Paulo DO NASCIMENTO CABRAL

Policy topics Paulo DO NASCIMENTO CABRAL is active on

What Paulo DO NASCIMENTO CABRAL has said (80)

• 2026-07-15 “(10:00:58 - 10:07:26): It is adopted. Now we pass to the final votes as roll call votes. I open the votes. I close the votes. Adopted. Adopted. By 17. By 17 votes in favor and 8 abstentions. So the draft opinion has been adopted by 17 votes in favor, 0 against, and 9 abstentions. Congratulations to the rapporteur. I'll give you 30 seconds to start the next point in the agenda. Dear colleagues, thank you so much for your attention. Let us start our next point in our agenda, 0.6, please. I ask you to go to your seats. So now we'll have the pleasure to welcome minister mister Martin Haydn, minister for agriculture, food, the marine for the traditional exchange with the incoming council presidency. The program for the Irish presidency rightly underlines the central role of fisheries in ensuring Europe's food security, strengthening economic competitiveness, and sustaining our coastal communities while also contributing to the union's climate and environmental objectives. The Irish presidency also places strong emphasis on generational renewal and simplification as key drivers of competitiveness. These are all priorities that are regularly discussed in this committee, and we look forward for this exchange with the Irish presidency. Dear minister, I will leave you the floor to outline the presidency's priorities in the field of fisheries and aquaculture for the 2nd part of the year. You will have more or less 10 minutes. It's a pleasure and a great honor to have you here with us. Minister, the floor is yours.”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• 2026-07-15 “(10:18:45 - 10:19:09): Thank you so much, minister, and it will be a pleasure for, our committee to be represented, and thank you for the invitation. Now I'll give the floor, to members beginning with the coordinators of the political groups. And then in the 2nd round, I will give the floor to other members that wish to intervene. So I'll give the floor for 3 minutes to, missus Kalnek from EBP. The floor is yours.”
  EU engagement with citizens
• 2026-07-15 “(09:48:24 - 09:50:52): Good morning. Good morning, my colleagues, dear colleagues. Maybe we can we can start. I have a a lot of new faces here. Thank you for coming. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. If there are no objections, the agenda is adopt. No objections. Thank you. So we go to the 0.3, adoption of minutes. The minutes of the Peshk Committee meeting held on 06/03/2026 are in your files. There are if there are no objections, these minutes are adopt. Perfect. I know that you want to vote immediately. Let's go. So let's pass to the 5 point of our agenda, the electronic vote establishing. Today, the only, today's only vote concerns the special opinion on European funds for economic, social, and territorial cohesion, agriculture, and rural fisheries, and maritime prosperity and security 02/2034. Our opinion will feed into the very relevant EU regulation determining how the money of the future multi annual financial framework will be spent. Mister Andre Francois Rodrigues is the rapporteur for this opinion. The draft opinion represented in our past meeting in April, and 453 amendments were tabled. Thanks to the efforts of the rapporteur, the shadows and of their respective teams, 12 compromise amendments have been concluded. So let us move directly to the vote. That's with, of course. So we'll start with amendment 123. What's in favor? By show of hands. So what's in favor? Against. Abstentions? Rejected. Rejected. Amendment 124. What's in favor? Against. Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 125 and amendment 7, they are identical. Who was in favor? Against? Substentions adopted. Amendment 126. Who was in favor? Against? Abstentions? Oh, I think it's about to check. The vote is open. I close the vote. Oh, it's rejected. It's rejected. That's wrong. It's passed to compromise amendment 1. The votes in favor, against, abstentions adopted. We pass to compromise 2. What's in favor against abstentions adopted? We jump to compromise amendment 152. Who votes in favor? Against. Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise 0. Who votes in favor? Against. Abstentions? Adopted. We pass now to compromise or amendments. Compromise 3. Who votes in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment to a 126. Who votes in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise amendment 4 was in favor against abstentions adopted. Com amendment 233 was in favor against Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise amendment 5. What's in favor? Against. Abstentions? Adopted. Now we pass to amendment 254. What's in favor? Against? Abstentions? I would like to check. I open the floor. I open the the vote. Okay. I close the vote. It is Adopted. Adopted. Compromise, amendment 257. Who votes in favor? Against. Abstentions? Adopted. 258. To vote in favor? Against. Abstentions? Rejected. 259. Vote in favor? Against. Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise amendment 6. Votes in favor? Against. Abstentions adopted. Amendment 266. What's in favor? Against. Abstentions rejected. Compromise amendment 7. What's in favor? Against. Abstentions adopted. We press now to amendment 308. Votes in favor? Against? Abstentions? Let's check. I open the votes. I close the vote. Rejected. It's rejected, Amendment 309. Who votes in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise amendment 8. Who votes in favor? Against? Abstentions adopted adopted. Now we pass to amendment 350. Who votes in favor? Against. Let's check, please. I open the the votes. I close the votes.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2026-07-15 “(14:36:16 - 14:38:41): Good afternoon, dear colleagues. Let us start the after lunch part, session. But before we start our next point, I would like to welcome, and in this case, it's my own group that is coming from Azores as in the back of this meeting. So, thank you so much for coming. A group of 50 young people from Azores, different islands that came here to understand the functioning of European institutions, specifically all the fisheries, agriculture. We had a lot of meetings already today, but it's a great honor to have you here, especially on the day that I'm sharing as an Azorean sharing. The it was not intended, but, it was a good a good, coincidence. So thank you so much for coming, and that all the committee welcomes you here. Thank you so much. So now we pass, please introduce, on 0.9 of our agenda, workshop from the policy departments, for regional development, agriculture, and fisheries on cross border cooperation in fisheries management and its best practices from the Western waters, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Baltic Sea. The policy department has released 3 new studies highlighting how cross border cooperation is shaping more sustainable fisheries management across Europe seas from coordinated action on Sardine and Enchovai in the Western waters to the GFCM's collaborative measures in the Mediterranean and the untapped potential of Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum and the Baltic Sea Advisory Council in the Baltic Sea. Together, they show how stronger cooperation can drive healthier fish stocks and deliver on EU sustainability goals. Without further ado, I would like to introduce the experts who prepared the study and who will present its key findings and recommendations. We are pleased to welcome today 3 speakers who will present the study of the cohort. Missus Cristina Peter, on my left side, welcome. It's from Madeira also. So Azores and Madeira here very well represented. Mister Mateo Chiarini and missus Emma Bjorkvik. So missus Christina Pitta, now we give you the floor to present the study on best practices from the Western Waters, and you will have around 15 minutes. The floor is yours, please.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2026-07-15 “(11:49:39 - 11:53:37): Thank you so much. If there is no more interventions, I'll make 1 of my own, and I'll speak in Portuguese. Now 1st of all, thank you very much to the commission. More than 80% of fish is imported and 20% of the global catch is part of that EU import. And, of course, this instrument is very important, but it's very it involves quite a bureaucratic burden both for the operators and for the fishermen. And so these points have been raised and catch and practice, which is a really recently released study, from a multidisciplinary task force pointed out some of the problems in the implementation. It's not there's no interoperability with the catches concerning the national systems or the systems from 3rd countries. And as stated, you have to issue, in many cases, manual certificates and, of course, that increases the bureaucratic burden even more. So there's also a situation where you could have a 50 minute delay, and that's really unimaginable in business terms. And then there are problems with, validation, and there's problems with the collection of data in various databases. And some of the representative organizations for, fishermen in Europe, some of the prominent organization have taken a common step that the obligation of control of the control system that that it would be obligatory for all catches, starting with 0 kilos, and they would like they don't think that it's possible to really carry out in reality, especially in smaller fisheries and with those dimensions. Also, there's a question of legal certainty for the operators. So there've been really a lot of complaints. There've been a lot of difficulties, and and this would mean that there's really no more notion of commercial confidentiality on behalf of the operators. So there's also this article from the Financial Times that have been has been cited 6,000 ton limits at The Netherlands. And for 2 weeks, we were waiting for the validation of the documents. And then there's also the delegated powers in this area, and some of us can't quite understand what is intended there. So 2 concrete questions for the representative of the commission. What about intermediate validation of catch IT, for all operators so that they could use this important instrument? And to what extent are you working together with 3rd countries in order to avoid complications? Because there's quite a lot that's freely moving through throughout the EU, so you don't have control shopping. Some places, the controls are less rigorous. And so how is it going to be possible for the 3rd countries to more efficiently use this system? So now the the commission has the opportunity to respond to all these questions.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2026-07-15 “(11:10:19 - 11:13:38): Give 1 final comment from my side before I pass the floor to you, minister. Well, you heard, and I have to reiterate, questions regarding the next MFF. It's quite important that we have the ambition that the parliament decided. We received with a very good spirit the increase of the budget from the NEGO box from the presidency, and we urge you to continue this ambition. And inside of the next MFF, on the next, creating also or maintaining also the MFARF, it is important for us. Also, we voted on this on our parliament, to have a specific amount dedicated and protected for the outermost regions, and we'd call it POSE fisheries. As we poise for the agriculture, we also have poise fisheries, and we already voted also this possibility here at this, this house. So I urge you to, look at these specific programs and specific regimes, to take into account the regional specificities. And also, we also debated here the local action groups, GAL, Peshkis. This is a quite important bottom up approach. Secondly, I would like also to congratulate you on your vision of the 3 pillars of sustainability, environmental for sure, but also social socioeconomic ones. And I urge you also to, when allocated the tax and quotas in the next December, to take into account the 3 pillars of sustainability because our fishermen and also the pluriannuality, multi annual fisheries possibilities because our fishermen need predictability, stability and the same time to take into account their own conditions. Generation renewal also very important for us and also the question of the, renewal of the fleet. And in this case, the considerations based on gross tonnage and the power of the engines, I think, is updated, and we are not trying to increase the capacity of fishing. We're just trying to increase the security and the safety of our fishermen. And I think this should be also simplified, and I totally agree with the needs of having a omnibus for fishing, the simplification package for fisheries. Finally, we have some issues like, the Catch IT that we are going to debate afterwards and also the questions related with the landing obligations when they have to register starting for a 1 kilo, all the species that the fishermen's, caught. So it's quite a administrative burden for them, and we think that we should return to the previous 1 when we have this derogation below 50 kilos. And finally, just to highlight the importance of the marine protected areas and what we did in Azores, we just protected 30% of our sea as an MPA, 300,000 square kilometers, and it's important that the fisheries are not left behind. We are trying to compensate the fishers for their losses, and we managed to get private funding, public funding, and, we are still stuck in the European Commission, state aid procedure. So commit minister, a lot of issues, for you to answer, and I'll give you the floor, for, a few minutes just to conclude. As long as you want. As long as you want. But, to conclude and to close this debate. So the floor is yours, minister.”
  Funding for OCTs and outermost regions
• 2026-07-15 “(11:25:09 - 11:31:45): We'll have a short break for a picture. Who votes against? No. So maybe you can come everybody here to the podium or down sir? Here in the podium. Can take it here in the podium. Dear colleagues, let us resume our session, please. Now we pass for, the next point, the next item in our agenda, the implementation of the CATCH system for the electronic certification of important fisheries products in the European Union, the persisting challenges and ways forward. As you know, in January of this year, the CATCH digital certification system has been introduced in the EU. This mandatory IT platform is aimed to modernize import controls for fishery products and combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. However, its introduction has been facing persisting implementation difficulties with many stakeholders calling for urgent changes in order for the system to work better. I would like to welcome the commission representative, missus Carmen Preising, director of DG Mare, that's with us today. Thank you so much for coming. And please, missus Preising, you have the floor for about 8 minutes.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2026-07-15 “(11:24:28 - 11:24:49): Thank you so much, minister. There are no more interventions, Nope. So I would like to wholeheartedly thank minister Haydn for having joined us this morning, and I wish him and all his team a very successful presidency. And the item is closed now. So thank you so much, minister, and don't forget also the outermost regions that I referred in my speech. Thank you.”
  Funding for OCTs and outermost regions
• 2026-07-14 “Thank you very much. Chair Minister, a pleasure to see you here to talk about agriculture, which is an important part of the Irish presidency. I know you all wish you all the best for implementing all you have in your programme. We've talked, for example, about the bioeconomy circularity. And everything to do with agriculture and diversifying incomes. You talk about simplification. There are measures for trade issues. I have three exact questions I'd like to ask you. First of all, the Cap you talk about sexual needs and regional aspects. I would like to talk about. Policy and outermost regions. What about the Competitiveness Fund and the agricultural. You talked about sustainability economic, social and environmental, mental the three pillars. But we also need a second pillar in the cap for rural development. So how can you link rural development and regional development, which is an important point for agriculture. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-07-14 “(17:53:16 - 17:54:38): Thank you so much, Cheryl speaking Portuguese. Let me thank the reporters for all the work they have done. Thousands over 6,000 amendments have been tabled, but I want to focus on agriculture here. We need stability and predictability. The CAP shouldn't be decided on and then forgotten about for 5 or 6 years. We can't create any instability for farmers. And now onto the funding side of things. We have to have complementarity, complementary funds, not pit them against each other. We need to ring fence and protect the agricultural budget. Where have we been successful? We've been successful with our CAP, with the protection of farmers, and with food security. We cannot call any of those into question. I advocate a CAP based on 2 pillars with clear funding, and we need to protect the regions, including the outermost regions. That's why we mustn't forget the Pozai program because the Pozai program is very important for out the outermost regions, including the Azores and Madeira.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2026-07-14 “(17:56:07 - 17:57:32): Thank you so much, Shneur. Now it's on the my Reggie hat. Let me again thank the reporters. As Reggie, I want to say that we have to look at cohesion policy, and cohesion policy is being pitted against the CAP policy. Fisheries policy is being created is being pitted against other infrastructure projects, which would benefit citizens. We need to have autonomy for cohesion policy. We mustn't pit cohesion policy against other, policy areas, and we need to have this multilevel governance approach as we establish policies. We need to have local projects. We need to have adequate funding for LIDA, for POSE, POSE for agriculture, fisheries, and trans and transport. That's really important for Madeira and The Azores. We need to ensure that what the commission wants, which is to leave no 1 behind, we need to translate that into something tangible for European citizens. You know, the different programs have relatively modest budgets and but they're very important. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2026-07-14 “Thank you. Chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. When we talk about competitiveness and European farming, it's important to remember that a significant number of the problems that arise from a lack of competitiveness came about because of what we have done, burdening farmers with standards where farmers are having to deal not only with working the land, but red tape. It's important to note that our farmers are making about 60% of what people working in other sectors make. There is a lack of competitiveness, and we need to make sure that we have fair laws for farmers. So we need to make sure that we're using our resources effectively. That goes without saying. It's also about A slashing red tape and bureaucracy. But I would like to add to that. It's important to make use of education and technology. That's how we're going to get young people into farming. And the rapporteur has put forward a number of interesting ideas. But we feel that the outermost regions are not properly represented in the document. So we will be tabling amendments in that regard. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-07-09 “Thank you for your question. I do agree our group defends both possibilities. If we have an external dependency of over 80%, we need a stronger fisheries sector which includes artisanal fishers amongst others. And this is a crucial for the health of our coastal our coastal regions in the Azores. We have, for example, large marine protected areas. This needs to be compensated for. We need to provide both public and private funding that the European Union cannot be blocking. And we need to ensure that the money reaches the small fish.”
  Funding for OCTs and outermost regions
• 2026-07-09 “Thank you. Chair. You mentioned bureaucracy and dependence. Let us be clear. In the Azores, thanks to our government, we have large areas of protected coastal areas. And this has been done by means of of raising funds. Now, now, once again, we require funding for the renewal of vessels. But this is being blocked. I know that everything is being done. Everything is being blocked because of the structure of the Commission. Could you please explain? Thank you.”
  Funding for OCTs and outermost regions
• 2026-07-09 “Thank you very much, Commissioner. Between 2017 and 23 of the fisheries workers lost 15% of their workers. The low, low income, bad working conditions. Too much bureaucracy are all threatening the future of the fishing sector. The I know how much effort you have been made, Mr. Commissioner, and it has to be also followed up by others in order to ensure visibility. We need a CFP that is focusing on several priorities. First of all, multiannual fishery quotas that are based on a sustainable sustainability, economic and social, then a reduction of administrative burdens. We need to simplify the matters for the workers and simplify their procedures. Also, we need to focus on the quotas. And then funding has to has to aim at a people. We also have to focus on landing obligations that focus on not only on the weight, but also on other elements. We have to ensure more income for fishers, amongst others. For sustainable aquaculture, this is also crucial. We also require a fair competition. We need to ensure that our fishers have to respect environmental standards, and that has to also apply to those that we are importing from. There will not be any sovereignty. If this is not achieved. Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries · Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• 2026-07-08 “(15:18:22 - 15:19:22): Thank you, President, commissioner. The new strategy for combating drugs in the EU cannot make 2 mistakes. Firstly, it is forgetting the emergence of synthetic drugs and ignoring that the western borders begin at the heart of the Atlantic and with the Azores in Madeira. There are there are different routes that are being taken by the Atlantic drug trade using semisubmersibles and submarines. This is why it is urgent to reinforce maritime vigil surveillance, so using technology, information sharing, and cooperation between European agencies. But it's also important to support our security forces who are doing so much with so little. We also need to acknowledge that the EU's external borders begin in the Azores and Madeira, and they have a key role to play in ensuring the security of the EU. This is why we need a new Atlantic strategy, which, covers the new geopolitical attentions, but also allows for, to fight against narco trafficking and ensure the safety of the EU.”
  Regulation of drug precursors in the EU
• 2026-07-06 “(21:25:40 - 21:25:51): Thank you, chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. I'd like to start by thanking the report for their excellent work as compared to the commission's initial proposal. We need to give instructions to our farmers because climate change is here, performance is dropping, and we need to react. We shouldn't be working based on legislation that goes all the way back to 1982, more than 25 years. We need to facilitate procedures related to biopesticides and the use of drones too. Let's remember, though, that, 91% of European products, according to an episode report, are pesticide free or are within the acceptable limits for pesticides. And 10% of, products from outside the EU, have products which are banned in the EU in them. So we need conditions to be equal and fair. We need to identify the right tools to achieve this. We cannot simply continue treating these substances based on old fashioned principles. Collapsing of, bird populations, increase in cancers, including amongst, children and farmers themselves. These are the results of pesticides, and they have been proven by science. I thought we were all here because we wanted to do away with chemical pesticides. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• 2026-06-29 “(16:32:16 - 16:33:58): Thank you, chairman. Well, I welcome the work done by the rapporteur on this important file. There are just a couple of points I want to bring up. 1 relates to the fruit, vegetables, and milk schemes in schools. There needs to be a 100% financing on that. We also need to support diversification. We need to ensure that European protein is produced appropriately, and we don't want to see too much competition between plant and animal protein. And there are some specific examples that we'll be taking amendments on, and then producer organizations. I mean, we need to have guarantees there. We have the unfair commercial practice directive in mind, but we need to ensure that these organizations have a certain amount of strength. Now risk management and crisis instruments, clearly, the current system is not good enough. We need to boost it in financial terms. Yes. But we also need to ensure that farmers aren't held hostage by bureaucratic procedures that they need to access European funding. And then Pose and outermost regions, I see that the commission proposal removes a lot of these things from Pose, but we want to see them remain in Pose, particularly when it comes to wine, for example, and also specific cases. There's a kind of wine that's produced in the Azores and Madeira, and they are crucial for those regions. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding · EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• 2026-06-29 “(16:32:16 - 16:33:58): Thank you, chairman. Well, I welcome the work done by the rapporteur on this important file. There are just a couple of points I want to bring up. 1 relates to the fruit, vegetables, and milk schemes in schools. There needs to be a 100% financing on that. We also need to support diversification. We need to ensure that European protein is produced appropriately, and we don't want to see too much competition between plant and animal protein. And there are some specific examples that we'll be taking amendments on, and then producer organizations. I mean, we need to have guarantees there. We have the unfair commercial practice directive in mind, but we need to ensure that these organizations have a certain amount of strength. Now risk management and crisis instruments, clearly, the current system is not good enough. We need to boost it in financial terms. Yes. But we also need to ensure that farmers aren't held hostage by bureaucratic procedures that they need to access European funding. And then Pose and outermost regions, I see that the commission proposal removes a lot of these things from Pose, but we want to see them remain in Pose, particularly when it comes to wine, for example, and also specific cases. There's a kind of wine that's produced in the Azores and Madeira, and they are crucial for those regions. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• 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 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.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds · 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
• “Thank you chair. Um, my first words to thank the rapporteur on this file in its presentation of report that is quite positive. And it's in line of what we also defend. As you know, this is a very complex, um, I would say, uh, exercise to, to merge 14 European programs into a single fund representing €400 billion that represents roughly 22% of the future MFF. 42% of the future MFF. So it's quite challenging when we talk about health, defense, security, and also, uh, the other innovation fund, competitiveness horizon, etc.. So it's quite a challenge initiative. But one thing is common for all of us is the role and the relevance of the participation of the regional and local authorities and the regions themselves on this process. We totally are in line with the simplification objective of the rules. Better coordination of funding and mobilising private investment. But as I just mentioned, we cannot forget the region's role in this equation. We fully respect the principle do no harm to cohesion that is already in the report. Regional balance in distribution and is quite important of course, to create champions. But at the same time we cannot leave anyone behind. So this is a clear commitment that no region is left behind. To get the possibility for all regions to have a democratic access to these funds, but also we need to take into account the synergies with other funds like NPS, just transition integration, and also take into account the territorial dimensions into competitiveness and the meaningful involvement of local and regional authorities.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “(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
• “Thank you chair. Thank you. Distinguished executive vice president. It's always a pleasure to have you here to talk about such important issues such as cohesion. Now, the principles of partnership and multi-level approaches allows us to focus on sectoral issues, cities, towns. So I welcome this report that has been presented today. Now, you said that it is important to factor in the different architectures which exist in each town and city. For instance, there are cities such as those in my region which depend on the central state, even if they are in an autonomous region. Administratively speaking, we must be aware that the outermost regions should not lose out when it comes to this strategy, and they have to know how they can access the funding. 2025 was quite an intense year in terms of cohesion. I would even say that it was a revolution. And I would like to raise the alarm here, because those regions and member states that were able to access funds, they perhaps are going to lose out because they are not able to adapt to this new flexibility. So I wonder how we can ensure access to funding. Up until the end of the operational plan. But there's also the challenge of the. Plans. We must be aware of the expense of the different plans and strategies, how they must be implemented, and what's going to happen with these projects, which did not conclude in August. Will they be able to be funded by other programs? And of course, this was talking about the need. Now, there has been excellent work done in this process, but the work has to reach the local and regional authorities. For instance, the Lras are being asked to do things which are just impossible because perhaps they do not have the technology. They're not ready. So how can we simplify in that way so that we can ensure that the investment reaches them and that they can actually implement the policy? So thank you for your presentation. And I would say that transport infrastructure is key, especially for outermost regions between islands. And that should all be factored in when it comes to the future strategies for these regions.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “(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
• “Next point, I would pick up on what I deemed to be the major difficulty in developing our regions. In other words, connectivity. There is the concept here of transport poverty. Do you not think that the far flung and outermost regions should not be able to access transport, because this really hinders their development? That's why in the committee we heard about a very intriguing study standing up for the creation of outermost regions for a specific transport package for the outermost regions. That would ensure connectivity, competitiveness and allow people to remain where they are. This will create a critical mass to tap into cohesion of funds and the RF funds. Next, my final point. I will just emphasise that cohesion has. Cohesion is necessary not to have a multi-track Europe. We acknowledge that the model needs honing, but this model is better than what came before. And this is just my personal view. To your mind, what essential tweaks need to be made? Of course, cohesion funds need to be kept separate, but what other essential tweaks need to be made to ensure consistency? Stressing the importance of cohesion. Ensuring real, tangible development in our regions, mountainous regions, outermost regions. And, as Andrei Novikov said, what about the border regions and other more isolated and remote regions? How can they be helped and what changes and tweaks ought to be made by us in order to streamline cohesion.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you. Chair. I would like to thank the presentation. Well, we have here some very difficult file because I would like to highlight what just mentioned because it's quite political. We were promised to simplify procedures. We merge funds in the national regional partnership plans in order to have more flexible use of the funding for the member states. We need, of course, transparency. We need to know where the money is going. But at the same time, we cannot fall into the temptation of having the control of the budgetary execution, of the control of the money Being a changing. What is defined on this proposal of the next MFF, especially on the next cap. And this is huge importance. The indicators, the evaluation indicators, the indicators needs to be aligned of the new paradigm of the new approach of what we have right now on MFF. When we saw, for instance, the environmental and social indicators that are important, of course, but we didn't saw any reference of the activity of agriculture itself itself. So I believe it's important to not fall into temptation to try to change what is this new vision for the future of agriculture through this, uh, I would say evaluation, um, uh, reports or or monitoring the execution of the money. So this is quite important, and I'll hope that here on this committee we can manage to fine tuning these indicators in order to be more aligned on what we are now recognizing for the future of the Cap. Thank you.”
  CAP delivery architecture: ring-fenced common fund vs integrated national plans
• “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. Chair, I just wanted to welcome the fact that this agreement was reached. As you said, it is an ambitious agreement, but it gives us enough time for member states to be able to transpose these standards. There are some member states that were more advanced, such as Portugal, and they are not harmed by this ambition being higher than the European ambition. So we need to finalize this agreement. Animal welfare of dogs and cats. Well, it's necessary to hold accountable actors. And ensure the safety for and protection for what happens. In the streets. So it's a very important agreement. But accountability for the original donors of cats and owners of cats and dogs is very important as well.”
  Welfare and traceability of companion animals (dogs & cats)
• “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
• “Thank you chair. I'll speak in Portuguese, if I may. Thanks very much for setting out this study. Yesterday there was a joint opinion issued. There was a presentation from the Court of Auditors. There was a very critical study as to the national and regional partnership plans. And we've heard what you had to say. And you've picked up on two essential aspects. Firstly, you've shown how difficult it is often for a member state to grasp the tangible needs out there in the regions. We've looked at the commission proposal. They're trying to centralize funds more in the member states. I'd like to glean what you think about the challenges in the upcoming MFA. If this remains the status quo. Secondly, let's look at what's essential in cohesion policy when it comes to developing infrastructures and training and educating Europeans when it comes to infrastructure. What we've heard from many reasons, given demographic changes, immigration and people forsaking leaving these territories. We've heard that a lot of investment was made with European funds. But how will we guarantee that modernization of these funds takes place? And often the regions out there in member states are not able to keep hold of these funds. So how will appropriate funds be made available? So in the upcoming MFF, should we should it not be feasible for us to use these budget lines to tap into human resources and existing infrastructures out there in the regions, which are very difficult to handle for local and regional authorities.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “(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
• “Yes, chair. Um, just a brief intervention to present an oral amendment to this report. Of course, we thank the work done by the rapporteur and all the shadow rapporteurs also. But there is a minor change that we need to do in order to be more precise, technically speaking, regarding the pores and outermost regions. So in compromise amendment one, where it reads pores, programs established under regulation EU number 2 to 8, 2013 shall be eligible for transfers. And we would like to add between the EPA and pores under this article, and then continues with the rest of the of the of the text. The question is to have the possibility to exchange between the two pillars, that the first pillar is the equivalent of both, say, for the outermost region, just a small, a small, uh, changing. Thank you.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “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
• “Thank you. Chair. Two very brief questions. First, why thank you for acknowledging the question of co-financing on policy. And I want to ask you why. Because when you have the in the ring fence money for the small farmers, it's 100% financing and small farmers are the the majority. I would not say majority. It's all the farmers. They are small farmers. So why do you have do you propose this change? And secondly, do you acknowledge that the formula that you used for the division of the of the money through the member States, it's unequal. It's unjust because the structure of the first and second pillar, uh, varies a lot between the member states and the case, for instance, of Portugal, as we had this balanced approach, like 4060 for the first pillar, 60 for the second, 5050. Sometimes we are in a disadvantage regarding the other member states. Do you acknowledge that? And do you have any view or any the instruments that we can compensate or change the form, or at least to make some kind of maturation of these amounts. Thank you.”
  CAP delivery architecture: ring-fenced common fund vs integrated national plans
• “(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 · EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “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
• “Moreover, governance must reflect the importance of regions. I will therefore propose also the participation of representatives of the regions and outermost regions on the Strategic Stakeholders Board, ensuring real effective representation of the regions and personally coming from the Azores and in Portugal and outermost region from the European Union, I believe. Special attention must be given to the outermost regions whose structural challenges are recognized under the treaties, and whose strategic role in competitiveness is undeniable due there. I will say strategic position throughout the world, and as it is well known, we have several times proposed Opposé transports to support the outermost regions to face their structural challenges and ensure connectivity and fair access to the single market that, after 30 years of its foundation, is still incomplete. In order for these regions also to be more competitive, in short, and to conclude, I believe that by strengthening connectivity. Simplifying access, supporting innovation and private investments, and giving regions a real voice. We can ensure European Union that is both cohesive and competitive and where no region is left behind. This requires transparency and synergies with structural and cohesion funds, ensuring they complement each other rather than overlap. We can only be competitive as a whole. Resilience and strategic autonomy come from our collective strength. Our union, because this is the European Union and the European of the regions. Thank you so much.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “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
• “(16:15:16 – 16:17:16): you. Now the difference in, fishing and agriculture measures should this should have been resolved by the 2024, but now it's 2026. So the commission owes us an explanation, and it, above all, is an explanation to the fishers. Because if the parliament is waiting for reports, fishers in coastal regions and outermost regions have to live in situations that no indicator can hide from them. Particularly with degraded infrastructure, young people who can't work in a sector that need them that needs them rather. This is a result of the, remoteness of the region, and this is sapping the economic viability of people working at sea. So what we are asking for is very simple. We want a midterm evaluation that is a real evaluation tool and not just an exercise to legitimize what already exists. We want reprogramming where there are delays. We want more flexibilities for outermost regions who face limitations that general rules don't recognize. We want the Canary Islands, Rayignan, Madeira, and Azores and other outermost regions. We don't want them to be treated as a footnote. The CFP is only relevant if it truly, helps people living off the sea, And it can't work if the evaluation is, delayed and these most vulnerable, regions continue to wait. So we must continue. We can't continue like this if we don't want things to change. Madam Le Carreno? Senor Risson. Mister Risson.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “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