Herbert DORFMANN

Policy topics Herbert DORFMANN is active on

What Herbert DORFMANN has said (57)

• 2025-01-15 “E-000160/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation 1 (ESPR) aims to significantly better the sustainability of products placed on the EU market by improving their circularity, energy performance, recyclability and durability. For selected product groups, the ESPR could implement product design rules requiring manufacturers to provide software updates for an extended period, ensuring that devices remain functional and secure for a longer time, preventing some unnecessary waste generation. In this, the Commission will examine also issues like the one in this question. Meanwhile, the Commission is supporting industry towards more circular and sustainable consumer electronics through dedicated research and innovation funding under Horizon Europe 2 . Other EU policies encouraging adoption of open-source operating systems and better consumer information, may contribute to longevity of some computers affected. Next Generation Internet initiative 3 , for instance, funded open-source digital commons developments, including Linux distributions to support older equipment, as well as initiatives enabling platform-independent open-source applications at browser/executable level. Also, a new Open Internet Stack initiative to support easily deployable sovereign Open Source solutions is proposed as part of Horizon Europe 4 Work Programmes 2025. Four Member States 5 notified their intent to set up a European Digital Infrastructure Consortium aiming to support digital commons, including for open desk productivity. Furthermore, a new Consumer Directive 6 will also result in better consumer information, as of September 2026, on aspects such as durability, reparability and periods of software updates. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC, OJ L, 2024/1781, 28.6.2024. 2 Most recently through https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topicdetails/HORIZON-CL6-2024-CircBio-02-3-twostage?isExactMatch=true&status=31094501,31094502,31094503&callIdentifier=HORIZON-CL6-2024CIRCBIO-02&order=DESC&pageNumber=1&pageSize=50&sortBy=startDate 3 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/next-generation-internet-initiative 4 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en 5 Germany, Estonia, France and the Netherlands. 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj”
  Promotion of open-source softwares · Radio equipment (common charger)
• “I think we need to close after the summer break to make it available for the for 2026. Our farmers deserve it and I think if we don't make it for 2026. It doesn't make sense anymore. We will have in a few days already the proposal for the new cap, so it wouldn't make any sense. Or a lot of sense to, to to, um, make an amendment or amend the existing one. Animal welfare? Yes. My political group always committed to the end of the cage, but with mirror clauses. So we cannot allow again that we make stricter rules in Europe and others around us who can import to Europe. Um, do not have the same rules. I mean, we have the experience of the end of the old cages. Ten years ago, um, farmers in Europe sold the old cages to um, states on our borders. The cages are there producing eggs and broilers, and tax and broilers are coming into Europe. And this is not in the interest of the European farmers. I think we need to have a look also there. And then you didn't mention and the new proposed proposal for the new Common Agricultural Policy. I think this is the big elephant in the room. So is the Danish presidency intending to do anything on this proposal, or what is the position on the of the Council of the presidency on this? Thank you very much.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Colleagues, this is a historic moment. The next few years will show what we can do in the EU in terms of developing as a stronger partner or as a meaningless partner. If we want to stay relevant, then we're going to need recognition and also facts in terms of financing the EU. That's particularly true for agricultural policy. That's the sector that for years we have funded together. And recently over the decades, we've forgotten how important a supply competitiveness is, how important that is. With the crises, we've seen that without a strong agriculture, without getting young people into agriculture, without getting people earning money in agriculture, the risk is not having supply security and not having security overall. And that's something that we need to think about in the next MFF. We need to adjust to inflation. We don't need a single fund. We need a strong agricultural budget in the EU. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “It's now quite apart from the fact that we've got the S and D group as a possibility for gender balance with the women as the third vice chair. The Conference of Presidents has looked at the situation at yesterday, and as far as the different committees are concerned, and the situations that arise therein have been allowed to rule, that it is a situation that may well arise. And therefore I'm my group is against having an interruption to the vote today, and I think it would be to the benefit of the committee to have the vote now. **Veronika Vrecionová @Co-Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any other requests?”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you. I can be very brief. I think all the in any initiatives which serve the purpose of having a closer look at the agri food chain and looking at where the problems are, should be welcomed. I think that's fairly obvious. You don't really need a big observatory to see that there's a massive imbalance in the chain, to the detriment of the primary producers, and this imbalance is increasing. What ends up in the pockets of the farmers is declining. And over the past couple of years, it would be would be interesting to see how many more billions consumers paid in the supermarkets, and how much of that money ended up in the pockets of the farmers. I think this would be an interesting, but rather depressing finding. I've just got a couple of questions. What about access to data in the observatory? Um, can we, um, rely on the observatory? Um, can we rely on the fact that all these players, the retailers, are going to provide the right information? Because sometimes if it's voluntary, people provide the data that suits them. And then with regard to the findings, what about the findings of the observatory? You were saying it could be an interesting input for policy making. What about the policy makers? Do we, the Parliament, have any access to the data and the findings of the observatory? Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you very much. Many figures there. All sounds very positive. And it's almost as if everything were perfect. When it comes to geeks. After two years of application, we will need to simplify more and make changes. So that shows that not everything is working, perhaps as perfectly as we would think. I have a couple of questions. You said that there are areas where there have been delays. For example investments. In my view, we need to ensure that investment money is actually paid more quickly and it reaches businesses more quickly, but also risk management as well. And Measures to combat climate change. But member states need to be effective there, and it seems to be very slow. Is that pressure being put on these states by the Commission to ensure that the delays are reduced? How do you deal with that? And the second question. You said that member states have done what they needed to do. Could you perhaps go into a little bit more detail? What's the state of play with member states? Are there strategic plans with strategic plans that have caused bigger problems or where implementation has been difficult? Or could you perhaps be a little bit more specific? Specific? Sorry about the situation in the member states. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “And perhaps the most difficult question was to do with the controls that the Commission had initially proposed. So the control mechanisms for this regulation and. How they would flow into other control mechanisms. There was a compromise here in that part of the regulation that we have now had for decades would be written into this new regulation. But it's not automatically the the same authorities that would be responsible for the controls with this agreement. Then we would be we were able to achieve an agreement on the 8th of December. Later on in December, Co repair also supported that agreement. As you said, Madam Chair, we should then vote on the final proposal in the April plenary. Once again, I'd like to thank everybody who's contributed. There's still some important work that we have to do. We have to begin now on the negotiations on plant reproductive material, on seeds, where, of course, the single market and the marketed products are of an order of magnitude greater, are much more important. And then we're looking at the single market and the international dimension that's much bigger than it is on forest reproductive materials that largely are created in the member states, where they are also then consumed or planted. Thank you very much.”
  Sustainable use of seeds in EU policy
• “(17:39:11 – 17:43:23): Thank you, chair, and thanks to madam Blurry for the presentation. Yeah. I think, Felix is from Colleen and Salvini. I think my colleague in Salvini already has said a great deal, and I would support what what has been said. Therefore, I and my group take the view that the commission's proposal in many of its, elements is the right 1, and we support it therefore. Now when it comes to plant protection, the problem we face currently is twofold. First of all, farmers over the past few years have seen active substances withdrawn from the market. They've lost those because there is no authorization for them anymore. And on the other hand, we're not in a position to open ourselves up to innovation, which means that if new products are developed elsewhere in the world, it takes us up to 6 or 7 years before we can allow them onto our markets. And that de facto means that if a product is ready, has been produced and if the manufacturer applies to EFSA or the EU and if FSA then has to assess this before it can be authorized in the EU, then, you know, at the very earliest, our farmers would receive it somewhere in the 2030s if it is applied for today. And that's a slightly bonkers. So we need to improve on that. And many of the proposals you're making certainly take us in the right direction. I nonetheless have a couple of comments to make. It's true that reauthorization of products that the reauthorization of active substances at least is not something that should occur again with the exception of those where you need to be very careful. But we have scores of substances in the reauthorization process, but if for the 200 substances we don't find a solution, then EFSA will be snowed under. And for years to come, EFSA will not have the leeway it needs. Now commissioner Hanssen, in his mission for agriculture, quite rightly made the point that if we don't have a proper alternative, active substances should not be allowed to expire, but that means that you need economic criteria in the assessment. But this is not something that can be done at commission level. It won't work. And we believe that that's something we need to take a closer look at. When it comes to the authorization of products at member state level, I do think we need to find more straightforward solutions which are based on reciprocity. There's no point in every member state doing this on its own. And the 27 member states doing this independently when their neighbors are doing exactly the same. That makes no sense. MRLs, yes, mirror clauses are important, but we shouldn't always believe that we're the best in the world, the best in show. I'm happy to wait for this study and to see what the results are. We'll also take a closer look at the impact assessment, of course, and we'll see where we have more exacting MRLs and where others in the world have more exacting MRLs. It's not safe to assume that we're always the best. Now I'm co rapporteur with mister Picaro on the other file as well. The use of drones for applying palm protection products where it makes sense is something I'm in favor of. Steep areas or areas where it's, you know, difficult to get to using other machinery, You know, in other areas, might not make as much sense, but we very much welcome that too. I'll work very closely together with my colleague, mister Picaro, and I'm pretty sure that by June, our 2 committees will be able to submit a report. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Yeah.Thank you very much to the ECA and Mrs. Ivanova for this report. There's a number of points criticised by the ECA. Far more so than the positive elements of this reform. And I share I agree with the content of the ECA report and the points made by the Court of Auditors. These are the points that we've discussed here over and again. And here. It's not just about individual measures. We're dealing with fundamental issues. Will the policy be indeed symptoms? No. Will tasks be easily carried out? No. Will it be more flexible? No. So there's a whole series of substantive doubts raised by the ECA. And so my question to the commission is how is the commission going to do. What's the commission going to do? Are they just going to shelve the report, pretend it didn't exist? Or will they learn from the report and realise that some of the approaches they've chosen aren't going in exactly the right direction? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you Thank you for that presentation. I think the safeguard clauses in and of themselves are, are an important step forward, at least to provide some degree of security to the agricultural sector. At least it addresses the greatest concerns that the sector might have. Now, despite the content of these safeguard clauses, I have to really express my concern. And it's a shame that here in the Parliament, as the agri committee, we are limiting or we have to limit our entire procedure to just exchange of letters. And it's about it's not just about safeguard clauses limited to agricultural products. I think the agri committee should have been informed at the same level as Inter in this entire process. That's probably something that would have. Improved the degree of acceptance when it comes to the agricultural policy decisions in this House. Now on the content. Now, as I said, this letter will be prepared. We will definitely be looking at the percentages. What exactly triggers a safeguard clause? There are some improvements that could be made there. Instead of 10%, it should be a 5% drop in prices, because I think that a 10% drop is quite significant. So I think that here, once again, we should get back in touch with Inter and vote on this as quickly as possible in plenary so that we have a lower percentage rate. In my opinion, 5% would be appropriate. Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “(17:35:14 – 17:39:04): Thank you very much indeed, madam chair, and thank you to the commission. I'm replacing my colleague, Michele Picarro, as has just been announced, who is on behalf of DCR Group in charge, in the envy committee. We'd like to thank the commissions, for its proposal, which seeks to streamline the framework of rules that apply to food and feed in the EU. It's an important step towards a more efficient, consistent system, which works to the benefit of the whole agri food chain, in particular given the crisis we're going through. So we do believe that we have common objectives, which are simplification and speeding up authorizations, in particular for phytosanitary products and for biological controls. And we need to improve the average time it time it takes for assessments and we need a strengthened area based system and we also need a better approach to scientific peer review so that farmers have swifter access and more effective measures. Furthermore, and I think this is the commission's intention, we would like to harmonize at EU level the whole system with a stronger role being given to EFSA and using more efficient and effective mutual recognition mechanisms. So we avoid there being fragmentation between member states by standardizing technical files and aligning assessment criteria. Now 1 of the more central points in the commissioner stated this itself is reciprocity. We cannot have products entering into the EU, which do not correspond correspond to the rules that we ourselves apply. We want both quality and food security. So impact assessments are welcome in relation to import tolerance, but we can't have any compromise when it comes to the very high standards that we uphold in our models and which we apply to our farmers and companies. Now when it comes to competitiveness and production, I think it's a fundamental importance that we avoid removing molecules unless there are technically and economically sustainable alternatives. And we need to apply the principle of the effective alternative before any withdrawal takes place. Now, we also need a clearer definition of biostimulants, so we can make a distinction between physiological and nutritional benefits. And when it comes to agronomic assessment, we are in favor of a review of the derogation system to look at active substances where there are no alternatives and a more consistent approach to the real agronomic needs. And now the commission touched upon this itself. Although we share the objective that is being pursued, we do believe that we need to strengthen the authorization system and be rigorous from a scientific point of view, have good procedures in place, and have clear deadlines so that we don't have uncertainty for the operators. Now when it comes to recognition between member states, as we see it as a fundamental importance to reduce administrative red tape, avoid duplication, and make the best of assessments that have already been carried out at European level. And this while respecting climate and agronomic specificities of individual regions and countries. These are points, which are points of departures and preconditions for, our colleague, Picaro. And, of course, together with other colleagues, he'll want to arrive, at a good report, but this is what we need as a bare minimum to make sure that we have safe food and food sovereignty.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Dear colleagues Commissioner, this regulation on the simplification of the cap allows us to deal with the overwhelming bureaucracy that we have. Unfortunately, we created it ourselves. It's of our own making. But this doesn't mean deregulation, simplification. Simplification means getting rid of red tape where it's just a burden, lots of costs and no particular advantages in terms of farms. You know, farmers don't tend to have an office that will spend all day filling out forms. In particular, if you're looking at small holdings, that's why it's so important for us to focus on them organic farms as well. I think it's absolutely right for us to simplify things, you know, for all of these farms, particularly those in transition towards organic farming, conditionality, the necessary checks, the whole question of certification and the authorities responsible for that, making sure that that's all in order. And then grasslands, uh, you know, we want to be more holistic, perhaps. I mean, in the past, nobody really wanted to turn their hectares into permanent grassland. But of course, once you've done it, it's very difficult to go back on that. Virtually impossible. I think. Farmers are well educated. They know what they're doing. We don't need to constantly be on their backs telling them what they need to do and how they need to do it. Also, Common Market Organisation, any kind of regulation that will help the position of farmers in the supply chain is something that we should support. Of course we should. And also, by way of conclusion, I think that we should afford farmers more possibilities, more opportunities going forward. Let's make life a little bit easier for our farmers. That is why I will support this report or these reports. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Yes, thank you very much Chair and it's really a pleasure to stay this morning here with our colleagues from the national parliaments. Well I think the Commissioner explained the content of the communication the future of agriculture and my political group we very much supported these ideas because we are strongly convinced that agriculture in this very historical moment for Europe is a very important topic and we should support as much as we can our farmers in order to have food security in Europe. Clearly we are not completely satisfied with the proposal on the Common Agriculture Policy nor on financial side neither on the content side and I think this is our common duty now to improve this. We are all aware about the financial constraints we are having at the European Union but if we are saying in a communication that we are on the side of the farmers and also President of the Commission said it repeatedly we need also to give a positive funds by the distant the positive funds raise enough money because without enough money we will not have a successful policy. And I think and this is I think the interesting topic of this morning on the content I'm well aware that agriculture in southern Italy is different from agriculture in northern Finland. We have a lot of different agricultures in Europe and we need to have a policy which gives enough attention to these differences but on the other side keeps the seed common in the policy and this honestly I don't see enough in the proposal for now because it is true that to produce one ton of wheat in the southern Mediterranean area is different than produce it on the north but at the end this one ton of wheat is in the common market and needs to be sold on the common market and I think we need to combine these two things and I'm quite positive. I think we will we need to rethink this proposal but we should also be constructive and try to find a solution. Thank you very much.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Have the. Presentation in Pesticide. Problema? Este. Flowers. Crops and. Crops. Of the. Things that we. Want. To experience Europe. This is the. Weather. When the. With the ban spread the. Love I have the experience in Europe and the stars and something have the same. Time from the text in. The. Text. Will have to make up with the substance. Sectorul IT is the way. Of the programs. Concentrate is. The company. Of business.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you very much indeed. Chair, thank you for the presentation Commission. This pork problem is linked up to lots of other products. Milk, for example, where China has, uh, come forward with anti-dumping tariffs. But it has nothing to do with anti dumping. So I think it's difficult for me to understand, especially when it comes to pork production, how we can, uh, dump here in Europe. You know, there's no specific promotion encouragement. Uh, they're talking about production in China. They actually support their own production. So I don't really understand the issue of the anti-dumping tariffs. It's tragic. Um you know WTO is a toothless tiger. They should be acting in such a situation. But they're not. Uh, you know, similar to other, uh, disputes. What I can say though, is we do need to see what's happening in pork production in Europe. I think it's good that we produce this and that. We transform it, process it to, uh, better quality products, but imports of feed from other parts of the world. And then transforming processing pork. I don't think that can be a European business model. That can work. Lots of producers the past few years. Well, I think we heard from from Laura this morning. We know where production is taking place. And this actually has very little to do with farming. Some of the companies only actually buy feed and then they export a lesser quality product than our pork. So that business model I don't think isn't really the basis for reasonable farming in Europe. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Thank you very much, Miss Siracusa. I now give the floor to the coordinators and we start with the EPP. Mr. Dorfmann. Thank you. Chair. Thank you for that presentation on the agreements with both Ukraine and Moldova. My view, our view is that we must continue to stand by Ukraine. We know that trade slash the possibility for trade with Ukraine. Their possibility of exporting their foodstuffs to us is very it's very important. It's a very important part of trade. And we're becoming an increasingly important trade partner for Ukraine. And we're therefore contributing to the development of business in Ukraine. Two questions. You said that there is constant monitoring of the situation. So you're monitoring the whole EU but also individual member states and regions. I consider that important because what we've seen in recent years is that sometimes there has been a large inflow of products into some member states. But then what's the answer? If there is an impact, if there are effects on a specific member state? What kind of response are we going to give? Would it be a different response if only one country is affected and not the whole union? Then the second issue of the lanes, the green lanes are products coming into the EU and then being shipped elsewhere. Are you taking that into account? So imports coming into the EU.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Thank you very much indeed for this presentation. Protecting soil clearly is a crucial issue, because soil can't be simply reproduced from one day to the next. Obviously, it's a very long process that takes thousands of years. And once soil is gone, it's gone. I have a few questions. What are we talking about here? We're talking about agricultural soils. What are soils? Is it for a land use? For agriculture? For forests or towns? Whatever. We've heard figures. 60% of our soils in Europe are unhealthy. So then I wonder if we're talking about soils used for forests. 40% of soils in Europe are covered by forests. So how can that be unhealthy? What is the definition of unhealthy soil? Who defined it? But even if we're looking only at Agricultural soils, 34% of agricultural soils are. Are cultivated for crops. They could be over fertilized or. Um. How else is soil unhealthy? I really need a clearer definition of what unhealthy soil means. Uh, which, uh, ideas have been included. Who came up with the definition? Where do the figures come from? And then I think we would be able to draw certain conclusions and be more specific, but what I'm always lacking is, uh, the question of urbanization and use of soils for urbanization because most, uh, soil, uh, is used up because it's built over for, uh, towns, roads, etc. and we often discuss the fact that we need more housing. No one thinks about rehabilitating older buildings in our towns. We move out into the unused land and build on that as well. There are lots of fallow areas, but obviously it's more expensive to rehabilitate something than simply to start from scratch on fresh ground. So I think it's very important for this entire initiative to include a commitment that new land can only be used if absolutely necessary. Otherwise, we should continue to rehabilitate and work on soil which on land which has already been used.”
  Soil protection policy
• “Thank you very much that is the first blog. On the new material proceedings Material blog and. The. Number of technical. Log and that this is. The. Number. Of material. The. Parliament. And the Council of the Council Presidency Presidency. Este foarte. Posibil. Ca acest tip de sistem politic. Să fi. Fost impus de legislația UE. Sunt curios. În Parlamentul. European. You think that you I think that sustainable. Very quickly. This complex is the use of the future. Controlul. Regulation of. Forestry production material the head of the Forest reproduction. Control regulation not that. Control regulation. In the forest production material of the Council on the. Oficial controlul. Samsung Sense. Of Sustainability. For Sustainable Conservation. Acest test Proceedings. Of. The Council for the current situation with the. Crops. Politica. Sensitive is. What is? What is and sustainable production that the. World? Is. That is just for free? Small competition. Sector politic sensitive. Regulation And that this is. What you? Want? To. Deal with this is what you. Make. Up what? We want. To make. The family. With birocrației and. Diversitatea contribuie la. Menținerea. Biodiversității. Beneficii. Materiale. That's what. We have to. Think. Thank you!”
  Management of EU forests
• “As I was saying, if we want this fund to really strengthen, for instance, Polish farming, then we need to make sure that we have a proper architecture well thought through, which reflects diversity in terms of protection, production, and also diversity in our member states. There are a number of amendments which I welcome because they speak specifically about this architecture. And what I think is the most important here is, first of all, the fact that we need a financial package, an envelope that will be earmarked for the rural sector, for the agri food sector. If we really want to help strengthen European farming, if we really genuinely want to provide that support, then the fund has to be commensurate to the importance of this sector. And that's why I welcome any amendments going in that direction. We're talking about strengthening food security. We're also talking about making sure that agri food businesses are in a position to invest in innovation. Innovation is absolutely necessary if they are to remain competitive on the global market. In addition to that, I believe that competitiveness should be strengthened thanks to the use of this fund across the board, everywhere in Europe. And for that, of course, we need to take into account different levels of innovation in different regions, in different member states. I welcome, therefore, the amendments. The amendments that go in that direction. Colleagues have also highlighted the importance of water management. These colleagues have argued that we need to guarantee investment into this particular sector and we therefore need mechanisms, we need solutions. These are necessary if we are to build a water management system that is efficient in nature. That to me seems very important. I would like to thank the rapporteur and I would like to thank the shadows. Thank you very much for this cooperation, which has been really fruitful. Thank you very much. And I, of course, count on your support going forward as well.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, chair. Um, yeah. I think we're right at the beginning of this. And expenditure controls are obviously important. And there's a question of transparency vis a vis taxpayers. This is all supposed to lead to simplification. We're going to have a single regulation for the whole budget. I guess the doubting Thomas here, I'll believe it when I see it. So simplification. I'm not sure we we've tried that before. I'm not sure we've achieved very much, but maybe this will work now. Nicholas Herbst I agree with him about some of these goals and criterias, uh, in terms of sustainability and the do no significant harm gender and social policy, Then I'm wondering about whether the Draghi report has been completely shelved. This whole question of competitiveness and agriculture and food security is that no longer a criterion there? I think we have to tighten this up, and we should understand that there are other important elements which need to be focused on, particularly competitiveness and economic efficiency and sustainability. These are important factors which also need to be tracked. And. And I agree with the rapporteur that this is not a technical matter. It's highly political. And we'll have a very close look at these criteria and will look at what improvements we can propose. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you very much, chair. Yeah. As the commission's representative said, forests have many functions. They are also sometimes dependent on where these forests are. They can help with recovery and security. With bears, for example, can ensure ecological safety. There's biodiversity as well. They are also reservoirs and they sequester carbon. So in a current period where we want to phase out fossil fuels, forests could also be important for, for for fuel from wood. So we we we need this this biomass if we want to phase out oil and gas. And in Europe we are the largest producers of biomass. So therefore we need, um, farming, farming, forests. This is what has been said in this house very often. People often say that forests should be left as they are. But that's actually nonsense when it comes to to climate change. There needs to be a certain cultivation and and use of these forests. So we need to be simpler here. The situation of forests in Europe is not terrible. Our forests are growing. We need to consider whether or not we really need the forest monitoring program, as it's currently being suggested, I think possibly not. But there are nonetheless plenty of concerns. There have been postponements over the last few years. As you said, there are 16 million people who own forests in in Europe. And so forests do need to be Maintained and kept sustainable. But we need to consider whether or not we should. Possibly have these these no risk zones within within Parliament. Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you very much for that presentation. I completely agree with your view that this type of farming, regenerative farming, must be more closely defined, and the situation at the moment is that a lot of people are saying that they're doing regenerative agriculture, but there's no real definition of what that means. And I shall have my doubts whether we can have a successful definition. I think we're talking about different approaches. It's going to be very difficult to find a definition which is halfway satisfactory. Furthermore. I think we should not try to dictate to farmers what they're supposed to be doing. I think most farmers in Europe are well educated and they have their own ways of working irrespective, irrespective of whether it's regenerative farming or organic farming or commercial farming. We shouldn't keep dictating to them what is better and what they should be doing. I really think that's a bad idea. I mean, we can come up with rules, but we shouldn't dictate to people what they should be doing. That's probably the best way forward. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Yeah.Thank you very much to the ECA and Mrs. Ivanova for this report. There's a number of points criticised by the ECA. Far more so than the positive elements of this reform. And I share I agree with the content of the ECA report and the points made by the Court of Auditors. These are the points that we've discussed here over and again. And here. It's not just about individual measures. We're dealing with fundamental issues. Will the policy be indeed symptoms? No. Will tasks be easily carried out? No. Will it be more flexible? No. So there's a whole series of substantive doubts raised by the ECA. And so my question to the commission is how is the commission going to do. What's the commission going to do? Are they just going to shelve the report, pretend it didn't exist? Or will they learn from the report and realise that some of the approaches they've chosen aren't going in exactly the right direction? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “(15:08:08 – 15:11:33): That's it, chair. Very interesting. Thank you very much for the presentations. Professor Delaferre, I found interesting your philosophically in the good in the good, sense of of the word. Thoughts about tax fraud. I agree with you that people maybe accept less tax fraud than in the past, but maybe if the others do it. So maybe they big they don't see the eye they own tax fraud. They they do not accept the tax fraud of the others, but but they do they do it by themselves. I have I a bit this impression. But but coming to the question, and this is also going to madam Weinziel, I mean, we are going to introduce the VIDA package now you mentioned. How would you say see something, a conditionality? So you the more we introduce the VIDA package, the the more we go out from diverse charge mechanism. So how could we link the 2 things in order to create a good transition from 1 system to another? And we have also a study here in the EPRS study, which probably you know that estimates the cost of red tape and bureaucracy and connected with the reverse charge mechanism of 5,100,000,000. So do you have any data how much this affects small and medium sized enterprises? How much this affects big enterprises? Is there any data available on how this, let's say, these costs are shared in the system? You mentioned also the Article 199 is not is an option it's an option for the member states. So how much do you see this burden for the common market in Europe? So the different we have fundamental different VIT systems in different member states on the same product. How much does this affect the common market, in in the European Union? And in the end, you mentioned 2 options. I didn't understand which 1 do you prefer or you just do you see them on the same level? Maybe could say also your own personal opinion on this on this 2 options. And then to the last the last speaker, Repsol, I understood that you said it it works. The system works. So going out from the system, what would you prefer now? I understand that this short term extensions of 199A, which we had till now, is not really helpful because it creates continuously discontinuity. Would you prefer a long term corrugation of 199A? Or do you see a situation where introducing the reader system, you could fundamentally achieve the same results as you have now in your sector, which is the petrol sector and diesel sector in then you have all the success, yes, the results you have till now with the reverse charge mechanism. Thank you very much.”
  VAT harmonisation
• “Now, unfortunately for the time being, we don't have strategic stocks when it comes to agricultural Produce or indeed fertilisers or indeed feed, or indeed seeds or indeed vaccines. In fact, this is something that my colleague Ben often mentions in these discussions. So we need to go in that direction of travel and we need to do so fast. We need to invest in storage capacity. The European Competitiveness Fund should be there to fund or finance these infrastructures. You know, at the moment we're talking about 40 to 50 years on average in terms of storage. We need to do a lot better than that. Cooperatives have said 4.3 billion in terms of needs between now and 2035. Investing into strategic storage capacities should therefore be a priority for us. It's a question of economic certainty and it's also a question of food security. It's also a way of fighting inflation. And it's also our freedom, our autonomy that is at stake here. Let's not forget, you know, that someone who goes hungry will not move forward very well. Neither will democracy, I'm afraid. That's why we need to fill our bellies. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, chair. So I thank my colleagues for, uh, The opinion. And just to share what was emphasized by Maria Noichl for this opinion and for the whole of the regulation is really not right, because we seem to be talking about the performance regulation before we've decided what it relates to, what the policy is that we want. Before we start talking about what the performance of the regulation is, it should be the other way round. So the main problem that I see, as I've already mentioned today, is that I have the impression that it is behind the times. So farmers are not its farmers and farming policy is not is economic policy. It's not just social policy or environmental policy. So if you want to measure performance, then you have to measure all parts of, of, of performance. And that is not the case here. So we need indicators which will also look at the contribution made by our our economic our farming policy to the security of food supply. And I think we have already made some suggestions in this direction, do no significant harm. Next.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Right now. All right. Sorry. Um. Okay. Thank you very much. Colleagues. Dependencies are things we can become aware of when prices go up or there are bottlenecks. And we're seeing that with fertilizers now. I mean, at the end of the day, these fertilizers produce energy, and they come from the areas of the world where energy costs the least, i.e. Gulf states. And all of this is coming at a time when farmers need to fertilize, and they need to do that so that they can produce food for Europeans. Otherwise, our food supply is in danger. So we need a short term strategy, but we also need a long term strategy. So we need to ensure that we have energy available in Europe. Perhaps surplus energy could be used to produce fertilizers at a sensible price. We also need to use slurry more. It's not a waste product. It's a valuable raw material. We also need to invest in research and the development of new forms of energy. And we need to look at plants and proteins as well. So all of that needs to be part of the commission's strategy on fertiliser. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Grundsatzlich is basically any means that is going to lead to more funding. Flowing into our agricultural holdings is something I'm going to be in favor of. So carbon credits. Can be given a European framework. But when you talk about nature credits, I'm just not sure I've fully understood because farming doesn't happen on natural areas. Nature areas. But it's agricultural land. So if we want to continue to have farming in Europe, we want croplands. Not nature, not not natural lands, let's say. And there's another thing, and that is that with regard to the natural, the nature restoration regulation, I hope that this is not going to be funded by the farmers themselves. Or will it be private funding via nature credits? And there's no consideration about using any other European funds to. Provide financial relief. And there's another thing that worries me with the model, and that is that with the carbon credits, there's a clear market, there's a legislative framework that large companies can reduce or have to reduce their emissions as the ETS systems and so on. And carbon credits can be bought, bought and companies do this. But what about these nature credits? Who's going to buy them? Is it really going to be major insurance companies or banks that are going to buy nature credits, because they therefore hope that the risks that they insure are going to be reduced? I mean, that's doesn't seem convincing to me. The large scale, a large scale market for these credits is something that I think is missing, but I'm willing to stand corrected. And also, has there been an assessment of the demand for all of this? Is there a demand for these nature credits, or are we just building up hope unnecessarily and it will end up with more costing more than they actually yield?”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you chair. Welcome to you, Executive director Chris. We already had an interesting exchange a few months ago in Parliament. I'm very glad that we're able to continue with that discussion here today. I would perhaps like to start where you ended. And of course, the goal of our food production must be as much security as possible. And if we want to be successful within Europe, but also with what we sell in the rest of the world, that has to do with high levels of safety. And this is something else that you've said when talking about the Food and Feed omnibus, we have a great deal of hope that that we couldn't change things that aren't actually working so well in Europe at the moment. When we talk about plant protection, for example, you've talked about new plant protection, new generation, plant protection means. And if we think about the fact that the work that goes in has gone on in Efsa, in commission 5 to 7 years to get this actually done, that means that, uh, we are able to use these or these will things that will not be able to be used until the 30s in agricultural production. That's not enough. We have to make sure that these deadlines are actually brought down. And we also need to think about the of course, the risk assessment process is very bright, but we also have to make sure that this is also only employed in the areas where it is of most important. I do have a question. In the most recent Efsa report, it was said that when it comes to imported products, the highest level of MRLs is about five times beyond what is allowed or what is commonly done in European production. So what does Efsa planning on doing, especially in checks carried out on the borders as well? And the last question here in the Parliament we have legislation about the needs. Uh, is Efsa also prepared in terms of what needs to be done there for making sure that these types of plant products can also be brought into the market in the proper timeline. Thank you.”
  Maximum residue levels
• “Thank you very much. Of course it's important that in agriculture but much more widely we support pollinators. They're vital. And so I have 1 or 2 questions. We focus on wild pollinators for sure. But we need also to consider bees. Bees are not only in the wild. Bees are also bred by beekeepers and therefore we need to look at the conditions under which they are bred and raised as well. I have some questions for DG agri too. I wonder whether we could have any more statistics regarding the levels of agricultural production and how it is affected by the decline in pollinators which we see. Do you have statistical evidence to show that agricultural output is declining because of a decline in pollinators? I'm not sure whether there is actually a direct correlation myself. Then I have one more question. You are talking about more sustainable agriculture and landscape management. Now, I myself have some reservations as to whether bio plant protection products are actually better than the customary insecticides that have been used as an integrated way of land management by traditional farming. I'm not sure whether you've got a comparator between the two types of insecticide and what the implications are. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you very much, chair, Thank you very much for those proposals. And those statements are very interesting. And I think that we don't necessarily need a 50 over 50 balance. Farmers wouldn't necessarily be advocating that. But what we're talking about is women, whether they're younger or older. If they want to get into farming, they should have equal opportunities to do that. That's what it comes down to. And sometimes I get the impression that we're not talking about the hard facts. Of course, women have the same support or access to support. It's not that we're talking about the soft facts rather than the hard facts often. So we're talking about traditions, the idea that a man should be the one taking over the farm, that farming, uh, that the men play a particular role in farming. It's these concepts, these prejudices that need to be changed in public perception. So it doesn't really matter whether we're talking about men or women, you know, the same should apply whether you're a man or a woman working in farming. And there are organizations cooperatives. They are often very male orientated worlds. That's what I feel, whether we're talking about farmers associations exclusively, virtually exclusively women that are on, sorry, men that are on these boards and have leading roles. So I mean, it's up to the women as well. I sometimes get the impression that women themselves need to take their destinies into their hands as well. They might need to also not accept the situations they find themselves in. And. This is something that they can also help towards. And also, what we need to do is ensure that we change the balance and certainly bring more women into leading roles.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Yes. Executive director. Welcome here. Always nice to discuss with you. We'll miss you. On behalf of my group, I'd like to thank you for the work that you've put in over a decade at Efsa. I think there are two important points you raised. Above all, on plant protection products. We're seeing that the demand and demand is not decreasing. It is increasing. It seems that pests are doing much better in Europe. We're importing them as well. They spread very quickly and the farmers often just don't have the the tools to act. So we need to make sure there are chemical possibilities for farmers. By reducing those, we're reducing some people to despair. There's some areas of production that are leaving Europe because farmers no longer have the possibility to combat pests and diseases, and sometimes they get the impression that we're very quick to ban plant protection products. But when it comes to approving new ones, we're very slow and that doesn't chime. I think commissioners Hansen. Commissioner Hansen has said that there's a vision whereby every active substance that is banned, we need to see if there are alternatives, and we need to look at what we need in farming in Europe. That's the right approach, and I think that's the path we should follow. Maybe I can put a question to you relating more to the second part of your speech, and that's about the structure of Efsa.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “And thank you to the rapporteur. As she said, this isn't a purely technical matter here. We're talking about the framework within which the member states can move and establish their national plans. We in the EPP are in favour of an increase of minimum spending for environmental spending. We don't support that. Excuse me. We think that the 35% commission target is enough. I think there's a problem with the calendar. We're supposed to decide on measures and expenditure before we know what the next cap will actually look like. On the subject of the priorities, if you read the draft performance regulation, there's a lot. It's only about environmental goals. But agriculture is also about social issues and competitiveness issues. It's important that we ensure competitiveness on the issue of doing no significant harm. Dns, I would say that in this current proposal, all farms have to comply with farm stewardship. And then if you are organic and you don't comply with farm stewardship, you comply with something that's stringent, more stringent. So why would we need a second layer with do no significant harm? I think that is doubling overlap. And then this move from 3 to 5 mile markers. Okay, but wouldn't it make things more complicated than they already are? That's why I think if we move from 3 to 5, well, we have to think long and hard about that. And I think we should have a special quality indicator for mountain areas. I think there should be 10% marked for rural areas under the plans. But what exactly is a rural area? The commission doesn't yet have a definition for rural areas, so we'll have to look at that.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much. Well, not indeed, I think, in my role as coordinator, but in my because in my role to substitute our colleague Don Montano, who is our shadow rapporteur, EPP shadow rapporteur and who unfortunately cannot participate at the meeting today. So I will simply read a note my colleague gave me. And as the rapporteur said, we have 312 amendments for 54 of them are from my political group. Um, just let me mention 2 or 3 points on the crisis management. As the rapporteur mentioned, the introduction of new types of crisis payments via article 41 a means a automatically a reduction of the direct payments that farmers currently receive. So our political group supports the compromise and the removal of these payments. We cannot do more with less money since the current cap is unfortunately not adjusted to inflation. Then on the on the 21 amendments target, article 13 of the regulation 2115, uh, from from 2021, to ensure that not only entire holdings certified for organic production benefit from automatic compliance with certain guides, but also any unit of the holding that is certified or in conversion, as well as supplying other sustainable farming methods to reduce unnecessary controls. Um, as for the guides next to improving the proposal for Geic one and two, several amendments support the deletion of other guides two, five and nine. And as the rapporteur already mentioned, we need to look what would be the, um, the the consequences of this, we need an in-depth analysis of eventual consequences. Also in the on the production side and then on animal husbandry. The livestock decline in the European Union. The left's proposed that the annual payment for livestock units allowed for an additional payment for support for rare breeds. While our EPP amendment 173 ensures that purchasing breeding animals becomes eligible eligible investment. So concluding work on the compromise amendments will start on Wednesday. It is important to adopt the file as soon as possible because we, as an EPP, will do everything in order to make it available for the farmers from January 2026. Thank you very much.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “It's now quite apart from the fact that we've got the S and D group as a possibility for gender balance with the women as the third vice chair. The Conference of Presidents has looked at the situation at yesterday, and as far as the different committees are concerned, and the situations that arise therein have been allowed to rule, that it is a situation that may well arise. And therefore I'm my group is against having an interruption to the vote today, and I think it would be to the benefit of the committee to have the vote now. **Veronika Vrecionová @Co-Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any other requests?”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Yeah. Thank you very much. Good morning. Pleasure to have you here. Minister, you mentioned more or less all the files which are on the table. Um, I would like to come back to three files which are already coming from the last legislative term. These are new genomic techniques. Forest reproduction and plant reproduction materials. And it's very good if we can advance. And I really hope that especially on dengue, this will come to an end. Under then Danish presidency I myself rapporteur for the forest and plant reproduction material. Also there I think we need to speed up. Honestly, I think we are speaking a lot in these days here about simplification? We should also reflect about the speed of our legislative progress and process, because both of these proposals come from the last legislative terms. The proposal is more than two years old, and we are still debating on this. And I mean, the Parliament voted on the plant reproduction material in the last legislative term, and the Council is not ready to start the trialogue after more than one year. I think we should also start to think how to speed up these processes. If you mentioned and I fully agree with you, and now we are losing an opportunity because the rest of the world is going on and we are still making laws here in Europe, and I hope that we can close very soon. On the simplification package. You mentioned it.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• “It's now quite apart from the fact that we've got the S and D group as a possibility for gender balance with the women as the third vice chair. The Conference of Presidents has looked at the situation at yesterday, and as far as the different committees are concerned, and the situations that arise therein have been allowed to rule, that it is a situation that may well arise. And therefore I'm my group is against having an interruption to the vote today, and I think it would be to the benefit of the committee to have the vote now. **Veronika Vrecionová @Co-Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any other requests?”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “So first I ask myself, well, I find it a bit strange when you see in the proposal from the Commission, uh, for the cap, you see that there is farm, uh, stewardship should be a rule should be applied and you should have do not no significant farm applied. So it seems that to me that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in the commission. So I think that when we look at investments. So let's say I have a new, um, a new new stall or I have new, um, watering facilities. So if we look at they're not in keeping with the budget requirements of the European Commission, then we're just blocking ourselves. And I think that do no significant harm principle should not be applied in um agricultural policy. And I also agree with our colleague Maria Noichl with regard to beneficiaries. I think this is a central issue. Who is actually getting the money. So with regard to irrigation. So I think it has to be decided. It shouldn't be decided by the performance regulation. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Honourable members. The European Union and this Parliament for decades has abided by a key principle. Member states entrust us with the powers and we enforce policies in those areas farming, cooperation, research and many other other areas. Looking at plans for the future, the Commission seems to be doing away with those centralised competences and returning them to member states. The Parliament would not have any real powers on future financing if you were to Too watered down and empty out these centralized competences, you would weaken this Parliament. We need to look at farming, for example, key for food sovereignty in future. We need to invest in this sector, bring young people into farming. Otherwise we endanger future food sovereignty. We need an independent Cap budget and we need legislation in this area at EU level. And I expect the Commission to fight for this next week. Thank you, Vice President.”
  EU political integration
