Céline IMART

Policy topics Céline IMART is active on

What Céline IMART has said (60)

• 2026-06-16 “(11:38:56 – 11:40:23): Thank you, president, high representative. The agreement between The US and Iran may lead to de arming, but it does not eliminate the threats. Now Europe has said it's willing to add its contribution, but we can't really add a brick to a building we haven't built at all. It's very important, to have access to the Straits Of, Hormuz, but we've had no say. What happens if Iran ends up paying us, making us pay a toll or The US as well? What guarantee do we have when it comes to nuclear weapons, to the financing of terrorism on the security of our regional allies, on the future of the oppressed Iranian people? We are a market people are willing to trade with, but not a voice that people listen to. This crisis situation becomes, more permanent. We are erased from decisions, but we have to face the consequences, the higher energy prices, fuel prices, our farmers, our people are having to bear these consequences. So, madam high representative, how many times are we going to go onto the international stage after the curtain has fallen? Thank you.”
  EU-Iran relations
• 2026-03-18 “Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question The Commission is aware that the European Chemicals Agency proposed to include lead metal in the list of substances subject to the authorisation requirement under the regulation for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction chemicals (REACH) [1] . The Commission, drawing on past consultations with cultural heritage experts, is not obliged to follow this recommendation and does not intend to include lead in the authorisation list (Annex XIV to REACH). The Commission considers that lead risks are being successfully managed through other risk management measures, including existing restrictions under REACH and the recently revised occupational limits for lead. The Commission gives the utmost importance to tradition, artisanal work and preservation of cultural heritage. If ever additional measures on lead were to be considered in the more distant future, the Commission will certainly take into account the importance of lead in preserving the European cultural heritage when considering possible derogations during the decision-making process. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20251023.”
  Chemicals regulation · Mercury
• 2025-11-06 “E-004395/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission The Pact for the Mediterranean 1 sets out a new ambitious strategy. By investing in people, the initiative will reinforce the cultural, academic, social and economic ties that will make Europe stronger and more resilient. It does not result in expanding Erasmus+. The possibility for short term learning exchanges from any region in the world, including the Southern Mediterranean, towards the EU already exists under the international strand of the programme, financed under the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument 2 . Under Erasmus+, students study for a limited period (2 to 12 months) at an institution in the EU as part of their studies in their home country, returning to the home country after the mobility period. Overall, Erasmus+ promotes brain circulation, exchange and knowledge mobility and sharing of skills, not migration. Studies show concrete benefits of such mobilities for the EU, including by promoting the EU values. Moreover, the Commission is politically committed and legally bound to ensuring that organisations and individuals that do not respect EU values, such as the rule of law, respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, do not receive EU financial support. A 2024 recast of the Financial Regulation 3 includes an exclusion ground under the Early Detection and Exclusion System for entities engaged in activities contrary to the EU values, where this negatively affects or risks affecting the performance of legal commitments taken under the EU funded programmes. Should the Commission become aware of evidence of such activities, it may take appropriate action by excluding the entities concerned from EU financing. 1 https://north-africa-middle-east-gulf.ec.europa.eu/joint-communication-pact-mediterranean_en. 2 https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1d7e2bec-d688-49a1-bcfba67ba667514d_en?filename=ad-mip-2024-c2024-7509-erasmus-annex_en.pdf. 3 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast).”
  EU-Algeria relations · EU relations with the Southern Neighbourhood · EU-Syria relations
• 2025-05-07 “E-001835/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. The recent review of the Geographical Indications (GI) scheme covering agricultural products, wines and spirit drinks, slightly amended the scope of application for agricultural products to take into account the international regulatory framework, namely the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture. The scope of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 is defined in Article 5(1) of that Regulation 1 . At present, the Commission does not envisage a revision of the recent Regulation (EU) 2024/1143. Forest/wood products are not covered by this scope, nor have they been part of it in the previously applicable Regulation (EU) 1151/2012. Therefore, forest products have not been reclassified nor excluded following the GI review process. 2. Forest products are however, for the first time, eligible for protection at Union level under Regulation 2023/2411 2 regarding crafts and industrial GIs showing the importance the Union is giving to the preservation and recognition of products like Chartreuse and Jura wood. By 2 December 2026, Member States shall inform the Commission and the European Union Intellectual Property Office which of their legally national protected names they wish to register and protect as a GI pursuant to this Regulation, providing a uniform level of protection across the Union. By that date, or by the date the decision on their protection as EU GI is taken, existing national specific protection shall cease to exist. The Commission is committed to enhancing the visibility and consumer awareness of the newly established scheme for crafts and industrial GIs to ensure they will enjoy strong market recognition as their agricultural counterparts. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1143/oj. 2 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2411/oj.”
  Management of EU forests · EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
• 2025-03-18 “E-001128/2025 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the funding of MEN4DEM 1 . The project will contribute to the expected impact of the Horizon Europe area of intervention on democracy and governance 2 . The call under which the project is funded stated that the implementation of the research activities should develop evidence-based innovations, policies and policy recommendations that expand political participation, social dialogue, civic engagement, gender equality and inclusiveness 3 . The preparation of the work programmes and calls of Horizon Europe are guided by the programme's operational objectives, as outlined in the Specific Programme Decision 4 . For the area of intervention on democracy and governance, under cluster 2 ‘Culture, creativity and inclusive society 5 ’, these objectives aim to strengthen democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights. In addition, a collaborative and consultative process with stakeholders, Member States and experts, ensures that the calls’ topics are relevant and aligned with the programme's objectives. The selection of projects for funding is based on an independent evaluation by external experts, assessing submitted proposals against three criteria: excellence, impact, and quality and efficiency of the implementation. Apart from social sciences and humanities, Horizon Europe funds research on other key thematic sectors, including artificial intelligence, health, energy, and environment. Overall, and during its first three years of implementation, Horizon Europe could not fund nearly seven out of ten high-quality proposals 6 due to a lack of sufficient budget 7 . 1 https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101177356. 2 I.e. the reinvigoration of democratic governance through, among others, the expansion of active and inclusive citizenship (see Horizon Europe Strategic Plan 2021-2024, p. 45 at https://op.europa.eu/s/z5ah). 3 https://europa.eu/!JHk7XR, pp. 12-23. 4 Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 of 10 May 2021, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2021/764/oj/eng. 5 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe/cluster-2-culture-creativity-and-inclusive-society_en. 6 Proposals with an evaluation score above the minimum quality threshold defined in the call. 7 See the Communication Horizon Europe: Research and Innovation at the heart of competitiveness, COM(2025) 189 final, at https://europa.eu/!897NPW.”
  Research priorities within the EU · Governance of academic priorities within the EU
• 2025-01-06 “E-000011/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Following complaints from some Member States and EU importers on the way Brazil issues certificates of origin for imports of poultry products into the EU possibly jeopardising those imports and causing the forfeiture of EU importers’ securities, the Commission raised the issue with the Brazilian authorities and discussed potential solutions with Member States, including the possibility to replace the requirement of the certificate of origin with other documents, such as the health certificate. The Commission will continue to discuss the issue with Member States, EU operators and the Brazilian authorities to find the most appropriate solutions.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU · Trade relations with Mercosur
• 2024-09-10 “E-001663/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission Olive oil marketing standards are a part of the agricultural product quality policy. Their purpose is to take into account the expectations of consumers, to contribute to the improvement of the production and marketing of agricultural products and their quality as well as to ensure a level playing field for EU producers. Since 1991, olive oils are categorised based on a number of parameters, including organoleptic and chemical, currently included in Regulation 2022/2104 1 . The organoleptic characteristics are checked by panels of tasters in accordance with the International Olive Council organoleptic assessment method. Panels are approved by Member States in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation 2022/2105 2 . Tasters undergo regular training and panels participate in ring trials to continuously improve their performance. In addition, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation 2022/2105, if a panel does not confirm the category declared by an operator, operators can request a counter-assessment, where the oil is assessed by two additional panels. 1 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2104 of 29 July 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards marketing standards for olive oil, and repealing Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012; OJ L 284, 4.11.2022, p. 1–22; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2022/2104/oj 2 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2105 of 29 July 2022 laying down rules on conformity checks of marketing standards for olive oil and methods of analysis of the characteristics of olive oil; OJ L 284, 4.11.2022, p. 23–48; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/2105/2022-11-04”
  EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
• 2024-09-04 “E-001616/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Vestager on behalf of the European Commission The Commission welcomes private sector initiatives aiming at improving the quality and transparency of information provided to consumers as regards environmental impacts of products. To this end the proposal for a Green Claims Directive 1 that is currently in ordinary legislative procedure sets specific requirements on the assessment methods to be used by companies to substantiate their environmental claims and labels to fight greenwashing and enable consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions. At European level, the voluntary label for environmental excellence – the EU Ecolabel 2 – was developed to guide consumers to best in class products in terms of environmental performance and at the same time encourage manufacturers to improve their production processes by meeting strict environmental criteria, such as reducing the use of hazardous substances, using sustainably sourced ingredients, and minimizing the overall environmental impact throughout the product’s life cycle. The EU Ecolabel is awarded to goods and services with proven lower environmental impacts in respect to similar products on the market. Specific EU Ecolabel criteria for cosmetic products are laid down in Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1870 3 . They aim at promoting products that have limited impacts in terms of eco-toxicity and biodegradability, that may only contain a limited number of hazardous substances and that use less packaging, which can be easily recycled. 1 COM(2023) 166 final. 2 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/eu-ecolabel_en 3 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2021/1870/oj”
  Green claims
• 2024-08-19 “P-001524/2024 Answer given by Ms Ivanova on behalf of the European Commission Currently, the Turkish organisation Şark Forum Derneği 1 is not receiving any funding from Erasmus+. It has however received funding in the past for projects now finalised. As coordinator of four projects, this organisation received (to be shared with their partner organisations) EUR 85 173 in 2021 and EUR 18 755 in 2020 2 . Applications for funding are assessed against the admissibility, eligibility, selection, exclusion, and award criteria laid down in public calls for proposals. The Erasmus+ selection procedure is published in full transparency 3 . The mentioned projects were selected by the national agency in charge of implementing Erasmus+ in Türkiye, as a third country associated to the Erasmus+ programme. Erasmus+ is mainly implemented by national agencies in charge of selecting projects, managing grants and following up on project implementation, under supervision of their national authorities and the Commission. In rolling out the Erasmus+ programme, the Commission, pursuant to the Financial Regulation 4 and the grant agreements 5 , is legally bound to ensure that programme beneficiaries commit to and ensure the respect of EU values and do not commit grave professional misconduct. If there is evidence that a beneficiary violated the applicable legislation during the implementation of a project and did not comply with EU values, the Commission and the national agency shall make use of all available means to terminate the cooperation and recover the EU funds. Furthermore, the Financial Regulation recast that was proposed by the Commission in 2022 and was adopted in September 2024 6 will introduce some specific provisions reinforcing the current setup on EU values and extend the list of grounds for exclusion from EU funding to entities when it is established that they have activities contrary to the values on which the EU is founded. 1 https://www.sharqforum.org/ 2 These figures are those granted by the national agency to the entire consortium managing each project after finalisation. 3 https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/programme-guide/part-c/what-happens-submission 4 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/eu-financial-regulation_en 5 Article 14 : https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/20212027/common/guidance/aga_en.pdf 6 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/09/19/financial-regulation-council-greenlightssimpler-rules-for-executing-eu-budget/”
  EU engagement with civil society · Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you. I must say that this is a great disappointment. It's not actually in keeping with the expectations of member states or the Parliament. We have seen a drop in the budget. We've gone from 325 to we've seen a huge drop in the budget and no, no measure taken off inflation. So you're saying that we can perhaps go and get 100 or a couple of hundred million euros extra somewhere? Not sure. Apart from the 40 million from the competitive funds that you talked about. But I think that's going to have to turn to the national plans. And there's going to be continual fights for the budget within the member states with terrible distortion of competitiveness. So I think it's the end of our of of our policy. We're, we're we're talking here about sabotaging the farming community. This you're telling the farmers that you're not a strategic sector. You've got to do better with less means. And we're going to be able to putting we're going to be looking elsewhere across the world for our food production. Commissioner, I see that you are very enthusiastic in defending your proposal and very intelligently as well. But for us, this is not and cannot be a working basis for agriculture. We would ask you to withdraw it. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, Mr. Basco. This observatory is major progress in lending greater transparency to all of this, and having a better understanding of how the value is distributed across the various parts of the chain. As my colleague has said previously, we already have the French Observatory on price and margin setting, and it plays a major role in identifying commercial trading practices that have an impact on the chain. All of that information is very detailed, accessibly accessible, publicly. It's available to the decision takers, but also to the public at large. And that is really a major advantage because, as I said, it leads to greater transparency and better consistency across the various rules so that we can have fair competition rules in place. And I'm thinking now of what we can do on unfair trading practices. I think it's really a boon to have an observatory of this type of calibre, an observatory in and by itself won't solve everything, of course, but it will bring together the data. And collect that for decision makers so that they can have a look at this. And make sure that profit is shared more equally throughout the chain. Then the large distributors and then being grouped together in large. Purchasing centers. Well, they used the more favorable national law in doing that. And that works to the detriment of farmers who need to be protected more. Has the Commission identified this circumventing practice, and if so, how broad is the practice and what is the impact on the whole chain? Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Commissioner. Colleagues. America First is more than a slogan. It's a weapon that is threatening, taxing and working. While Trump is using his axe to get us to buy, the, um, commission is just using its time as a knife. It's too little, too late. When you've got a bulldozer, you need to be a wall. And our products are being taxed at 10%. It's the farmers who actually worried about their future. It's families who risk losing everything and about local authorities that are suffering. I'd like Europe to be at the negotiating table as opposed to be on the menu for the, um, retaliation. What we need is more action. Our companies aren't waiting for Brussels. They're negotiating with Washington. And unfortunately, they're right for the American president. A company that employs 100,000 is worth much more than someone who hasn't really been strongly elected. You need to be ready for what happens after. We need to apply the recommendations in the report. We need to protect our strategic sectors, and we need to make sure that we have true economic sovereignty. If the Europe is going to be playing chess with someone who's eating up the pieces, well, then you need to make sure you've got some spare parts.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the rapporteur. I submitted some amendments. First of all, the 5% of a protein feed for poultry. That should be transitional because it is fundamental for producers of organic eggs and chicken. On the size of farms, the commission proposes limitless sized farms. This is a new rule that will lead to competition distortion in the EU. It will affect those who already respect building rules, among others. In addition, the Commission wants to put a reference into a poultry and feathers, and this really makes the text even harder to understand. The current wording should be kept as close as possible. I also put in an amendment to. On production for poultry production. And. This is a physical. A this is a method that's already authorized. And it's also authorized for organic wines. And this would deprive our producers of this wine production technique. Thank you.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “Commissioner. 60 years of common policy has been done away with. This is not a budgetary organization. The cap is disappearing. It's a single fund. A distinction between the two pillars is being done away with insufficient ring fencing. The member states will come up with their 27 plans. Why make this choice? Against the wishes of agricultural ministers of Parliament and farmers alike? Now, if on the line has ignored all of the alerts, Uh, we have basically, uh, lost, uh, the impetus here. There's been a drastic cut to the budget. We know how to do the sums. It's -20%. And I can't accept that this, uh, proposal is not a serious basis for future negotiations.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. Colleagues, I will be honest. This is an extremely disappointing report. I echo the colleagues of Mr. Dorfmann. Rapporteur, you have come up with a greener. Greener draft than the env committee. Obviously you look at agriculture. A negative point of view. You don't mention the benefits that agriculture has. And, um, and in terms of water management, there's no vision, there's no ambition just to allowing fatality to come in with a nature based solution. It's very vague concept. It's going to going to be catastrophic for in many different areas, and we need to be actors and not a spectator. I will table many amendments to try and rebalance the positions in this opinion. Thank you.”
  EU policy on water management
• “Thank you very much. I will read the statement on behalf of Jessica Van Levin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dear colleagues, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her draft opinion and the Commission for a proposal that shows how targeted simplification can improve EU legislation. My contribution relates to the Commission's targeted amendments to regulation on fertilising products. The proposal addresses a long standing structural problem in fertilising products regulation. The so-called Rich plus requirements have gone well beyond the rich, rich framework. Stakeholders have consistently pointed to high costs, legal uncertainty and barriers to innovation without clear safety gains. The Commission is therefore right to remove these extended requirements and return to the standard, risk based and tonnage dependent reach system. This restores proportionally and coherence which fully preserving high standards for human health and environmental protection. In this context, I welcome the Commission's approach to microorganisms in EU fertilising products are also reflected in the rapporteur's draft. Expanding the use of microbial and organic fertilizers, as well as biostimulants can help farmers improve nutrient efficiency, soil functioning and productivity while reducing input losses and environmental pressure. However, these benefits can only be fully realised if the regulatory framework on nutrient management, including the Nitrates Directive, is revised in parallel to reflect this more efficient and lower risk products. As regards of the proposed digitalisation by default, I remain cautious about its actual simplification potential. While stakeholders are broadly supportive, national authorities have raised concerns about implementation costs, infrastructure and cyber security. Overall, the expected efficiency gains appear limited. Finally, I believe the Commission could have shown greater ambition by also including animal by products in the omnibus. Despite being authorised nationally on a risk based basis, these products cannot support CE marking, leading to fragmentation of the internal market and limiting scale up of safe solutions already used by farmers. To conclude, the proposal takes an important step by correcting disproportional reach requirements and enabling a more science based approach to micro-organisms and organic fertilizers. However, simplification must be applied consistently, and remaining barriers for animal By-Products must be addressed to support nutrient circularity and a functioning internal market. I will therefore tabled an amendment on this issue. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you very much, Madam President. Dear colleagues, this report is the fruit of months and months of work, with just one aim to strengthen the position of our farmers in the value chain. Revenue. One of their main demands in the 2024 demonstrations. Commissioner, you defended this first legislative proposal in this mandate, and you had a lot of courage. We don't necessarily agree on everything, but I think that there is one struggle that we're on together, namely more revenue and fewer norms standards. The purpose here is simple. We want to make sure that farmers have a contract with their first buyer. You need to put an end to the precarious business relations that exist right now. They're all too unbalanced. All too often. We need to guarantee fair remuneration for those who feed us. Taking into account the production costs involved, this objective is addressed in a pragmatic way. You could have a contract by email, or you could have an undertaking on a mobile application that would suffice. And then Sectorally and nationally we would also act through the sectors themselves. They would make requests to that effect. But there was immediately an outcry. It came from co-operatives. Many co-operatives said that I was actually their declared enemy, which is completely wrong. I mean, this is important. They are important, but they can't simply circumvent all the rules that we have just because they are made up of co-operative members, farmer members. We need to have clear information for farmers. In terms of prices in particular. We're not talking about demolishing a model. We're not talking about demanding paperwork for every single thing. But we are asking for greater transparency. I mean, just imagine you come to a shop where they sell shoes and then you go to the till, and then you're supposed to redefine all the prices that are listed, because that particular black shoe is not your fit, or because the model is not rigorously or exactly the same as the ones that are featured in the catalogue.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “(17:09:21 – 17:12:21): Thank you, madam chair, commission representative. The obsession with decarbonization is leading us up a blind alley. Our farmers aren't looking 20 years ahead, as you yourself said, and you recognize that they're living from one month to the next, the next half is to be saved, and they wonder if they will still be able to sow the seed without losing this time. Yes. On nitrates, there's been progress made, restrictions on imports moving in the right direction, possible buildup of fertilizer stocks is essential in the current situations. But we need to also look at the emissions trading system. When America is supposed to protect, increases the cost for farmers, we have to have the guts to correct it because trying to keep green policies green without taking account of economic and social issues is, I was saying that when a mechanism which has been set up to protect ends up driving up the cost of inputs for our farmers, we have to have the guts to correct it. Because wanting to green our policies without taking account of economic and social reality becomes a tax on the fertility of our soils and our farmers. And I'm still awaiting these so-called urgent measures, which are supposed to be announced next week. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Well, I'm really happy that you've presented this fertilizer action plan. I think that the agricultural approach can work, but it's not enough in itself because this reserve is used for other things as well. For example, drought, which we have to solve this year. So please provide further funding. Even if we were to increase the reserve to a sufficient degree, it doesn't mean we would have adequate fertilizers. So I think we also need to support producers of different types of fertilizers, for example, the use of digestate as well, but we could use effluent as well and manure. So we have to put an end to sanctions because they force up the cost of electricity. That's something else we need to do, and we need to support production and ensure that electricity doesn't become too expensive. CBAM, great idea to get rid of it. I agree. Couldn't we ask for a program for all of these changes? What's the timing on this? Because this should be introduced as quickly as possible.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you, chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cardone. Since Trump was elected as the face of world trade has profoundly been changed. Changed. We see that in the facts and figures. Europe has become a destination for, uh, products from all over the globe, mainly, uh, China, as a result of, uh, Trump's trade policy. Imports from China is a massive challenge in terms of respect of our standards. All sectors are affected, namely agri food. But I would draw your attention to steel. Steel is under considerable pressure in Europe with the, uh, environmental standards, production costs, unfair competition from third countries that do not respect our social or environmental standards. My question, therefore, is has still been clearly identified as a priority for the task force. And what are the main, uh, measures that you have in mind that could be taken for the steel sector? Would it remain a safeguard clauses? What will enable us to stop being so naive and become more competitive? Anything to that effect would be welcome. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Thank you. President. Minister. Let me speak in French. The program of the Cypriot presidency quite rightly underscores the importance of agriculture in our strategic. Autonomy. And I, of course, agree with this. Um, can we need to agree on certain aspects that will certainly, um, value the work of our farmers? I think, especially with regards to what we're doing in Parliament and the beef, um, denominations to protect them and protect the farmers, because now alternative marketing is now coming in. Can you give us your views on this? Are livestock farmers are already going through great difficulty. Thank you. Furthermore, with regards to negotiations on the upcoming MFF, what the commission is saying is talking about options for member States and not genuine guarantees. Can you say what you can do to guarantee us a guaranteed budget for farmers? Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Now, this wasn't known when this proposal was being made, but we knew that there was a lot of tension across the world. Commercial tension, climate change and so on, as well as what we've learned from the war in Ukraine. However, instead of strengthening the farming sector, the commission is reducing funding and this is changing the model. All the speakers have said this and members of the Committee on Agriculture. So my question to the commission is, well, what is happening? We cannot allow a situation where this proposal is being maintained. The ECA is saying this. It's unfair. It's going to create inequality and it isn't strengthening the sector. We mustn't forget the mission of modernising the Modernizing the situation. We're no longer talking about competitiveness. Young farmers who are abandoning the possibility of continuing farming. They're not talking about the the rural areas, which is part of the second pillar. And nor are they talking about investing and supporting in the agricultural sector. So what is the Commission thinking as the situation is today in the world? We need to ensure access to food. And perhaps the commission should just withdraw its proposal to Assad.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendments here. Well, we're going to have some simplified procedures, as we're expecting in the organic sector, which is in difficulties, especially when it comes to, uh, breeding conditions and especially when it comes to labelling for organic farming. That's also important. Transparency is important. Consumers need to know if the product is respecting European rules or if in third countries if the rules are equivalent. When it comes to 31st of December 26th. The postponement. This is recognition for equivalent countries. If this prolongation is because of legal security reasons, then it cannot weaken any of our other requirements conditions. We do need to make progress on labelling of the country of origin. Question. Could you say how the Commission will strengthen monitoring respecting equivalence rights to make sure that there are fair competition rules when it comes to the production of organic products? Thank you, Thomas White. Thank you. Chair. If I may a minute, I'm just going to clarify a few things from Bavaria. Well, we have seen difficulties in Bavaria and we've seen different since 2009, Austria and Bavaria, we have seen creative implementation. Uh, we've heard the commission saying we have to stick to the rules. Obviously we need clarifications for our farms, but still, there are still 250 new, uh, farms in Bavaria. Why? Because things are developing further, uh, plus 4% in the next four years. So let's not say here that, uh, something that isn't true. And obviously we know what sort of, uh, agriculture you want, miss von Laura, I think you've forgotten your calculations that, uh, you need a lot less input for organic than traditional farming, and therefore it's very it's highly productive. But we know what your position is on the issue. And then to Mr. Penley, I am standing I'm here for all farmers in the EU. But you're from the right. Uh, and you were discrediting your French farmers. The the healthiest food, uh, for France. This is from organic farmers. And you're attacking them here. And that speaks volumes. Uh, thank you very much.”
  EU policy on country of origin food labelling
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendments here. Well, we're going to have some simplified procedures, as we're expecting in the organic sector, which is in difficulties, especially when it comes to, uh, breeding conditions and especially when it comes to labelling for organic farming. That's also important. Transparency is important. Consumers need to know if the product is respecting European rules or if in third countries if the rules are equivalent. When it comes to 31st of December 26th. The postponement. This is recognition for equivalent countries. If this prolongation is because of legal security reasons, then it cannot weaken any of our other requirements conditions. We do need to make progress on labelling of the country of origin. Question. Could you say how the Commission will strengthen monitoring respecting equivalence rights to make sure that there are fair competition rules when it comes to the production of organic products? Thank you, Thomas White. Thank you. Chair. If I may a minute, I'm just going to clarify a few things from Bavaria. Well, we have seen difficulties in Bavaria and we've seen different since 2009, Austria and Bavaria, we have seen creative implementation. Uh, we've heard the commission saying we have to stick to the rules. Obviously we need clarifications for our farms, but still, there are still 250 new, uh, farms in Bavaria. Why? Because things are developing further, uh, plus 4% in the next four years. So let's not say here that, uh, something that isn't true. And obviously we know what sort of, uh, agriculture you want, miss von Laura, I think you've forgotten your calculations that, uh, you need a lot less input for organic than traditional farming, and therefore it's very it's highly productive. But we know what your position is on the issue. And then to Mr. Penley, I am standing I'm here for all farmers in the EU. But you're from the right. Uh, and you were discrediting your French farmers. The the healthiest food, uh, for France. This is from organic farmers. And you're attacking them here. And that speaks volumes. Uh, thank you very much.”
  EU policy on country of origin food labelling
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you for the experts for their view on this new cap. The commission talks about simplification, but it's less legible than ever a simplification that's actually making things more complicated. We need to sort this out because our farmers are going to end up footing the bill in many ways. Mr. Matthews, who talks about the role of the commission in governing this. We need to clear up what this will involve, because the commission is creating more fragmentation on the national side, more centralised controls from the European side at the same time. In other words, we're unravelling on the one hand and stitching back together on the other, they claim. So what are the tools that you can identify to actually reinstate some predictability for farmers, and reassure us that the CFP will be a tool to bolster their position in the food supply chains? Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “We now have seen a quintupling of sugar imports, which is a direct threat to our producers already under pressure. Ukrainian competition is not from small. Producers, but people with farms of 23,000 on average compared to 10,000in Europe. It's a big danger for our European farmers and for our whole sector. The second problem is maize and the fixing of intervention thresholds, which are floating the currently under discussion. Reform is an opportunity. And I ask you therefore one, how would these? Can there be an intervention threshold for maize and then a program to support, uh, our, um, lasting program to support our, uh, under pressure sugar producers? Uh, thank you. Chair. Far from me to call into question our solidarity with the Ukrainian people. However, this, uh, the the Ukrainian regime has led to a huge increase in imports of sugar and poultry. You're talking about a balanced agreement, and you say the same about Mercosur. But have you conducted an impact study on the cumulative effect of all these trade agreements? First question and second question. Well, in terms of the Moldovan agreement you mentioned today, do you have a quote of figures that are a bit more precise? Thank you.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Thank you. Chair. The aim of the Directive on Unfair Practices is to strengthen our negotiating power for our farmers vis a vis the buyers, who are very concentrated and very powerful. In what world would we have are reprisals against those who engage in abusive practices. A farmer who finds themselves required to refuse contracts if they would like to take. It's a David versus Goliath battle. But this is what we must do. 90% of all agricultural products are negotiated in European centers in order to escape more restrictive national legislation on pricing. The major distributors are not playing the game. They're pushing down prices and affecting those who feed us. They're escaping national controls. The methods to exchange information and engage in inquiries are needed in order to ensure that the rules that help farmers will be respected. I count on your support for this, to ensure that all of the European legislative texts will give back the farmers in Europe the dignity they deserve.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, yes. An agreement worthy of this name shouldn't be just chopped up. We have to come back to what the treaty says. Producing more, guaranteeing decent income for farmers, preserving our food sovereignty. And with the post 2027 cap, these objectives look more like fiction than public policy. The budget undermined, the whole build up is made difficult. And the dream of modernization promised by president von der Leyen is becoming a nightmare. What about her creative communication announcing budget means which apparently strengthen the agricultural world. Whereas actually this these are amounts which have already been programmed for. And we've just brought forward the timetable for their expenditure. So we're playing pass the parcel with the budget. This proposal threatens European farming as a whole, and this Parliament has to pull out all the stops to correct what is already a historic mistake. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Commission for the presentation. I'd like to bring up a very important question, a mirror measure, which would make it possible to ban imports of meat produced using growth promoters and antibiotics, things that are banned in the EU. In France, farmers have taken measures to prohibit the use of antibiotics. It's gone down 50%. Between 2011 and 2022. But if we want to be successful, we have to. Apply the same rules to our imports. The different acts that the Commission has adopted, including the implementing acts, are not ambitious enough. A declaration of honour signed by a Brazilian slaughterhouse, saying that no antibiotics were found in the meat is is not sufficient when it comes to importing into the EU. Imports from Brazil in 2024 led to an alarm being raised. There were flaws in the Brazilian control system. So my question is this how is the Commission going to implement credible legislation so that satisfactory controls are carried out? Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Mr. president Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen thank you for all of your comments. And I will of course take them into account um into this report on SMEs um on Inter-professional Interprofessional derogations and cooperatives and so forth. I'll take all of that into account and thank you for your contributions. I will focus my responses on, uh, the Greens and what they've said. And just a couple of reminders about normal functioning of, uh, how a democracy works. Greens colleagues, in a democracy, you don't all have to agree. It's normal and healthy to have disagreements between groups, but that's not a reason to lie. I think that honesty and elegance are important in life, but also in politics. So if I listen to Mr. White's, unfortunately they're not here anymore. But when I hear about their bad faith, when they talk about boycotting this supposed boycott of, uh, plant based proteins and so forth, meat alternatives, um, this is absolutely not true. This is we're not talking about boycotting anything. Um, if you want to have lab grown meat or alternate meats, but I don't want it to replace meat or promoting the know how of our farmers and are being transparent with consumers. And perhaps a second lesson, a lesson in democracy to Mr. Everding. It's not judges who make the law. Members of the European Court of Justice handed down rulings based on the law, but the law is written by members of the parliament. It's called separation of powers. The Parliament and the commission. The Council, they write the law and the Court of Justice makes rulings based on legal texts and then on labelling for meat. I would just point out the hypocrisy of those who pretend to support the meat industry, but often they are the first ones to defend these agro giants who are promoting ultra processed vegetable alternatives to meat or meat that's produced in labs. Um, this is not a semantic battle. This is a fight for our farmers and our food sovereignty. Thank you.”
  EU policy on lab-grown meat
• “(15:59:10 – 16:00:57): Thank you very much indeed, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank Christine Singer, the rapporteur, for this work, which is clearly moving in the right direction, in other words, protecting European livestock breeding. I will be tabling various amendments, so on a clear line of defending livestock breeding and particularly for excluding it from the scope of implementation of the IED. We can't treat our livestock breeding as if they were in industry with Exol files alone because the revision from 2024 brings a very serious threat to them. In France, for example, the number of agricultural holdings, poultry, in other words, would increase by 56%. For pigs, it would be from 8% of livestock affected by IED to about 40%. And at that rate, there'll be a whole area of our livestock breeding which will be stuck in additional red tape, and that's gradually going to suffocate livestock breeding. How can we avoid thinking that despite behind all of these constraints, the rules, particularly those on public involvement, are going to increase, and we are pushing living agriculture out of this. And then on the threshold, they're so high that they're going to seem impossible for those who want to continue to produce. If livestock breeding is seen as a problem rather than a solution for the climate and the wealth to be held onto, Europe is running the risk of sawing off the branch on where its food security depends. So I look forward to working with the Rapporteur and the other groups in order to defend the possibilities for livestock breeders and their ability, in fact, to survive. Thank you.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “Thank you. President. I will speak in French. Monsieur le directeur général adjoint. Thank you very much for this presentation, which I think really shows the strategic importance of screening foreign direct investments. Uh, I think, uh, the, um, initial screening, uh, comes uh, beforehand, which I think is very important rather than acting after the fact. If we look at adapting to geopolitical and economic realities, that's absolutely key. All of the member states need to have a fully operational, uh, model that really lives up to the challenges that we are facing. So we are very eager to see the outcome of the trilogues on this subject. And we hope that the requests, uh, about incorporating AI and semiconductors and biotechnologies, amongst other things, will be incorporated. This is part of our economic security. This is something that needs to be regularly updated as well. Our competitors have more and more offensive strategies. So two questions from my side. Why do we not include agricultural acquisitions which could affect our food sovereignty? I think sometimes we forget this in Europe, but food can be used as a weapon. I'm thinking about innovation in biotechnology and lab grown foods. And second question, do you think the revision will actually help us tackle global threats and challenges, and will there be further reviews in the future?”
  EU policy on screening foreign investment in strategic sectors and critical infrastructure
• “Thank you. Thank you to the director of Efsa. My question is around pesticide banned in France. There is a lot of militantism around this. There was a decision in 2023 of a molecule authorized in the EU from 2023. It's used in other European countries, in the US and in Turkey who are direct competitors. So the French ban flies in the face, in the face of your advice and the decision taken in 2024. This has devastating effects on entire Higher sectors. The case of this. Is a particular problem. And it's 40 to 50% of of nuts have been destroyed. And of the 50% which remain, there are insects which are eating them. So it's completely impossible to, to, to, to create products such as, such as Nutella or spread. So there is a French decision which is not based on scientific criteria and has terrible economic and social effects for farmers and for areas. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner, the ultra violent left wing groups infiltrate groups and institutions. They hide between, uh, masks. Uh. Um, these ultra right wings, uh, apologize for Islamism, uh, and shout out about Islamophobia. To protect their alliances. But they're not happy to hide in the shadows anymore. The founder of the Gene guard, who was elected a member of the France Insoumise, uh, Will, um, is being investigated in the case of the cantons killing. We need to, um, look at this connection between terrorism and extreme militants. I think there should be a European blacklist of ultra violent organizations. This would be a tool to help police cooperation and investigations, to cut European funding to mediating structures and stop them operating transnationally. Europe can no longer, um, be blind when it comes to these types of extreme violence. Thank you.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, this text put to us by the commission falls over the same stumbling blocks as the past one. Standardized provisions as if agriculture had no seasons, no roots and no heads of business. So we've got this new requirement. Dash do no significant harm. This vague concept. Nor are we targeting the aid which is transplanted into the fields representative of the Commission. Do you really believe that agricultural payments can bow before this abstraction? Do you really think that farmers have awaited this new acronym to understand that you shouldn't destroy your own lands? I'm not going to say anything about the new rules for implementing gender equality issues or other things shown as performance indicators. Well, we've been talking about simplification for two years, but we're going to end up with the same thing again so that we have Excel files and we lose everything and we lose our common sense as well. That's why I'm going to be tabling many amendments in order to remove the agricultural indicators from the performance regulation and under Cap, establish a framework which is tailored to agriculture, which requires me to measure and confidence in those people who actually work in the field. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. The cap are the roots and the wings of Europe. 60 years from its outset, it is all the more strategic where we know that food alarm is used by the powers of the world. It is a pillar and not just an adjustment line in an Excel table. And it will not survive a 15% decrease. Support for farmers. Should not be pitted against a building of roundabouts. You are the Commissioner for farming and you have with the Green Deal. And with the announcement of the simplification, you have shown that you are smart with the cross, with the cross-cutting approach that is different from the presidents who the president of the commission, who would like to save 5.4 billion from the Life program. Now that is sapping our farmers and the protection of the environment in my region. We have seen that there are demonstrations that are banned against law enforcement with Palestinian flags and LGBT. Q of flags. It would be much better if we use this money for our farmers.