Christine SINGER

Policy topics Christine SINGER is active on

What Christine SINGER has said (57)

• 2026-01-14 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 23.3.2026 Written question The initial approval and the renewal of approval of active substances is granted if they comply with the strict approval criteria established under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 [1] following a thorough risk assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Commission will finalise the procedure for the approval of the new herbicidal active substance bixlozone in the coming months. EFSA completed the risk assessment for another herbicidal active substance, cinmethylin, in January 2026 and the discussions with the Member States on a decision for its approval have started. Both bixlozone and cinmethylin are effective for control of blackgrass weeds. The delays in the procedures for the initial approval of active substances are mainly due to the high complexity of the required scientific assessments and the fact that the Member States have to dedicate the vast majority of their resources to the large number of procedures for the renewal of approval of active substances already approved in the past. This is because of the current legal requirement that all approvals are limited in time and must be renewed. To overcome this problem, and to increase the availability of safe and effective new active substances, the Commission proposed in the recently adopted Food and Feed Simplification Package [2] to replace the current systematic time-driven renewal system, with a more agile approach that, if adopted, will reduce the burden of the renewal procedures and will free capacity in the Member States to allow faster evaluation of applications for the approval of new active substances, including biocontrol active substances as alternative to more hazardous chemical ones. [1] Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj. [2] https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/simplification-legislation_en.”
  Reduction targets for pesticides · EU policy on pesticides
• 2025-11-19 “E-004608/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission presented earlier 2025 a draft Delegated Act with simplifications to be included in Annex I of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 1 . The Delegated Act was subject to public feedback, and it will be adopted in due course. The Commission presented a proposal to amend the EUDR in order to reduce the load on the EUDR Information System and ease the administrative burden for economic operators, while maintaining the Regulation’s environmental integrity. On 4 December 2025, the co-legislators agreed on the revised EUDR 2 . The new date of entry into application will be 30 December 2026 for all companies except for most micro- or small operators, for which it will be 30 June 2027. For micro- or small operators already covered by the EU Timber Regulation 3 , the entry into application will be 30 December 2026. The amendments to the EUDR also limit the obligation to submit due diligence statements to the first operator placing the relevant products on the market. Downstream operators, such as retreading industry or craft businesses, will no longer need to submit due diligence statements, nor to pass on the reference numbers further in the supply chain. The amendments to the EUDR also introduced a change to Annex I of the EUDR by removing printed books, newspapers, pictures and other products of the printing industry from EUDR product scope. 1 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 2 Regulation (EU) 2025/2650 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards certain obligations of operators and traders, OJ L, 2025/2650, 23.12.2025. 3 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market, OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, p. 23– 34.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• 2025-10-16 “E-003826/2025 E-004075/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission Human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law remain key priorities in the EU cooperation with Uzbekistan. Their promotion is an integral part of the EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) 1 and the Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (EPCA) 2 and thus at the core of EU bilateral relations. With the signature of the EPCA, the EU and Uzbekistan reaffirmed their commitment to strengthen respect for democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the principle of non-discrimination, and to increase cooperation in these areas. Moreover, respect for democratic principles and human rights and fundamental freedoms constitutes an essential element of the newly signed EPCA. The EPCA also provides for strengthened civil society participation in economic, social and political development throughout the country. The EU continues to raise these issues with the authorities at all levels. This includes close monitoring of the human rights situation and the effective implementation of international conventions on human and labour rights, environment and climate, and on good governance to which Uzbekistan has committed. The EU systematically raises individual cases of human rights defenders in appropriate settings, including the Human Rights and Justice Subcommittee, where the case of Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov was raised on 24 June 2025. The EU will ensure that implementation of the EPCA fully respects its sanctions policy. Cooperation with the Uzbek authorities will continue to limit the risk of circumvention of the EU sanctions policy to the benefit of Russia and its war of aggression against Ukraine. 1 Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, OJ L 303, 31 October 2012, 1–82, especially Recital 17, Article 9(1) and Annex VI, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32012R0978. 2 Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Uzbekistan, of the other part, annex to Proposal for a Council Decision on the signing and provisional application, COM(2024) 471 final, 18 October 2024, especially Preamble and Articles 2–5, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2dc86d35-8d4e-11ef-a13001aa75ed71a1.0004.02/DOC_2&format=PDF.”
  EU policy on Central Asia · EU competences on human rights
• 2025-10-06 “E-003905/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is working to ensure fair competition and effective enforcement of EU legislation for all e-commerce players, regardless of origin. As part of the e-Commerce communication 1 , the Commission is implementing measures to address challenges posed by non-compliant online marketplaces, which are also highlighted by consumer and retail organisations. Key activities include enforcing the Digital Services Act 2 (DSA), which sets EU-wide rules for online intermediaries, including for online marketplaces that connect sellers with consumers, to ensure that traders (EU or non-EU) can only sell products on online marketplaces that are compliant with the relevant product safety and other requirements. The Commission has initiated proceedings against AliExpress 3 and Temu 4 into their compliance with the obligations of the DSA, has addressed preliminary findings to both marketplaces, accepted binding commitments from AliExpress and is also supervising compliance with the DSA by other providers of very large online platforms. The Commission is also advancing on the EU Customs reform which is currently in the final stage of negotiation and will be adopted in 2026. The e-commerce measures, such as the elimination of the EUR 150 de minimis threshold on imports and the introduction of a handling fee, will be the first to apply and require the establishment of the EU Customs Authority and the launch of the EU Customs Data Hub, to ensure efficient data processing and risk management. Their start date might be earlier than the originally envisaged date, March 2028. The Commission's stocktaking exercise of its planned actions will determine if additional measures are needed for effective enforcement of EU e-commerce rules. 1 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/e-commerce-communication-comprehensive-eu-toolbox-safeand-sustainable-e-commerce. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng. 3 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-opens-formal-proceedings-against-aliexpress-underdigital-services-act. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_5622.”
  EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports · Liability for online marketplaces
• 2025-09-12 “E-003526/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission Any amendment to a grant agreement legally requires the mutual consent of both parties, and in the absence of such consent, no modification can take place. The grant agreement signed by both parties is, in itself, the legal base, within a defined period. Outside of this period (before or after) there is no legal base to amend. The Commission has no indications that the grants referred to in the question related to nongovernmental organisations receiving LIFE funding for the environment and climate action 1 and EU4Health funding 2 have been subject to misuse. The Commission has not found deviation from the applicable rules and has informed the European Parliament on the result of its verification of grant agreements. The Commission has taken additional steps to detect and prevent operating grants for work programmes that could entail a reputational risk. This includes the guidance on funding activities related to the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of Union legislation and policy 3 . In case of evidence of any wrongful conduct, such as breach of contractual obligations, irregularities, fraud, criminal activities, the Commission will use all available legal means to ensure that individuals and organisations involved do not receive EU financial support. The Commission has replied to all the related requests for access to information from the European Parliament so far, in accordance with the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission 4 , and is committed to continue the loyal collaboration with the European Parliament and to comply with all relevant legal requirements. 1 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en. 2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-003526_EN.html. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/guidance-fundingdev-impl-monit-enforce-of-eu-law_en.pdf. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:304:0047:0062:EN:PDF.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• 2025-07-23 “E-003053/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Guidance Notices 1 on Directive 2025/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices (UCPD) and Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights (CRD) were updated by the Commission in 2021. Directive (EU) 2024/825 introduces changes to the UCPD and CRD to address greenwashing and enhance consumer protection. The directive provides for the Commission to update existing guidance documents to reflect the new rules, without imposing a specific timeline for these updates. Generally, the Commission updates guidance documents after a period of application has elapsed, allowing for the accumulation of relevant case law, enforcement decisions, and practical experience. Given that transposition of the Directive (EU) 2024/825 is ongoing, and the date of application is 27 September 2026, the Commission will proceed to updating the current guidance notices at a later stage. To ensure consistent EU application of the new rules, the Commission is engaging with Member States, notably through transposition workshops and technical assistance. The Commission monitors the transposition process through established mechanisms, such as the EU Pilot procedure, an informal exchange with national authorities, to address discrepancies in national implementation prior to formal proceedings. The Commission will publish in 2025 an FAQ to provide guidance to traders and competent authorities. This document addresses common questions and clarifies aspects of the directive's provisions. It serves as a provisional measure to support stakeholders during the transition period. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021XC1229(05)&from=EN ; https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021XC1229(04)&from=EN.”
  Green claims
• 2025-06-20 “E-002493/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission adheres strictly to its transparency obligations. Information about EU fund recipients, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), is published on the Financial Transparency System 1 . The Commission proactively shares the objectives and outcomes of funded projects on the Funding & Tenders Portal 2 . Furthermore, interest representatives not representing commercial interests, which would typically include NGOs, are required to report their lobbying and advocacy activities and disclose their main funding sources, including any contributions exceeding EUR 10 000 and representing more than 10% of their total budget, in their registrations in the Transparency Register 3 . The work programmes of NGOs and information about their work are publicly available on the internet pages of the respective organisations. The Commission has made available on multiple occasions to supervisory authorities (the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors) grant agreements of funded NGOs according to established working arrangements. The Commission will also explore the feasibility of incrementally increasing the frequency of publishing annual data updates in the Financial Transparency System, as per European Court of Auditors’ recommendation 4 . Operating grants to NGOs under the EU programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE) are awarded following competitive Calls for proposals 5 in line with the provisions of the Financial Regulation 6 . Applicants submit proposals that include the description of their work programmes in areas indicated in the LIFE Regulation 7 , which are then annexed to the grant agreement. The Commission does not prescribe specific activities in the applicant’s work-programmes. Applicants act independently and maintain full ownership and liability of their actions. A disclaimer in the LIFE Calls clearly indicates that applicants and eventually beneficiaries of a LIFE grant, remain responsible for the content of their work-programme, views and actions. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/index.html ((The annual publications are based on Article 38 of the Financial Regulation whereby data on recipients is not disclosed for very low value contracts below EUR 15 000 and where disclosure risks threatening the rights and freedoms of the persons or entities). 2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/home. 3 https://transparency-register.europa.eu/index_en. 4 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAReplies/COM-Replies-SR-2025-11/COM-Replies-SR-2025-11_EN.pdf. 5 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en. 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj/eng. 7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0783.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe · EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• 2025-03-20 “E-001189/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Access to open air areas for poultry for at least one third of their life is one of the key features for the organic production of poultry and iconographic images of this requirement are often used as a marketing tool. Rules on access to open air areas for poultry were reviewed by Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production and labelling of organic products 1 following the recommendations of the Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production 2 . Regulation (EU) 2018/848 provides a certain flexibility in the implementation of continuous daytime open-air access for poultry in relation to the physiological and physical conditions of the birds (feather coverage) or temporary animal health restrictions imposed on the basis of EU legislation but does not cover permanent structural settings without any access to open air areas or only access to verandas 3 . Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 empowers the Commission to set minimum surfaces for outdoor areas for poultry production. Annex I part IV to Regulation (EU) 2020/464 4 sets minimum outdoors area surfaces for different categories of poultry that may be adapted by Member States. Article 26(7) of that Regulation 5 sets transitional periods for poultry producers to adapt in case where structural changes are needed. The current regulatory framework provides high animal welfare standards for organic production in the EU. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/848/2024-12-01 2 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/580c76bb-6cef-4183-971328afaa983161_en?filename=final_report_on_poultry.pdf 3 Points 1.6.5 and 1.9.4.4 of Part II of Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/848 ‘1.6.5. Open air areas may be partially covered. Verandas shall not be considered as open air areas. 1.9.4.4 (h) open air areas for poultry shall be covered mainly with vegetation’. 4 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/464/2021-11-25 5 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/464/oj Article 26(7) of Regulation (EU) 2020/464: ‘7. By way of derogation from Section 2 of Part IV of Annex I to this Regulation, for holdings or production units producing pullets in poultry facilities built, refurbished or brought into use before the date of entry into application of this Regulation in compliance with Regulations (EC) No 834/2007 and (EC) No 889/2008 and for which major adaptations of the structure of the poultry houses or additional land acquisition are necessary to comply with the rules of Section 2 of Part IV of Annex I to this Regulation, shall comply with the stocking density and the minimum surface of indoor and outdoor areas for pullets and brother roosters laid down in Section 2 of Part IV of Annex I to this Regulation as from 1 January 2030 at the latest’.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2025-02-26 “E-000865/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission strongly supports the work of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), as the EU’s independent public prosecution office responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment crimes against the financial interests of the EU. It cooperates with the EPPO under the terms of their cooperation agreement 1 . On the issue referred to by the Honourable Members, the EPPO has brought suspects of fraud before the competent Greek Court, as stated in its press release 2 , and criminal proceedings are currently ongoing. 2. The Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) has performed several systems’ audits in Greece over the years and, where needed, applied the appropriate financial corrections to protect EU funds. Under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Member States’ Paying Agencies must respect strict accreditation criteria established at EU level. Following DG AGRI’s request, the Greek competent authority put the Greek Paying Agency under probation in September 2024 and drew up an action plan aimed at remedying the deficiencies identified in relation to compliance with the accreditation criteria by the Certification Body and DG AGRI. The action plan is currently being implemented by the Greek authorities. DG AGRI closely follows the implementation of the accreditation action plan and the risk to the EU funds under ongoing conformity enquiries. 1 https://www.eppo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/202107/2021.073_Agreement_EPPO_European_Commission_final.pdf 2 https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/media/news/greece-eppo-brings-100-suspects-to-court-eu29-million-fraudinvolving-agricultural-funds”