• “There was a minor technical problem. For example, we can look at the different sources that are used for biofuels. I think with overproduction we have in Europe that that we can use these well. But what. Why should we grow? In most recent years, far too many potatoes in Europe when we can use land to produce biofuels. So we need to have an integrated and joined up approach and to make sure that we don't further exacerbate the problems. And this is in line with the delegated acts of the Commission. And I think they had an incorrect, um, direction. I think it's absolutely absurd when we have a protein plan for Europe. And at the same time, we don't have an energy plan. We're stopping this correct use of land for energy production. I think there'll be better and more for Europe.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Thank you. Chair. Commissioner, I think there are two problems here. Many have talked about the money. And of course, for us, it's important that alongside this 300 billion, uh, there's other funding that's going to be running around around the place and that can be used for, for farming. But this money, which is actually not ringfenced is, is, has actually has been actually promised elsewhere. We've got friends who are involved in fishery policies, cohesion policies. A lot of money has been promised there. The fear is that there's not going to be enough to go around. And at some point there's going to be there's going to be nothing left. The larger problem, however, is that, um. With this proposal, you talk about how we can make proposals to improve this text. I must say that we're not in favour of everything being left as it is. And you're quite right. We need to actually make sure that we simplify the cap and make it more effective, perhaps more direct. But quite honestly, I don't know really, with what amendments we can actually propose to make this change, to bring this change about, because the policy seems to have really, um, been diluted in, in various different areas. You've got to try and bring it all back together again. The architecture simply isn't there. There's no bare bones. And and so I'm sure things can be done better. And and I'm not sure really how we can actually make amendments which are going to be to the benefit of farmers.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Welcome, Commissioner. I happen to be rapporteur for the Food and Feed Omnibus. And in connection with that, I would like to put a couple of questions to you, if I may. First of all, I agree with your approach concerning this omnibus. I support your approach, and I actually think that this is fundamentally important when it comes to authorisation of innovative substances. We need to shorten the times. Definitely. You know, we want to make sure that we catch up with the rest of the world. I mean, a lot of these are actually being manufactured outside of Europe. That's where they're invented. That's where they're innovated. So we need to recognize that. And basically they're not turning to Europe anymore because time frames are so long. So we need to speed this up. Definitely, definitely a course of action that we should encourage. Now, one point you mentioned or touched upon was the question of existing authorization. It seems to me that in your proposal, there is maybe a bit of an issue here. You're saying that the current proceedings underway would be completed. We're talking about approximately 450 active ingredients or substances that are authorized, and we're talking about 200 that are in reauthorization procedures that would take years, actually 200 that you would need to process still. So that will take years and years. I'm afraid that's a long time. And we need to think carefully about the 200. How will we handle these? We want to make sure that we do actually have a better situation going forward in terms of our area. Also, when it comes to Efsa, you know, are all these procedures as they should be? You know, things are becoming more and more difficult, like finding national agencies that will do risk assessments for Efsa.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “On behalf of the PPE Group, I would like to propose. Krzysztof Hetman as a candidate for the third vice chair for the fourth. Vice chair. **Veronika Vrecionová @Co-Chair: And now, Mr. Clergeau, once again,”
  Recruitment policies in the EU
• “Yeah.Thank you very much to the ECA and Mrs. Ivanova for this report. There's a number of points criticised by the ECA. Far more so than the positive elements of this reform. And I share I agree with the content of the ECA report and the points made by the Court of Auditors. These are the points that we've discussed here over and again. And here. It's not just about individual measures. We're dealing with fundamental issues. Will the policy be indeed symptoms? No. Will tasks be easily carried out? No. Will it be more flexible? No. So there's a whole series of substantive doubts raised by the ECA. And so my question to the commission is how is the commission going to do. What's the commission going to do? Are they just going to shelve the report, pretend it didn't exist? Or will they learn from the report and realise that some of the approaches they've chosen aren't going in exactly the right direction? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “(15:13:22 – 15:16:07): So basically, I can only agree to what Rita said. We need harmonization. Also on your third question, the burden for the common market. If you have options, if you have derogations, it makes it harder for the businesses to be competitive with other businesses which are not in the European market. So I also admit that harmonization is crucial for the European Union. On reverse charge and Tiara, on the interaction, yes, technology will help a lot. It will it is only the starting point. And I think seeing the developments of the last few years, I think we can really hope that the technology and digitalization will help a lot in combating VAT fraud in the future. So now we have almost near real time reporting, and I think the the near time or the real time will be feasible very soon of, and this will help, combat the VAT fraud. I also do not have any figures on what the burden for small and medium sized businesses is, but usually, it is for the smaller businesses. They have small volumes, and they have the same burden as the as the bigger businesses have to bear. So it it hits them a a lot harder than than big businesses, which have the the system in place, which which can easier adopt to to new developments. And finally, on on the solutions, on the options, I mentioned the 1 being the TRR. So wait or have the reverse charge in place until the TRR is up and running. And the second option, keeping the reverse charge and using the TRR to to focus on on the supply chain and to to have the possibility to detect anomalies earlier. I think for for the time being, the second solution will be the solution that would work, and then we will focus on how the national TRS will be work. We talked about the developments of the technology, further digitalization. So I guess this will help us then also to reduce the reverse charge on the fraudulent sectors. Thank you.”
  VAT harmonisation
• “Dear Colleagues with Mercosur. The EU has an agreement with a partner whose biggest priority is aggregates. But we already buy €5 billion worth of goods from Argentina, 17 billion from Brazil. But I know that sugar, bioethanol, rice, citrus fruit, beef and poultry they're all concerned by this sector. But there are opportunities elsewhere. There's no doubt about that. And of course we have a geopolitical interest in signing this agreement. The EU at the moment is losing out. We're losing partners and friends throughout the world. You know, we hesitate too much. It's taken us 25 years to get Mercosur over the finish line. I think Mercosur is a is a symbol, but we cannot allow ourselves to squander the opportunities afforded by our partners. But we need a strategy for farming. A strategy cannot just be a promise for a few euros. We need to have a true concept for farmers. We need to have measures which will allow which will allow farmers to conquer new markets. And then we need funding so that they can conquer those new markets. But first you come up with the concept, then you come up with the funding. So, Commissioner, please come up with some concept which will help our farmers and which will assuage their fears. Thank you very much.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much, chair. I think that the proposals. On the CMO and the unfair trade practices are really headed in the right direction. So thank you very much for the proposals. I think as regards the CMO. We do have to strengthen producer organisations, POS and their role, and I think that these proposals will help that further. Commissioner. On article 152. That. Not no more than 33% can be produced in a single member state. And here, if we want a producer organisation to be stronger, this 33% figure might be exceeded. And then on the second proposal, I think on cross-border. That's something that we can improve. It's important that we do so with the last legislation, we saw that some companies moved their operations to Switzerland to circumvent the rules, and that's not in the meaning of the legislation. And I think we need to look closely. And look at the products. And look at. When there are large purchases and see and make sure that they are subject to this legislation. I agree with what you say here. We need to act quickly. Most definitely at the high level, group has come up with some really sensible proposals, and I think it's now up to us to work as quickly as possible to implement these because the situation is anything but simple, particularly in the wine sector. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Yeah, thank you very much. Well, on the contrary of other colleagues who are criticizing what we did, but they did not participate at the trip. I participated at the trip and it was really interesting. I need to say we saw a lot of interesting things. I have only one request, which I continue to repeat. The programs which we have need to be feasible. Um, it cannot be that we start at eight in the morning and then we are we have one appointment after the other, and the last appointment is at 7:00 in the evening with a dinner where the invited guest needs to be to wait for two hours because we are too late. And this is not for the first time. This is a lot of trips. Always we want to have a program which is too ambitious. Um, I understand that we would like to see a lot of things, but sometimes one appointment less is better than one appointment more.”
  Budget for EU politicians
• “First I will do my best. To general comments before I talk about agri issues. This is the third time that I've seen an MFF NFF proposal, and the Commission has been so lacking in respect. You haven't spoken to us, you haven't been interested in the Parliament. So, Commissioner, you want more Europe? And then if you just have 27 individual shopping lists and if you say you want to have a cap, but then you have a club of states funding this, how are you going to get more Europe? I can't get my head around that. But now on the figures, I haven't necessarily understood everything, but you're Bud, you're doubling the MFF. We're almost at €1.9 trillion. €2 trillion, but we're getting a 25% cut to the cap. Don't try and sell that to us as a success story or I haven't understood. So you're talking about €300 billion. That's what we used to get for the first pillar. Everything else is in another pot. That is not yet clear to us. And we have to hope that the Member States will do something in addition to help farming. So are we going to cut the first pillar? But then how are we going to do everything that you've just described, all the lovely things you've just described. So the math doesn't add up. Okay, great. We've got a legally a legal proposal for the cap. You fought for that. But I never thought that during my time in Parliament, we'd even need to have this discussion that the cap would have its own legal basis. So this is something I've never would have expected in my time. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much Chair. I would have two questions. One to Christina, you showed at the beginning of your presentation the question what is revenues and what is profit but this was pure mathematics. Are there real figures? So do we know today on the experiences we have in the member states where there is a digital service tax what is the taxation on the profits? Can you maybe explain this a bit better? And then to Mister Angel on the digital or ecommerce. I was not satisfied at all with your answer on the small parcels because as you know the thing becomes a completely new dynamic, most probably entering Amazon into the market and this is happening in these days in the European Union and this will increase the problem even more. So your answer was more or less we know let's see what we can do but I think that's not enough. I think we really need to address the problem and that's not only as somebody mentioned before that's not only a tax problem that's a CO2 problem because if I see what's going to happen on our street that is not acceptable anymore. It is not acceptable towards our own companies in Europe which face this unfair competition on the market on millions, hundreds of millions of parcels every year. I think I would expect a more decisive action by the Commission on this field. Thank you.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “(16:46:23 – 16:46:24): Thank you, chair. Thank you very much to the Director General for that presentation. I think when it comes to fertilizers, we need to distinguish between which 1 we're talking about. We've got phosphorus, potassium and nitrogen. Now phosphorus and potassium, we don't really need to import into Europe. So we're talking really about nitrate, nitrogen. Nitrogen fertilizers are just energy. It's energy and air. There's nothing else than energy and air. And in this current situation, that's a problem. But I also think, and the director general didn't really pick up on this, we need to look at actually what's going on. If the biggest European producer of nitrogen fertilizers has gone up by 46% in the last 6 months and the last quarter has been a very successful 1, then you have to take a look and see if it's what's going on there is the same as is what's going on with the energy giants are experiencing in the world with their growth. So the energy market is being used or potentially even exploited for these purposes. Now what I'm concerned about is that we've got too much energy in Europe. We've got solar and water energy in Europe. We're going to have we have increasingly to give away energy or not use it or not generate it, sorry. So we need to think about nitrogen fertilizers, that's nitrogen and hydrogen in the Push Harbor process that is used to generate that. And we have to think about situations where we can better do it better in production systems. Now if we would have a more a better circular economy in Europe, then animals are important, and we need them in the fields. Now animals in the fields have been disappearing. There are more and more areas in Europe where there's hardly any animals outdoors, livestock this is, and fewer possibilities thereby to collect manure and slurry. So we oh, we need more protein plants. We were discussing that aspect yesterday. I think the director general needs to think about how the 1 at the same time, would we talk about more nitrogen, independence, but, we want to have more soil production in Europe. Either we're going to have 1 or the other, but having both of those going on at the same time doesn't make sense. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Dear colleagues, Commissioner, it is important that during this week that we approve this wine package, and I'd like to thank everyone for the very valuable work in the past weeks and months. Now, concerning wine, Europe plays a very special role because we produce more than 60% of the worldwide production. And it's not just a production, it it affects the landscape and the environment. So the sector, as commissioner has mentioned the sector is in crisis. And of course, we've had the ongoing inflation and the reduction in consumption. And then we have the tariffs from the United States. For that reason. We need a response. And I think the wine package gives us answers. We will try to expand our markets. We will invest in wine promotion throughout the world. And I think it's also important because our wine is of the most important worldwide. And in order to find new consumer, we are going to have alcohol free wine and wine with less alcohol. And we're also going to start into more complicated areas where we find, um, that growing wine actually promotes the environment. So I think we have to make sure that the demand and supply are balanced, grubbing up of different varieties. I think that should be the final step. I hope we don't need that. So I'm really certain that this package is an important, decisive step in order to get the sector going in the right direction and get through this crisis. Thank you.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• “Thank you. Chairman. Welcome, Madam Minister, to our committee. You have a very ambitious program for the Cyprus presidency. I would fully endorse your goals. I am rapporteur on the Plant Reproductive Material report. The trilogue talks will begin in a few days, as you said. My aim is to conclude talks within your presidency on animal transport. We need to reach an agreement. And so you are right to flag that when it comes to standards. We need to look at organic farming and make progress swiftly. We shouldn't wait until the end of the year. The package is a good one that we could move swiftly to conclude. The big elephant in the room is the Common Agricultural Policy. And I have a couple of questions. You talked about budget. Do you see any potential in coming weeks and months to shed more clarity on financing? It is rather confusing. We heard the initial budget proposal. Then we received two letters from the Commission president on what is to be included in the budget. We need to get some sort of sensible budget line for farming at the end of the day and then turning to the cap itself. We need clarity, farmers. As you rightly pointed out. Farmers are important. We need to look at the Cap and the CMO, and we need specific rules rather than going through the. What do we expect from the Council? The Commission has made proposals about switching between funds. Do you plan to go with the commission president proposal or do you have your own ideas here?”
  Agricultural funding
• “Commissioner colleagues, in a few days time, we'll get a proposal for the Cap and its financing until the year 2035. And we haven't got the best science in place at the moment. So far, the cap and cohesion funds have been the heart of the European project. And the idea was floated of putting them all in one big pot so you can't see what ingredients go in. Sometimes I get the impression that when you're cooking a soup. Whoop! You want a full part, but you don't want to show that you've got two little meat in it. If you look at the financial resources in absolute figures over the historical years, by 2035 we'll have a third less money related to purchasing power compared to 2020. So and at the end of the period will basically have the equivalent of half of the money we're given the purchasing power parity. This is going to be a major challenge for tomorrow society. If the EU is not prepared to invest in agriculture and attract young people to get involved in agriculture, then we're going to lose our food sovereignty step by step. That doesn't mean we can't make any changes, and we're ready to talk about positive changes and how to use money more efficiently. But we don't need just. A minimum financing. We do need good financing, and we need proper budgeting for the cap rather than having some kind of general overarching target. We also need to ensure that any change to the funding system doesn't weaken regions. I hope that we have a confident commission that defends its values and defends its policies, and can fight for proper financing for the cap. However, I am not prepared to vote in favour of a cap that endangers the livelihoods of Europe's farmers.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Sorry. So I will try again. They continue to face multiple challenges, from limited access to land and financing, poor infrastructure, lack of tailored services, and often minimal representation in decision making processes. So women represent, for example, 40% of agriculture workforce in Austria and only 15% in Ireland. And that gap shows how uneven process still is across progress across member states. We clearly have a lot of work ahead as policy makers, our responsibility to ensure that women in agriculture not only recognise, but actively supported through effective financing mechanisms, tailored training opportunities, better promotion and peer report. So questions to the Commission. Very few member States have introduced targeted measures to improve the positions of women in farming, and those that did mostly did through the leader programme. So two questions. First, how does the Commission intend to improve the uptake of targeted measures for women in agriculture, in agriculture across member states? And second, given the current commission proposal, does this does not include the ring fence budget for the leader programme. What assurance can you provide that women will receive more support under the Cap and not less? Thank you very much.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Yes. Our chair, our colleague Maria Walsh cannot be here. So I will simply read the notes she gave me. Women have long been the backbone of rural communities, both caring for their families and playing a vital role in the rural economy. Yet, historically, they have been sidelined from fully participating in both agriculture and broader economic activities. They continue to face multiple challenges from Herbert.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Then public funds should act as a catalyst to attract private investment and support European entrepreneurship and value creation. A more balanced and flexible securitisation framework could unlock more financial financing by safeguarding stability. The venture capital market needs reform as well as SMEs stock listing, which should be simplified to reduce burdens and improve market access. The precondition of a competitive business environment in the European Union capable of facing global competition. Competition is the presence of a real internal market. To achieve that. To achieve this, we need to remove the remaining barriers and address the fragmentation of the market infrastructures. And then a free and competitive market environment is essential for closing the financial gap, especially with the United States of America, and ensuring that Europe can fully leverage its economic potential, attracting both domestic and international investments. I remain confident that we can solve these remaining issues. We did a good work in the first shadow meeting and we will have another one. And at least from my point of view and in the position of my political group. We are cooperating with the rapporteur and we are trying to find a good compromise which we can be in favour at the vote. Thank you very much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation