Paulo DO NASCIMENTO CABRAL

Policy topics Paulo DO NASCIMENTO CABRAL is active on

What Paulo DO NASCIMENTO CABRAL has said (62)

• 2025-10-15 “P-004058/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission In response to the Honourable Member’s question 1 and 3, the Commission is currently conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU 1 and Tobacco Advertising Directive 2003/33/EC 2 in line with Better Regulation requirements. The findings of this evaluation will guide the next steps regarding these two Directives. As regards question 2, since the establishment of a substantial change of circumstances for heated tobacco products, no other tobacco product category has, to date, been identified as fulfilling the conditions of Article 2(28) of Directive 2014/40/EU. The Commission closely monitors market developments regarding all tobacco product categories to determine whether a substantial change of circumstances exists. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/40/oj. 2 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2003/33/oj.”
  Smoking regulation · Heated tobacco products · Restrictions of flavours in tobacco products
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. The next multiannual Financial framework will be deciding the future of the European project and the future of the European Union. We need simplification, less red tape and also flexibility, but not just to meet our goals, but also to help our national administrations. Defending our European Union must also be part of the union. The budget at its core. We look forward to national and regional partnerships, which are key in allowing us to have this multi-level approach to Europe's concerns. A budget that respects subsidiarity and partnerships in agriculture, we need to maintain the Cap budget in a robust way that ensures the necessary guarantees in two pillars the absolutely essential for ensuring the security of our food supply, and also the strategic role of Europe in food production. Also, we think about outermost regions. We need to ensure that they can also have a role to play in agriculture. And I would like to thank the rapporteurs for raising this and also for addressing the amendments to this. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner 50% yesterday. And then another percentage. And who knows what comes next. This is not very good for stability in democracy. We've had a number of postponements of these, uh, tariff, uh, statements, which are having impacts on business on both sides of the, uh, of the deal. And 30% of global trade that we have with is with the United States. And obviously, this is not really good for, um, relations. Up till now, uh, they were very firm. I think we have to think of the strategic and economic reasons behind this. We have to be very careful about accepting anything in a rush. Things that will not be acceptable to our citizens. We have to negotiate the United States, but without jeopardizing our partnerships with the rest of the world. And we have to strengthen our own internal market to improve our strategic independence.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you very much for the presentation. This is a very good initiative which is trying to provide transparency in price setting, in the food and in the agri food chain. So we look at the prices being paid in supermarkets and what price farmers are actually receiving. And in the inflation crisis we heard.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “We must not become less competitiveness and less attractive by dint of our lack of connectivity. To round off, let's home in on the situation of the furthest flung regions, the outermost regions. Taking the example of Madeira and the Azores, where I come from. Our railway lines, our highways and lanes are difficult to use. We need to have acceptable infrastructure in place. This means extra costs need to be borne by these outermost regions. We're not talking about tourism, pure and simple. We're talking about questions of health and questions not related to tourism. Therefore, Seth ought to encompass a specific mention of these regions. The transport program ought to be in place to ensure that people are able to access air transport on an ongoing and unbroken basis. They'll also need to be sea borne links so that goods can leave and enter these regions to round off our highways and railway lines are made up of planes and vessels, which need to be fully competitive to ensure integration into the internal market.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “It shortens timelines, clarifies procedures, allows action in the event of sudden increases in ports, and enables immediate measures. But beyond that, this mechanism does not stand alone. The new Union Customs code, UCC, substantially strengthens everything that concerns our sector. The creation of the EU Customs Authority will ensure uniform application of controls and effective fraud prevention across all member States, avoiding inequalities at the borders and practices such as port shopping. The system also guarantees reinforced monitoring of sensitive products, thus ensuring proportionately and effective protection. And finally, food safety authorities such as Efsa or National Veterinary Services will have access to the data hub, allowing them to verify in real time that products comply with European standards on health, sustainability and traceability before entering the market. This means that European standards are neither negotiated nor relaxed, nor sacrificed in the name of trade. On the contrary, they are strengthened. For all these reasons, I believe it is important that we defend the interests of the sector with rigour, but also with composer saying that this agreement puts our agriculture at risk is simply not true. The risks are well identified and are covered by a package of mechanisms more robust than in other EU trade agreements. Let us defend our farmers, yes, but with data, with instruments and with vision. Thank you very much.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you. President. I'd also like to thank the organization for being here. So animals are so important. And that's why I'm in favor of one health. The one health approach. Health. Animal health is also part of public health. Trade the environment. And if we look at African swine fever and blue tongue, we saw that there were cases of these diseases detected in the Azores. So this these are diseases that it's difficult to get rid of. So we mustn't overlook the work of health organizations of and veterinarians. And we also need to make a distinction between vaccinated and non-vaccinated animals because that will help ease, ease trade. We also need to have further awareness raising programmes on vaccination and on other solutions. Now, if we look at the livestock sector, the livestock sector has been affected by the withdrawal of active substances. Over recent years, we've had some 40 active substances removed from the treatment of animals. What do you think of that and will it help? Thank you. **Luis-Vicențiu LAZARUS: Well, in Romania we have had, um. Uh, swine fever for since 2017 or maybe even In 2015. So for Romania has actually been in a situation of great difficulty for the last for almost ten years. So we've had to import some 80% of our pork into our country because of this illness. And sometimes we see that products are coming in clandestinely into the country. We get it coming in from Hungary. It's then declared as being Romanian meat. But that's not a solution. This illness has actually created a very difficult situation for us in Romania, where exports of live animals has been banned in Romania, even though for other countries this is not the case. There seems to be discrimination here in this case. I don't know why, but my question is that if in Vietnam, for example, if there's there's been a vaccination which has been developed with the Americans and the Americans have actually registered this, how come we're not using this vaccination during the pandemic, for example, vaccinations were found miraculously for us, but for animals, it's taken years and years and decades to find vaccinations. That's unusual. Is it? Perhaps because the European Commission hasn't got, uh, wants the European citizens to think that we've got to perhaps give up eating animal protein or meat, and that we should all end up eating insects and vegan diets? Thank you.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• “Indeed. Thank you. Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of our colleague Gabriel Mato that is Unavailable to be here today is another in another commitment. So I'd like to read what he prepared for me and for all of us. I would like to begin by acknowledging something fundamental. We fully understand the concerns of our farmers and our responsibility to defend their interests. But that responsibility also means preventing the debate from drifting into maximalist positions, which in practice will make us lose more than we believe we are protecting. Let me be very clear. Criticism cannot be based on I am against everything because Mercosur is bad, nor on. Since we already have problems with the Cap and other policies, we we will oppose this as well. That is neither a technical assessment nor does it reflect the actual nature of this regulation or of the agreement. First, that put things in proportion. The agricultural chapter represents around 6% of the agreement. If we give up the agreement because of that 6%, Percent, we lose the remaining 94%, and that does not protect our sector. It weakens it in an increasingly competitive international environment. Second, let us speak about the safeguard regulation. This instrument is specifically designed to provide a rapid, proportionate and effective response to the risks identified by our farmers. This is not a theoretical regulation.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “(15:14:47 – 15:19:16): firstly, I would like to thank you for the presentation of this study. There are a lot of questions as regards to fisheries sector, but from my point of view, the important thing here is the lack of a proper evaluation and the lack of an understanding of the social side of the sector. We're seeing so many cuts and so much uncertainty, and really this suggests that we are not a priority. So that's very problematic at a time when the fisheries sector is contributing to our food sovereignty. As things stand, we have already a level of dependence, 70% dependence on external supplies. So indeed, what we're seeing here is real shortcomings. And this is something that has to be factored in. And then we have this question about specific funds. And I would also like to talk about the usage indicators. Thank you for having picked up on that point. There's the DNSH principle, and we have indicators based on criteria which are not in line with what we need, i.e., protecting food sovereignty, the sustainability of the profession. Really, they need to understand the impact of these criteria on the real lives of fishers. But none of that has been borne in mind, and it's something we really do need to deal with. Then there's the issue of competitiveness. The fisheries committee has not provided an opinion on the competitiveness issue, but we in the EPP are working with our members through the agriculture committee, and we are trying to get across the point that this is really important for fisheries. So we need decarbonization aid, aid for modernization of the sector. And I hope these points will also be taken up in the final document because the competitiveness fund is vital if we're going to get additional funding to the sector, and we cannot accept this 6.2% cut to the competitiveness fund. We could also guarantee better support to such a fundamental sector. Thank you, miss Jamed. Yes. I would also like to thank you very much for the study and for the presentations. I think my colleagues all share concerns about this subject. For some months, we've been waiting to see this, but while we wait, what can we see? There's been a reduction in fisheries funding, and the fund for fisheries is going to be mixed up and diluted and combined with other policy areas where fisheries is not so significant. We're seeing lower sums too. Another point I thought was interesting is flexibility is pretty much left to member states, and it seems to be a way of passing on the burden to member states. So as you said a moment ago, fisheries has depended on the CFP rules. And then what we're seeing with this new development is that the commission and the ECJ will be making hay from this. So we're looking at a level of legal uncertainty, which is quite serious. I think we've all understood that the fisheries sector is going to be the great loser from this new policy, but science also loses ground. And that is a time when data and the reliability of data ought to be at the heart of our maritime policy. And we ought to, step up our attention to data where there are questions. The French Fisheries Association has expressed serious concerns about the disappearance of the data collection funding which you mentioned, and that's going to be merged into these famous regional partnership funds. And this looks like 1 of the worst bureaucratic monsters that the EU has ever created. So I have a question for you. Do we have some kind of idea or evaluation of the impact of this new financial architecture when it comes to fisheries, but also when it comes to research in particular and on our food sovereignty? Because fisheries are so vital to our food sovereignty. Thank you. Gracias, senor Miamon. Thank you, mister Miamon. Gracias, presidenta.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• “Request of the Member States but also all the other signatory parties. We need we can't in the EU claim that we are the best students in the class and then not do what we preach. Now, from the rapporteur's proposal, it will also be the inclusion of Rfmos are regional fisheries management management organizations. And they so that we we can ensure that these entities can do their job. Of course we need to see which ones will do what so that we can enforce what will be agreed by all the parties. And I'll finish with two further points. First, Portugal wants to create. Protected marine areas in the Azores and Madeira Islands. And this work, which has already been carried out, will hopefully be part of the Bbnj in future. And finally, I insist once again how important it is to cooperate with all stakeholders such as Mfos. So that they can have a it play a key role in protecting and safeguarding our oceans. Thank you. Thank you. And now, sad. Miss Erickson, you have the floor. As shadow rapporteur.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you, chair. And dear Commissioner, thank you for your speech today. Indeed. I would like also to congratulate the Commission for cooperating key elements into this gender equality strategy that reflects our shared commitment of the women's rights today. And you referred to several numbers regarding the pay gap, pension gap, etc.. And I have to say that indeed, this is a question of competitiveness, not only a matter of equal treatment for women and men, but also competitiveness. And nowadays this is a huge mantra that we are obliged to, to to work on it. At the same time, gender based violence is rising, particularly online. And you mention it, 98% of deepfakes are sexual content and 99% target women. And this is really an attack to our democracy because it has consequences. One third of women leave social media after being attacked, and around 40% of women withdraw from public life in politics after an online abuse. We need to bet on education because social media is replacing the role of schools in education of our youngsters and spreads hate faster than we can teach respect. And I have one question for you, Commissioner, to tackle digital violence, do you believe that we should consider mandatory identification in digital profiles to address online abuse? Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “President. Commissioner. I'd like to congratulate Selina Meyer and André Rodrigues for these two important proposals. We're looking at the place of farmers in the food supply chain, and we're defending their working conditions. The cooperative model is extremely important. And having written contracts is absolutely vital in the dairy sector and meat, too. We need to be attentive to. We need to ensure that meat products are really meat. We also need to ensure that we have proper protection of denomination of origin and other protected produce, that we have support for farmers. In the case of crises that we have the five, uh. Thousand per year with the simplification of the €75,000 per year crisis payments, we also need to ensure that smaller and medium sized farms are exempted from excessive red tape. Same for Organic and nature 2000. And we also need to ensure that POS and Azores producers receive support. We do see a good commitment here to European farmers. Less red tape, more justice, more income, more time out in the fields doing what they do best. Producing in quality, sustainable food at affordable prices. More time out in the field. Less time in the offices. I'm proud to see that.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. And this was a good idea in the beginning to have more funds for the agricultural sector and our farmers. But there are a number of concerns, and that's why we need to recognise that farmers. Are farming with Boyle respecting the environment. And this needs to be valued. I just want to ask about these nature credits. It seems that it goes beyond carbon credits. And so there are different conditions for farmers to, um, access. We have, um, some concerns. And will there be will these new measures, some of these new measures be obligatory? What's what is it like in regard to current legislation? We need of course, we need to bring more investment, private investment. Um, around 700. There's around a €700 billion deficit. So I want to know what's the difference between carbon markets, which are still being developed here and elsewhere, and nature credits. Because we could be bringing in more difficulty for farmers, and the pilot projects and studies need to have, um, Represent European farmers. So there needs to be a certified, transparent model. Beneficial for everyone.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Well, thank you very much for your question. What we're seeing in Portugal is a an in-depth reform of the labour market to be more competitive. We need different rules. We had an initial proposal from the government, which has been reformulated and is now very much more socially oriented. And here we're calling on all the players, the trade unions, the companies to guarantee a more agile and flexible and more competitive labour market. Thank you.”
  EU competences on social policies
• “Thank you. The, uh, the Common Agricultural Policy is meant to be common and used to have two pillars. And the second pillar of the, uh, rural areas is meant to include regional factors and to take and to include everybody. Direct support for farmers over €50,000. And then there is also a reduction of about 50%. So this reform should not result in farmers having attained a certain age. Losing out a substitute regime is important for farmers, but then we need the national and regional criteria. But Yet again, we're seeing that the most the outermost regions need to be included. We have article 59. They should be 100% funded or else. And this is the big question. If it's a good initiative to be able to justify this and to reduce the levels of discretion and to support the agri food sector. And you can count on our support here because it's a very difficult time. Thank you, chair, and thank you to the colleagues. I would like to ask a question about rural areas, because in the one way exchange of letters between the president and the Parliament, we had mention of this. I'd like the commission to explain how we are to interpret it. Obviously, we need to set aside funds for these territories, but 10% obviously won't be enough to cover the needs of nature or strategy for rural areas and expenditure on cohesion, rural areas, mountains, essential services for young people and for for women. So if you ring fence the. Nature objectives without providing additional resources at at European level, then it will be in competition with other needs. Then you'll have a real problem because the at national level, I fear that they won't make up the the shortcoming. So how can you achieve these environmental objectives. And also generational renewal and supporting young and farmers and women farmers. If you don't do this, thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you very much to the speakers, speaking about this very important issue that is promoting products. It's absolutely key in order to protect our traditional products. And also then there will then be an added value which will be passed on to the value chain and will benefit farmers. First of all, promotion schemes should not be ideological in nature. There should be fork to farm and not farm to fork, so measures should be put in place to promote them. Secondly. Geographical indications and designations of origin. Only 25% of Europeans are aware of these seals, these logos. And that's that's worrying. We need to work more in schools and focus on principles of healthy eating among consumers. And when it comes to the recent geopolitical instability that we've seen. I wonder about the following. We want promotion policy with more resources to deal with global uncertainty. I'm not sure whether we should create control mechanisms for this policy in order to ensure that our products will reach the market where they should, and there are no counterfeit products.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• “Thank you chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. Muito obrigado. Thank you for the good news that you've brought for us today. And thank you as well for your understanding of the agriculture agricultural sector. Three questions. What is the f s a need to be the equivalent of the American of its American counterpart? Do we need more controls, more rigor? We're signing lots of free trade agreements with third countries. So what does our agency need? Second question. Harmonisation across European countries. We know that some importers choose certain ports for their own reasons. We have to harmonise the conditions across European ports. We have to take into account antimicrobial resistance in animals. We need a mechanism. To ensure the availability of vaccines to avoid problems. We don't. We didn't have vaccines available when we needed them.”
  Antimicrobial resistance · Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I should like to add my voice to the Spanish colleagues concerns. Anchovy fishing is a high source of income for Portuguese fishers, and this 54% reduce in the quota is of great concern. And in about 30% of some of the fishing areas are only anchovies anchovy fisheries. So that would mean a 50% drop in the income of these very fishers. Now, of course, it's extremely important for us to have the information and the presentation from the commission. But we need, of course, to factor in the three aspects of sustainability the social and economic aspects in addition to the environment. And I hope that once we have the benchmarking exercise, we will have an improvement in the Commission's proposal. We know also that the ministers in the Council are. I hope for Spain and Portugal's sake are able to achieve a balanced approach now for this anchovy quota. Of course, but for all of the other quotas to factoring in the three aspects social, economic and environmental sustainability so that we make the right decision with regard to these quotas. Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “(15:12:13 – 15:14:45): The study confirms a key concern we have when it comes to the new EMF architecture and whether the fisheries policy will lose visibility or certainty for the future. The new approach of NRPs is supposed to simplify funding and give member states more flexibility. Now flexibility would be welcome, but we don't want it to lead to uncertainties. And if you look at the study, there are tangible uncertainties here. At the moment, Fisheries has its own fund, but with the new proposal, we would lose that. And the study shows that support for common management would go from €5,300,000,000 under MFAP to just €2,000,000,000, which would be tied to fisheries. And the access to non earmarked funds is not certain. So there is some dispute about resources that have been mentioned by colleagues, and that is being carried on at a national level. There will certainly be losers. What is particularly concerning is that fisheries at a national level might get funding, but within the MMF, it will be dependent on reforms at national level. If those reforms don't happen, then the fishers don't get their money even though they meet the requirements. So to my mind, this is going to be problems in the pipeline for our fisheries sector, and we need to be clear. Fisheries is not a marginal sector. Fisheries policy is linked to coastal communities, maritime sovereignty, and sustainable management of joint fisheries resources. I'm particularly concerned about small scale fishers and whether they will get aid in intensity. It's not going to be possible if the procedures are too bureaucratic or if member states don't actually give them priority. So my question to the commission is, firstly, will you extend protection for fisheries and be clear about it? And will the commission guarantee that small scale fishers really will receive support? Flexibility must be there to help fishers and not to conceal cuts. But this study, I think, would stagger European fishers. Thank you. Thank you. Vice chair, mister Cabral. Thank you, chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. So”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• “Thank you very much. President. Mr. vice president, Cohesion policy is the most important policy for the EU and benefits, directly and indirectly, all member States. Here we are discussing a new MFF. And we are having to deal with inflation, Covid 19, a war in Ukraine that affects the supply chains. The implementation rate shouldn't then just be the responsibility of the member state. The 6% is not a symbol of success or failure. On the contrary, we need to look at the complexity and reduce it. We need to have more simplification, more trust in the Member States so that they can use the cohesion policies in the best way. We see this in the Azores, where the absorption rate in 20 2023 shows that multi-level governance is essential for the success of these policies. We're looking at new strategy for outermost regions, and we hope that this is going to help the regions even more. That there will be more set aside for them and that public transport can be helped and decarbonisation as well.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. So I welcome the Commission's proposal so that we can quickly deal with this important tool for Member States, but also for all parties to the agreement, so that we can solve this decades long problem. We need to protect and defend that which is our common good. We need to protect our biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This includes critical infrastructure areas with biomass. Great biological diversity. We do have to of course, protect all of this. And not having rules is not an option. We welcome the rapporteur's concise proposal with very specific amendments, especially stressing the role of fishers in these marine protected areas. And this is one of the main parts of this document having to do with marine genetic resources. Tools such as management of protected areas, environmental aspect and the transfer of marine technologies. What we're looking for, of course, is to find consensus. And I hope that we can quickly. Validate these negotiations. We also need to guarantee some aspects which we think are vital. First of all, we need to respect the competences of the Member States and not interfere in these competences. Secondly, we need to ensure that there is a level playing field between the.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “I'll speak in Portuguese, if I may. Thank you very much, Mr. Branch, for your presentation. Mr. branch, it's quite important to have this clear and very transparent information. We had the opportunity to hear from the responsible of the of the FAO on the Unoc conference in the Ines, and it was quite clear there is we have some issues, but the main status of the of the stocks are quite good in the, in a world level. So the availability of food will be will not be a problem. And thank you for sharing this view on this fish meal. Also, it's quite important for us to understand. I only have three small points. First, we are now deciding on the future of the MPAs in the European Union. Do you have any kind of data that will relate to the quality of the healthy of the fish stocks? With these new achievements and goals that we are are deciding right now with the marine protected areas? Secondly, how do you see the impact of the. Partnership agreements, fisheries partnership agreements with with third countries within the European Union and the availability of the fish and fish stocks? Do you see it as we have to get a second generation of agreements in order to protect the the fish stocks everywhere? Thirdly, do you have any information regarding the areas beyond national jurisdiction, as we are now with this High Seas Treaty and the issue? So do you have any information on that? And finally, um, do you have a division of the data in the national, subnational or regional levels? For instance, the outermost regions are quite important. Uh, um, areas that we have a lot of different fish and fish stocks, and sometimes it's, it's assessed in a different way. So do you have only a national data or do you have this divided by the sub national and regional level? Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you very much indeed. For Europe, the European Union, we've got 175 Days that men are working compared to women in terms of what they are receiving, and 5% in terms of what women are earning to. And it has to do with education and many things. And this is even worse in peripheral areas. Uh, less than 10% of CEOs are women in companies, and they have a lot of problems, of course, in progressing, there's the glass ceiling in 2026. This is just unacceptable. The 20 2630, uh, program, uh, leading towards, uh, pay transparency, uh, having a better investment in, uh, family support will help, uh, when we can in, uh, per capita GDP by 9.6% and increase, uh, productivity by 2030. This is what we need. Equal pay for equal work, a fairer and more competitive society. And indeed, Happy Women's Day to all.”
  Gender pay transparency
• “(15:19:16 – 15:22:06): Thank you, madam chair. And I'd like to thank the rapporteurs for their interesting presentations. I'm the shadow rapporteur for part of the, NRP funds for the EPP, and I would have liked to see this study earlier, actually. It would have been very helpful to us when it came to tabling amendments. And it seems to overlap with some of the thoughts that we'd had, but, unfortunately, the deadline for amendments has run out. It would have been very helpful, though, if we had had that in in advance, but never mind. We will use it now as best we can when it comes to the negotiations. And I thought 1 of the first things that you picked up on was very interesting, and that was a comparison between support for agriculture and support for fisheries and agriculture. Agriculture and agriculture employ more people, but when it comes to the proposal, we're seeing a significant diminution in funds. So this an imbalance between the sectors, and I'd be grateful if you could say something about that. I'm pleased that we agree when it comes to the n plus 1 rule. And then there's the next financial framework. It will start to be implemented late. The national regional plans will need time to roll out. If we don't change the n plus 1 rules, then the effective implementation period could be reduced to just 4 to 5 years instead of the 7 which were foreseen. And so we need to reconsider that point and look at whether we can go back to the n 3 rule, which I proposed some amendments on. I also think it's relevant to pick up on your points on fleet renewal. The investments would not be restricted by the WTO agreement on fisheries zones, and I agree on that point. Then there are a couple of points. Firstly, as regards the NRP fund, you suggested that the commission wasn't including control when it came to data collection and in the quantity ring fenced. So how would you evaluate the possibility of funding those activities through the IU facility? Some of us have tabled amendments, and some of the states are also picking up on this in the council, so I'd like to know how you see that. And then when it comes to sanctions, the commission has been reluctant and hasn't wanted to change the obligation to return aid if there are serious infringements committed up to 5 years after the grant of that funding in fisheries. But that's a specific rule for fisheries. It doesn't apply to agriculture. So what do you make of that? I think it's a double penalty, and I think it's a burden on the fishery sector and that that rule should be got rid of. It could also deter fishers from requesting that funding. Thank you. Thank you. Mister Perka, may I want to wish for 3 minutes for the commission, I think?”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• “(12:24:35 – 12:25:48): Thank you so much. I'll speak in Portuguese. Thank you very much. The European parliament has done a lot of talking, and we need to ensure that the CAP is an autonomous instrument with its own regulation with a dedicated protected budget. And with the 2 pillars, we have direct payments and the support for rural development. European farmers need stability. They need predictability, and we should not change policies every 5 years. And that is why I very much support the work that the co operators have done because this is a big improvement compared to the initial commission proposal. The message for the outermost regions is clear. They should be autonomous, completely separated from national plans to make sure that article 3 5 9 of the European Union is respected. Weakening the European agricultural sector and especially that of outermost regions is a strategic error because it would be calling into a question our own food, security and the protection of our regions. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you. Chair I'll speak in Portuguese. Good afternoon. Good evening. Commissioner. It's a pleasure to have you here again. Thank you for being so proactive. And we can see what you're doing to help the agricultural sector. We're on the right track, and we need to try and strengthen the position of farmers in the food chain, and anything that does that is welcome. When we're seeing pressure, increasing environmental requirements, administrative requirements, increasing, having a knock on effect on farmers income and on the food production. We have as Europeans want cheaper products that are better quality and that puts pressure on farmers incomes. There are three key points here transparency in terms of the prices in the food chain. Commissioner, this is fundamental. This information has to be given to our European consumers so that they can see the product that they want to buy. So transparency and then improving the agricultural contracts, mediation as well as strengthening mediation structures. Now, these are all major news items. We have a similar model to the mediation model, which I think would be a good model to to follow. And I welcome these legislative ideas and really your proactive stance as well. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the work done. I'm not sure whether we should see this as a reform of the cap. It's not just a matter of changing the day to day practice and the day to day life of farmers. It doesn't make sense that farmers spend their the entire day behind a desk, filling in papers instead of working the land. At the end of the day, it's a matter of food supply. It's important that we're aware. That withdrawing the commission proposal on direct payments leads to problems at times of crisis. Crisis? We are. The idea of extending the 13th measures is very important for the organic matter, the organic holdings, and it's important that we have sufficient focus on interoperability and the competition situation. We've got to make sure. That all necessary aid is available to our farmers. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you very much, Madam Minister. I just wanted to say a few words of the issues of the strategic autonomy and the program that is very ambitious of your presidency and, of course, the functioning of the internal market. And also water resilience is very important for Portugal, and we certainly want a lot of attention to be placed on this in your programme and also the the funds to be used for agriculture, for water resilience. We see that agriculture is figures highly in your programme. Just a few comments on certain areas we think that are absent. The issue of specific support to outermost regions and agriculture. And of course, you have not referred to this in your program and hopefully you can rapidly correct this. This is the only program to support the agriculture. The farmers in those regions has now been diluted in a national package and directly managed by the European Union. And finally, the structure of the cap should be maintained in the two pillars, as was promised by the European Commission, and we should strengthen financing in that area. Thank you very much.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, chairman. First of all, I'd just like to call for us to divide the debate into two parts. We have to think about our position on Mercosur. Well, we'll have plenty of opportunity to do that in the right context and in the right time. But there we have our opinion on the safeguard clauses. These safeguard clauses can be improved. We have heard requests from our EPP coordinator, from the Herbert, from Herbert Dorfmann, reducing the threshold from 10 to 5%. It should be also possible for specific sectors in the EU to request a reopening of the list of sensitive products. There's also needs to include the outermost regions. And then there's also that two plus two on the safeguard clause. So we have to do our job in Parliament to improve the safeguard clause, to make proposals for improving the clauses in Inter. Just two final remarks. First of all, on the process, I would have preferred us to work here in agri on the safeguard clauses because we would be sticking more faithfully to the needs that our farmers have. I could also mention that the Mercosur agreement is very important for the European Union, and we can't stand proudly alone. We can't. Only safeguard the agricultural sector. But we need to remember that we have to open up this huge market to allow us to have more food sovereignty within the EU and worldwide.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Chair. Commissioner, what we've heard today means that we must all be wrong. You know, look at the geopolitical circumstances, look at food security, look at the EU, look at the impact of Mercosur, Trump's tariffs, Ukraine. Given all these circumstances, should we inject uncertainty into the sector? Shouldn't we protect our farmers? Instead, we have to live with this new uncertainty. Commissioner, what we need is to improve the Cap proposal, and that means simplicity and flexibility. But let's keep the two pillar structure while having simplification. Let's also have a decent budget. We need a European policy. We mustn't have 27 national policies. As I say, we need a European policy, not 27 national policies. So I have a question about the outermost regions and pose. If we look at the treaty on the functioning of the European Union under article 30, under article 329, the Commission must provide funding for Posey. But you're leaving Posey, uh, by the wayside. It will be up to the member states to provide national funding for Posey. This is a violation of the treaties, as has been pointed out by the European Court of Justice. How are you going to ensure that Posey is upheld, not coming from the national budgets? Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. We all need agriculture. Women, men, young people to deal with the aging populations that we have. And unfortunately, there are deep inequalities in rural areas, gender inequalities and the 13% gap, which is there since 2012. And we need to tackle tackle that. And women are leaving rural areas leaving men there. And these areas are getting poorer. We need efficient data and we need to look at different solutions. Women who hold farms and say that they could never have imagined themselves in that role. So we need to increase visibility. We Have a present. A woman at the top of the agri committee. There are people, young people who. Um. There's an issue with visibility. Visibility and including women. This is something that we absolutely need in society. Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “(15:50:52 – 15:52:14): Fisheries local action groups have played an important role in promoting coastal communities and fisheries communities as well because they are applying the principle of subsidiarity. They're very close to the public on the ground. They understand the needs where they are. They prepare projects. They prepare candidacies. They evaluate those, and they provide a very good example of the administration of financial resources. And they show the effect that European monies can have in the local community. They work with different authorities and mechanisms and show how cooperation can work very well indeed. Programs such as Pizai and others are absolutely essential to make sure that the local realities get noticed. And the best way of doing this is by allowing local groups to administer them under the idea of subsidiarity and partnership. And that gives us cause for concern now with what the commission's proposing because we're worried that the flags are gonna disappear because it'll be up to the discretion of the member states whether they get funding or not, and that is a retrograde step compared”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “(16:11:20 – 16:15:14): I would like to thank the commission once again for their presentation on the midterm evaluation of the MFF. And we can see that the MFF is going to make reductions, and that's a mistake. We've got incomplete data because they go up to the 06/30/2024. So many local administrations are implementing the implementing plans, but with limitations of the funds. We are seeing inequalities between the implementation of MFAP between member states, and that concerns us. I also want to underscore what happens very often between when it comes to MFF. Very often, regions wait for national transposition of their plans in order to then be able to adapt to their respective realities. That's the case with MFAP. 1 or 2 years ago, that happened. We need to modify the eligibility criteria for Fisher's, and that unfortunately creates inequalities. We can see that there are significant differences in administrative capacities of organization between different member states, but we must understand that MFAP is an essential fund that supports the fisheries sector. I'd also like to go back to a concern. About 60% of MFFAF, results aim at promoting sustainable fishing, restoring and conserving biological, aquatic resources, and 20%, which is fundamental for aquaculture, processing fish products, and aquaculture. This clearly shows that priorities are aimed more at consumption of organic goods. Now, of course, we know that it's important to, support flags, And I'd like to add that this shows the added value of MFFAF. It's got a European added value due to the common resources of, maritime resources, and it needs better shared management. Very often, this gives rise to, inequalities in data collection, for example. MFAP is important for EU priorities and national needs all by guaranteeing flexibility to member states to adapt to local conditions. Here, once again, it's important to draw attention to the social aspect of the fishing industry. We need to stand up to the social challenges and guarantee a, crisis reserve and a different budget for various different situations that we are facing. For example, the cost of living crisis or the increase of cost of production. So we have insufficient data, but MFAS needs to be continued, and it needs to guarantee the protection of the EU priority. Mister Rodriguez? Thank”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• “Thank you very much, Mr. President. Commissioner, decarbonisation of transport is something that's absolutely vital. We fully agree and we think that we need to there needs to be global and not just European commitment to this. However, we do need to take into account two key points. Firstly, access to these fuels and secondly, the real impact of these measures and cost benefit analysis. This is why I want to talk about outermost regions, which depend on air transport and maritime transport for their survival. It's not just additional value, but this really is part of the very much existence we already have ETS, so we need to see all those. We will probably see a reduction in, uh, Accessibility. For example, we've seen Ryanair remove one of their flights for these reasons as a result of increasing costs. We also need to make sure there's um, take into account the cost of food, the cost of food available in supermarkets, and we'll see cost of living increase as a result of this regulation. That's why we need to make sure that we leave no one behind. We need to have a robust system for outermost regions to ensure that we don't do this.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport · Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “Thank you very much, chair. Of course. Yes. The situation is difficult when it comes to consumption level as well. That's the lowest we've seen over the last 60 years. We're seeing that harvests begin when sellers are still full. We want the wine sector to be treated with the respect that it deserves. We are facing a hugely challenging situation. On the one hand. We're seeing that different countries want different things. Different countries want to impose other rules. In Portugal, for example, we want to have table wines with certain typography and different categories. I would like to thank our colleague, the rapporteur Garcia, for the work done. This is really important. It's important that we encourage exports. We should look at measures that have been taken, take them as examples of good practice. And then when it comes to production, we should make grants more flexible. We want to ensure 70% cofinancing for vines in order to help them adapt to climate change challenges. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. I'd like to thank the commission for their presentation. No, obviously we are not satisfied with what is being proposed. There is about €86 billion missing for agriculture, but that can't be to the detriment of cohesion that we are not able to have that funding. We understand that this rural aspect perhaps tries to compensate that a little bit, but even still, there is still 40 billion missing from the cap. And this cannot be to the detriment of rural development in cohesion. Now. In regional. Aspects. We can't just put everything in the same bag. Now, the Commission's original proposal helps me understand a mistake in terms of the pillar one fund. There is a balanced distribution between the two pillars. But what happened was that the, um, the historical use of the first pillar was actually accounted for. So this led to an error. And in well, we've kind of solved this, but I would like to commend what was said by the Commission, recognizing that agriculture is a pillar of the European Union, because this is fundamental when it comes to food security. And as the Commissioner said, no one can wage a war with an empty stomach. Now, cohesion is also another pillar of the European Union, because if we don't ensure development in. Regions, then that could leave us vulnerable to. Many aspects. Let's not forget about Posey. This is an issue when it comes to the outermost regions. Posey was taken out of the national envelope, but it has not been effectively safeguarded in terms of the 100% Co financing. And now there is a minimum of 15 up to 50%. So coming back to this point of Posey, we must get it back into the 100% co-financing. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um, I just want to, um, thank the rapporteur for this excellent work carried out with the shadows. There are open questions, but given the positive attitudes, it looks like we will get there in the end. And this legislation needs to be applied quickly to defend farmers interests, suppliers interests and for transparency with the supply chains and to avoid unfair competition across borders. I want to just say that we are happy with the commission's, um, involvement. And it's good that, um, the situation. And I just wanted to highlight again that there's a good cooperation here. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. Chair. I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the proposal. We need a strong pillar in the agricultural sector, the form of Horizon Europe to get young people into the profession and to get the know how out there. But we must also be aware or ensure that this know how is also passed on to the next generation, and that there's access to research and innovation, and that there's sufficient funding for farmers independent of the size of their farm or where they are. Everyone needs to have access. We need to democratize access to research and the insights generated through Horizon Europe. Then on vaccinations, we need to support the farming sector to produce and use vaccines. Make sure that all farmers have access timely access to vaccines for livestock. Europe needs to help farmers overcome the challenge of immunizing herds and animal welfare in general.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, chair. I will be speaking Portuguese, if that's okay. Thank you. Chair. Thank you to the Court of Auditors for the presentation of this report. And one of the main conclusions is that we need to simplify and to cut red tape. Indeed, one of the issues really comes to eligibility. And we can see that there are a lot of shortcomings that have been pointed to by the Court of Auditors. And so I'm wondering what they think about the simplification of the procedures. So that we can make cohesion policy easier and more nimble and easier to understand for small administrations. We know many of our administrations are extremely small and therefore the complexity of cohesion funds can be problematic. Now we also note in the specific case of Portugal, we have seen progress in terms of some of the challenges we have, the administrative procedures that are very long. And then there is public procurement tenders that can make it extremely complicated to meet the time frame that is necessary. So we need to make sure these much more legible. And as a final point we need to boost trust. We have to make sure that there is confidence in the member states in the procedures that they have and really strengthening the verification and control of the procedure. So I hope that we can be able to address.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “(14:55:24 – 14:57:44): area. The the national plans will be reviewed by the commission, and we there is the balance, condition balance between capacity and fishing opportunities, which reduces the potential possible support to many fleet segments. So, in that in in relation to the conditions regulation, my our main recommendations are really the regard of the inclusion of processing and marketing. And, as I mentioned in the beginning, the transfer of the relevant artificialist relevant articles from NRP to the conditions regulation. And finally, next slide, please. This is I returned to the to the do no significant harm principle. Although this is I may I put it in under this heading. Although, it is not mentioned in the conditions in the conditions in the proposal for the conditions regulation. But maybe it should be placed there because as I mentioned at the beginning, it is not quite clear how this principle will be applied to fisheries. And a greater clarification would be useful for for for both, for the national authorities as well as for the as well as for the industry. There are there are 6 areas which are mentioned on the sheet against which all measures will be evaluated. There is no clear cut, detailed evaluation approach. And and so they it will be possible to that could lead to extended discussions. Could the commission will produce guidelines about about, application of the of the principle by the end of this year? And until then, in fact, everything remains remains even less clear than it will be in the future. And so the the the consequences of the do no significant harm should be scrutinized as quickly as possible, in fact. Thank you. Thank”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. First off, warm thanks to the rapporteur for her work. Likewise to the shadow rapporteurs. This ought to be a pivotal tool to ensure connectivity and energy connectivity throughout the EU. We make much of the single market, but Seth is an essential tool to ensure the free circulation of people and the free circulation of energy, and therefore beef up Europe's competitiveness. That's precisely why I identify with the priorities listed. I do think we need to hone our existing capacities. Which are essential for the European project, particularly when it comes to security and defence. And we need to adjust our port and airport and highway infrastructures to deal with the overburden existing due to military mobility as well. It is also essential we ensure greater energy Connectivity. However, the Iberian Peninsula is falling short of the 15% level identified by the commission. We're currently at 3%, particularly between Spain and France. This needs to be cleared up quickly because this is a major hindrance to energy interconnectedness, interconnectedness. Now let's look at connecting our transport networks. Our ports, airports and our railways need to be modernized and also adjusted to environmental and energy related changes to ensure that these are competitive compared to ports, airports and similar structures in countries outside the bounds of the EU.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Well, thank you very much for your question. What we're seeing in Portugal is a an in-depth reform of the labour market to be more competitive. We need different rules. We had an initial proposal from the government, which has been reformulated and is now very much more socially oriented. And here we're calling on all the players, the trade unions, the companies to guarantee a more agile and flexible and more competitive labour market. Thank you.”
  EU competences on social policies
• “First of all, I thank the rapporteur for his work and the acceptance of our proposals as we tried to improve this document. The livestock sector is so important for the EU. It's a pillar for our food security. It ensures that rural areas are kept alive. It's important for jobs too. But we see that the sector is dependent on the import of inputs, synthetic fertilizers, etc. so it's a sector which is very dependent on external inputs. And of course, it's a sector which has to try to reduce its greenhouse gases. The livestock sector does, however, produce many products which bear a PDO or a PGI. Now we must recognise that there are low wages in the livestock sector. There are poor working conditions in the livestock sector. There are difficult conditions for these livestock producers. All of these factors mean that few people want to enter the sector. And then on top of that, you have free trade agreements and things like Mercosur. We don't yet know the impact of that agreement. So we must recognise that we must not demonise the livestock sector. We have to protect the sector. We have to ensure that there is a social vision for livestock producers because they give so much back to our society.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “First of all, let me congratulate Mr. Dimas for his excellent work. I agree that we need greater flexibility when it comes to promotion policy, and we need to particularly support Pdos and Pgis. They are very important quality labels so that we can showcase our products. Now promotion is a strategic instrument as we seek to tap new markets. But opening up new markets means that we have to truly be present on those markets. And there we need promotion policy. And let's sideline or get rid of any any ideological debates when it comes to promotion. We must promote what was truly produced in the EU. It's not about raising awareness or instrumentalising promotion policy. Of course we should focus on pdos and pgis though. But this is a program that has been successful internally and externally, and we must continue to underline the great European products we produce. So I will be putting forward some targeted amendments where I underline the importance of SMEs. I will also call for specific support for the outermost regions. Thank you.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• “Thank you, president, Commissioner. We are seeing a rise in geopolitical instability, and this confirms that. Very much dependent on those who produce synthetic fertilizers. When it comes to phosphorus and potassium and other forms were very dependent. Now we've seen more than 60% increases in fertilizer prices. Some measures have been taken by the European institutions. But we need to go further. We need to trigger cbam for these synthetic fertilizers. And when it comes to nitrates, we also need to take measures 170,000 kilos per hectare per year that's being used. So we can use the instruments that we have to try and support these fertilisers that we need to look into biomethane as well, so that we can make sure that in the agriculture sector, we're playing our part to guarantee strategic autonomy.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Well, there's nothing more important for security and defense than putting food on the plate of Europe's citizens. We need to support our farmers who are all too often mistreated and disrespected. Now, Commissioner, you need to pass a clear message to the farmers and the rural world. Farmers provide food and a lot of other services, and they need to be incentivized rather than regulated. We need a robust budget and. 0.36% of GDP goes on this major public good. Attracting more people to the sector has to be a priority. We need to do that with research, innovation and digitalization. But we do need European support and I'll close with process for the outermost regions. It hasn't been updated for more than 80, sorry, the 15 years. So we now need this support to be updated with for the farmers of the Azores, please.”
  Agricultural funding
• “(15:00:40 – 15:03:03): I'd like to start by welcoming the authors of this study. It's very clear, and the conclusions confirm what many of us have been saying for some time. The commission proposal is really a step backwards when it comes to fisheries and aquaculture policy. This is not simplification. It is cuts. And that also links into fragmentation because there's no specific place for fisheries and national plans, and there's not transparency vis a vis member states. The study itself points out that there are risks that these sectors, have a relatively small economic significance, might be treated as a lower priority when it comes to national plans. Then on fleet decarbonization, this is a challenge for the next decade. And this should have been the response, but the study makes it clear that the proposal does not identify fisheries and agriculture as strategic sectors when it comes to EU competitiveness. So we need to bear in mind the governance structure. Then on outermost regions, for example, the Azores, the impact will be even more significant. The TFEU requires differential treatment, and this proposal does not guarantee that. So I have 2 questions. Firstly, if we compare MFAP and the current proposal, what is the most significant structural risk? Is it the budget restriction? Is it that there would be a dilution of our direction of travel, or is it the lack of control mechanism? And then secondly, If we take into account the plans and the performance regulation and all of these proposals, what do you think the main priorities are? As you know, this parliament has said that fisheries should not be treated as a residual sector. It needs to be regarded as a proper European policy.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• “(14:41:24 – 14:55:24): Thank you. Also, from my side, good afternoon. I will take you through our conclusions and recommendations regarding the NRP fund, the the proposal for the performance framework, and, and the proposal for the for the CFP conditions, regulation. To start with the NRP fund, there there are, of course, things I'm going to mention, which you already know, which you have known for a long time, but still is they are part of the exercise. I will mention them for completeness. The most important, really, in the NRP fund is is that CFP is 1 of the ex few exclusive competencies of the commission. And and this has not really been very profoundly reflected in the in the proposal, and, therefore, we believe that it should be recommended that that, CFP should get the the attention which it receives as it is 1 of the EU responsibilities. The second topic is, is the budget. Of course, we all know the budget has been significantly reduced to, to to about 50% of the MFAV level when you compare areas which are comparable. And, in particular, there is no provision for funding of data collection and control. Under the MFAV program, the cost of this, of data collection and control are about 1,600,000,000. That is the total cost, the EU contribution, and the national contributions. And given the inflation, you can expect that the total cost will be about 1,900,000,000 in the next program. And it is it is a bit surprising that this wasn't this is not, in the proposal because now I will quote just briefly from the recently, published evaluation of the CFP by the commission where where in the conclusion already, it says, the use of DCF data has also increased sign signaling better accessibility and relevance for scientific advice and for research purposes. And now it it comes. EU funding has been critical in achieving these changes. So the commission here already stresses that EU funding is critical for, for for continuation of the data collection and and and control that is and this is not reflected in the NRP proposal. The proposal assumes that that additional funding at national level will be made available from the overall NRP envelope to to fishery sector. But in our in our conversation with with the stakeholders and in particular with all including managing authorities of the MFAV, really, there is there is high level of doubt that that at the national level, much more resources will be made available for fisheries. Those those are at least 2 reasons, the data collection and the and the competition with other sectors why we also recommend that the ring fenced amount should be should be reviewed, increased. There is an there is an issue with the national implementation of the program. The the consequences of national implementation seem really underestimated. This has been stressed in the report also in the evaluation by the European Court of Auditors. And, of course, creating legislation where the implementation is already facing problems, from the beginning is an issue to discuss. There is 1, big unknown, and I will return to it a little bit later also, is the application of the do no significant harm principle. Do no significant harm has as you know, has been, the principle has been introduced in the taxonomy regulation. It has been applied in the in the resilience and recovery, facility. But how it will and the commission assumes that it will be applied similarly in a similar way for the for the, MFF in the next period. However, the context of application of that, of the principle is completely different, and, therefore, this is really a big unknown what this mean what this will mean in particular for the fishery sector. And another issue is is for at the level of national implementation is that that, we are really running late. Already, the preparation of the legislation from the MFAT period, we know that the preparation of the leg from starting the preparation of the legislation to to launching first, first calls for proposal at national level, the period is about 4 to 5 years. This, in principle, will take us will means that the the the the implementation will start only in the 2030. And and in addition to that, the member states have 1 less will have 1 year less to implement because of the n plus 1 rule, which will apply to to to the NRP. So so the whole program will have to be implemented not in 7 years, but in 4 to 5 years. Next slide, please. Following thing is processing and marketing has is not mentioned in the proposal. While it is an integral part of the CFP with the CMO regulation behind it. Again, it this seems to be an omission. There is there is no mention about the maximum aid intensity except the fact that the small scale cost of fisheries should be eligible for 100%, which potentially could threaten the the level playing field, although we don't think that is very likely. But something about maximum maximum agent sensitive should be mentioned. And finally, there is, there are certain inconsistencies we found between the article 35 11, which deals with the with, the fisheries issues and annex 5, section 1.8, which which describes how the how the fisheries program should be presented in the, in the national plan. There is there are some there are inconsistencies, the the the groups which are distinguished are not really homogeneous. I may be a little bit bit too technical, but I just want to draw your attention to that. And finally, regarding the NRP fund, it is not really fully clear, whether the EU the EU facility whether the EU facility will provide sufficient funding for the for the services which it should support, like the advisory councils, support to ISIS, scientific scientific research, and so on. So the role of the of EU facility, again, is is not quite is not quite clear. Next slide, please. Turning to the performance regulation. The we feel that there is an issue with the output and result indicators. How how the performance regulation will be applied, is not really clear to the stakeholders whom we interviewed from the the particular, the managing authorities. And, therefore, if we therefore, you can assume that there will be different interpretations in the member states. And the indicate the indicators, as they are not defined, do not really have a clear link to the CFP objectives. This is in terms of relation of the financial instruments to the CFP. This seems to be an omission. The indicators which have selected are also not suit really suited for future evaluation of the impact of the program on fishery sector as there is no distinction between fishing, aquaculture, or small scale fisheries as and number and several other areas which will be evidently important to assess. As I mentioned, the application of, application of the performance framework and its consequences are not really clear to the member states at this moment. And it seems that the proposal does not take into account that the the member states really depend on the proposals which come from from potential beneficiaries. This is, this has quite far reaching consequences. For example, in terms of the member states can can propose a certain number of of operations which they intend to implement, but it can be small and large operations. And 1 big 1 can be many small ones. In this sense, counting the operations, which is the most important output output indicator is is is a bit tricky or is, ambiguous, let's say. And, similarly, it is also surprising that that in the contributions to of the program to the social aspects, to the social results, all the percentages which are in the in the annex are 0. This means that this means that the commission already assumes that the proposal assumes that that the program for the of the fish for the fisheries will have 0 impact on the on social dimension of the sector, and the society at large, of course. And, well and finally, I I think it is fair to mention that in our interviews with some of the managing authorities, they feel that, they are not really considered as 1 of the stakeholders in the in the whole game and that they are that their opinions are not really properly taken taken into account. So in general, the recommendation our recommendation in this area is that consequences for implementation and evaluation of the program should be better should be scrutinized and better taken into account. Next slide, please. Turning to the to my last topic, the conditions regulation. There many also, in this case, the managing authorities would like to see many of the issues related to fisheries be transferred from the NRP proposal to the conditions regulations because in the future when it comes to making adjustments, it will be institutionally, more simple. In general, we can say that the the m f f conditions, which were related well, which are related at the moment to specific measures, are discontinued, which has, you may say, certain advantages because, for for example, now vessels beyond 24 meters cannot receive any any assistance while on the next program, it is let's say, the the the the scope of operation for the member states will be broader. The of course, the general eligibility conditions like the involvement in IOU, penalty points, and balance, will be balance between capacity and fishing opportunities will be continued. But it is it is certain that that that the new program offers greater flexibility for responding to national and local needs. And, again, I can I can give a short example where, for example, in seasonal at present, the m f f regulation requires that that a vessel must have fished hundred 20 days in the in the last 2 years to to be eligible for funding? But in some seasonal features, this is not feasible. So so, again, indeed, this the new proposal will provide greater flexibility, which may be which may also produce positive results. We I think we would like to stress that the NRP is and the conditions regulations are not really, unlikely to lead to renationalization of the CFP as some people fear because of because, of course, the whole body of legislation which is related to CFP remains sending. There is that is not, there is no discussion about that. And similarly, also the level with more flexibility to member states, the level playing field is unlikely to be affected because, basically, the budget is too limited to have a major impact in this”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• “Thank you very much indeed. For Europe, the European Union, we've got 175 Days that men are working compared to women in terms of what they are receiving, and 5% in terms of what women are earning to. And it has to do with education and many things. And this is even worse in peripheral areas. Uh, less than 10% of CEOs are women in companies, and they have a lot of problems, of course, in progressing, there's the glass ceiling in 2026. This is just unacceptable. The 20 2630, uh, program, uh, leading towards, uh, pay transparency, uh, having a better investment in, uh, family support will help, uh, when we can in, uh, per capita GDP by 9.6% and increase, uh, productivity by 2030. This is what we need. Equal pay for equal work, a fairer and more competitive society. And indeed, Happy Women's Day to all.”
  Gender pay transparency
• “Thank you very much. As I was saying, this is a very important initiative. We need transparency in the food chain. We need to know about prices that farmers have received and the prices that are actually being paid in supermarkets during the inflation crisis. Um, prices shot up, but and there was huge profits for the supermarkets. But this didn't, um, translate into major changes for um, farmers. And at the same time there was a war in Ukraine and there's inflation. And, you know, even locally produced food was was the price was being inflated. So we need this transparency to fight unfair commercial practices and to ensure, um, information for consumers so they can make an make an informed choice. You know, if we we want to pay farmers more. So this absolutely vital process in the Azores. There is a price observatory being set up. There's something we have at national level as well. So we can ensure that there is transparency so that the supply chains, um, those involved in the supply chains understand they can't just set whatever price they want without paying decent prices to the farmers. So two points in relation to ambition. Firstly confidentiality. Confidentiality. Can we have um compulsory um information. And obviously how do we. Secondly how do we link into the already existing observatories of the member state level.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “In the. In this last opinion on the cap, the court warned that the integration was into a single fund would undermine the completeness of Cap and add complexity at the level of its management. Because of the proliferation of implementing rules. Finally, I would like to address this recommendation from the European Court of Auditors regarding the need for having the guarantee that the support is reaching this final beneficiaries, and this is quite important to bet on better transparency on the formation of the price in the food supply chain. I would also like also to highlight the important results of the milk producers of Azores. Finally, in this context, we defend that the policy program must remain strictly circumscribed to regulation EU number 228 2013 as a distinct and with a budget ring fenced that we voted here for €9.1 billion. With respect to the article 349 of the treaty. Thank you so.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much indeed. Chair. Executive Director, I'd like to congratulate you on your appointment and wish you the very best. Now, the European food system depends on a basic principle. Products which enter the EU have to respect European standards. This isn't protectionism. It is a guaranteeing fairness. We impose these rules on European farmers. They're very strict rules, which of course have to be respected by anyone who wishes to import their products into the single market. It's absolutely crucial to guarantee that there is was equivalence in this system. And this does have added additional costs for Europe, of course, for our farmers. But it does ensure trust in the single market. And this is why, looking at the recent Efsa study, 98% of the products in the EU have a low or acceptable levels of insecticides. But compared to products come from outside the EU, actually contain residues which are banned completely in the EU. So I think we need to continue the good work we are doing within the EU, but to keep a close eye on what is coming in from outside. We have to better border controls. We have to ensure that we keep a closer eye on the origin of products and have a and perhaps reinforce the Efsa.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Mr. Chair. Commissioner. The word of the day is disappointment. We're hearing about the biggest MFF But a 20% cuts for US 80 billion less. This isn't more Europe. It's more national policy making. And this won't turn out well in my view. We have been talking about strategic autonomy and making the sector attractive and having food sovereignty. Well, how are farmers going to be attracted given these circumstances? I mean, you're supposed to be squaring the circle, but you're going against the will of all of the political groups here, uh, doing exactly the opposite of what this House wants. You're basically going to end rural development once and for all. And what about the posy scheme? How are we going to help the outermost regions? Are they included in this ring fencing. Thank you. Speaker has been cut off.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I'd like to thank the Court of Auditors. And I think the report, uh, shows what we've always said. I mean, a more complex mechanism, a more complex architecture, less predictability, a lack of stability for our farmers and also for Member states. And that's why the sea ape proposal from the commission has failed. In terms of simplification, we need a robust budget, the two pillar structure and separation between national and regional plans. We can't turn the cap into 27 different national policies. It's not a. Agriculture ministers of agriculture should be dealing with the future of agriculture. The Court of Auditors report is clear. Doing away with POS and putting other funding in national plans reduces the complementarity of these tools and the rigour of its implementation. And the same goes with minimum cofinancing for posts, which goes between 15 and 70%. I mean, it's currently 100% funded from the EU budget. So we need also a proposal for small farmers within the Cap proposal. Outermost regions now are not going to be able to continue production in many cases I think, and that's unacceptable. Territorial cohesion, food security etc. are important. We need a cap and also those that are complementary. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you chair. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Jo Heeley, for this important report that we share a lot of these conclusions. I particularly welcome the proposal from a strong cap based on increased stand alone and dedicated budget, properly adjusted for inflation. This is fundamental for our farmers and to guarantee certainty and fairness. I also fully support the report's clear position that the cap must remain a truly EU wide policy. Any move towards renationalisation would risk fragmenting the internal market and weakening the union. It's also fundamental to maintain the current structure. The two pillar model, namely target income support and rural development measures. I'm also pleased with the emphasis on generation renewal. This is vital for the future of European agriculture. And let me also stress the reciprocity as a fundamental condition to ensure a level playing field for our producers in global markets. Finally, I would like to thank for highlighting the importance of key instruments, notably the POS program, the life and leader that should remain protected and adequately funded. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. That was a very interesting presentation we heard. And of course, we have to feed more and more mouths in this world. Some 8 billion people. So we need new resources. We new. We need new science, we need to have water resistant plants, but we need to ensure that everything we develop increases yields. It's so important that the agricultural sector has access to needs, and that they get a good return on what they're doing in terms of funding and financing to now, NGOs can help us deal with the challenges I've mentioned. And it's also important to look at the creation of genome banks, because genome banks will help us to maintain traditional species and seed varieties. But I also want to say, why are we lagging behind, uh, behind other countries such as China? And what about our experiments and research? I think our researchers are lagging behind. How can we help our researchers? How can we have more support for NGOs? Thank you.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• “Recent calamities have shaken Portugal and shown the importance of having a solid, robust cohesion policy with a ring fenced budget. And this shows how much we depend on the tool. And we have to defend the views of the Court of Auditors. We need a multi governance system with proper input and support for national, regional and local governments. Now merging funds doesn't mean simplification. Quite the opposite. It doesn't mean saving money. Quite the opposite. Equal treatment will lead to quite the opposite. This. A report from the Court of Auditors has arrived exactly the right moment. When we are trying to build a future of such an important policy. Cohesion policy. It is effective. It is solid. It guarantees the integrity of the EU. Two questions how does the Court of Auditors see the article 239 of the treaties on outermost regions and the principle of do no harm. How can this be justified by the current draft?”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Well, thank you very much for your question. What we're seeing in Portugal is a an in-depth reform of the labour market to be more competitive. We need different rules. We had an initial proposal from the government, which has been reformulated and is now very much more socially oriented. And here we're calling on all the players, the trade unions, the companies to guarantee a more agile and flexible and more competitive labour market. Thank you.”
  EU competences on social policies
• “Thank you very much, chair, and good afternoon to all of the colleagues. I'd like to thank the commission for the presentation on this proposal for the Baltic Sea in 2025. Very briefly, two points. The first, when it comes to the situation in the Baltic, the difficult environmental conditions. We're also talking about, of course, salinity and nutrients and eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. Now the proposal, if we look at it, I'm most concerned about the small scale fisheries. They only have this as their only livelihood, and that might actually sap their ability to be able to, um, continue their business in the Baltic Sea. When it comes to Cod, however, I have a specific question. It's obviously a product that is highly consumed in Portugal, and we can see that there is something of a 75% decrease in the Cod. Now, if we look at the Cod stock, it's not an issue of overfishing, however. It's the environmental conditions and the conditions of the species. Therefore, I should like to ask the commission, in addition to this 75% decrease in the quota, what measures are being taken to be able to replenish the stock to make sure that we have healthier cod stocks? So in future years, we know that things have been difficult over the recent years where there have been measures taken. But I'd like to know what the long term and the medium term measures might be to be able to replenish that stock. Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you. Chair. I would like to welcome the presentation of this assessment from the European Court of Auditors, and I'll start by the court's own fundamental observation. The program is European Union finance instrument and in my saying we should maintain it as it is. As the court itself acknowledged in its previous evaluation, the. Considering that in the last 12 years post has remained basically the same. Specific measures were effective and extremely important for agriculture. Any proper evaluation of the process, I would say, must take into account external factors that significantly affect agricultural sectors of the outermost regions, in particular the impact of EU trade agreements with third countries and also the impact on the ban of certain molecules in the sugar cane. This is quite an example. And even in tomato sector in cannery, it must also be emphasized that both these capacity to respond adequately to these challenges has been severely constrained by financial limitations. As we know it, this budget remained practically unchanged for nearly two decades despite rising production costs, inflation and increasing regulatory requirements. We are asking the pharmacy to do more with less and less resources. Furthermore, it is crucial to recall that agricultural conditions in the outermost regions are fundamentally different. The climatic conditions in these regions are unique and particularly challenging. When the court stated the long term future of these sectors is threatened by environmental, climate change and demographic challenges in the outermost regions, the logical conclusion must be that adequate and predictable financing is necessary for addressing these challenges. Additionally, in its last opinion on the Cap, the court warned.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. The European Union and the US 30% of world trade. And so the tariffs have a direct impact on our company and particularly on consumers affected by this. As we've heard by this 12% increase, the European Union should, of course, negotiate because the US has always been our ally. They're not just a trade partner. That means we need a compromise to ensure that we have security and strategic cooperation with the US, which is absolutely vital, of course, for Portugal and the Azores is particularly important. Of course, we need to diversify our trade and look to Mercosur, for example, or India and the EU needs to open up more, and we also need to ensure that we encourage industry better in the European Union. We need to look at the balance between trade in goods and trade in services as well, and maybe think about taxing services more to do away with the bias. We need to defend our interests, our strategic autonomy. That's the best way of guaranteeing that we actually can negotiate on a level playing field in the future.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you very much indeed. For Europe, the European Union, we've got 175 Days that men are working compared to women in terms of what they are receiving, and 5% in terms of what women are earning to. And it has to do with education and many things. And this is even worse in peripheral areas. Uh, less than 10% of CEOs are women in companies, and they have a lot of problems, of course, in progressing, there's the glass ceiling in 2026. This is just unacceptable. The 20 2630, uh, program, uh, leading towards, uh, pay transparency, uh, having a better investment in, uh, family support will help, uh, when we can in, uh, per capita GDP by 9.6% and increase, uh, productivity by 2030. This is what we need. Equal pay for equal work, a fairer and more competitive society. And indeed, Happy Women's Day to all.”
  Gender pay transparency