  Agricultural funding
• 2025-02-13 “E-000680/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission In line with the Communication on the road to the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) 1 , the Commission will ensure that the upcoming MFF is simpler, more focused and aligned with EU priorities. The communication highlights the importance of food security and nature protection for sustaining Europe’s quality of life and emphasises that a Common Agricultural Policy that is fit for purpose must provide targeted support to farmers who need it most, promote positive environmental and social outcomes through rewards and incentives for ecosystem services and support the right enabling conditions for thriving rural areas. It must find the right balance between incentives, investment and regulation, and ensure that farmers have a fair and sufficient income. The Commission is currently working on the next MFF and it intends to present the next financial framework in July 2025. Effective design of the next MFF requires involving various stakeholders. The Commission's approach involves structured dialogues, thematic public consultations, and active citizen engagement, all aimed at gathering diverse inputs early in the process. This ensures that funding is tailored to regional conditions and sectoral needs. The Vision for Agriculture and Food 2 also provides a long-term policy perspective on EU agriculture and food, which will guide the design of the future Common Agricultural Policy. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=celex:52025DC0046 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0075”
  Agricultural funding · Cohesion and rural funding · Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you. Commissioner, I know that you're on a in a difficult position. You know, new priorities, limited resources and great expectations. But what you're putting to us today in this form is not acceptable. You're selling this as a reform, but it's not progress. It's actually backsliding. Now you're getting away from the two pillar structure. And that really harms the planning certainty of our firms. And if you now have a single fund, Then basically the successful rural development plans will be done away with. This was certainly true in Bavaria where things were working well. All of that is now being harmed and that's not fair. What are the cofinancing rates for the former pillar two measures? I farms don't want a lottery. They need planning certainty and we more than ever before need security of food supply. And you're basically endangering our entire security of supply model.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. The idea of nature credits, of course, could be a useful tool, but I have major concerns where providing it's a good idea to provide new ways to finance environmental protection, yes, but not at the cost of farmers themselves. So how is the Commission going to make sure that nature credits remain voluntary and not become new restrictions for farming in coming through the back door? And also, how can you make sure that farmers actually are the ones that benefit, rather than the large scale companies and also agricultural measures. We hope that in the next cap can actually be ensured. And is that going to be linked with the nature credits, or will there be a parallel bureaucratic system? And also the model needs to be measurable and needs to be practicable. And we don't want to increase monitoring for our farmers the burden of that. And we want incentives, income incentives rather than more red tape. I hope the Commission will look at regional um, responsibilities as well.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. The new report is a good step forward. For the first time, we have animal specific data on the use of antibiotics in the EU. And that means that we can take measures that are targeted measures rather than having broad measures applied to agriculture, as sometimes happened in the past, are farmers have done a great deal bringing down use by 50% since 2011. But this approach must not end at the EU's borders. We need more than self-discipline while our farmers fulfil these difficult conditions. The commission has a field of tension between trade policy and other concerns. The use of antibiotics in animal farming is far worse elsewhere in the world, and we know that if we want to attack resistance, we need consistency between what happens on farms and what happens at our borders. How can the Commission ensure that meat imparts or are not an open door? How is it possible? We need to look at our trade policy. We need consistency of policies within Europe and with regard to global trade.”
  Antimicrobial resistance · Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “So how can you explain it? On one hand, Europe is calling for more resilience and more autonomy, but on the other hand, you are working against European sly supply chains with, um, your legislation. So we have to ask whether the Commission has has tried to carry out some kind of evaluation about what kind of impact there will be on the local production of soya in Europe. We need more regional, um, independence. And that's what we should be basing our decisions on. Thank you. Thank you chair. Today I will speak, uh, um German as a good example of my colleague. So with regard of looking at gas, coal, we could repair that perhaps with we can't really replace all of these with biofuels. Anybody. Um, it doesn't mathematically make sense. So I think we can't keep, uh, doing everything the same way as we have up to now, but we have to use biofuels instead. That's not going to work. So biofuels, biodiesel, other kind of fuels for aircraft, for example, that would be a small part of the puzzle, but we should rather be using materials to produce these fuels, which are byproducts and not products which would be used for food. That makes a difference. No difference whether it's in a soya is produced in Brazil or in the Amazon, where they've deforested in order to produce it, or whether it's part of industrial, um, whether it's industrial farming, it's, it's obviously good if we have soya planted in Europe.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Key colleagues. Uh, I think it is important that we raise awareness of this important issue of the pay gap. I think, uh, as a woman, as a mother, this is something that is very important to me. It's not just figures. When we talk about the gender pay gap, it's the reality of life for a lot of women, particularly women in rural areas. I see women who take on a lot of responsibilities the farmer, the baker, the entrepreneur, the carer and of course, as long as well as their jobs, they help look after their families, their relatives. And this, uh, unpaid work is quite significant. We need to make this type of work more visible. We need to give it more economic visibility. I think what's most important in this report is respect, respect for the work of women and their contribution to society. Thank you.”
  Gender pay transparency
• “I welcome the fact that you've put a generational renewal at the top of the agenda. Without young people, there's no future for European farming. Young people need a good policy that benefits them. The new concept, with 6% for youth and a strong package of credits, is an important step. It's important that all types of holding are targeted. Are farming lives on the basis of this variety? Support for holding representatives is an important point for social protection. If there is an illness or if someone has a child, they can't just close their farm down, but ideas are not sufficient. If at the same time we have a massive cuts being discussed in the MFF and the cap, it's the wrong message. We can't say. On the one hand, we want to motivate people to take on a farm and at the on the other hand, remove any security from them. So the MFF budget cuts is not the way to achieve these goals. You know that farming is not just a job, it's a way of life. We need less bureaucracy and more security. Unfortunately, most simplifications are taken to the detriment of animal and environmental protections. Deregulation could lead to A natural disasters or disasters for animals that helps no one. Losing biodiversity is irreversible. One positive thing the report has a lot of good ideas digitalization. Some really excellent approaches to incentives for young people. But as our colleague said it it young people are not prevented by the high environmental standards. It's not about that. It's just simply a matter of, uh, pesticides, animal welfare standards. Uh, young people have different ethical standards, and we need to move with that, uh, with that movement and have a full reform of farming.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. So first from my side, I also would like to thank the year and the team for the work done on the CIP proposal. So we now have the task to put together compromises based on these broad amendments that have been put forward. Food security, from my point of view, must be anchored in the text, especially when we have geopolitically uncertain times. This is not some side issue for our agriculture. We also need a balanced approach with climate targets. Climate protection remains important, but it is not fair if agriculture has to carry the responsibility alone. When there are crisis situations, we have to stay flexible. A climate protection, competitiveness and food security have to be considered together. And this is why I think we should have a clause which is for extraordinary circumstances. So with regard to do no significant harm, there would be too many requirements. The farmers are already expected to deal with requirements for the environment. So I think on climate protection. So I think this will be too much uncertainty for our farmers. For example, if you have a farm farmer who wants to build a barn for his machinery in the future, um, if there's another, uh, another consideration of do no significant harm to be brought in, it could make it more complicated.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you. Colleagues. Commission. The German climate and energy policy is says that they want 56% of reduction reductions, and they want renewable energy by 2030. I do support that categorically. But this is not just about what's on paper. What's really important is what actually happens. A number of different measures, whether we are improving our energy grid, housing or transport are well intended, but it means that a lot of small communities and small businesses are put under threat. This is especially true for social balance in rural areas. We cannot endanger our society for the sake of climate policy. We need to make sure that our policies are not just ambitious, but also are realistic and socially balanced. We need. How does the Commission want to help member states to avoid missing targets without increasing bureaucracy or other types of burdens for our citizens? Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you very much. Chairman. Commissioner. The single market is one of Europe's greatest achievements, but many SMEs feel experience too little of it on a daily basis. Whether we're talking about direct sales on farms or small traders or family led manufacturers, they're all fighting too much red tape and complicated procedures. I hope that the new single market strategy from the Commission will tackle this with fewer rules, more competitiveness and noticeable boost for SMEs. Now the announcements do go move in the right direction. They're on the right track, but now it's about specific implementation. And I would like to make this very clear. If we want a single market which is fit for the future, then we must ensure that this is easier to understand and use for farmers, butchers and those building machines. For example, not only large companies with their own legal departments. Therefore, we need to have an obligatory SME check for all new legislation and we need to put an end to the additional rules at national level which undermine our European goals. Europe needs to become an enabler, especially for SMEs. And my questions how will you ensure that member States implement these simplifications, not just on paper, but also in practice? And how do you want to ensure that SMEs will in future, from the outset, be involved in the legislative process as genuine partners and not as simply a fig leaf? In a footnote. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “President, Commissioner. Dear colleagues, the European Chemicals Agency does some valuable work, and its assessments are a solid basis for political decisions. But Commission has responsibility for all of this. And this is precisely where I see a problem. Today's reports on a common data platform for chemicals and reallocation of scientific tasks amongst different EU agencies go to show how important, but how sensitive regulation in this field is now. I deal extensively with substances such as ethanol and calcium cyanamide. And if the Commission is really considering banning alcohol as a disinfectant or calcium cyanamide as a fertiliser, then it really is going too far. This would constitute overregulation with consequences for medicine, agriculture and research. What we really need is close cooperation between the OECD and a scientific basis for practitioners. That is the only way that we will have proportionate regulation. We need trust in our work. That is the most valuable asset we have and we shouldn't disappoint our citizens.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “(15:54:02 – 15:58:45): Thank you, Madam Chair, colleagues. As rapporteur for the agri opinion on the industrial emissions directive, I see the following. The commission's proposal is too short and misses the reality of many farms. The IED should focus on the major plants rather than family holdings. Our farmers in past years have really done a lot towards reducing emissions. Ammonia emissions in Europe are falling, and agriculture is really helping meet net zero. And that's why new red tape for many family farms is simply unacceptable. The first crucial point are the thresholds, particularly critical in terms of the 2024 review. I see thresholds there which really bring many more farms under rules which originally were thought up for major plants. Small and medium sized farms are seriously affected by this, and they have to meet the same administrative demands as large holdings, but without any effects of scale. And that undermines structural change and livestock holdings as well. And therefore, in my opinion, I'm clear about the need to come back to the lower thresholds, which were established in 2010, more than 40,000 poultry places and for the pigs or 750 for sows. A second important point is the so-called aggregation rule. In practice, there is a risk of various farms being calculated together, and so they will come under the IED. So we need more proportionality and legal security there. And therefore, I'm asking that farms can only be calculated together if in actual fact there is a functional connection. For example, common management systems or the common effects on the environment. Another important point are the so-called UCUL rules. We need more time here to work on these, and that's why I would postpone the introduction of these rules. We need to be able to assess the situation before new decisions are taken. With livestock, we need solutions which will work in practice without creating additional uncertainty for farms. There's also the risk of additional national regulations through gold plating. And therefore, I feel that these rules have to be fully harmonized, and we shouldn't have the possibility of each individual member state introducing additional ones. My last and final point is clear as well. An extension to cattle farming is something I'm out and out against. Obviously, cattle breeding is important for food production, cultural landscapes and creating wealth in rural areas. And many companies, many farms would come under huge pressure if we were to add the burden on those. And therefore, I think that we need there was this question of introducing cattle at some stage. I think I would be against that. It's a clear political line there because we would end up importing products which haven't been produced under the same standards. And that's two different standards which would lead to misunderstanding. If we want to retain livestock breeding in Europe, we need fair competition and a level playing field. The commission is currently working on a European livestock strategy, and there's going to be a new catalogue involved in there. And my proposals are working in that direction, proportionality, workability, rather than additional red tape. I look forward to working together to continue our work together with colleagues on this important dossier because this is about the future of livestock breeding and our own domestic food production. Farms are not industrial plants and should not be treated as such. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Mr. president. Commissioner. Thank you. When families go to do their shopping. Lots of them are just having a quick dash around picking up the minimum, and that's all they can afford. Farmers can barely survive, costs are going up, expenditure is increasing, and this is just not something which is acceptable. And we shouldn't be allowing big industry to be playing one off against the other. We need to maintain our family farms. We need to make food affordable for everybody, and therefore we need to take a close look at what is going on, who is earning what. For example, for a kilo of bread or a litre of milk, are the profits generated by the trade right? And who's making the money? How much is the consumer paying? We need transparency in the whole food chain and we need proportion. And this can be delivered by a stronger farm policy. This is something which has got to be and is a sine qua non for Social. Peace. Otherwise, there are huge risks at stake, and we mustn't go down that path.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Mr. president. Commissioner. Colleagues. This package shows that it is possible to simplify if we really want to. And pride that that I was able to contribute as a shadow rapporteur to this and that the proposals I made with regard to certain definitions, for example, arable land or um, other terms were taken on board. So it's time to get rid of democracy and focus on people and their needs. And now the ball is in the court of the member States. The new flexibility needs to be taken up and used. Uh, it is finally time to have these things. Implementation, uh, implemented. The farmers deserve it. So what we need is a common agricultural policy that starts, with something that's been properly thought through and not just adapted as we go along. We really need to focus on the rural areas, the farming areas, and it's part of our strategic infrastructure. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Key colleagues. Uh, I think it is important that we raise awareness of this important issue of the pay gap. I think, uh, as a woman, as a mother, this is something that is very important to me. It's not just figures. When we talk about the gender pay gap, it's the reality of life for a lot of women, particularly women in rural areas. I see women who take on a lot of responsibilities the farmer, the baker, the entrepreneur, the carer and of course, as long as well as their jobs, they help look after their families, their relatives. And this, uh, unpaid work is quite significant. We need to make this type of work more visible. We need to give it more economic visibility. I think what's most important in this report is respect, respect for the work of women and their contribution to society. Thank you.”
  Gender pay transparency
• “Thank you very much, colleagues. The forest fires we've seen this summer have shown us where there need that the environment and forest are intimately linked. People's livelihoods, their land, their homes are under threat. And in turn, this threatens food security in Europe. I'd like to tell you that we have some initiatives in Germany. We have something called farmer in the south of Germany, in Bavaria. We have been bringing together farmers and the fire brigade through a digital portal, and this enables them to be in constant communication. The farmers can request assistance, and they can ask for deployment of equipment so that they are in a better position to tackle fires in a timely fashion. An active partnership such as this.”
  EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.)
• “Key colleagues. Uh, I think it is important that we raise awareness of this important issue of the pay gap. I think, uh, as a woman, as a mother, this is something that is very important to me. It's not just figures. When we talk about the gender pay gap, it's the reality of life for a lot of women, particularly women in rural areas. I see women who take on a lot of responsibilities the farmer, the baker, the entrepreneur, the carer and of course, as long as well as their jobs, they help look after their families, their relatives. And this, uh, unpaid work is quite significant. We need to make this type of work more visible. We need to give it more economic visibility. I think what's most important in this report is respect, respect for the work of women and their contribution to society. Thank you.”
  Gender pay transparency
• “Thank you. Madam. Colleagues? League's guests. I'm delighted to be able to share a few of my thoughts with you today, not only as a member of the European Parliament, as the gender equality representative in agri, but also as a mother taking over the farm and a regional farmer. So when we talk about generational renewal, we're talking about the role of women as the bearers of that renewal in the farms, in the villages, in our families, in our holdings. Rural women are entrepreneurs, administrators, innovators, but still very often their achievements are invisible or unpaid or not calculated. Last week I was at a seminar for young female farmers, which encouraged me to work further on this subject. So it's important that we're talking together about gender policies in rural areas in concrete terms. How can we strengthen the role of women in rural areas by restructuring succession rules, family roles so that women can take on their own responsibilities and leadership in the Parliament? I am calling for us to take that approach on agricultural policies, better policy for female farmers, mentoring, breaking down gender roles and inside and outside the farm. Not all farmers have someone who wants to take on the farm afterwards, so there's great opportunity there to bring a new people in. If we want women to remain in the rural areas, then we have to give them the recognition that they deserve and offer the structures for them. Uh, I'm. Very. Happy that we are passing on a positive message with our vote here in the committee today when we're talking about creating gender equality, not only on paper, but in the villages and on the tractors.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, representatives of the Commission, thank you for this presentation. Ecodesign and energy labelling are important instruments for sustainability in the economy and to protect resources. The working plan proposed by the Commission has positive aspects and risks for industry and for consumer. Sustainable design is essential, but bureaucracy endangers. Above all SMEs, the backbone of our economy. The additional costs of production and for management and administration will inevitably be there and we be higher as well. Low income households will have to pay the bill. Regulations fail to take into account the realities on the ground, technologically speaking, and the constant adjustment to energy labels could confuse consumers. Another problem is the delegated act on solid fuel heating appliances. If they're not well designed, they could be a burden for many households financially and cause restrictions for the market. We need climate protection with a sense of proportion. The green transition has to promote innovation without burdening the economy. We want solutions which involve less democracy or less bureaucracy. Realistic transition periods and solutions. So the questions I have are. Or when will the Commission propose the delegated acts on solid fuel, heating appliances? And what is the status right now? And the second question is, how can we make sure that the provisions of ecodesign and energy labelling don't cause an unnecessary administrative burden for SMEs?”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “Thank you. Chair. Colleagues. First, I'd like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their work. The topic is very close to my heart, not least because I'm a livestock farmer myself, and I know how difficult and rewarding the work is. The livestock farming is facing great challenges. A provision of the increasing social and ecological expectations. And I see three points A resilience instead of independence or dependence. We're still largely dependent on imports for fodder. So we need to improve the chances of young people entering this sector. Secondly, prevention instead of crisis management. Recent animal disease outbreaks have shown how vulnerable the situation is. We need an early detection system and a response system that works. We need more coordination with proper management with of vaccinations so that they're no longer a barrier to trade. And thirdly, fairness in competition. And for animal welfare and the climate in terms of products from third countries that don't fulfil the same standard, they shouldn't distort our markets. And this should be key in mutual trade agreements. We need reciprocity. So livestock isn't the problem. It's part of the solution for biodiversity, circular economy and food security. And if we strengthen them, we also strengthen our rural areas.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• “Thank you very much. Commissioner Hanson, first of all, I would like to thank you for your commitment and also for the proposals that have been made, um, concerning unfair trade practices. Now, the supply chains management is very important and farmers need our support. However, after having analysed the proposals, I must say that I cannot see any real improvements for the farmers. I think that in practice this will not achieve the desired aims. If we have a smaller cooperatives of farmers and producers that deal with the cows and so on, they will have to deal with more bureaucracy. Many farmers need improvements to their current situation. And dear Commissioner, I want to now tell you what farmers have been telling me. They say that the ecological regulations that they are subjected, subjected to are complicating matters for them. And we are dealing with administrative burdens, so they say, and they require solutions that don't involve greater bureaucracy. And on the market the improvements have to be felt. They don't need high flying concepts. They need simplification to their daily lives. And I do realize that agriculture is important to you, and I do look forward to some more discussions concerning these matters. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “President. Commissioner. Dear colleagues, farmers don't need slogans. What they need is help that is palpable. And that's precisely why we have this simplification package for the gap. For the gap, less red tape and more actions close to the farmers themselves. When it comes to, for instance, Greenland's grasslands, every five years or every seven years, we would have a change, but we would actually create greater legal certainty, we would avoid unnecessary emissions, and we would also make farmers more free in terms of deciding how they want to run their farms, both to make sense business wise, but also ecologically. This is very sensible and it's a win win, a win win for all farmers, whether they're small or large, whether they're conventional, whether they're organic. So we are in favor of that. And we also think that farms that are organic farms in transition should also be supported. That's another way of really helping out these farmers who are getting involved or on board with organic farming. And we also need mechanisms for crisis payments. We want to make sure that the support that is provided through this new instrument is distributed fairly, transparently, without any kind of distortion in competition terms. These are not just small correctives. These are actually measures that will make a palpable have a palpable impact on the lives of farmers and therefore. Dear colleagues, please support this package. It's for greater trust rather than mistrust. It's simplification rather than bureaucracy. And it's also something that is positive for the farmers, farmers who want to get back to farming rather than filling out forms. And it's up then to council and to commission to make sure that that is supported by these entities as well. We mustn't disappoint our farmers. We have an opportunity. Let's seize it. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Dear colleagues, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for the draft opinion on the performance framework for the new MFF. Now, there are some points that I can agree with. Strengthening the role of the European Parliament. More control with the co-legislators and reducing the delegated powers. I think those are central issues. At the same time, there are areas where we need to discuss further. From an agricultural policy point of view, it's decisive that this is really feasible, that it has to line up with the gap. The cap itself. So and you have to have food security clearly anchored in the text. This is a central priority for Europe. Secondly, we need a balanced reflection of climate objectives. And considering the significant. I can't agree with the significant increase for the next MFF. I think we should keep the current level and I'm. I don't think a single policy area should have an disproportional impact on the. The objectives to be obtained by the agricultural policy. So I think this has to be thought of in broader terms. And thirdly, cap payments should not be connected to additional requirements. For example the do not know no significant harm criteria. I don't think that being economically efficient should have a significant impact on environmental standards. And I think you're ending up if this is carried out as proposed, you're ending up with a doubling of red tape. So I think the existing rules in the cap are are sufficient. And then you have to have a better reflection of agriculture in annex one, especially when you're talking about forestry and agricultural interventions. The the current form forming of the coefficients, I don't think they're necessarily give us the information we we need. And so I think we need some changes for that. I'm going to make the necessary amendments and I look forward to future cooperation on this matter.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, chairman. Now, the agreement remains a very sensitive subject for Europe's farmers, and rightly so. If you look at the safeguard clause on Mercosur, the need for these instruments bring out clearly that the agreement brings with it serious risks for our agricultural sector. These safeguard clauses only refer to trade flows and market distortions, but not the fundamental issues of production and sustainability standards. But that's exactly where our farming families have a competitive disadvantage. So let's be clear. Yes, to trade, but not to unfair trade. We need coherence between our European objectives and our trade commitments. The agreement with Brazil raises a number of different issues. It seems like there's a two class society in agricultural production, that's to say high, highly standardised companies for the EU, another set of farms for the USA and a third set for the local population. I was wondering if that really fits in with our vision for fair, sustainable supply chains.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you chair. We're in the midst of the bark beetle season and we're seeing heatwaves, droughts and lack of water in the soil. I know farmers who have been watering and irrigating their young plants, and nevertheless, this forest has died out. So this has an effect not just on nature, but the people who are looking after it. So we need to move to multi-species forests. We don't need more red tape. We need to act quickly when there are disasters that strike. So new forms to fill in are not going to help. We can see this as another bad example not to follow. It's not helping anybody. It increases insecurity if we need to react quickly in disastrous situations. My question to the commission is how do you want to ensure that EU initiatives will help transition the forests when it comes to disaster, natural disasters, rather than putting more controls in place and putting them more under pressure? The people who are looking after the forests. I heard that the omnibus was going to be withdrawn. We look at what happened last week in Strasbourg and we don't have great hopes that that will be the case.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you very much for this as a long time. Uh, animal. Uh, um. Uh, farmer, I must say, I can see very closely how how the animal health and production actually works together. And I can see that how important it is to to avoid things like foot and mouth disease. We know how difficult it can be to deal with these issues and how expensive it can be to actually implement these measures. So what measures can we adopt to make sure that vaccinated animals are not an obstacle to, uh, to export or to to selling the meat? We also you've also called upon us to make sure that we have proper data. Now, how can we ensure that data be properly integrated and approved at international level so that we can make our early warning systems more effective, particularly in the wake of the climate change and the other trade. Trade agreements that we have reached. Thank you.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• “Thank you very much for the discussion. Now, I've been dealing with the possible classification of ethanol for quite a few months now, and I can say that this is no trivial matter. This is fundamental to industry, health and trade policy. That's why I welcomed the commission, the committee postponing the decision until 2026. That was necessary because the political reach of this possible decision hasn't yet been fully understood. That's why, together with Andy Gluck, I drafted a resolution to make it clear that this debate is one to be had in the Parliament, not just in expert bodies. Ethanol is of systemic relevance for health care, hygiene, agriculture, industry and in whole supply chains. Classifying it as a carcinogen or reproductively toxic would have massive regulatory, economic, and social ramifications for the whole of Europe. Regulation cannot be automatically directed towards a ban. It has to be proportional, consistent between CLP and BPR regulations, and it has to take into account the reality of the supply chains in question. So a clear commercial question to the Commission why is there this reflex in centrally important issues to ban without having robust impact assessments relating to the social, economic and structural effect beforehand? Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, colleagues, the record breaking heat wave of this summer shows very clearly that it's time to act when it comes to protecting us from the climate. It's protection for our citizens. The 2040 goal of -90% is ambitious, but it is necessary. We need to ensure that it's pragmatic and implementable. We need to continue investment in renewable energy, and investment in sustainable heating and cooling need to be made. The important thing is that jobs and companies are protected. We need greener cities. We need flats that are better protected from heat. We need hospitals and care facilities that are ready for extreme summer weather. Climate policy should not be ideological. It should be providing realistic solutions and that's the only way we'll remain credible. This is the signal that this Parliament now needs to be sending out here in Europe and at the international level, as we move towards the Cop 30.”
  EU climate adaptation and disaster preparedness · Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much. As an MEP, a farmer and a representative of a rural constituency, it's very important that I reiterate constantly that women are integral to the rural and agricultural world. There would be no employment, no life, no culture, no heritage if women's role weren't what it is. They are absolutely critical to the continued existence of the rural environment. The report focuses on some very good initiatives and I do support it, but it needs to focus more specifically in detail on what women are doing. Many have been working for decades but have no secure future to look to. So I have put forward some targeted amendments on security, on passing on farmland to the next generation, on ownership, finance and support. We need to have a policy which actually reflects how women live and how their their lives and careers evolve. So we need to have greater flexibility and better support programmes which enable women to be more active in the area of agriculture and also in the rural environment. It's not just an ancillary role, it's a key role that they play. It's key to having a lively, active environment and agricultural sector for the future. Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “I mentioned the Madam Chair. I've put forward a cross group amendments to have higher standards, but also implement implementability. Uh, we've had farmers working for decades, but I think and this is a very important part of the sector, uh, pasture farming. So we have to look at how, um, We bring in solutions and flexibility. We need to make sure that we have practicable alternatives where things are implemented properly. Also, when it comes to when it comes to using different fields, for example, the different meadows, you need to have more flexibility in poultry as well. We've also proposed amendments so that access, when it comes to chickens raised outside the barn. So all of this is extremely urgent. And I think you see that from the over 200 amendments. We need to build compromises. And what we want is clear. We want high standards, but at the same time it needs to be properly implementable.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “Thank you very much. I support our European environment and climate goals, but the proposal for the MFF 2028 by 34, uh, concerns me not because of its ambitions, but rather because of its structure. The commission and the programmes is bundling together programmes and it's becoming more central. It might look good on paper, but in practice that means that the cap loses, loses weight. It's the most important environmental instrument that we have on the ground. It it has a it affects the fields, the holdings and the regions. We shouldn't lose this, uh, The closeness through complex financial instruments, bureaucracy and insecurity will be concluded. Created climate policy and agricultural policy should go together in future with clear responsibilities and conditions. Yes, the live program is a good contribution, but it needs more transparency. Citizens must be able to see who what money is being used for.”
  Agricultural funding
• “And there'd be green, yellow and red lists also from the commission side. So I think that would be too much of a burden for farmers. So I think we should take that out and, uh, rather apply the existing GAAP standards, and in annex one one, there is a list of the interventions and the indicators. And this is the central part of this regulation regulations. So with we should stick with the three coefficients rather than bringing in additional complexities. And we also have to move into the direction of coefficients for climate and for the environment. So that the real achievements of the farmers can be taken into account. Then there is visibility of women in farming. I've already touched upon that today. Women have to be more visible in farming. We have to fight for that, make this measurable. I think that's very important, and I look forward to continuing our work together. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green) · Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much, Madam Commissioner. The objectives of the EU are important, but the implementation is not linked to the reality of foresters. The adaptations proposed by the commission are cosmetic because they don't change the main problem. Small holdings will have to register in the IT system and must register a detailed data. Although for years they've been working sustainably, the geo data, um input, um um is difficult because there aren't postcodes in, uh, forests, and that's misleading. There's a zero risk option that has been said in Germany with sustainable forestry and without a risk of deforestation. This bureaucratic burden is unjustified. It damages the acceptance of this regulation. Do you recognize that there are regional differences? And will you provide alleviation, uh, where it's necessary? The Parliament can't, Introduce more risks. If the Commission doesn't act and the the regulation will enter into force at the end of 2025 without any modifications.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you very much. The proposal to monitor these words is going to be an opportunity to protect our forests better and to strengthen resilience, but we shouldn't overlook the fact that clear objectives and clear added value must be our focus. There shouldn't be any duplication of labor or extra bureaucracy, which will make it more difficult for the forest workers and the forest owners. And I think we need appropriate funding. That is absolutely essential. I am looking at the idea of publishing and publicizing the data. I'm critical about that. I think that we need to improve the conditions and that should be our first priority. So I'd like to ask the commission, how will you guarantee the data protection and business professional secrecy are not infringed? Also, the legislation needs to be implementable, and it should make sure that the life of our foresters is improved. We also need to ensure that all of this is part of our monitoring services. We need support without. Undermining our national systems I really am looking forward to working further on this file. Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “So it does make a difference because that is better for the soils. And we wouldn't have to import so much fertilisers. It would be good if we um, plant soya. It's good for soil health and it's good for, uh, our ability to, to, um, produce our own crops in Europe. However, it is probably difficult for farmers to make money out of planting these crops. So you have to look very carefully at this. If you we want to have to be very careful to produce a supply chain which works. And in the short term, in the middle term, we're not going to be able to do anything about this. Um, we're going to have to import soya oil from these countries, but there's not a demand for it. There's no demand for it in our food industry because of the gene, a gene, a genetic technologies that have been used. There isn't a market for this year in Europe. And our producers need to be supported, uh, for the short term. And if we, we, uh, don't do that, then we're going to reduce, uh, the profitability of, um, soya producers in Europe. So we can't do this without the European farmers. We cannot differentiate, um, just based on the question about where the soil comes and look.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you for the three presentations given. I have a remark on protected geographical indications in my home region. In Bavaria, we have small associations for cheese and beer. They are really struggling. They need to turn to large professional consultancy consultancy firms to secure such logos or seals. So how can we help such small associations?”
  EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
• “Thank you very much. I'd like to take this opportunity, uh, to raise the following positive example. I think positive examples provide us with motivation in order to continue and find solutions. Let me talk about Grossbardorf from Bavaria, which shows what happens when people work together. The citizens there in recent years have done quite a lot and achieved a lot. They have put solar powers, biogas, uh, and also an open, um, free, uh, a field full of, um, renewable energy that's actually owned by the citizens themselves. Well, what's the result? It strengthens the economy of the area and it provides cheap energy. And of course, that makes it a very attractive location for new employers. And above all, you have something that you can't buy with money, which is this community feeling, this trust and confidence and enthusiasm. And what are they doing right in this village? Well, they're involving the citizens. People are involved and they're proud of what they've achieved together. So they're achieving something. They're making progress. They're taking one another into account and helping the environment. So I think this kind of project really deserves our support. And in order to help them, you need less red tape and to really give them an impetus to help the climate, but also help in human terms as well.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “Thank you very much, Madam Executive Director. The ECA has a double responsibility for the safety of people and the environment and for the Europe's competitiveness. With this topic of PFAS, I call for a proportionate response. A blanket prohibition without a functioning alternative would endanger high tech branches like medical technology, semiconductor manufacturing and energy technology. We need a risk based regulation that one that treats the indispensable uses in a differentiated manner instead of a one sided political symbolism. I'm especially concerned about the planned classification of ethanol as a carcinogen. This is an essential component in food and pharma. In laboratory technologies, there are no alternatives. I've sent a written submission to the commission and it's not yet been answered. This impasse is generating significant uncertainty in the industry, especially among the SMEs. Now concerning the revision of reach. Of course, we need high standards, but it has to be practicable. No SMEs should be overwhelmed by an overly complex provision. Your agency plays a central role in combining a scientific approach with feasibility. And then finally, I'd like to say something about calcium cyanamide fertilizer. It's used broadly in Bavaria. It's a very efficient nitrogen nitrogen fertilizer, and it has a complimentary phytosanitary effects. And there's no reliable field and practical data. So how do we know how it's going to impact farmers who are already using this? So how are you going to address the plan classification of ethanol in terms of economic and logistical impacts? And what kind of regionally differentiated field data are you going to use when you evaluate calcium cyanamide fertilizer? How are you going to take the actual usage methods into account, and how are you going to ensure that the future reach is something that the SMEs find user friendly and able able to implement? Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Madam Commissioner, thank you very much to take the time to talk about climate environment policy with us as executive vice President. You are dealing with the Green Deal, which obviously has an effect on agriculture and forestry. I think looking at the current crisis, we need to have a more efficient EU. But we also have ambitions from the last legislative period. Uh, we have a concerns about the, uh, costs that can go along with these targets and how any restrictions might affect food production or use of biomass. What will you do in your coordinating function, uh, to, um, adapt this to the economic and political realities? We don't want any productive agricultural land to be taken out of, uh, use. And how will you, uh, tackle any, um, areas that are still lacking in the, uh, implementation for current legislation? Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “(17:12:23 – 17:12:34): Thank you very much indeed. For director general, the discussion on the fertilizer action plan shows just how sensitive our farming sector has become indeed now. And we can't become increasingly dependent. We need to strengthen regional and national production. The technology which can be introduced and already has been doing is an approach which could be used. There is manure available regionally which could be used here, and we can have fully closed circuits here. Theoretically, in Bavaria, 30% of mineral phosphorus requirement could come from effluent. And I think that we should now be looking at the political and economic requirements for this. So this type of technology can be established on a decentralized basis. We shouldn't start with the import of raw materials. We have to provide for sustainable use of the resources we already have in Europe. Therefore, my question to the commission is how they want to ensure that innovative technologies for the reuse of phosphorus on a regional basis can be supported in a targeted way in the future and that red tape on this can be reduced. Obviously, we have to strengthen the regional circuits here and ensure that in the long term, we have food security in Europe. Thank you. Well, people are using the crisis to line their pockets, making profits on the backs of farmers. We need transparency in the market, and we need to get rid of this type of approach. We've been discussing this in the mineral industry as well. Well, it's not that we have too few animals in Europe. It's just that it's concentrated in certain areas and they don't exist elsewhere. So the distribution of livestock is an issue. 30% of the source of nitrates is in certain areas and not elsewhere. So the nitrates directive using that is probably not the right way of going about it. CBAM, customs duties getting rid of all of this as the extreme right has been calling for this. Question is, who are you helping by doing that? Putin and his like. Right? Certainly not the European fertilizer industry. Obviously, we need to produce renewable energies in Europe as well, but we need to do all of this by providing more means. And we can solve various issues in the same way, proteins, peas, beans, this type of thing. And we need to take the measures now because otherwise we'll be rushing from one crisis into another. It's more urgent than ever that we introduce this type of measures insight into the CAP.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. Fighting deforestation is an important issue. It is ecologically necessary and politically correct. But what matters here is that we act effectively and use messages, use measures that can actually be implemented. That is why we are in favour. I am in favour of a no risk category. That is a way of of expressing that you understand And nuance. In Germany, for example, for where forestry has been working under high standards for years, then they do not need a they do not need that type of risk assessment. It would otherwise be in proportional. That is why I support this objection because it reflects that reality. The Commission is asked correctly to make some corrections. The Commission needs to recognise places where there is no deforestation risk. And also it is that there is a there is nuance in the implementation of the regulation. Forestry companies will take responsibility. They need they need reasonable limitations and conditions. They need to realise, and they need to get the message that if you take forestry seriously, then you will be rewarded. Thank you.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Thank you. Chair. Commissioner. The proposals that the Commission has put forward in this strategic regional partnership, they, I believe, are a dreadful sign. They I think look at the renationalisation of the agricultural sector and they are bringing the end to a community policy. I think it's very clear for farmers that you are creating a construction for national, um, plans to be developed further agricultural policy is being debated as a matter of financing, without any real interest in the food production or the farmers, and maintaining the agricultural community. So how do you think that the Cap is going to be developed in the future? How can you ensure that the farmers aren't going to be dependent on the good wishes of their own, um, regional governments or governments? How are we going to make sure that there's not an inequality and and over competition here? Gap needs to be independent. It should have secure financing. It should have a strong European recognition of the work of the farmers. If the cap becomes a political tool, then I think we lose the diversity, stability and what we need is a strong common agricultural policy. So, Commissioner, what is what is different from the last time you came to talk to us? I think as an orator you're better. But other than that, the content hasn't improved from. I think that everyone has said that we are really concerned about a renationalisation.”
  Agricultural funding
• “As we've heard several times today, the Cap opinion really addresses a lot of points that the committee sees quite critically. And I think we need a really clear direction and it's not included here. Instead, we see structural changes and reduction in funding and that the EU had the courage to make this rejection. I think this was a good and correct signal to the commission. So it's not just this opinion, it's not standing alone. And I think with the P.S. we're seeing a fundamental rejection of this idea of just having one big pot of funds. At the same time, it's important to do everything possible to keep the key elements of the cap as far as possible. The two pillar model, the independent ring fenced funding. This is are not minor issues. These are really the basis for planning security, for guaranteeing a well-functioning single market and for having competitiveness. So it's decisive that we have a rapporteur who supports keeping the cap as a independent policy and and really anchor the central elements to the extent possible. So that's why we need clarity and, and, and a really strong commitment to the future of European agriculture.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much. I will read now the intervention provided by my colleague Elsi Katainen. She is not here. Dear chair, I warmly support the general idea of improving forest data in the EU. We need accurate and regularly updated information on the European forests that are unfortunately under heavy stress because of climate change. I have some critical remarks on the proposal. First, we should fully utilise the data already collected to avoid unnecessary duplication and costs. The more advanced member States should not be penalised for the work already done. Many member states have been collected forest data for decades, in the case of Finland, almost 100 years. This has not only been a national effort, but work has been done in an international setting of the FAO Forest Europe and European National Forest Inventory Network, for example. Moreover, while data collection certainly benefits from satellites, its limits have to acknowledge and ground data must always be collected where appropriate. Second, there are numerous numerous implementing, implementing and delegated acts. These powers for the Commission bring too much uncertainty and are quite far reaching. As it stands, the proposal leaves too many issues open. Their interpretations. Cost. Use. Use. Implementation. Third, we must ensure that private forest owners data is secured and the assembled areas remain confidential. Finally, article eight on additional forest indicators. Many indicators listed in annex three do not correspond and to and to existing practices in most Member states. Their fitness for purpose or costs are not properly assessed. Moreover, using implementing acts for a wide ranging list should be avoided. I would like the Commission to give more information on the selection of these indicators and the costs to Member States. Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “(16:21:28 – 16:23:23): Thank you very much. I'd very much like to thank all the colleagues who've spoken and have supported the way that I set about doing this, in particular, my draft for this opinion. I think there's been an important discussion today, and I've also got understanding for those colleagues who see some of these things differently or who's who are finding some of the proposals go too far. I think this is all part of the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate on such a sensitive topic. The critical thing, I think, is that we have a good and balanced angry opinion here because industrial emissions directive has impacts on our agricultural holdings, on animal, breeding, and many family farms throughout the length of Brexit of Europe. So it's important that the prospects for farmers in Europe are adequately taken into account. I'm quite sure that in the agri committee, we'll be able to put together a strong opinion that brings climate protection into line with reality and competitiveness all in 1. And I'm delighted, therefore, that there is going to be further rounds of discussion with colleagues in Liebe. I'd also like to say to the colleagues in NV that we will be working with, that they will certainly have their views incorporated when we looked ahead to a further version of this directive. Even though the commission is referred to our holdings many times, they're not industrial operations. They are working with living creatures, and they are simply not classical industrial plants. And if we're going to have food production and animal husbandry in Europe, then we need rules that are practicable, that are, in line with realities and can be economically and environmentally sustainable.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Vice president Commissioner, now we're speaking here about something which means security. As far as food security, taking into consideration the very, very the numerous difficulties that exist in order to make sure that production is at the necessary level when we have no sustainable solution to the issue of fertilizer prices, then of course, food will become much more expensive in the EU. In this geopolitical landscape, the issue of distribution, of existence, of availability of food is of a strategic nature. We have greater challenges that have to be met. And at the same time, we we have the various issues such as Mercosur, Mercosur before us, and the. And of course, the issue of central production in Brazil is something that we have to take into consideration as well. We need to strengthen farming as well. We have to have good prices for energy which are accessible to farmers. We have to be able to produce locally the necessary fertilizers, and we have to be able to increase the capacity. Of course, provision of food security on that particular front in Europe is of absolutely key importance.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. The term regenerative agriculture sounds great, but so far it's a very vague term. We've heard more than a hundred different definitions have already been tested, so I'd like to know what definition of regenerative agriculture are we really using before we start talking about market instruments or conditions? I'd also like to say something about the basis of cap in article 39 of Tfeu. It says that it's to increase productivity, to ensure an income for farmers, to avoid destabilisation, and to make sure that there are appropriate prices for the consumers. That is, irrespective of whether we're talking about conventional organic farming or regenerative farming. So I'd like to know how can we ensure that this key objective is not lost sight of? Farmers are already complying with very high standards and they continue to develop their work. We should really recognise that increasingly, rather than constantly introducing new systems of checks and balances. Balances which often lead to more red tape. And if we're talking about regenerative agriculture, we need to know what we're talking about. And we need to really support these holdings. But I don't want to have a discussion about different systems, but but strengthening the diversity of our farming.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you for those presentations and your valuable advice and insight and perspectives. Ladies and gentlemen, we're shifting the conflicts from Brussels into our capitals. The commission calls it flexibility in practice. This quickly becomes. I'm all right, Jack. Looking after yourself. So the cap is going to be dependent on political will in our member states because of the NPS, because that is where it will be decided whether funds will go to kindergartens or to agriculture. And turning this to an extreme, we say this cannot be in our interest. We're not talking about a common set of priorities at European level, but how are we going to moderate different conflicts about how national allocation will be carried out and we'll be talking about further and further fragmentation and lack of fair competition rules in the single market. So to Mr. Matthews, are the governance mechanisms that are being proposed strong enough to make sure that the common aspect of the agricultural policy be ensured? My question to the Commission is this really a question of simplification, or are you just shifting complexity from one place to another and political responsibility to a different level? Quite simply. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding