in the sector are requesting reassurance on the continuity of these programmes. And this brings me to strategic stocks. My third point. What's happened in recent days, and the increase in gas prices once again shows that having stocks available is the basis of independence and sovereignty. All member states have around, uh, 90 days worth of oil stocks available. And it's a good thing that the commission has put this idea of strategic food stocks on the table. I struggle to believe that these plans, however, should be optional, as the Commission proposes in particular, because it seems that we should be mobilising competitiveness funds to fund new storage infrastructure or the refurbishment of this infrastructure, particularly in France.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Madam Commissioner. Our forests are burning and we are looking away. But our thoughts go to those families who have lost a loved one, to those who live in the regions affected by the devastating fires of this summer. Spain, Portugal. Greece. France, the whole of the south of our continent has burned. In this assembly. We have a responsibility which is to bring about a European forest monitoring system to better anticipate the various threats that climate change brings us. The European Commission has made an ambitious proposal in order to develop the cooperation between member states and the EU. But today I hear from the right and the far right of this House, other voices who are opposed to this, and I say solemnly here, this beggars belief. Let's stop your crocodile tears. Forests are also a European competence. What will you say to your children when they ask you why you oppose these proposals? As co-rapporteur for this regulation, I call on all groups to assume responsibility, to find a way forward and put in place this European forest monitoring system.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you chair. Thank you very much to the representative from DG trade. Thank you for this attempt at providing a well-founded discussion, a description of the Commission's proposal on EU, Mercosur. Now, you said that you will monitor prices, but within the cap you already have agricultural market observatory. So and they keep a look on prices. So nothing new there. And also when we're talking about minimum prices that's already something that figures in the existing CMO. So any sort of safeguards that you've outlined here, they already exist when it comes to any FTA. And generally speaking they are almost never applied or triggered. So there's always a good reason to not trigger them. When for example, we're talking about sugar producers, they are asking for triggering of a safeguard clause with for three years now. But no, it's still not been done. No, it's not enough. This, that and the other because they're saying that basically this safeguard clause is not necessary, but from DG trade, you're saying that as though in ten years, the thanks to good functioning of the market, all risks of FTAs have disappeared. And I seriously doubt that when we're talking about Mercosur and if we repeat it enough, we have to also talk about the cumulative effect of different agreements. There are some amendments that I will be tabling that will ensure the safeguard clauses are, in fact applied to all free trade agreements, and there is some automatic triggering. We need to change our approach when we're talking about commodities, it's not just a simple market where you have supply and demand from different parts of the world that will actually meet each other. In fact, quite the contrary. Agricultural markets are a place where social dumping is the norm. Social security, food security is on the line. And what we are doing now is regrettable because we are further damaging this market. And I really feel that it's a shame that we have to negotiate something like this with the with the, like a ticking time bomb.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much. I'd like to thank members of the committee and especially. The chair. This is the start of the negotiations for the European Parliament. 31% of the EU is covered in forests and woodland. So it's extremely important, especially because of the climate debate there. We are seeing more fires. We are seeing more drought. We are seeing many problems linked to that. And in my department we have a we've had some strong winds and that has severely affected the vegetation and crops in my area. So what we need is a European monitoring system. We have very high ambitions and we're going to base ourselves on Copernicus. We have high ambitions and we have long term ambitions, but it should all be within our possibilities. The stake of involved in this text is to ensure we have cooperation between the national authorities, and that we have better harmonization of data collected on a European scale. So the recent creation of the group OFA, which is a meeting of various different forestry experts throughout Europe, it's extremely important, and I think that what we need is more work on the ground to ensure that we have national surveys carried out throughout the EU. Satellites are very important, but they will never fully replace data collection on the ground, especially when we're talking about environmental indicators. I won't go into the detail any further than that at the moment, because I think what we will be able to do is find the right balance to in the European Parliament to ensure that we have good negotiations and ensure that we have a positive outcome, and also to ensure we have good subsidiarity and the balance between the European Parliament and the national parliaments. We can surely establish that.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you very much indeed, Madam Chair. And thank you to Marie for this report. The Court of Auditors told us a few weeks ago how difficult it was going to be to monitor the amounts committed under the European budget, particularly in on this aspect, and therefore assess the effectiveness. It's not enough to have a roadmap. You need a pilot. You need pedals to change direction when necessary. With the renationalisation of the main European funds being proposed by the Commission. The command levers are going to be watered down even more with the CFP. We saw that we shouldn't underestimate the power of the commission when plans are validated, and that's why I support Maria's proposal, so that we can correct the direction when objectives are not being achieved and making states do that. So yes, we have to look at how much has been used of the budget and use the beneficiaries. But we also have to look at the impact indicators under the current CFP. And I think we have to be logical therefore in what we do from 2028 to 2034. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much. So we've got interpretation today, which is available in 21 languages German, French, English, Italian, Dutch, Danish, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese. Finnish. Swedish. Czech. Latvian. Hungarian. We don't, unfortunately have Estonian, Irish and Portuguese unfortunately, which by way of exception, as you know, it's very important to have good quality in terms of sound. So we would like to ask you as well to speak your mother tongue, because that will help people and it will ensure that your message gets well interpreted. So normally we have the meeting file that is available electronically via the EA meeting application. And that is the case today as well. And the meeting will be web streamed. I'd just like to take this occasion to remind members that the joint Public on Forest Monitoring for Resilient European Forests will take place on Monday, 13th of January from 310 to 510 in the afternoon, and we will be able to hear a number of external experts on these issues. Thank you.”
  Multilingualism in EU institutions
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for the presentations from the panelists. Now, I heard that we have the most effective livestock breeding in the world with innovation. But for around ten years now, we have seen a reduction in capital in the cattle sector in Europe. There was a significant increase in meat imports, according to one slide, especially from Mercosur countries, where the conditions are much worse. Now, obviously there is we need trade diplomacy to protect our farmers, but this is not what is being planned and we know very well. My question to the panelist is the following. On behalf of environment, environmental and social organisations in regions, What, in your view, are the levers that are needed to stop this reduction in cattle herds in Europe? Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner. You said in your hearing that you do this, and you have. That's good. Already these proposals are a good discussion basis, but there are some questions that arise. For instance, the definition of fair trade that your or fair commerce. Would that apply to imported products as well. The 33% ceiling in article 52 one. 52. No, that's not just for SMEs, but SMEs, but applies elsewhere as well for larger players, like for bananas as well. There are producer organizations existing But there are some that could end up being managed by agribusinesses. And I don't think that's the, um, the objective. I'm very pleased about what you've said on on the wine sector, but I can't see it in the 2025 Commission work programme, at least not in the same way as we can see the CMO reform or the Cap in the Commission work programme. So I hope very quickly it will be amended in that regard. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, madam, for those explanations. The temporary measures for trade liberalisation for Ukraine and Moldova, which are going to expire soon, uh, have constituted an essential tool that Europe has used in countering Russian aggression. We've shown our firm commitment vis a vis our neighbours, uh, in contributing to the economies of our neighbours in very difficult circumstances. Given that the deadline is approaching rapidly. We need some clarification on the intentions of the commission. Even if you've given us some detail already, and the effect of what conditions will be applied to any extension of these conditions and what form any extension would take and the scope that would be applied in timetable. Obviously, I've heard what you've said, but maybe you can clarify a bit more. Obviously, farmers in the EU need clear information and sufficient time to adapt to any change that may come in. At the same time, we recognize the importance of showing continued solidarity to Ukraine and Moldova in a fair and equitable fashion. Thank you.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Let me thank Mr. Healy and the Eeas for this report. Well, there's nothing worse when reports fall on deaf ears. And we've heard this before. You're very clear in what you're saying. The figures speak volumes. The cap has gone down by some 47% since 2008. We used to spend the equivalent of 0.66% of GDP on the cap. Now it's 0.29%. All the other world powers are doing the opposite. And how can we talk about competitiveness against that backdrop? What about food sovereignty? Everyone's talking about food sovereignty and more. Europeans are also affected by food poverty. I therefore think that we need to have a decent cap of at least 0.5% of GDP. Eu GDP. Let's go back to the article 39 of the t f t f EU colleagues.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, chairman, for inviting the agri committee here. As vice president of Vice chair, rather of the committee, I will try and speak on behalf of the chair, even though we haven't actually discussed the matters yet. But I am sure that the debates to come will be very fruitful. And we had a debate with Christophe Vincent. There are no secrets between us and looking at what was said this morning, which was that farmers are very worried about the Mercosur agreement. From Copa-cogeca to Via Campesina, everyone is against it. So, as has been said before, we need to carry out this communication campaign to explain the ins and outs of the agreement. Now there's this request to use fewer pesticides. And then there are these products that are being imported that don't respect our production standards. I'm not going to list all the various different products being used in these countries that have been banned in the EU for a long time. This unfair competition. Goes together with the Covid crisis and the war in Ukraine. And this all reminds us that food security. Cannot be taken for granted. We need reciprocity of standards. That's essential. If we can't make progress in this sense, then we will further foster Euroscepticism. For example, if you import a car into the EU, it needs to respect European security standards and there needs to be. Licences in this regard. The same should go for the agriculture sector. We need to ensure that standards are complied with to avoid unfair competition. And we must export our superior standards when it comes to health and the environment. This will be good for European citizens and also citizens in Latin America. I mentioned standard reciprocity in trade. This is a central part of Commissioner Hanson's mission letter, and I am pleased to see that. So please, Commissioner, how can you ensure this real reciprocity of our standards and avoid distortion of Of competition that will affect many of our farmers.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “I am one of those who proposes that a minimum of 20 billion should be established, uh, so that it can be spent on stock storage refurbishment. I would say that it's the lack of emergency stocks that creates distortions, distortions within the market rather than the opposite. And now this brings me on to crisis management. As the Court of Auditors said. It's good that we distinguish market crises from natural disasters, and we have two different tools to respond to these different situations. I also share the auditor's view when they welcome the triggering of payments for natural disaster criteria, but they regret that there are no triggers for payments for market issues at this stage. So we need an ex ante strategy in when it comes to crisis management set out by the European Commission. For every sector, we need a kind of handbook. We need to reflect on the kinds of crises that are possible and the tools we need to deal with those crises. There's no silver bullet here. We really need to reflect upstream on the links between the different tools we have available. To conclude, let me say that we're talking about simplification here, but we have nevertheless entered into a procedure that is incredibly complex, and it's going to multiply the concerns and uncertainties of the co-legislators and those involved in the various sectors. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “(09:23:50 – 09:26:51): Dear colleagues, this CMO reform is not simply a technical adjustment. It's a substantial issue. It's about the food for our children, the revenues for our farmers, and the protection of our sector as well as French sovereignty and European sovereignty. Behind the words, it's the same situation. We have too many standards and rules while we have imports that don't respect these standards. We can ask the most from our farmers and accept the worst from our imports. We can ask the most from our farmers and accept the worst from our imports. The school scheme is not a detail. We need it to educate our children, to educate their taste, to help the sector, to connect them to European products, to make them know what local products they have in their areas. We want healthy food in school, and this program mustn't be a standard product, which is not connected to producers. It has to be a real there has to be a real connection, not a symbolic 1. It has to be advantageous to local producers and nationals, and it mustn't open the market to the big producers who are disconnected from the small ones. I have to insist on 1 point. Milk products have to be at the center of the school scheme. Milk, yogurt, and cheese are fundamental products in order to have a balanced diet and and also to help the survival of this sector, which is suffering. We can't accept that this program confuses the situation, making putting milk on the same plane as the vegetable, alternatives. This program does not only distribute products, it's also educational, and this is fundamental. And the commission also has these programs in order to have cooking classes, farm visits. The idea is for children to discover the whole, food supply chain. And this scheme can't work if people don't know how agriculture works. They have to see and taste produce from their region. They have to be seasonal, products, and it goes together with education. It's an issue of credibility. We have to support what feeds our children and helps our farmers. We need simple rules, a priority for Europe, and short a short supply chain to help our farmers.”
  Nutrition
• “President, Commissioner, a lot of things have been said. I'm going to focus on the reciprocity conditions, which I think are crucial for fair trade in terms of fair competition, public health, social rights, etc.. Now, when it comes to health and safety, if we ban products in Europe because they're Carcinogenic or whatever. And we base ourselves on scientific reasons. I mean, we have to ensure that this ban is absolute because this relates to public health both here and elsewhere. So therefore, all decision makers, all agreements, all treaties need to include the same standards in those terms and all products that we in turn, quite apart from random customs checks or maximum residue, pesticide residue levels, I mean, we need to ensure that actually we need appropriate conformity certificates, which show that these products are in line with European standards. If we don't have that kind of guarantee, it'll be Europe that's responsible for endangering people's lives, both here and elsewhere. Currently, we don't have the conditions to ensure that appropriate checks will be in place, and we can't guarantee people's health. Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Mr. Commissioner, I thank you for taking this topic on board. The countryside is emptying out more and more every day and farms are reducing. So our food security is at stake. Access to land and, um, people leaving, for example. All of this is very relevant. However, I was surprised to read that you think that, um, it's mainly a national and regional problem. There is a responsibility for the cap and supports really do, um, really are important because people, um, the banks and young people are moving away from each other. Two things seem important. Um, teaching, um, for farming. And generational renewal.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)