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. President. I will speak in French, please. Monsieur Directeur général. Thank you very much for giving us this state of play on the EU's trade policy. I very much welcome what has been done in terms of trade, defence. I have more concerns on the presentation with trade policy. I think the failure with Mercosur that has been contested really from all sides. The only way seems to really be to force this through. And I think, uh, that's a warning sign for these old stalled trade agreements that have all of the sectors together, where it's simply more cars for beef, for example, it doesn't really meet our geopolitical expectations or do anything in terms of sovereignty or protection. Tomorrow's trade agreements. And that would be, uh, my question. They need to be more targeted, more sectoral based, more intelligent, uh, there to help Europe and its populations, not to dilute our standards or put our farmers in a more vulnerable position. We want to support a healthy, uh, sovereign food supply, protect our strategic interests. So, uh, Deputy director general, is the EU ready to break its old patterns and to, uh, put in place new generation free trade agreements that are adapted to the world of tomorrow that are a bit less naive. Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you very much. Once again, I'm happy that the Commission has tabled this proposal for simplification of Cap. It shows what we've been denouncing for a long time, namely that some of the conditionalities is not appropriate. The proposal goes in the right general direction and takes a lot of burden off the farmers shoulders. I suggest that we should take away the idea of the national plans being in line with the green The initiative and the Farm to Fork, which is out of date. The idea is co-financing with the national means of first pillar measures, but that's going to lead to distortion of competition between farmers of different countries, which can only be negative for the European Union. And finally, I want to table an amendment to get rid of gate nine on protection, protection of sensitive areas. I hope that people will agree with me because gate nine is already covered by the the Habitat and Birds directives. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you. Good afternoon, dear chair. Dear Mr. De Meo and dear Shadow Rapporteur, dear colleagues, the EU promotion policy has not been reviewed since 2014, despite the Commission promises under the farm to fork strategy. So I believe that this report, which should really aim at contributing to a promotion policy that is healthier, more sustainable and contributing also to long term food security. So thank you, Mr. Mayor, for your first draft, which serves as a good basis. But there are quite a few things that I would like to add to this report. First of all, references to the Green Deal, the EU farm to fork strategy, and also the strategic dialogue on the future of the agriculture and food recommendations for a shift to more plant based diets, better animal welfare standards and a fairer, more sustainable agriculture policy must be considered under the EU foods promotion policy. I am also considering inserting a reminder of the special Eurobarometer 505 on making our food fit for the future. 79% of respondents said that they consider that marketing and advertising food that does not contribute to healthy, sustainable diets should be restricted. So why do we not listen to a majority of the citizens and create a policy that meets their expectations? So instead of putting a large share of the promotion budget into animal products, promotion programs for plant based food and protein alternatives, including legumes, pulses and plant based meat and dairy substitutes must be adequately funded to provide consumers with healthier animal welfare friendly and lower emission choices.”
  Plant-based diet
• “The EU promotion policy can contribute to strengthening the autonomy and the resilience of European crop protein production by encouraging consumers to choose domestically produced products, so why not use this opportunity? Also referring to the European Cancer Plan, to the farm to fork strategy and the Green Deal objectives. I think the fund should go into the right direction in this regard. I call the commission to gradually phase out the use of EU funds for promotion of red and processed meat. And no, I do not tell people what to eat nor what not to eat. But I oppose the idea that food that has been proven to be cancer examined by the W.H.O. should be actively promoted neither inside the EU nor the outside the EU. So let me finish, dear colleagues. The next food promotion policy clearly needs a strong reference that the EU must contribute to advancing healthier diets among consumers and to promoting farming methods with less harmful impacts and nature and on climate. Thank you.”
  Nutrition
• “Mr. president. Thank you. Chair. Member States approved on last October the written procedure to adopt the revised version of the EU Morocco agreement. Morocco is an ally. A key partner is a credible partner for France and for Europe. Its territorial sovereignty Cannot be undermined. However, when we're talking about farming exports, then this partner becomes a competitor. Between 2012 and 2024, there's been a 55% increase in exports from Morocco to France. That makes France the number one destination for Moroccan exports. 76% of tomatoes imported into France came from Morocco in 2024. This agreement will promote greater flow trade influxes and it will destabilize the agricultural sector at the level Commission. Are you aware that this agreement could exacerbate the massive influx of tomatoes into the EU? And what measures do you have in mind to protect farmers and to prevent trade distortions within the EU? Tariffs, quotas, safeguard clauses as mentioned by Miss Crespo Diaz. I call on you to be transparent and to give me some precise, pragmatic, clear answers backed up by figures. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Morocco
• “Commission representative, I must say that this these safeguard clauses are simply a fig leaf aimed at deflecting criticism from the agreement. They do not guarantee the minimal reciprocity on standards. And that opens the door to unfair competition. It doesn't deal with the public health concerns, either. There's no mirror clause. There's no mechanism for control, for scrutiny of this. We have quite a lot of trouble getting into effective monitoring of imports. Then. Furthermore, we've got an increase of 10% on quotas and let's just say the existing quotas with Argentina and Brazil are already overfilled each year, and these are additional concessions. You don't look at the market conditions required for triggering the clause. This will benefit the South American producers because they'll get additional profits on the volumes included within the quotas. Now, you say that these will be used in the most appropriate circumstances. Now these safeguard clauses can be appealed against in court in the case of rebalancing in favour of the Mercosur side. And they could ask for further compensation if they feel that this is undermining their quotas. So this has no legal certainty. So I think that we really do need to rethink all of this.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much. And thank you to Mr. Tsukanov for having introduced the opinion on regenerative agriculture. It gives very clear picture. Obviously, we've got to help those farmers who want to change their procedures, but it doesn't answer the main question. How can this go hand in hand with competitiveness and viability of holding's Food sovereignty is barely mentioned and productivity is not seriously mentioned at all, where it is a pillar of the development of regenerative agriculture. First of all. We have once again saying that agriculture processes are linked to various conditions. I've said it before, the cap should not be some kind of a white elephant. We're now saying that the farmers have to have traceability. They have to analyse, they have certain obligations from an ecological point of view, whereas what we really need is confidence investment in new things like bioeconomy and pay, not through bureaucracy. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendments here. Well, we're going to have some simplified procedures, as we're expecting in the organic sector, which is in difficulties, especially when it comes to, uh, breeding conditions and especially when it comes to labelling for organic farming. That's also important. Transparency is important. Consumers need to know if the product is respecting European rules or if in third countries if the rules are equivalent. When it comes to 31st of December 26th. The postponement. This is recognition for equivalent countries. If this prolongation is because of legal security reasons, then it cannot weaken any of our other requirements conditions. We do need to make progress on labelling of the country of origin. Question. Could you say how the Commission will strengthen monitoring respecting equivalence rights to make sure that there are fair competition rules when it comes to the production of organic products? Thank you, Thomas White. Thank you. Chair. If I may a minute, I'm just going to clarify a few things from Bavaria. Well, we have seen difficulties in Bavaria and we've seen different since 2009, Austria and Bavaria, we have seen creative implementation. Uh, we've heard the commission saying we have to stick to the rules. Obviously we need clarifications for our farms, but still, there are still 250 new, uh, farms in Bavaria. Why? Because things are developing further, uh, plus 4% in the next four years. So let's not say here that, uh, something that isn't true. And obviously we know what sort of, uh, agriculture you want, miss von Laura, I think you've forgotten your calculations that, uh, you need a lot less input for organic than traditional farming, and therefore it's very it's highly productive. But we know what your position is on the issue. And then to Mr. Penley, I am standing I'm here for all farmers in the EU. But you're from the right. Uh, and you were discrediting your French farmers. The the healthiest food, uh, for France. This is from organic farmers. And you're attacking them here. And that speaks volumes. Uh, thank you very much.”
  EU policy on country of origin food labelling
• “But I think that terms should speak for themselves and should mean what they mean. Second outcry that came from the hypermarkets, in particular in Germany with regard to this provision, but it's not actually in sync with the reality of the text. I mean, they're claiming that they want to defend the lowest prices for consumers, but that's not an acceptable excuse to ride roughshod over a text that actually helps farmers, defends farmers, and really enhances the value of their production. Second point made in Europe a preference for European products. Everybody's talking about it because right now we import 20% of the food that we consume. It's an alarming figure in an unstable world. We need to have a strong Europe and a strong Europe must therefore have food sovereignty. We must acquire it and keep it. Conclusion. Please tomorrow vote in favour of this essential text. It is essential for our farmers. Behind every farm you have faces. You have lives, you have families. They are working night and day, sometimes seven days in a week in order to feed us. Farm income isn't just a matter of statistics or abstract figures. It's a question of justice, of dignity, and sometimes even survival. And I shall fight to the bitter end to make sure that this text is carried. I thank all the members from all the different political groups who have supported this. I'm thinking of those who produce our food. They are basically the ones who represent our identity. They are out there on the land. I'm thinking of their struggle, their day to day commitment. And I say this instrument is the very least that we owe them. Thank you, thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you, Commissioner, for once again being here with us. And we're delighted to be able to talk to you on this. The. On the CMO reform, it is limited in scope, but it is one of the responses to farmers Issues to protect and to exempt them from competition laws. So I really welcome the fact that the Commission is trying to to explore some of these issues within the CMO. We need traceability and visibility for farmers. And a mediator is a. Could you tell us a bit more about this mechanism? That is something that exists in a number of member states. Already. A number of my colleagues have already addressed this in the high level working group, high level group on wine. Here we have the possibility or the opportunity to to implement what they've come up with. Why are you coming up with a new text, this new CMO text where the Parliament is working on the wine rules? I think we could work smartly on this. And of course, the course, the commission has its initiative power, but we have to give specific responses to wine producers urgent needs. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner, I welcome your wish to have a useful fertiliser plan for farmers. Flexibility for the Nitrates directive, a restriction on imports, two examples of measures moving in the right direction. But this plan unfortunately has the scars of division within the commission, where some people are prioritised with climate change, which is disconnected from the land And others say that sebum being suspended would actually harm farmers. Without farmers being solvent, though, there's no market without farming being solvent, there's no market. And that means that strategies are just nice words for farms that are closing. Yes, we need to reduce our dependency in Europe. But no matter how virtuous green fertilizers may be on paper, that's not going to help farmers. Now, it's vital that we suspend cbam for fertilizers to give some oxygen to farmers now, and in spite of our best will. Unfortunately, this plan is unlikely to provide them with the help they need.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you to the commission for the presentation of the progress that's made. Uh, I think this is an issue that comes back and back again. India is already one of our significant partners in terms of scientific and technological progress, as well as fighting terrorism and defense. But I would like to stress that agriculture. Once again, shouldn't just be a bargaining chip. And I would share the concerns raised by the rapporteur, Mr. Meister. Concerned about the sugar sector. Though I've heard that for the moment sugar has been set aside. India is the second top producer. Millions of tonnes every year. This could flood our markets to the detriment of our producers, both in the continent and in the outermost regions. So my question is this. I'd like to know what the specific approach of the commission is on agriculture. What are the various options on the table and including more specifically on sugar? And do you have numbers in terms of the potential impact on this trade as part of the agreement on the agricultural sector? Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “On the 27th of July, the president of the commission got into a golf match, which was basically an unbalanced trade deal. 15% for our exports, nothing for the US. Now I'm looking at the complexity of this. I know that our American partner is unpredictable. I know that our businesses need clarity and stability, but Europe has been trodden upon. The EP has been left to one side. The agreement was concluded in opaque conditions. We have capitulated. The promise of €200 million on US soil, AI and so on without the promise of military support. We're looking at reindustrialisation of the US and we're contributing to that, sacrificing our sovereignty Commissioner, to carry on with these negotiations, to defend and safeguard our interests if the negotiations are impossible. Do you have tools to fight, such as the anti coercion tools that we've got? Because Europe is a economic giant, this is a disaster and we are a political dwarf.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. Chair. The Association agreement between the EU and Israel is not a gift to the Israeli state. It is a text founded on mutual interests. And that should be self-evident. But I wanted to recall it. First of all, we are seeing a significant trade surplus with Israel in agricultural trade, and we cannot have further collateral damage of this conflict, reducing our, um, our foreign policy Uh, it is through. Trade is a no go. We cannot, um, replace it or replace replace it with trade. Third Israeli the Israeli state is a democratic state faced with existential threats. And the 7th October attack that was the beginning of this conflict is a reminder of that. Human rights violations are abroad across the region. And I'd like to highlight the suffering of civilians in the region. And at this time, breaking up a contact with Israel would be a calamity. So the commission, can you confirm that no revision of the agreement will happen in until a impact assessment is carried out on the economic, diplomatic and strategic front for the EU? Thank you.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “Thank you. Chair. I will speak in French, please. Colleagues, today we are looking at the mobilisation of the European Solidarity Fund for Spain, Mayotte and Réunion. My Spanish colleagues have already spoken about the situation in Valencia. But I would like to express the solidarity of the French people in light of the devastating floods that affected their country. Spain is our neighbour and moreover, our friend, and anything that affects the people of Spain, of course, also affects us. On to Réunion and Mayotte. Mobilising the fund is because of the significant damage caused by Cyclone Kido in December 2024, in Mayotte and in February 2025, in Réunion. The losses are huge about 2.5 billion in Mayotte, 8.5 billion in Réunion. And of course, that's without mentioning the human suffering. So we're talking about 65 million for Mayotte and 15 million for reunion. And I'd like to thank our European partners for their aid in light of these disasters, and particularly the European Civil Protection Mechanism, which has allowed us to provide effective support for the French authorities in Mayotte. However, my question is as follows. There's a significant gap between the level of damage that has been shown and the amount of aid granted. It's insufficient, both in the case of France and Spain. I understand that there are thresholds and clear rules for using these type of provisions, but given the increase in extreme climate events, is it not time for the European Commission to somehow, um, enhance these funds in a significant way? Particularly in light of the upcoming MFF renegotiation.”
  Funding for OCTs and outermost regions
• “Thank you president. Thank you. Representative of the Commission. As you said, the Strait of Hormuz is a clear revelation of the extreme vulnerability of our food and agricultural systems. Despite increasing. Normally normal instability are. Stability often depends less on strategy than the goodwill of the. Of maritime routes. There's no real plan to reduce our dependency on these critical products. There's no sufficient capacity to present prevent these shocks, be it globally or in Europe. Our food security depends on these continued movements, and the shocks are being felt by our farmers. There's an increased suspension on fertilisers. There's only half measures being taken. There are a few promising plans, but these are presented as structural when they're not. These things don't happen in press communications. They happen over time. So my question is, what is really useful in the short term? What can the Commission put in place to reduce our dependencies and to prevent these skyrocketing prices? We're seeing increasing crises. Are you planning on implementing strategic reserves and this issue with fertilizers? Are you going to deal with that? Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Merci. Madam president. Thank you very much. President. The EC opinion on the 20 2834 pact is clear and unambiguous. The existence of three different regulations will make the situation more complicated, will reduce visibility for farmers, which they need. Where can we ensure that we have the P of policy in the C of common? There is a very difficult situation. We need something which is not going to require a balancing act. But at the same time we see that funding is being reduced for agriculture. National management of a policy which is disappearing has is becoming more complicated because we're moving towards three regulations, and they're saying that the commission will need to fully carry out its piloting role to prevent weakening the cap in such a situation. I'm not sure if this question can really be answered, but I would like to know how can the situation be improved in the European Court of Auditors view to limit the damage of the joint, the common part of the Common Agricultural Policy, and if the Commission continues in this renationalisation ideology, how what impact will this have? Thank you. Thank you very much. The ECA is telling us that we are correct. The world is being turned upside down. Farmers today are very worried about the effect of what's happening in the Middle East and the price oil price increases.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you chair. We export more than a quarter of our pigmeat production to China. The new anti-dumping rules imposed by Beijing have serious consequences on our farms and farmers. It was cognac. Now it's dairy products and now pigmeat. Each time the same investigations are carried out, the same pressure brought to bear the same message. When China responds to Europe, it's the farm sector that serves as a target. In the meantime, DG Sante has found serious shortcomings when it comes to, um, um, uh, checks on imports of poultry into the EU. And over ten years we've gone from 20,000 to 100,000 tons, an increase of five fold of imports into the EU. So what is the Commission doing? Is it enough just to follow the impact of Chinese measures and then wonder afterwards about compatibility with WTO rules? That's not a serious approach. Whilst we're analyzing the situation, it's our farmers suffering unfair competition. We're analyzing the situation, but China strides ahead. So my question is simple. When are we going to start implying trade defence instruments that we have at our disposal in order to respond to the unfair practices that China is meting out on our farmers? Who are the first victims.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Thank you chairman. Colleagues. My colleague, colleague Norbert Lins talked about the concerns that our farmers have about Mercosur, which could be a fatal blow to the beef sector in particular, but also sugar, maize and poultry. We understand the promise, uh, that, uh, that, uh, uh, the, uh, implementation would, uh, uh, depend only on the good willingness of the commission. Our farmers are expecting something on black, black and white, uh, with, uh, with, uh, reciprocity of standards on hormones, uh, plant health traceability, uh, for example, in Brazil, which only, uh, starts, uh, at the slaughterhouse, what are the written guarantees that can, uh, meet those legitimate concerns? Second question, different sources talk about, uh, an invasion of the agreement by the commission. College of commissioners, can you tell us about, uh, the deadlines, the timescale when the parliament will be consulted. And you also say that you've responded to different elements. You've explained things several times. There's something you've never answered, though, and that is the question about the potential splitting of the agreement. It would be a democratic blow which would avoid ratification by national parliaments. Please do not evade that question this time.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “I'd like to thank Mr. DiMeo for this report, which showcases promotion policy and its important role. It helps to highlight the role of farmers, and it helps to improve the social fabric, particularly in less privileged areas. You know, these rural areas shouldn't just become chocolate box places without any farmers. We ask the commission to make the framework a bit more flexible. It's to and we need to make it possible to underline the national origin of a product. So then farmers can stand out from the crowd based on a criteria that is not just price. Then we should also promote wine and meat, even though people are just focused on health. Some would like these two products to disappear, but these are two high quality sectors, two excellent sectors which keep our social fabric alive. And that's thanks to their know how.”
  EU policy on country of origin food labelling
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. The link between Europe and Israel is organic, and there's a lot of diversity in Lebanon. And Lebanon is under the thumb of Hezbollah, which is throwing the country into constant failure. And. The Lebanese people are very courageous and believe in the future of the country. The Lebanese army needs to take control so that peace can be restored, and the EU should be there to offer macroeconomic aid and reconstruction, construction and in targeting the aid so that it directly benefits the population. I'm thinking particularly about the education system, the religious communities. We need to invest in our future and the stability of the region. The European Union is the European Union intending to give micro financial aid or anything else? If we get a peaceful Lebanon.”
  EU-Lebanon relations
• “Thank you. Chair. Minister. In New Delhi today, the president of the commission signed a free trade agreement with India. It's a modern agreement, beneficial to both parties. It creates a market of over 2 billion people in strategic areas such as Electronics and textiles Corporation on defense, but sensitive sectors are excluded on both sides, including agriculture. This is a choice made by India. They consider agriculture to be a pillar of their strategic sovereignty. They don't want to expose it to foreign competition. And I take the same approach. So my question is this under your presidency, would you encourage the conclusion of targeted sectoral balanced trade agreements like the one with India? We're thinking of Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia. Couldn't this method make it possible to avoid tension and controversy of the type that we have seen with recent agreements? Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Rapporteur. The exchange of letters. Procedure is a classic procedure, but when it comes to China, I don't think we can dissociate it from the political and commercial context because there are many differences between US structural differences and the retaliation measures taken recently on Pigmeat cognac dairy products. All of these measures are completely acceptable. Looking at cognac, we have 99% of our production of cognac going to export and €280 million over two years. This is the price that we're paying. It's affecting producers families because of these measures. Although this text is about a technical measure, I wonder why we're using a GATT conformity measure with a partner that doesn't respect the spirit or the letter of international trade rules. So my question is whether the specific context of trade relations with China can be taken into account in the context of this exchange of letters? Or will we go on using standard procedures with a partner who doesn't behave in a standard way? Thank you.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Thank you. President. Dear colleagues. I will speak in French. La semaine derniere. Last week we had the first trilogue regarding Egypt and Macrofinancial assistance. The European Parliament was represented by Chairman Lange and myself, and we made our position clear vis a vis council and commission. We want to make sure that European interests are respected and that our Egyptian partners interests are respected as well. The position of the parliament was explained very clearly. There are some areas where we're not really in a position of strength vis a vis the other two institutions, so that's why we have to take that on board. We want to make sure that the overall philosophy prevails. That is the spirit in which President Lange and myself operated. First trilogue, like I said, we validated a direction of travel. We want to be open. We want to raise problematic issues migration, human rights articles, also recitals we looked at, and we want to make sure that there is increased reporting from the commission on those particular issues. The technical trilogues will continue, and groups are being kept abreast of developments on a regular basis. And Monday next, on the 19th of May, we will have the concluding trilogue. Thank you.”
  EU-Egypt relations
• “The geo strategic interests are clear here, linking up with Mercosur given the ongoing trade war in the world. But, uh, this is a there are problems, massive inflation, which is causing problems for farmers, and a lack of competitiveness, which weighs on people's mental health and their financial health as well. And then we have regulators and institutions who think about producing rather than regulating. So, Commissioner, what is going to happen when Argentina leaves the Paris agreements, as they've announced? What about this rebalancing mechanism? This is going to directly threaten the legal sovereignty of the EU and member states. What are you going to do when when you say because you say that this agreement is democratic, but you're not letting national parliaments have their say. You have this billion compensation fund. Is this just a way of buying yourself a good conscience on the backs of farmers. Are farmers are going to be destroyed by unfair competition?”
  Trade relations with Mercosur