Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
AGRI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
Thank you, Chair. Dear Chair, dear members, I'm sorry that my name gave you such a problem. Hopefully, it's Christodoulou, by the way. Okay. Thank you.
So, this study was commissioned by the ex post evaluation unit of EPRS and is part of the European implementation assessment series, which supports parliamentary committees in their preparation of their implementation reports. Moving on to the objectives of the study. The objective of the study was to evaluate the implementation of the promotion policy against the standard criteria used for an exposed evaluation defined.
Speaker 4
The EU Better Regulation Toolbox. These criteria are effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, and EU added value. The examination period of the study was from 2015 to 2025. We collected data from several sources, including desk research. However, secondary data was scarce, and therefore a large set of primary data was collected specifically to allow for a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the policy implementation over the period.
The primary data collection included 10 EU-level interviews with the Commission, the Research Executive Agency, and stakeholders at the EU level; 36 stakeholder interviews and case studies in six EU member states, which were France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, and Spain; and a survey of relevant actors, to which we received 134 replies, of which 98 were from beneficiaries of the program. The study was carried out over 4 months during July 2025. Just an overview of the EU promotion policy regulatory framework. This is based on a regulation that is supported by secondary legislation. It foresees three types of actions.
Firstly, simple programs involve one or more organizations from a single member state. They are managed by the Commission and the Member States and account for approximately 45 to 50% of the allocated funds over the examined period. Secondly, multi-programs, which involve at least two organizations from different member states or union-level organizations. They are managed by the Commission and REA and account for approximately 45 to 50% of the allocated funds. Lastly, measures were launched at
The direct own initiative of the Commission includes high-level missions to third countries, trade fair participation, targeted campaigns, and...
Technical support. This accounts for less than 10% of the allocated funds. Now, there are certain eligibility criteria and other considerations for access to the program. Firstly, concerning eligible beneficiaries, participating organizations have to be representative of EU or national-level associations, producer organizations, or agri-food bodies with public services. Importantly, individual companies are not directly eligible for the program.
Then, eligible products are those under Annex One of the treaty: various processed products, spirit drinks with geographical indications, as well as wine under sender conditions, not for general wine promotion.
Which?
Speaker 4
It is covered by the wine Common Market Organization. The support is provided for a period of 1 to 3 years. There are restrictions on the use of brands and origins. The focus is on the promotion of EU, not on national products. Doing an overview of the implementation during the study period, so over the last decade from 2015 to 2025, the regulation has funded 681 initiatives, most of which, 480, were simple programs.
There were, in addition, 189 multi-programs, and finally, 12 measures taken on the commission's own initiative. As explained, more than one beneficiary can be involved in a program, meaning that there are more beneficiaries than programs. And the graph to the left here presents the total available budget each year over this ten-year period, while the graph to the right is the map that shows the geographical distribution of campaigns. The top three member states in terms of the number of campaigns in which they have been involved are Italy, France, and Greece. Moving on to the findings of the study in terms of the criteria.
Firstly, on effectiveness, the key question really is whether the policy is actually having the impact it was intended to have. The answer to this question is set against the original objectives of the regulation. The regulation aims to enhance the visibility and competitiveness of EU agri-food products, assisting farmers and food producers to expand their market reach both across the EU and globally. This is done by increasing awareness of the quality, safety, and sustainability of EU food products. The evaluation we did found that the promotion policy effectively boosts the competitiveness and consumption of EU agri-food products, while also enhancing product awareness and consumer confidence in these products.
The greatest overall impact is on raising awareness and product visibility, particularly for campaigns involving direct consumer contact. Consumer confidence is closely linked to product awareness and quality attributes, with stronger effects observed for campaigns inside the EU. The impact on sales, in other words on consumption, is particularly important in overseas markets. The commission's own initiatives are also found to be effective, with high-level missions standing out. There is nonetheless scope for tweaks in the face of aggressive competition.
Moving on to efficiency, which examines the relationship between inputs and outputs. Overall, the benefits of the policy clearly outweigh the costs, as confirmed by beneficiaries whose opinions you can see on the graph on this slide. However, increased flexibility during implementation could potentially have a positive impact on efficiency. Staying on the same theme of efficiency, the application process is challenging, potentially costly, and has a steep learning curve. The administrative burden during program implementation can potentially divert resources away from promotional activities.
Over half of the survey respondents found the application process challenging, and this is particularly likely to be the case for smaller organizations. On balance, the process for remanaged multi-programs appears less burdensome than for simple programs managed by member states. However, the approach of some member states reduces the burden for simple programs. In terms of coherence, overall, the EU promotion policy is broadly aligned with key EU political priorities, notably on public health and trade. Concerning public health, the promotion policy attempts to walk a fine line between two valid and opposing positions by encouraging healthy eating and certain production methods without banning the promotion of any product category in scope.
Regarding the EU trade policy, alignment has been well ensured as the promotion policy actions target opportunities created by free trade agreements. Lastly, on relevance and EU added value, the regulation has been found to largely address the current needs. However, two key areas for improvement were identified by stakeholders: improving flexibility and encouraging the promotion of national origin and brands. The EU policy also offers added value compared to national-level initiatives. The evaluation concludes with certain lessons learned and recommendations.
Starting with a review of what actually works with this policy, the EU policy has been found, as indicated in the previous slides, to be generally effective. It is therefore important to maintain the policy under the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy. The original needs of the policy are relevant, and no overarching new needs have been identified. Therefore, no changes have been identified in this respect. The approach set out in the annual work programs seems correct, and therefore, the steady findings suggest continuing to align support under the annual work programs with the priorities and demand from applicants.
The commission's own initiatives are generally effective, and therefore, the study recommends maximizing high-level missions that the commissioner attends, as these were found to be particularly helpful. Moving on to what needs action or revision. The study recommends examining if enhancements to flexibility are possible. The application process is challenging. The findings suggest that member states can leverage best practices for managing simple programs and applications that can be used more widely.
In terms of administrative complexity, the study found, as indicated earlier, that it is quite important and that it poses a particular challenge for smaller beneficiaries. So, the study recommends ensuring simplification within the constraints of the policy. It is advisable to avoid changes to the rules for programs that are ongoing implementation, as well as to boost participation in multiple programs. Standardizing impact indicators for programs would also facilitate the evaluation of the programs. Continuing with what actions, cases where actions, or revisions would be needed concerning the commission's own initiatives, the study recommends ensuring coordination with national promotion organizations. The commission could also consider if additional tools would be useful.
The budget is always important for the impact. It is therefore advisable to better prioritize the available budget to avoid promotion efforts being spread too thin. The study also recommends working on matching supply and demand. Finally, continuous efforts are needed for effective promotion. Therefore, the study findings suggest carefully considering the two consecutive rounds support limit, as well as examining if rules on brand and origin should be relaxed.
Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 1
K. Thank you, Mariam. And now I would like to, okay. Before I give the floor to the rapporteur, I would like to welcome here four members of the British Beef and Clam Association who were invited by our colleague, Mr. Mololi. So, welcome here.
And now, DeMeo, you have 5 minutes, please.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Chair. Before I go through the main points of my report on agro-food promotion, I would like to start by thanking the Secretariat for all the support they have given me and the EPRS for their study that they have just presented. That has given me some data and useful aspects to look at the negatives and positives of agri-food promotion. They have then looked at the effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence of these activities, where between 2016 and 2025, 681 programs were financed. So far, this has been shown to be a practical instrument, which has had a significant effect on promoting our product.
Speaker 6
It has improved the recognition of European products. It has increased market access, strengthening our competitive position. It's also been a useful contribution to diversifying the market, especially at this time when there are trade tensions. In my report, I wanted to draw attention to the fact of how promotional policies can support public health goals in terms of consuming fruit and vegetables, and how they can work together with existing programs such as Farm to Fork and the plan to combat cancer. At the moment, wine and high-quality meats can also be included in this without any ideological stigma being attached to them, in the perspective of improving our overall competitiveness.
Speaker 5
In terms of the beneficiaries, we can see that the benefits far outweigh the costs of supporting them, but there are some areas to which we need to pay attention. For instance, the administrative burden, especially for SMEs. It's important to bear in mind that they are facing increasing production costs. They don't have much money to invest, and they need equal and simplified access to promotional instruments, paying more attention to SMEs in rural or mountainous regions. I'd also like to point out in my report the lack of flexibility in these promotional programs.
Speaker 6
We should be able to adapt and reorient financing to adjust to changing needs, especially for countries where, for example, economic and geopolitical conditions are particularly volatile. We've seen here that the smallest producers are the ones who are disadvantaged. Here, we want to promote transnational synergies. All of these adjustments to the program are necessary and must be done as quickly as possible. I'd also like to refer to the EU's added value.
This is a way of going beyond the national level and working at scale to promote products in third countries. Geographical indications and sustainable product labels are a way of supporting the GDP of our exporters abroad, as well as the program Enjoy from Europe. We would like to point out that it is more effective to refer to a national origin rather than an overall European origin. And that's something that both of these pieces of information can coexist on the packaging. In terms of the financial means available, we need to make sure that the resources are available and that they can then be transferred to other areas where they may be needed.
In terms of the limit on having two consecutive or simultaneous projects, we would need to look into that. There are some critical areas there. Each campaign should be evaluated based on the results actually achieved rather than on various time constraints. Here, we can see that the overall value of the projects often exceeds the budget available, which means that a lot of work is done unnecessarily. We think that, first of all, there should be a tranche made available for the initial work, and then a further tranche made available when the project is actually presented.
Speaker 5
This study will allow us to have a balanced system, which will be growth-oriented and able to promote our products throughout the world.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And now let's do a round of our shadows. First, Dario Nardella. Sandy, please, Dario. Two men, you have two minutes each, please.
Thank you.
Speaker 8
You. Thank you, Chair. The report that we've heard confirms that the EU program for agri-food promotion is producing some tangible results. And I'd also like to congratulate those who have drawn up this program. Once in a while, we've seen that it's necessary to improve the competitiveness of our products.
Speaker 10
This then raises awareness of these products within and outside the European Union, and it is something that consumers can benefit from. We need to advertise the quality of our European systems with geographical indications, which are a strategic asset for our system. What's more, the promotional projects that we have allow us to soften the blow from various market turbulences and other tensions in the market. We also need to make sure that we take this quality-based approach beyond 2027, keeping the system that we have, but then adjusting it to the way the markets evolve. First of all, I think it's important to have a budget line in the next MFF dedicated to this sector.
Speaker 8
Secondly, we need to support the simple and multi-programs, as well as the own-initiative measures of the Commission. Then, we also need to be able to adjust to the dynamics of the market. I'd like to conclude by asking two questions. According to the experts, how could we have more synergy between trade and promotional policies, since these two aspects are inextricably linked, particularly in markets where geographical indications have been called into question? We've seen the trade agreement between Argentina and the United States.
Speaker 9
Secondly, what changes could we make to make promotion more decisive for third-party markets? Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And now, Patriots Raffaele, he's not here, I think. So, Mr. Tarzio.
And real. So.
Speaker 11
This is important for competitiveness in Europe, and competitiveness has to be promoted; it needs to cover a greater number of products that are being supported. And these are perhaps not in the first row at present. These are the large producer countries that have been addressed in this report. So, they get the lion's share. But there are other countries that one should take into account, including Romania and Bulgaria, for example.
Speaker 13
So, if we talk about European added value and supporting rural areas, then our products need to be sold inside the European Union, but also outside. And we should take that into account. The Parliament needs to address how this regulation should look and how it should be implemented. At the end of the day, this policy needs to be continued, and I agree with it. But it should be improved, quite clearly improved, for the time after 2027.
Speaker 11
The support instrument should have a better effect. I think that we need real help for SMEs, for the producers. It is important to have real access and a simplification of the information on products. It has to be made clearer. There is a certain lack of balance between the member states, I find.
And the funding should have more to do with quality and also with the recognition of traditional specialties. These are products that really have a special advantage, and people recognize that immediately. In Romania, these are appreciated. And I think we have to do more in order to export these products. These are products with added value.
Speaker 12
So, I hope that this policy will be implemented in a more strategic way, and we will have more concrete results for European producers.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Chair. And I also welcome members of the Irish Beef and Lamb Association, the finest producers of Irish lamb and beef, and I'm glad to have it promoted in Europe and beyond. Chair, I welcome the evaluation of the EU agri-food promotion policy. It confirms that European promotion delivers real economic value, especially for export-oriented livestock producers such as our own member states in Ireland. Our agricultural model is built on high-quality, grass-based beef, dairy, and lamb production.
Speaker 15
It's one of the most export-dependent agri-food member states in the European Union. We're over 700% self-sufficient in beef. Around 90% of Irish dairy production is exported in the form of butter, cheese, and infant formula. And we're close to 400% self-sufficient in lamb, one of the highest levels in the world. So, our domestic markets simply cannot absorb what we produce.
Exports are not optional. They are fundamental. So, in that respect, the EU Agri-Food funded promotion is absolutely essential for countries like Ireland. It strengthens the European brand globally and allows producers to compete in premium markets on the basis of quality, traceability, animal welfare, and sustainability. And it is working, although this evaluation, as it states very clearly, says it must continue to adapt to new challenges.
However, the discussion cannot be separated from major policy pressures, Chair. The Mercosur trade agreement and the implementation of the Green Deal. Firstly, Mercosur allowing additional beef import quotas from countries operating under very difficult environmental and production standards would place direct downward pressure on European beef prices. At the very moment when Irish and EU livestock farmers have been asked to meet higher regulatory and climate targets, it makes no sense to weaken their market position through increased low-cost inputs. Promotion policy, therefore, must remain a tool to defend and differentiate EU agri-produced products.
Speaker 14
And that's the reason I suppose I asked the question: what provision have the authors of the commission made in terms of reinforcing our budget going forward to ensure that we can compete properly within the European Union against products with no traceability?
Yeah.
Speaker 16
Thank you very much, dear Chair, dear colleagues, also from the EPRs. Thank you for this presentation on the evaluation of the EU Agri-Food Promotion Policy. I am really convinced that it will be very useful to our work. But let me also say that I'm a little bit astonished that it's a consulting firm that made this research. I was also trying to have access to their Internet site.
It did not work. So, I question a little bit the neutrality if it's done by a consulting firm. But also, if we want to remain somehow credible in delivering on the European Green Deal and on the Farm to Fork strategy, our promotion spending must fully respect these priorities. The criterion of coherence was mentioned. So yes, let's be coherent with our climate, diversity, and public health commitments, including the EU Beating Cancer Plan.
For me, sustainability, food security, and public health go hand in hand with a shift towards more balanced, more plant-based diets, and greater protein diversification. This is not only a matter of health or animal welfare. It's also a question of resilience, strategic autonomy, and sustainable land use. We all know that. Studies show that a very significant share of the budget still goes to animal products, especially meat and dairy.
I would therefore like to ask for further clarification as to why the promotion of red meat through this policy is still considered appropriate, despite clear indications from WHO that unprocessed red meat is probably carcinogenic, while processed meat is already classified as carcinogenic. This raises important questions about exactly policy coherence in the EU. Colleagues, I hope we can use this opportunity to guide the commission towards a promotion policy that really values high-quality, healthy, and nutritious agricultural products while fostering a shift toward more balanced, more plant-based diets that benefit our health, environment, and animal welfare. So, our farmers are ready to innovate and adapt, but they need the right signals from European policy, and they need the right support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And now the left: Anya Hazzenkamp. Anya, welcome here, and you have the floor now.
Speaker 19
Thank you so much, Veronika. Well, it's good to be back here. In this study, I have strong concerns regarding the methodology used. And I want to also emphasize that this is a competence of the public health committee, and at least there should be a discussion there as well. And why didn't you use a consulting company specialized in agriculture instead of one specialized in public health?
Speaker 17
Your study concludes that there is an alignment because pro programs approved for fruit and vegetables outnumber those for red meat and processed meat. This conclusion is too simplistic to draw conclusions on public health and to inform the promotion policy. We need scientific data, and fortunately, it is abundantly available. Given the current worrying overconsumption of red and processed meat, which are linked to cancer, it is impossible that promoting increased demand can support public health. It's just impossible.
Furthermore, public health is not just about healthy diets or cancer alone. It is also about other diseases. It is about animal welfare. It is about zoonotic diseases. It's also about the environment.
And do not forget that nearly 70% of agricultural emissions come from the animal agriculture sector. If we count all these campaigns approved to promote animal products, they outnumber those for fruit and vegetables. So it's not that; it's especially the other way around, as you conclude. Applying the methodology you used, while accounting for environmental impacts, would instead suggest reducing campaigns for animal products. And then, at last, I was surprised by the absence of an assessment of the campaign contents.
For example, one campaign described emissions from pig production as absolutely fake. One suggests that the environmental impact of beef is fake news. That is impossible. So, look at the content as well. Stop promoting unhealthy products.
Speaker 22
I totally understand that those who gained subsidies in order to be able to promote their products do not complain. Nevertheless, I find that the entire program is very problematic, given that the entity funding the promotion is not the one that benefits from it. Also, I find that in the study, you do not sufficiently legitimize the benefits; there are not enough quantitative indicators so that we can be certain that the money was spent on the desired purpose. What is also very problematic is the asymmetrical use of money. I mean, geometrically—excuse me—geographically asymmetrical.
And also, I doubt whether the benefits from these promotional actions are comparable in size to the issues and problems created by the free trade agreements.
Speaker 1
It's KGDI, and I have several colleagues here. So first, a new colleague, Cohen.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Chair. Last year, this parliament voted on a report on the future of agriculture, for which I laid out a new one. In that, we were clear that Europe needs a strong, properly funded food promotion policy. So I was therefore delighted to see the Commission's subsequent decision to increase the 2026 work program to 205,000,000, and it sends a clear signal that Europe understands that only a properly resourced promotional policy allows us to showcase the very best of what our farmers produce. Our farmers have invested in higher standards, which are, in fact, our competitive edge on the international stage.
Last year, Ireland's food and drink exports rose 5% to a total record of €17 billion. Beef exports alone reached 3,400,000,000, which is up 24% in 2024, and it didn't happen by accident. It's the result of a sustained promotional policy, public support, and, above all, the hard work of farmers alongside government, industry, farming representative bodies, and indeed even agencies such as Bord Bia, whose leadership, of course, is entitled to be scrutinized but certainly not demonized. That's why I'm disappointed that, you know, promotional policy works. I'm disappointed to see some here and indeed at home undermine these efforts, which have been so successful in recent years, purely in pursuit of political gain. Because I've been around long enough to know that type of politics might win a short-term vote.
Speaker 26
But long or short term, it won't put another cent in a farmer's bank account.
Speaker 1
K. Thank you. Now, Madam Van Leven, you have one minute, please. Okay? In the kitchen.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Speaker 24
Very good report. Good work also from the rapporteur, Mr. De Mayo, and it's very good to see that the benefits outweigh the costs. But, dear colleagues, we are witnessing the biggest challenge for European agriculture and European food sovereignty, with the single fund MFF proposal and the upcoming trade deals that are predicted to largely disturb the livelihood of European family farms. So when I hear "enjoy," it's from Europe. I cannot listen to that and not think that soon it...
Will cry. It used to.
Speaker 23
Be from Europe, but now from Mercosur and Ukraine. We have never seen so many eggs entering the territory from Ukraine as in last year. So that is why I believe the recommendation of the EPRS study to adapt this promotion campaign to international trade agreements is very important to take seriously. Our future international internal promotion should focus on making sure that EU-produced goods are more affordable than anything that comes from abroad.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Speaker 25
You, Chair, thank you for the work that's been done on the report. Thank you, Salvatore de Mayo. In terms of the funding that the European Union provides, all of it is being used well here, but we need to look at what is actually happening. There are unfair tariffs being put on our agricultural products and livestock. At the moment, we have trade agreements, which are affecting sensitive areas of production.
We have our European labels, which then need to show the quality in our production system. But we need to do that without attacking our own farmers. We should then be trying to promote our products as we're doing. But in the same committee, in the agriculture committee, we're also attacking our livestock farmers. So, it seems that we're not taking a realistic approach.
We need to see what's actually happening at the moment, which products are affected, and make sure that here in the Agri Committee, we're not attacking farmers.
Thank you. Colleague.
Speaker 33
Thank you. Croatia is one of the few countries that, unfortunately, doesn't use this instrument very much. Croatian producers, unfortunately, do not take part in the European promotional campaigns. Some of them even have special agencies. And that is what Croatia lacks.
Speaker 29
It's a paradox, really, because we do have very good Croatian products that have protection labels. In Croatia, much of the production is in the hands of small family farms, and they somehow stay on the margins. What would be needed is less administrative burden. And we will have to have more administrative capacities that will enable us to somehow do something without the obstacles in smaller countries.
Speaker 28
Of this study, I think you've heard some points from many colleagues that I agree with. Today's trade environment promoting EU agri-food products is not a luxury, but a strategic necessity. Investing in promotion means defending our farmers and ensuring that European excellence remains the global benchmark in food production. Two key recommendations caught my attention in the study. The first was around the simplification for smaller participants because complexity remains a real barrier for small producers and organizations that often struggle with the application process.
Speaker 31
So, we must provide clear guidance, faster procedures, and targeted support measures to help smaller producers and organizations access these opportunities. And the second is around maximizing the impact of EU missions and exploring more promotional tools that the Commission and ourselves could use, because I strongly believe that we should explore additional tools to promote the agri-food sector, and that we need more strategic communication campaigns as well as more targeted market actions. And I think that would dispel a lot of the misinformation being used by some colleagues on the promotion of trade and other deals that will aid our agri producers and our organizations because, ultimately, a more visible and strategic external presence is essential. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much, and thank you to Salim Imar for being so committed to the promotion policy, which should be a relief for agricultural products. Our farmers are often faced with unfair international competition, with conditions for production that are not the same as in Europe. I'd like to stress two points. The first point is that of origin. The study that has been presented shows clearly that, as far as consumers are concerned, national origin is more important than just saying that it is of European origin.
Speaker 39
So, we should call on the commission to make the current rules more flexible so that you can say that something is of national origin in promotional campaigns. The second point is that the study shows the importance of promoting wine and red wine. Now, a
Number of people.
Speaker 32
I have spoken from the Greens and the Left. They don't like it, but these products are traditional and of high quality. So, I salute the fact that we're going to put these products at the center of the promotion campaigns, all the more so because these products are promoted by third countries in our domestic market. This is important in order to see the promotion campaign as a strategic tool that benefits our farmers.
Speaker 34
So, it looks good with the program. It works very well, and I find that it should definitely be continued. So, we need this for our consumers. We need this program. It's quite clear.
Consumers need information. And I also think that we should support what has been said about the origin labeling, the country, which is important, not just the European Union, because that leads to more confidence from the side of the consumer in the products that they find in the supermarket. And I think that's very important for their purchasing decision. Also, I'm quite firmly against the idea that we should be so negative about beef. Unfortunately, that has been put forward in this committee quite often.
Speaker 38
That's not acceptable for our farmers or for the consumers, because they always have it in the back of their heads, this information being brought across. So, I think it is very important that we analyze this policy. It is important that we refer to the idea that people should eat healthy food.
Thank you.
Speaker 40
You. I think it's good that you have gone into these points in your report. One that is very important is to support the small farms. I feel that the funding is very important. The adverts can encourage people to buy these products.
Speaker 36
It can be a very good product, but if it's not promoted, then they may not buy it. So, I think if we're going to have trade agreements, then we have to support our farmers even more in order to reach new markets. So we feared for Ireland on this point. So, we have a problem. We have to support our small and medium enterprises so that they can be present in markets in third countries.
Speaker 35
We need to have the labeling, and the labeling must include the land. This is very important because small producers don't know much about marketing and how they can promote themselves. So, we have to support them in order to help them promote their products. So, we have to show clearly that we have good products here in Europe.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And now, again, Madame Christodullo from Agrasis, you have just six minutes for your replies and remarks.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chair. Perhaps I will start by replying in terms of the independence of our consultancy. We are a framework contractor for the European Parliament's research services, and we have been a framework contractor through an open tendering process. We've also been working as an independent contractor for the European Commission and EU agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority. So, I think our independence has been proven by our track record.
Now, in terms of some of the other questions, perhaps I can answer a bit more. Some questions were on the participation of some countries being less than others, which indeed is something we have seen in the study. This can be due to different reasons. I mean, it can be different national priorities and strategies, and alternative promotional opportunities. Some countries have important promotions of their own. Availability of products to promote, such as eligible products like GIs and organic products, for example.
Institutional capacity, the experience of beneficiaries in making applications, and possibly also awareness of the programs themselves. There are, however, opportunities for smaller countries to participate in multi-programs, and these are greatly valued by smaller countries. Now, in terms of benefiting SMEs, we repeat that the beneficiaries are organizations, not companies directly. Organizations can represent SMEs. But, of course, quite often, it is more difficult for SMEs to be part of an organization that may then qualify for access to a program.
So, it has to do with the organization of the agri-food sector as well. But it is important to keep in mind that the program addresses organizations, not individual companies. We can also say something about the efficiency questions and whether we can actually see, measure, quantify, and monetize impacts. This is a question, of course, of the indicators, and we do provide recommendations in the report on the indicators, notably to standardize indicators so that we can combine the effects of programs, the impacts of programs, and be able to draw more general conclusions, for example, per sector or at the national level. But it is important to standardize indicators to be able to do things.
And, of course, promotion is something to produce impact; the promotion program or effort has to be sustained. It is not easy for a promotion to show impact over one year or even three-year periods, but where we see impacts, and that was clear from our discussions with beneficiaries, is where there is sustained effort in a market. And impact sometimes is not so easy to determine because it really depends also on contextual factors. For example, when a certain market is going through a difficult time, the promotion program can at least maintain consumption and may not be able to increase consumption, but may be able to maintain the sales of those products in those markets. I think this is more or less the answer I can give in a combined way to all the different questions.
Maybe the last point would be on the promotion of red meat and wine. It's very important to remember that red meat and wine are promoted quite aggressively by competitors, third-country competitors. For example, there are programs run by the US to promote wine and red meat quite aggressively in the EU market. This is something we should bear in mind in terms of competition with our own products if these are going to be banned from being promoted in the EU market. I think that's all from my side.
Just.
Speaker 6
Very briefly, because I think all of the colleagues who have contributed, I'd like to thank them. I would then emphasize the fact that we want to give some guidelines for this system so that it functions as it does now, promoting our products within and outside the EU. I listened very carefully to the various suggestions that were made, and I would definitely be open to discussing these issues in order to try to find an improvement, but sticking firmly to the idea that we need to focus on this area without excluding or demonizing any kinds of products. Because each product has its own role to play and can then be processed into something else. I'd like to thank you all for your suggestions, and I want this to feed into my report so that we will have a more ambitious framework for promoting our products. Thank you.
Speaker 1
I would like to ask Mr. Fano from DG Agri, and you now have four minutes for your statement.
Thank you.
Speaker 37
You. Good afternoon, everyone. I thought I'd start with Italian.
I'm honored to be here this afternoon, and I would like to thank the European Parliament for commissioning such a thorough study on our European Union policy for the promotion of products. The study comes at a very good time. It shows the importance of having a strong and well-funded promotion policy, highlighting that this policy has become a strategic pillar of Europe's agri-food economic diplomacy, a pillar that the Commission should maintain under CAP after 2027. It's not merely a necessary communication, but a competitive instrument in its own right. It helps to reach consumers across Europe and worldwide.
It strengthens trust in European standards, and it secures visibility in a highly competitive global market. The study recognizes the importance of the policy to promote the model of EU farming and food production standards, for which we are leading in the world. In terms of policy coherence, it recognizes how the policy effectively supports public health objectives with the promotion of food and vegetables and how it is well aligned with the EU's trade agenda. Promotion activities not only contribute to raising awareness of the qualities of European agricultural and food products. During times of economic uncertainty and disruption, it helps to diversify markets.
The study demonstrates that the original needs of the promotion policy remain relevant and that the actions carried out with the only budget we provide clearly address them. Promoting is supporting Europe's agri-food export and helping us to maintain a very strong agri-food trade balance, which I will mention in a moment in the next point of the agenda. And the study supports the goals of the vision for agriculture and food, which states the ambition to be more assertive in promoting and strategically defending the export of European Union products. The study also highlights the effectiveness and benefits that all high-level missions bring to businesses and recommends maximizing the number of high-level missions with the commissioner. We have taken note of the recommendations.
And while we continue to plan two missions per year with the commissioner, we are exploring other avenues to satisfy the appetite of businesses to have more opportunities to be present together in third-country markets and make the most of EU presence in trade first. In April, we will be piloting a new initiative: a targeted business mission without a political agenda, just business. And for that, we will take advantage of the EU Pavilion in Singapore at the ProWine event in April with a delegation of only 45 businesses. We appreciate the clear outcome of the study that underlines the overarching positive impact of the promotion policy. And we take note that the current legal basis continues to support effective policy, while we continue to work, of course, on improvements in the areas identified by the study.
We do this under the secondary legislation, and we also want to simplify it. Finally, let me conclude that some member states are investing a lot of effort in encouraging participation in EU promotion policy, but I still believe that more can be done, for example, with you, members of this parliament. I pay attention to several MEPs saying that there are few applicants in the countries. Please help us. Help us because we are happy to do events with you.
We are trying to reach the 27 member states. And if you believe that we can participate in Romania, the Czech Republic, or Croatia in some events with you, we are happy to do so. So, as we enter the largest promotion budget ever, as announced by President von der Leyen, your support in spreading the word in your constituencies will be crucial. So, let's continue investing in promotion. Let me, Madam Chair, tackle one or two points.
I want to reply to Honorable Enardella on the issue of the synergies between trade and promotion, of course, and we try to travel to the places after we have had a free trade agreement. And every time we go to a place, we try to tackle individual problems. On the issue of the budget, as I said before, we now have the largest budget ever. And I'm not going to enter into the issue of the promotion of red meat or alcohol. I just know that there's a great majority of MEPs and in the Council who want us to keep promoting.
This is, by the way.
Speaker 37
What the parliamentary regulation says is that we should not discriminate among products. And finally, on simplification, yes, we are working on making it simpler. And in a moment, I will sell you a bit more. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Speaker 1
So, thank you very much. We are at the end now, and we can immediately start with point number five because we will continue with the same topic in our next agenda. Last December, the commission published the decision on the financing of information and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in the sales countries, as well as the adoption of the work program for '26. Today, we will hear again from Mr. Diego Kangafano. This time, he will present the work program for '26 on the financing of information and promotion measures for agreed products.
So, Mr. Fano, you now have the floor for eight minutes, followed by the coordinators and KGDI. So, the floor is yours, please.
Speaker 37
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll follow a presentation about the World Cup in 2026. And the first thing I want to say is that it's very simple: the European Union is not only feeding our own citizens, we are feeding the world because Europe has a strong trade surplus. And in 2023 alone, the European Union generated a trade surplus of €70,000,000,000 in agri-food exports. In 2024, the trade surplus was 63.6 billion, and the latest figures from last year show a trade surplus of roughly 46 billion so far.
And I want to add, in addition, that there is a very nice study from the University of Geneva about trade promotion, which says that every euro spent in trade promotion organization generates 172 euros in export revenue and $3.96 in GDP growth. So, promotion is a good investment. So, we have the highest budget ever. And I want to thank some members of the Parliament because that is not a coincidence. Some members of the Parliament have helped us to do so.
I want to particularly mention Honorable Ardela and some others. So we have the highest budget ever, and it's not a coincidence that at a time when we need flexibility and diversification, the commission is putting forward on the table, sorry, €5,000,000 annually. Basically, we have 160,000,000 for the grants, simple and multi programs, 10,000,000 for the high-level missions, and 35,000,000 for a new European food campaign, which was announced by President Bondi Leyland last year in September. So, for the funding, we have 160,000,000. And now, while I speak, the call is open until April 23 of this year.
And we have €100,000,000 for simple programs, €60,000,000 for multi. One-hand simple, as you know, is when proposals are made by one member state. I give you an example. Now that we are in a Cyprus presidency, let me quote a Cyprus example. If you like the famous halloumi cheese, it's promoted, let's say, in Germany.
And if they win a campaign, we would finance 70% of it. The same Halloumi Cheese promoted in Canada, we would finance 80% of that Halloumi Cheese campaign. That's for a simple program. Multi programs, we have 60 million this year. And again, these are proposals done by several member states, and they are managed by the executive agency in REA.
So that's the budget that we have this year. Again, the call for proposals is open now. And I want to draw your attention to a couple of issues. We have strengthened the funding for quality schemes for geographical indications because we did not have enough organic applications. We wanted to finance organic applications, but we don't have enough of them.
So, we have moved some money from organic to geographical indications. And now, in order to give flexibility to the third countries, you see they are 46.8%. We have put all the money together. In the past, we had some money for Asia, America, and the United Kingdom. Now, we put it together so we give more flexibility to the applicants to see how they want to spend the money.
Again, this is the budget which is now running, and applicants have until April 23 to make submissions. Let me give you two concrete examples of what we are doing. This is a real example of promoting cheese in the United States. It's the Smith family. It's a real family.
It's an American family. They travel all around Spain. They like cheese. And when they visit a certain region, they post it on American television. And with a little bit of money, only €3,000,000, the export of Spanish cheese is booming on American television, thanks to this show that we are co-financing.
Let me give you an example, this time from France, Poland, and Spain. They want to promote fruit and vegetables to young people, and they use social media, targeting in particular young people from 18 to 34 years old to invite them to consume more fruit and vegetables. And again, a very successful campaign, a good move in Europe. Those are two real examples of things that we are co-financing. Let me just mention diplomacy.
Since 2016, the commission has been traveling, and, as was heard before, this high-level mission that we're doing is very efficient. As you can see in these figures, we are very active, notably in Asia, for demographic reasons. Of course, China, Japan, and Vietnam, and a little bit less in America. And those are the plans. Commissioner Hansen has been to Brazil and Japan.
And next year, the idea is to go to Thailand and Mexico. And I also want to report to the member of parliament, Miss Walsh, who made a reference before about diplomacy. We're thinking of going to Singapore, but this time without a political agenda, pure business. So, we want to explore the possibility of doing business trips without a political agenda to have more flexibility, like the Americans. So this is a bit of a program that we're having.
We participate in some pavilions. We do high-level missions. We have promotion campaigns, and we also have a very nice market entry handbook to explain to applicants how to do business and how not to do business in certain given countries. Let me conclude, Madam Chair, with the latest initiative. President Bondar Lyon, in front of you, in front of the parliament, announced in her State of the Union speech that we want to boost promotion with a new European food campaign, underlining the youth's commitment to supporting farmers and agri-food producers in challenging times like now.
This campaign has three objectives: basically, to motivate European consumers to choose European food and to increase consumption of EU agri-food products. The second objective is to raise awareness and trigger a sense of pride in the high quality of EU agri-food products among EU consumers as part of the European way of life. And the third argument, the third objective, is to create a feeling of belonging, togetherness, bonds with the farmers' community, and positive ties with the sector. We have a budget of €35 million for this campaign. We want to target, of course, the 27 member states.
We are launching now a public procurement to find a good communication agency, which would help us target the consumers in the 27 member states. And as I said, the campaign has a budget of €35,000,000, and we expect to launch it in the second semester of 2026. And that's all I want to say to you. I just say, enjoy it from Europe. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Panfan. And now, coordinators. First, EPP, Herbert Dorfmann. So, you have two minutes, Herbert.
Yeah. Thank you very much, Chair.
Speaker 41
So a remark: we're talking about important exports in the food industry in Europe. This doesn't automatically mean that these are European agricultural products. They can be manufactured in Europe, but they have nothing to do with European agriculture. So I think we have to take a closer look at the statistics. Having said that, I do find it very positive that, after all the difficulties we've had in the last couple of years with the budget for promotional activities, once again, extra budget has been found for promotional activities.
Speaker 42
And I think that exactly relates to what we have just talked about. So, I don't want to go too much into that because I think it's all been said already. But I think we could agree that it's a very positive element and that it is being used by the farms. I also think that it's important to look at the ideology from the last couple of years that we have to come out of this. So, 75% of the budget was intended to be made available for organic farming, but I think we're going to be more flexible about that now.
Speaker 41
After all, I don't think there's any point in getting stuck too much with any particular percentages. I think we have to be flexible. And I think, in this program, there is space for that. There has been feedback from the commissioners' fact-finding visits. Now, that's been very positive from the people who were involved.
I think, with regard to last year, I was wondering what the percentage of applications that were approved was, how much money was requested, and how much money was made available in the end. So, it would be good to know how much the overbooking level was last year. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 8
You, Chair. I'd like to congratulate Director Kangafano for the very positive presentation he made about the future. Thank you to our committee for all the efforts it has made. Also, in our group, we are very optimistic about the financial resources available. I'd like to reflect briefly on two points.
First of all, Chair, I'd like to look at the relationship between promotional projects with the right level of funding and the strategy that the European Union, the European Commission, has launched to conclude free trade agreements with other countries. Particularly with regard to Mercosur, I have pointed out how it is essential that we increase the resources available for promoting products to avoid a paradox. The paradox is that, on the one hand, the European Union is signing trade agreements with other countries, but on the other hand, it is reducing the resources available to promote its own export products. So, I think that the relationship between international trade agreements and the promotion of European products is fundamental here. The second point I'd like to look at is internal demand and how important our work is there.
Speaker 10
We have the largest single market in the world, which is very important for our citizens and consumers, but we also need to look at this from an educational perspective. We have seen that we have the highest level of awareness among our consumers in the world, and we need to promote high-quality products that comply with the very highest standards from an environmental and social point of view. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 43
You, chair. First of all, I would like to mention that I'm very happy that here in the AGRI Committee, which is probably the only committee where we agree across the political parties on certain points. I can only agree with the colleagues who spoke before me. We are discussing the working program for 2026 with a budget of €5,000,000, which is a lot of money. The overall efficiency and effectiveness will depend on how well we cooperate with those who are creating the value.
Speaker 44
E, the farmers. And this is not only about the projects. We are also debating the food prices. And today, farmers are on the defensive communication-wise, whereas supranational companies have huge PR and can actually determine prices. Farmers, individual farmers, do not have these options, and they are often blamed for high prices, even though their margins are very low and their costs are very high today.
Speaker 43
So, I think the promotion program must not be only about lovely images of products. We must also objectively explain what happens to the products from this table to the next table. We must also show that our farmer is the guarantor of stability and quality, not the cause of inflation. And we need to be able to balance out the information asymmetries in the food chain, which we have been discussing repeatedly. And today, this works against our farmers.
Speaker 44
I would also like to raise one more aspect. This item is linked to another major issue, which is the generational renewal in agriculture. Perhaps this might be surprising for you, but if our agriculture is to be prestigious and if we are consistently pressuring this, or if there's not enough positive PR for this sector in our media, etc., we will not be able to attract young farmers. This must be presented as a modern, attractive profession. If there is no longer all the information, if we have such information, then we might be able to achieve this. So, we need information that will support transparency across the chain and retain dignity for our farmers.
Thank you.
Speaker 11
You. Actually, most of the important points, I think, have been made, and also things, perhaps, that shouldn't have been mentioned—ideological points, which I don't think bring any benefit here, especially if they're based upon false supposed facts. So, it would be good if we could have the answers to some of our questions, because we might be able to find out how certain courses could be corrected by the Commission. It would be good to see whether there is an intention, whether there is a strategy for promoting products from other areas that are not just in the large producer countries, other countries which have good products, and whether one could also include new products in order to promote diversity that's good for everybody. That was for one thing.
Now, secondly, the financing for this support has to be carried out in a more symmetric way. There has to be more balance for all the EU Member States. So, in Eastern Europe, it doesn't look so rosy. There's quite a gap, I think, and that is not acceptable. One has to have targeted support from the Commission.
And also, a question: I feel like we shouldn't have quotas for organic farming. But if one were to favor healthier products, which are perhaps an organic project, that would be necessary. Wouldn't it? Because that would also be positive for people's health.
Thank you.
Speaker 54
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commission. As we heard in the previous discussion, the promotion policy is more than a necessary instrument for the European agricultural market. We are still a strong food exporter, and we can keep up with that as our high quality is recognized and very well welcomed. Our products are premium products on the market, and we should also consider the added market value. Work program for the year 2026, together with the year ago, adopts the division of agriculture.
Speaker 47
They are a good base for this work. At the same time, I welcome the initiative mentioned by the European food campaign in light of the fear of cheaper imported food due to, for example, trade agreements, but we must also understand the realities of consumer habits. The most dominant driver of choices in the supermarket is still price. Currently, in the unstable financial and world situation, our consumers are not willing to pay more for European food, although they appreciate it in principle and would like to consume it more. How is the commission going to solve this dilemma?
Speaker 46
Promotion should not be done just in the internal markets. We should actively look for other possible solutions from the external markets. We must invest in the long-standing processes where the whole food chain is included. Farmers themselves can do a lot, but we must have actors in marketing for these promotion projects. More attention should also be paid to the permission procedures, which are still bilateral between the third country and individual member states.
Speaker 55
So, there should be some EU-level added value. Will the commission pay any attention to this procedure? If we don't recognize the current problems and challenges in food promotion, how can we continue to develop the situation in the future? Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Else. And to the left, Loch Flanagan. Pardon. Pardon. I'm sorry.
Greens. Thomas White. Mister Heuslink. I have Thomas White. Okay.
Mr. Heuslink, sorry.
Speaker 50
I didn't know that 85% of the money was going to organic products. I wasn't aware of that. So, I think that the export strategy is not without risk. Let's be honest, countries such as China or the USA can be very crucial trade partners. So, to rely too much on them as trade partners, well, it has been quite clear.
Speaker 53
Over the last year, we've seen that China can be a high risk. So, I think the idea that Europe should feed the world is not very credible, to be honest. So, I think we actually import an awful lot of feed, then we produce milk products and meat products, and export them. So this quantity of what we're exporting is also sweet products, such as chocolate, for example. But we don't actually grow here, do we?
Speaker 49
So all products where we focus on are export milk, meat, and also wine. Well, we have overproduction here in Europe, and it seems that we think we can export this excess production and then get higher prices. It hasn't worked in the past, and I must say it's not going to work. I think we have to be quite clear that we should focus better on the European market; we shouldn't really be concentrating on just taking our excess production and exporting it. There are very large sums that we're talking about.
Speaker 52
But when you see what large companies spend on promotion, it's actually not a huge amount that we're making available to our families, our farmers, rather. I think we have to concentrate on quality, on sustainability, and on our market. So the fact that the commissioner has made trade visits, I don't think that's necessarily a good long-term idea. So, if you look at the cheese, yes. If somebody goes around the USA and sells cheese or promotes an advertisement for cheese.
Speaker 48
I don't know if that's really going to be sustainably good for our cheese production.
Thank you. Again, please.
Speaker 51
When MEPs talk about the proposed Mercosur agreement, they express concerns about it. They are told, "Don't worry about quality because the quality will be just as good." Don't worry about the contaminants. Don't worry about hormones because they're not going to get into the food that we bring in from Mercosur, and basically, there's no difference in quality. That's what the European Union is telling us. And then, at the same time, the European Union is using taxpayers' money to tell the world that it isn't actually true.
They're telling the world that our food is better, which I actually think it is, but you don't because you tell us it's the same as what we're bringing in from Mercosur. You're telling us that it is better than what's coming from MERCOSUR from the point of view of hormones. Well, you cannot say that anymore. So, how can you do both? And there are two ways as well that people who don't live in Europe can consume food that's produced in Europe.
Obviously, we can export it, but people also spend massive amounts of money coming to Europe to experience our wonderful food. And now, we have a situation where the commission is going to push Brazilian beef on many of these tables in restaurants. And sure. Why would you bother coming to Europe? Sure.
You can, what you call it, the food that was important for Mercury was all the same. So you're kind of taking away what is the main incentive to come here: to experience our brilliant food. You're taking away the main incentive for people to buy it outside Europe because you're saying, well, actually, the quality is just as good for Mercosur. So, what are...
What are we left with then?
Speaker 51
They can produce it more cheaply. So, where the hell does that leave us? So, instead of spending all this money on promoting it, maybe start by being consistent in what you say about the quality of our food and actually start by not importing this stuff from Mercosur in the first place. Because to me, it's going to be a total and utter contradiction, but you know that there are a lot of contradictions around here.
Speaker 22
I was listening very attentively to the discussion here. Most of the arguments I was going to mention have already been raised. So, perhaps let me just mention the most important point. The most important point is to encourage retailers, especially retail chains, and also to encourage our consumers. The price is the determining factor, as well as profits for retailers.
This is hard to override through promotion alone. And promotion is important, yes, generally speaking, but I don't think this will help us solve the most important problems that our farmers face. And then there's the additional aspect, namely that a number of EU member states have not been benefiting from the common market in agriculture because their self-sufficiency has been reduced. And I don't think promotion is going to resolve this either. So, the biggest benefit from the promotional activities goes to the primary producers.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Chair. Chairperson, the Commission's decision to allocate over €5,000,000 in 2026 for the promotion of sustainable and high-quality EU agri-food products is a strong and necessary signal. You're very welcome. Promotion funding is not a subsidy. It's essential for export-dependent member states like Ireland.
Speaker 15
And indeed, we've had good success with it in Ireland. This funding went to our country, to an organization called BoardBEA, which was given 3,750,000 over the last three years, including 3,000,000 from the European Union to promote European beef and lamb in Asia, which it did very successfully. Yet this afternoon, as we speak, farmers in Ireland are picketing the offices of Bord Bia in Dublin. They've been in the building 24 hours a day now for the last 4 weeks. Five people are there in the morning, noon, and night.
And why? Because they say the board is doing a good job, as is the staff of the company, the marketing staff of the company, but the chairperson of the board has confirmed his own company imports Brazilian beef. His own company does not have the highest standards when it comes to importing into Ireland, and he sees no conflict of interest. He sees no conflict of interest. The whole country sees it's a conflict of interest.
More than 50% of the population said so in the poll at the weekend. He should resign now and avoid any further embarrassment.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Micro, please.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to salute all the work that the commission has been doing on this. It has been consistently working on this. And I think that the commissioner is doing a very good job, even if the Greens don't like it. He is then representing these VIP products, and we can be very proud of the exports that we now have to third countries.
The work program for 2026 promotes products that come from sustainable production techniques. Can you tell me exactly what kind of production methods are being referred to here as sustainable in terms of the phytosanitary products that are used? Is it then possible to use those phytosanitary products if nothing is available for certain sectors? Then, we also need to protect our products and show that they are produced with these special production methods because they have the highest standards in the world. Can you tell us which agricultural methods you're going to prioritize in the products and projects that you select?
Speaker 56
And how are you then going to tangibly look for this in the call for proposals?
Thank you.
Speaker 57
Thank you very much, Chair. I'd like to congratulate the commission for this excellent initiative, which is backed up with significant resources. And I'd also like to congratulate Mr. Kangofano for this. Having this project is crucial with the new agreements that we have with third countries.
We need to promote internal production and internal standards. Here, we're looking at exports outside the EU, but also within the EU to other countries. We're here looking at production methods, sustainability, and quality. First of all, I'd like to ask, what is the justification for reducing the amount of funding going into one of these lines from 70 billion to 40 billion? And then, what about the outermost regions?
That's very important for certain member states, who then feel that they are being disadvantaged. They are then faced with certain constraints and difficulties. Then I'd like to know how you're going to protect geographical indications with a view to the recent agreement between Argentina and the United States. And then, how can we improve the value of our European agriculture?
Speaker 34
Thank you. If I were looking at this, I would be rather confused. I don't understand what the MEPs actually want. On one hand, we've got overproduction, and we need new sales. And, at the same time, we're criticizing trade agreements.
Perhaps we need to decide what it is that we want. And without a trade agreement and promotion strategies, we can't actually achieve it. We have to obviously look at the quality of the imported products, as Arlen was saying. We have to look at the quality of the products that we're importing from Microsoft or from anywhere else, for that matter. But here in the committee, cheese producers, for example, said they needed the Mercosur agreement because of the overproduction in Europe.
Speaker 38
They said that Mercosur could be very favorable for them in terms of selling their products. But obviously, if we're importing beef from Mercosur, we need to look at consumption in the EU and in third countries. It's all a matter of quality. We don't want to import products from MERCOSUR that don't comply with our own quality standards. Thank you.
Five minutes for your replies.
Speaker 37
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will reply using the last intervention of the member, Mr. Buddha, which I find very convincing. I mean, we have free trade agreements, and this promotion policy is the follow-up. The next step is the opportunity, precisely once we have a free trade agreement, to promote our produce because we are competing.
We are competing with the Americans. We are competing with the Chinese. We are competing with many people. So, we need to promote our fantastic European products. I want to start by saying to Mr.
Dorfman, so on organics, we don't have a particular target. We wanted to finance organics because we had this action plan on organics, and we found that despite our intentions, we didn't have enough applications. And because we didn't have enough applications, we had to move money from organics to geographical indications, where, on the contrary, we had too many applications. You were informed about overbooking. You are correct.
We have overbooking of petitions for geographical indications for promotion in Asia and America, and we had very little for organic, so we had to shift the budget a little bit. I also agree with Mister Nardella on the link between FTAs and promotion. Yes. Precisely. This year, we have more money than ever because we are more active than ever with the FTAs.
And it's a clear example. And also about the promotion of internal requests and internal markets, it is correct. Basically, we spend half of the money outside the European Union and the other half inside the European Union. That's what your regulation says. To Mr. Kubin, I also agree with his message on generational renewal.
And by the way, what he said about young farmers is correct. For this promotion policy, we have a lot of applications from young people precisely, and I find it's a very good thing. On the point of Mr. Tarshin, let me just insist on the repartition between member states. We work on a voluntary basis. We make a program that is public.
There are applicants, and the best projects win. And so we would like to have more applications from central countries, but it's a purely voluntary thing. And we've been trying for a long time; I myself went to Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, and many places to boost. And in some countries, there is less appetite than in others. So please, if you can help us to incentivize the appetites in your countries, I will be very grateful, and we can do events together with you.
We're happy to do so. For Missus Kathainen, thank you very much for what you said about being active in third countries. And it is true that when we travel to third countries with the commissioner, one of the main targets of the trip is precisely lifting SPS barriers because we can have a very nice free trade agreement. But if there are SPS barriers, set feeder sanitary barriers; it's pointless. So, we work when we travel and try to lift them.
I'm not going to go into a poll. It's not for me today to mention all of that. I just want to say, I confirm that Ireland gets a lot of money from the promotion money. That's true. Objectively, it gets very good figures from Ireland.
On the outermost regions and Azores in particular, the lovely Azores, Paolo, we do have money for the outermost regions, but we need applications. We need applications from them. I mean, we cannot invent cases if we don't get applications from those countries. So that's where, sadly, we would need. And I leave it for the end, Madame. I'll...
Passons au français pour conclure, alors. There were two questions about sustainable production methods and the special characteristics that would be required. I will reply to you in writing because I think it will be quite a long answer. So, if you agree, I will send those comments in writing. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. So we are at the end of this point, but we cannot start with another one because number six is an exchange of views with the commission on the situation of the big gaming sector in the EU. But Madam Missone from DG agrees, not here yet. So we have to wait. So we have just a few minutes of rest now.
Herbert, do you want it? We can maybe change, and we can take just the last point now. Just let me, yes, this is number seven, if you want, because it's a kickoff trial. Can we just now go on? Okay.
Speaker 60
Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, but I'm not sure if the shadows are here. Here.
We don't have shadows here.
Speaker 59
It is not Interban. No. Usually, it's not Interban. It's possible. Yeah.
We can go.
Yes. It's.
Speaker 1
Possible. Okay. Okay. Let's go. So, on Tuesday, February 3, 1926, the kickoff trial on the proposal for a revised seats regulation took place.
So please, if you can, inform us and tell us something about this dialogue. So, the floor is yours now.
Thank you.
Speaker 41
Thank you very much. I'd be happy to do that. Yes, indeed. On February 23, we had the first trialogue on the new plant reproductive material. As far as the procedure is concerned, we want to do the same as we did in the Twin report, if you call it that, where we were talking about forestry production material, and where we concluded the trialogue and already had the final vote.
And there, it turned out to be a really good idea to have an initial trialogue, then a number of technical meetings, and finally a concluding trialogue. And that should be possible in this case as well, because the entire file is exceedingly technical. We're talking about a number of rules pertaining to the marketing of plant reproductive material. The parliament's mandate was adopted by the previous parliament almost two years ago, and it has taken the council two years to come up with its own position, but we now have a council position. And I think the current Council presidency, the Cyprus presidency, is very keen to get an agreement by the end of its term.
Speaker 42
I'm very confident that it will be possible to do this in the first 6 months of 2026. Perhaps I could just take up the 4 or 5 existential political points, the points that we feel need to be dealt with alongside a number of technical points in the dialogues. First of all, we've got import legislation. We have a somewhat curious rule in the parliament. We've said that for imports from neighboring states to the EU, some rules should be the same as for the EU.
I don't think that's a sustainable position; either it's important or it isn't. And I think, very quickly, we find an agreement on this. What's a little more complex is the use of the official control regulation in this area. This is an overarching regulation on official controls in the European Union. When we were talking about forestry production material, this was a really hot issue because, for the forestry reproduction material, we finally agreed that the official control regulation would not apply.
And parts of the official controlled regulation were written into the forestry production material directive. Now, the council is, to some extent, prepared to use the official controlled regulation. And we're going to have to discuss where there are exemptions and which exemptions make sense. Then we've got the whole issue of sustainability. The varietal for sustainable cultivation and use: this is a test, an official test procedure which can be applied to plant reproduction material.
Speaker 41
And here, the Parliament has said that varieties of fruit and vegetables should be exempt from this test. The council wants to go further and maintain the current situation, which means that only arable crops need to be subjected to this. Now, politically, the most sensitive issue is how we deal with plant breeders who are concerned with old varieties and sustainable production. So they might be producing old varieties, but maybe they don't have the purity that other varieties have. And sometimes, these are produced for free or for a small compensation.
It's a very small sector, but it is politically sensitive. More than ten years ago, we looked at the entire regulation. And in fact, when we examined it here in the Parliament, this is where it all fell apart. We weren't able to reach an agreement on how we should deal with this issue. We have a better start this time.
We've adopted a very good rule on how we deal with these plant breeders, who normally handle very small quantities and may exchange such plant breeding material among themselves. I think the council is prepared to find an agreement here. We don't want to come up with a ruling that would prompt people to market things that have nothing to do with maintaining biodiversity. But I think the farmers who work in this area should not be overburdened with bureaucracy. At the end of the day, not only are they contributing to biodiversity, but they're also contributing to production because maintaining these varieties in biodiversity is obviously beneficial to the pool of plant production materials generally.
So, that's what is happening at the moment. By April, we're hoping to conclude everything. I don't think we're going to be successful. But I am confident that we'll be able to get an agreement by June. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much for all this information and also about the broadcast time of the next negotiation. Okay. Maybe Mr. Hoistling wants to take the floor. You are okay. Please.
Speaker 52
Yes. I'm the shadow rapporteur. And I think that I have to remind you of things such as the seed regulation, which failed in 10 years because we put too many hurdles up and so much emphasis on certain types of breeding. And it was over-regulated. So, I think we don't want to have too much regulation of exchanges between farmers because these are resources that we have to support.
We don't want to overregulate because that led to disaster last time. And with the first, I'm surprised that actually the council hasn't addressed that with the first cameras. By the way, I'm over here, camera. So, for us as Parliament, this is a very important point. And I think that we need to make it quite clear, as has been said, that the technical testing, well, we have to check it with regard to organic farming.
Under those kinds of conditions, we want to have a register of transparency. I think that's important with respect to information about, for example, patents. Because there are more and more patents in place. And so, we have to keep an eye on that issue and not forget to observe it. So, I think Mr.
Dorfman has covered many of the points that we are concerned about seeing involved. But perhaps to take a slightly more liberal approach than the restrictions expected by the council and the commissioner. And I'm sure we will get a good result.
Speaker 1
Does somebody else want to take the floor? Or Herbert, if you want to have some reaction? No? Okay. We can start now with point number 6, which is the last point of our meeting today.
So recently, we held a discussion about the new EU pollinators initiative, which is of great importance for agriculture. Beekeeping plays a crucial role not only in honey production but also in pollination services, biodiversity, and the overall resilience of our food production. However, the sector continues to face challenges ranging from diseases and environmental concerns to market disturbances regarding the origin and composition of honey. For today's discussion, we have invited the representatives from DG Sante and DG Agri. Thank you for your availability, and we hope that you will be able to share with us possible ways forward to support the sector and strengthen its resilience.
I will now give the floor to both DG Agri and DG Sante representatives for 8 minutes in total. Only this one is available. Only Madam Brigitte, Miss. No. Only this one. Bitterhof.
Almud Bitterhof of DG Sante is here. So you have just eight minutes now because your colleague is not here. So, Mister Bitterhof, you have the floor now for 4 or 8 minutes, whichever you want.
Speaker 61
Yes. So I was not prepared for 8 minutes. So it will be a little less. But still, I would like to give you a bit of an overview of information on pesticides. Just for your information, I'm the head of unit of DG Santé IV, pesticides and biocides.
And I would like to recall the actions that we have taken to protect bees. First of all, in the years 2013 and 2018, we imposed restrictions on a group of substances called neonicotinoids. The use of these substances has been forbidden since that time. For now, only uses in greenhouses are still allowed. We also took action on other substances such as sulfoxaflor and indoxacarb.
For instance, we have restricted indoor uses for sulfoxaflor, and we did not renew the approval of the substance indoxacarb. They are both substances known to be harmful to bees. The pesticides legislation gives the possibility to member states to grant the so-called emergency authorizations, provided that strict conditions are fulfilled. So, this remains a member state's responsibility, but nevertheless, the Commission also monitors very closely what member states are doing. And we are actually asking the European Food Safety Authority each time to see whether such authorizations are really justified or not.
Member states can no longer grant emergency authorizations for outdoor sowing with neonicotinoid active substances. And here, I mean the substances thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and imidacloprid. This would be incompatible with the European Court of Justice ruling that has forbidden such uses, and I'm happy to say that all 27 member states are sticking to it. Also, Romania has announced in a recent reply that they will not grant any emergency authorizations any longer. There is a lot of ongoing work and remarkable progress on reinforcing the risk assessment for pesticides, namely the development of the B guidance document.
We plan to endorse the document this year. In order to be able to do so, we have prepared amendments to three regulations on data requirements and uniform principles that are needed as a precondition to endorse this guidance document. The commission can then adopt these regulations if member states support them, if there is a positive vote in the standing committee, and if the council and parliament are not objecting to it. And here, I would like to stress that we count on your support during the scrutiny period of these forthcoming regulations. Having the B guidance document endorsed is a huge step forward.
It would really provide a step forward for a process that started in 2013 and would be a lot of progress for protecting bees since 2002. Also, I would like to refer to the Food and Feed Safety Simplification Package, which was adopted last December by the Commission and which proposes to replace the current system of time-bound renewal procedures for all active substances with a scheduled renewal and targeted reassessments. Currently, the active substances are initially approved for a period of 10 years, and then they are subsequently renewed for 15 years. With the new proposed amendments of targeted reassessments, it will be much easier to implement new guidance documents, such as the B guidance document, because there will be possibilities for such targeted reassessments much earlier than previously in this 15-year time schedule. This will be a very good way forward to implement the revised B guidance document.
Lastly, I would also like to mention the vision for agriculture and food, in which the commission has committed to establishing the principle that the most hazardous pesticides banned in the EU for health and environmental reasons should not be imported back into the EU through imported products. In order to prepare the impact assessment that was announced in the vision, the Joint Research Center commenced a study on 25 November last year to identify the substances concerned and the potential changes in trade flows of that principle. This will all feed into the impact assessment, which will evaluate the EU's competitive position and the international implications. Following this impact assessment, and if appropriate, the Commission will propose amendments to the applicable legal framework. In the meantime, the Commission has already proposed, in the food and feed simplification package, to establish the possibility for the Commission to act on MRLs for the most hazardous substances not approved in the EU, based on a case-by-case impact assessment.
With this, I would like to finish the part on pesticides. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And now, I would like to give the floor to Brigitte Missone, who is here with us from DG Agri. You have, madam, four minutes for your presentation.
Speaker 62
Many thanks, Miss Chair. Good afternoon, honorable members of Parliament. A few words from my side on three of the four points that you have put on the agenda today. So on honey alteration, on Mercosur, and on support for beekeeping. On honey adulteration, as you know, this is a big priority for the Commission to fight against.
And I can give you some concrete elements of what has been done, what is being done now, and what will be done in the coming months and years. So, we have already reinforced the import certificate authenticity requirement that is imposed on third countries. We now have honey imports only from so-called listed establishments. We have put in place additional controls on establishments in third countries that export to the EU. And we have also reinforced the origin labeling.
We already had origin labeling for honey, but we now have it at the country level also for blends of honey. And we have some more details, like percentage share, the way in which those origins must appear, etc. Those have been introduced by the revision of the so-called Roni directive and will apply from June. By June 2028, we will have an implementing act that adopts analysis methods for detecting adulteration of honey with sugar. Work is ongoing to prepare the implementing act.
And one year later, by June 2029, we will have delegated acts, if appropriate, with regard to the traceability and authenticity of honey. All this is being prepared by the new Honey platform that has been set up by the revised Honey directive, where we have the 27 member states' authorities represented, but also all stakeholders of the honey supply chain and civil society, in addition to experts in their own capacity. That's so far as honey alteration is concerned. With regards to Mercosur, you know that the interest of an agreement with Mercosur is that it creates a market of over 700 million people who will enjoy significant tariff reductions on both sides. We have open market access to Mercosur, including for EU honey exports, because we have negotiated total liberalization of tariffs in that regard.
So, the EU treaty is to enter into force. On the other side, with regards to imports from Mercosur, as you know, for sensitive sectors, and honey has been identified as a sensitive sector, we are adopting a very cautious approach, and this takes the form of various elements. We do not fully liberalize our markets. We have granted a volume, a tariff rate quota, as we call it. It will be 45,000 tonnes for Honey, but this will not apply from the entry into force.
It will be phased in, as we say, over 6 equal steps in 5 years. We have a safeguard mechanism on which the European Parliament voted earlier this month. It will also apply to products within tariff rate quotas. So, it will also apply to Honey. We have enhanced controls on imports, more audits and checks in third countries, and strengthened controls at EU borders.
We also have a draft regulation lowering all maximum residue levels to the technical detection limit of zero for a number of active substances, but I believe that my colleague from DG Sante must have also dealt with that aspect. We have a unity safety net in our proposal for the next MFF that doubles the agricultural reserve finances to intervene in case of a major market disturbance in any of the sensitive sectors. And to finish my intervention, a few words about the EU's support for beekeeping. Beekeeping is essential, not only because it produces honey, but also for the pollination services it offers to agriculture as a whole. Support is organized through the so-called agriculture sectoral interventions in current strategic plans.
They benefit from an annual budget of €60,000,000, which is at least doubled by member states, as member states can finance more than 50%. And it supports a very wide range of actions, including other interventions that are not specific to agriculture, but to which apiculture and beekeeping have access. And this concerns support for promotion, communication, marketing, and all other interventions of the CAP strategic plans that target agro-environmental measures, for instance, but also knowledge transfers and the like. We are continuing with agriculture support in the future MFF proposal, but that is maybe for another moment of debate. Many thanks.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mariam. And now, let's do the round off to coordinators again. So, Herbert Dorfmann, EPP, you have two minutes.
Yeah. Have seen Duncan.
Speaker 42
Thank you very much. Thank you for that presentation. I think, in terms of our dealings with pesticides, the major problem here is that bees want to find flowers, and then obviously they land on arable crops and other crops. And farmers obviously also want them to pollinate the crops. So, I think it's really in the interest of farmers that the bees don't face any dangers when they're doing this.
Speaker 41
That's why we have that in the guidelines. We would really ask you to look at all of the experiences that we've already had in Europe on this, and then look at regions, for instance, where there are lots of apple trees and where there are beekeepers, where you could ban pesticides being sprayed on the trees at a certain period of the year. The point here is when the pesticides are used, and I think we need to have stricter rules. I hope that we can draw on those experiences that we've had in many regions in Europe and then use them. I'm very pleased that something's happening about the adulteration of honey because it seems that we're looking at a very long time frame here if we are not going to have a legal text until 2029.
Speaker 42
So we're really looking at three or four years to have this text. So, I would ask you then to speed up with that. In the meantime, we'll have a lot of honey on the market in Europe, where there are other substances. Therefore, I would encourage you to speed up on that. In terms of sectoral support for beekeepers, this is something that we will be discussing in relation to other programs.
But I think it's important that we don't just concentrate on large-scale beekeepers, but we also talk about those who keep bees as a hobby. I think we should also, though, look at the companies that are doing this as a second line of business.
Thank you.
Speaker 63
You. I'm speaking for Daria, but also to give my opinion about the new gene technique. And this reduction in the amount of wildflowers available is changing the way that bees are searching for food. So certainly, there will be a reduction when the new gene technology comes in. There will be a reduction in the number of flowers available, and that will make our agriculture once more vulnerable to changes in the environment.
Speaker 64
So how can the commission allow that by allowing the NGT? They haven't looked at the risks either, and they have not looked at transparency or considered traceability. And this affects issues with the new genomic technique. How can we make sure that pollinators and pollination are being supported properly? And what specific plans are in place for coherence between the biodiversity strategy and chemical legislation, so that there isn't an impact on the health of bees and on production? So, the impact can be avoided.
Speaker 63
My third question is: I would also like to talk about imported honey, and there are a few things that have already been mentioned. But I wanted to ask what specific, concrete measures are being used by the Commission in order to ensure this directive's implementation is stricter. It is the traceability that is important in supply chains. The Semitic approach. Because at the moment, there is systematic fraud being carried out with honey.
Speaker 44
Thank you very much for the floor. I don't think we need to repeat that European beekeeping is in a state of permanent market imbalance. I would like to mention some aspects that I have learned from our beekeepers, as well as from our farmers' chamber. On the integrity alteration, we know that more than 50% of imported honey appears to be adulterated with syrups. In the case of some countries, it is up to 74%.
This generates price dumping where import prices are around €1.05 per kilogram of honey, which directly destabilizes European producers whose production costs are over €3.5 per kilogram. Therefore, it will be good to establish a European reference laboratory for honey with the standard methodology. Also, it should be able to ensure traceability of individual batches, for example, through a traceability system. Also, please go and check out the shop here in the building, and please look at the labels on the honey that is being sold there. You might be surprised.
Also, we should ask for MicroSure; we should strictly demand reciprocity in terms of the standards applied. On stability and support, the value of pollination is in terms of billions of euros, but there are also costs linked to biological hazards such as new invasive species and diseases. So, there should be mandatory payments per bee colony as compensation for ecosystem services. A key demand is also to reduce the administrative burden. What is also suggested is to use the existing digital registries of bee colonies so that our beekeepers are not overburdened with administration.
Speaker 66
So, over recent times, I have carried out many consultations with beekeepers in Poland and come to the conclusion that agriculture in Poland and in other countries is under a great deal of economic pressure. The most important problem is the situation in the market. We have too much honey in our stores and warehouses, and there is a lot of imported honey from China and Latin America.
And the...
Speaker 66
The quality is really questionable. So the Mercosur agreement allows 55 tonnes of imported honey, 45 tonnes of which is for the EU, but it's only 10%. But for Poland, it is twice the annual production. And this shows the risk of allowing this imported honey into Polish agriculture. And in Eastern Poland and Southern Poland, we also have beekeepers.
Speaker 65
We have many. Most of our beekeepers are there. There are many farms there, and they are not interested in it.
Speaker 66
Statistics in the EU. They are worried about losing their income. So, I would like to ask the Commission the following question. How can this sector be supported? How can these farms be supported?
There needs to be a special mechanism to provide support to beekeepers. In 2024, was there a revision of the honey directive? Is there any new assessment being carried out about the situation and about adulterated honey from China? Perhaps the reference laboratories can help with this because we have several methods that can be used.
Katherine, please.
Speaker 46
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commission, for the presentations. Although it might seem like a small sector, bee colonies play an essential role in the agriculture and environment sectors around the EU. Bees not only produce honey, but are also vital for the pollination of a wide range of crops and wild plants. In this sense, they are irreplaceable for food security and for maintaining biodiversity as well. However, environmental pressures such as climate change and rising production costs have strained EU beekeepers and the entire beekeeping sector.
Without healthy bee colonies, food prices would increase, the availability of nutritious food would decline, and the environment would suffer. This is why it's crucial to ensure that the B sector remains strongly supported in the upcoming common agricultural policy. Therefore, I'd like to ask the commission how the role of bees has been taken into account, for example, in nature restoration processes all over Europe in different member states, and how the protection and support of bees are included in the upcoming CAP. Thank you.
Speaker 68
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, and thank you, Commission, for the measures you presented to support beekeeping. I mean, when we talk about pesticides, the most affected species are the wild pollinators because there are beekeepers like me and my colleagues who are reproducing beehives again and again if they die. And that's why we have a constant number of beehives across the European Union because beekeepers are reproducing the losses that we also have due to pesticide use. And I'm quite surprised that our colleagues here from the far right and extreme right suddenly become defenders of bees when it comes to reducing pesticides. I will remind you of your speeches.
I will, let's see. I will remind you of your speeches when we talk about deregulation and allowing farmers to use whatever. I'm a farmer myself, but let's see. I would, if you come to this camp of reducing pesticides, you are highly welcome. But it's not the only problem that beekeepers are fighting.
We're having an Asian hornet that is attacking. We're still having a big problem with Varroa mites, and it's much more difficult to be a beekeeper today than 20 years ago. You need to have some medical knowledge today on how to keep Varroa mite under control. We have a decline in biodiversity, so less and less diversity for our bees in the landscape. And we have the situation on the market that we are in competition with the most falsified produce.
And, Commission, you mentioned it. My main question to you is: how are you intensifying the controls? Are you really making sure that we have intensive controls on the market? Good to have regulations, but for a beekeeper like myself, I need real controls, and I need the falsified honey to be kicked out of the European market so that our beekeepers have a chance to survive in this market. And for us, in the common agriculture policy, we will need to negotiate because if we do not support beekeepers to keep up their business substantially, then we will see a massive decline in the future of beekeepers and beehives at the same moment.
And we have to know that many beekeepers are not landowners, so we cannot serve them with Hector payments. We need to develop additional measures to support beekeepers. I know we have stuff on the ground, and I can tell you from my own experience that bureaucracy is the last problem of a beekeeper, really. It takes me a few minutes per month. So bureaucracy is really not a problem in beekeeping.
Speaker 51
Yeah. In relation to my favorite topic, Marcusor. And, hopefully, the commission won't say, "Well, we're not going to bother answering a question on Marcus," or like the last individual. I find that astonishing, considering we travel here to get answers, and then people say, "Well, I don't have to answer." But anyway, that's what we seem to have to accept.
Can the commission assure people that what is going to come in from Mercosur in honey will be just as good as what is produced here? Can you guarantee that? And then, if you can guarantee that, it sounds like you're going to have to put a massive amount of controls in place that you don't already have. But if you can guarantee that, why would a European consumer buy a more expensive product, given that people can barely survive as it is? Why won't they just buy the imported product?
I'm not saying they should. I wouldn't. But sure, why wouldn't they? If you're telling us there's an equivalence of standards, meaning a jar from Mercosur, a jar from Ireland, equivalence of standards, I don't have much money, so I'll take this. Why would they bother if there is really an equivalence of standards?
Because you're going to say there is. I'm sure people will believe you.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 22
I'm not.
I am going to reiterate widely known facts that have already been mentioned. It's true that we have been listening to these issues for years now, and they remain the same. If you go into any shop today, at least that is my experience, the honey jars commonly found in our retail shops contain the information that this is a mixture of honey from the EU and also from non-EU countries. I mean, this is ridiculous. It reminds me of a Jewish joke about a businessman who said that he has been doing very well ever since he started producing pâté.
And another businessman tells him, "Yes." But you are mixing this with horse meat. He said no. Not very much. The ratio is one to one.
So, I don't understand why we don't have stringent sanctions against retail chains, why our standards do not lay down that it should not be possible for labeling on our honey jars to give such ridiculous information, because this clearly is liquidating for our beekeepers. So, yes, we need sanctions. There's nothing to add. And we've heard some deadlines here, for example, 2029. Why do we need so long?
Speaker 1
And now, it's time for members. And first, the vice chair would ask. You have 1 minute.
Speaker 34
Commission. On the Mercosur agreement, director, we've had two representatives from Romania who were invited, and they were very worried about the whole Mercosur Agreement. Could you perhaps explain again what the mechanisms for the checks to be carried out in the EU are going to be? And how are you going to check things in the Mercosur countries? How can you make sure that the products which get to the EU are of high quality?
This is a major challenge, and you need to answer that question. How are you going to carry out the checks on the ground in most of the countries? And will we actually have a chance to check these products in our laboratories when they arrive in the EU? That's a very important issue as well. And on the neonics, I understood what you said, and there's this question about the ban as well.
Speaker 38
This is a major problem. Farmers need to have alternatives. If you keep banning things for 10 years, we have had things banned or reduced. But in Romania, we need to know what we are allowed to do. If we ban something, we have to decide what can be done on the ground.
Speaker 1
I mean, I have some land. We have to see how we can deal with these things in Romania. Please.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commission. First of all, on this point about honey, we do have a market, but no profit is being made. And that's because production costs are so high. That's a real problem for honey producers.
At the moment, labeling also needs to change. The commission has said that it's going to take various steps in 2027, 2028, and 2029. But here, we need to have something done about the labeling because I think the percentages in blends are fundamental for the European market. We need to do this as quickly as possible. Traceability needs to be extremely clear. Then, on trade agreements, at the moment, we know we don't really have a European body that's going to carry out all of these checks, and we need more checks on the ground.
There need to be import checks of food from Frontex, if you like. All of this is basic. Countries that have ports, which will be receiving all these imports, need to be able to carry out these checks, but we don't have enough civil servants to do that at the moment at our border control post. Then we should be paying attention to all the different frauds that are taking place with Hani at the moment. This should be a specific sector because it is something that we need to look at.
Thank you for all the plans you put forward, but we need to move forward as quickly as possible. Labeling is basic. There needs to be import control. There need to be offices on the ground with civil servants with auditing capabilities, and we need to have those border officials at the border control post. This is really important for biodiversity and for the rural economy.
Speaker 24
Thank you very much, Chair. Dear colleagues, 80% of our crops depend on pollination by bees that are kept by beekeepers, who are largely hobbyists—96% on average in the EU and 99% in the Netherlands. These beekeepers are seeing rising costs for winter feed, Varroa mite infestation, Asian hornet predation, honey adulteration, and international trade in queen bees that increases the transmission of diseases. As hobbyists, they do not have access to structured guidance and improvement of best practices. To make things worse, as of 01/01/2025, all bee and bumblebee keepers in the Netherlands are required to register the location of their hives.
Speaker 23
For many hobby keepers, this is too much of an administrative burden, and we're losing hobby keepers as we speak. Our food security depends on these beekeepers. They do not need a Mercosur deal. They need high investment in research and extension. They need a promotional campaign to attract young beekeepers.
Speaker 24
They need a reduction of the administrative burden, and they need protection from counterfeit honey. So, my question to the commission is: how is the commission considering generational renewal in the beekeeping sector, given that it relies heavily on hobbyist beekeepers? Thank you.
Please.
Thank you.
Speaker 57
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the commission. This is a sector in which I'm really interested and concerned. I'm organizing a prize for beekeepers, actually. We've seen what has been happening in the sector and that major investments have been made. It's a sector that is managing to survive despite all the problems it has.
It's extremely resilient, despite the fact that it has been ignored by the institutions in terms of direct aid and import controls. There's been a decline in the number of pollinators. The price of honey is something that has also suffered from this. And, of course, this is a threat for those who are making a living from beekeeping. It seems that over 40% of the honey that's imported may not be in line with the honey directive.
Not to mention adulteration and quality labeling. This is a very negative picture. And in the next CAP, we're going to be supporting beekeepers with decoupled payments. We need to make sure that the sector has greater predictability. The beekeeping sector is crucial for our agricultural sector, and it really should be at the basis of what we are doing.
There are two comments I'd like to make. First of all, we need to make sure there's fair competition. EFSA should then have the same mechanisms that the FDA has in the United States, and it should be able to deal with adulteration. That's very important.
Thank you.
Speaker 71
Chair. Well, I'm going to try to say something here. When the commission comes along and tells us, two months after it's announced this SPS plan, which is going to have a devastating effect on pollinators, that it's doing something for the bees as well. We've heard about exports from Mercosur, but it's here on our territory that we're fighting this battle. We have to protect this environment, which is already hostile for pollinators.
So, I'm not amazed by this, but I feel really embarrassed on their behalf. We have to look at this sector and what is happening at the moment. It's your votes on using phytosanitary products that have weakened that sector. There were a few people who supported, under the CAP, the use of pesticides and how they could then support the beekeepers. At the moment, Europe only has 60% of its honey production.
The rest is exported, whereas 30% to 37% comes from China, and it's adulterated. That means that all of our crops, which depend on these pollinators, are being damaged. And if that happens, it will affect the honey producers, who are already affected by the climate change crisis; they will have all of these other problems to deal with. But it's on the basis of your choices because you vote against permanent grassland, against the buffer zones, and against various tariffs that we could use. And it seems that there are no alternatives, but there are alternatives.
Speaker 72
It's incredible how incoherent this discussion is becoming here, how inconsistent with what we actually want to happen with agriculture. But I'm sorry, I have to be so harsh about that.
Speaker 52
Ever since I joined the parliament, we've been talking about the situation in the sector, and nothing has improved. I think we have to protect the hobby farmers and the hobby beekeepers because if we didn't have those, we'd have nothing. And we should be grateful that they are prepared to produce honey at this low price. And we have to make sure that they have a decent market at decent prices. It was a point that was raised as there were more and more burdens on this sector.
If we want to have GMO-free products, we've got a new problem. And when the commission says the food and feed proposal, in other words, we don't need to have regular pesticide checks. When I hear the commission saying that that's an advance, how can that possibly be an advance? We must be able to check for pesticides at regular intervals. The commission needs to explain this to me.
We seem to be liberalizing access to pesticides. And it says that we can determine it in a targeted fashion. Where does it say that in the Commission's proposal? I must have missed it. I think we need to consider how we can improve checks.
I haven't actually heard anything about that. We know that a lot of the honey that's on the market is falsified. Nothing has changed. We need more checks. We need better analysis methods.
All of that has to be implemented at the end of the day. Appeals to the importers, to be honest, are not going to get us anywhere. We have to make sure that the sector has all the tools so that beekeepers can continue to do their business and so that it's possible for young beekeepers to remain in the sector, so that we have pollinators to allow us to produce.
Speaker 1
The Agri and the Gisante, and you have eight minutes together. So, I don't know if one star, Madam Meissone on Bithrahof. So now I give you the floor.
Speaker 62
Thanks for this, very interesting debate. Let me go on some of the questions and comments that we've heard from honorable members of parliament, and my colleague from DG Sante will continue for the rest of our eight minutes. Yes. You have picked up this date of 2029, but maybe this has prevented you from listening to what I said before. And I said that we have already acted.
We are acting, and we have other milestones. So increased checks are enforced. So that has been done after a so-called coordinated action that was specific for honey. So, we have reinforced checks on imported honey. We have imposed the obligation to list the establishment.
It might seem like a very insignificant thing. In fact, it's very significant because what does it mean? It means that we have to know beforehand which establishments in any third country want to send honey to the EU. We want to know the exact establishments, and we want to have assurances that those establishments are complying with the EU honey directive. Authorities in third countries, in addition to having to send that list of establishments, also have to sign the certificate that accompanies honey into the Union.
They have to sign compliance with the EU honey directive. So, not compliance with equivalent or whatever. They have to sign compliance with the EU Honey Directive. So, it's a very stringent and rather unique authenticity certification. If you want it, we are asking third countries.
And we have seen, indeed, when we impose this list of third-country establishments, a very big change in the suppliers from third countries sending honey to the EU. So, there are concrete changes happening in imports. So, those are already in place. When it comes to labeling, the labeling of origin also helps identify where problems are found; it is you in this house. It's the Parliament and the Council that have reviewed the HONI directive in 2024, where they decided those milestones: 2028 for the implementing act and 2029 for the delegated acts.
You have also decided on this origin labeling, and this practice will be implemented from June this year. So, in only a few months. So from June this year, when you go to a retail shop, you will have to see that honey blends show the exact origin of the various countries that have supplied the honey in the jar, together with the percentage. So, it is not the case yet. But from June, it will be applicable.
Some of you are asking for a European reference laboratory. So these are parts of the missions of the Honey platform that you have set up with the review of the directive in 2024. So, the Honey platform has been immediately established by the Commission. It is meeting every six months with a very dedicated agenda, trying to make progress on the specific tasks that you have given us in that reviewed directive, one of them being to analyze whether it makes sense to have a European reference laboratory. So, we are indeed concretely working on that.
Some of you are talking about support for beekeeping. Some are asking for support per bee colony, for instance. I'm extremely pleased to tell you that in the commission proposal for the next MFF, we are proposing coupled income support for honey. So, this is brand new. So, this is something that has never been available before.
We are proposing it in the next MFF proposal. Mercosur. Yes. We are increasing checks also on Mercosur because this coordinated action has led to an increase in checks on all EU imports into the EU. We have both the duty of going to those countries, making audits, and making sure that the way products are produced on the ground complies with the requirements that we have on imports.
And the commissioner responsible for Digi Santé, Matus, has announced that he's also increasing the capacity of controls at EU borders. So when you put the two together, you have the three. If you also have the coordinated action, it means that we are really tightening the net around honey in particular. Why would consumers prefer not to buy Mercosur honey over EU honey if it is cheaper? Consumers will see on the blend, on the honey that they buy, where it comes from.
So it's also there that we will reap the benefits of the excellent work that EU beekeepers are producing or delivering in the EU, and whether they have been able to make those ties with consumers and showcase and convince them of the quality of EU honey. It's there that we will be able to see whether consumers really give preference to what is local, short circuit, what is close to home, and what is linked to the EU reputation. So, let's see. Let's see whether consumers make a distinction between price and other values that we may have managed to convey within the EU. I think that for the rest, I will hand over the floor to my colleague from DG Sante.
Many thanks.
Speaker 61
Yes. Thank you. Yeah. I would like to complement what my colleague from DG Agri has just presented with a few issues more specifically related to pesticides. First of all, to reply to Emmy P. Dorfmann on the timing of the application of pesticides.
This is fully clear and agreed. It's important that the timing is right, that the spraying and the application of pesticides are done when they don't harm the bees. For this, we have, of course, the system of double approval and authorization. The member states are responsible for authorizing plant protection products, together with the conditions under which they are to be applied. And this allows us to specifically take care of the regional or geographical specificities and to make the provisions in a way that they are directly applicable in the region where they are needed.
On imports, I would like to add to what my colleague has already said on Mercosur, but I wanted to add more generally on imported honey or imported food more generally. We have a very robust and clear system of standards. So, the EU has a very strict system of standards. And in the pesticides area, we have a system of approval and maximum residue levels that apply equally to imported and domestic products. So, the rules are the same.
The levels that are to be found in honey are the same for imported and domestic products. There is ongoing monitoring. Member states are collecting 100,000 samples per year, including honey samples, to see what is found in honey. As my colleague has mentioned, following the vision for agriculture and food, a task force on import controls is being established, drawing expertise from the Commission as well as from the member states in order to reinforce imports. To reply to MEP Borda on the lack of alternatives, this is obviously a very important topic, and it is fully understood that it is a problem if you ban certain pesticides and do not have sufficient alternatives.
This is a problem for the farmers. Therefore, there are plenty of ongoing activities to try to get this changed. So, first of all, we are implementing the Sustainable Use Directive, which clearly states that integrated pest management is mandatory. So, member states have to look for non-chemical alternatives. We have the simplification omnibus ongoing, which was already referred to earlier, with one of the biggest and most important pieces being to accelerate market access for biocontrol substances and also to broaden some provisions that would facilitate the use of conventional pesticides.
There was a specific comment on Romania, and I would like to come back to this because we know that there was a problem with neonicotinoids in Romania. The commission has facilitated exchange between experts from Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria to find solutions to help Romania overcome the problem with the use of neonicotinoids by finding alternatives, helped by similar adjacent regional countries that may have similar problems. There was also reference made to illegal and illicit pesticides. I would just like to mention that Europol and OLAF both have programs in place that are aimed at combating such illegal and illicit pesticides more generally in all types of products. And finally, as regards the simplification proposal that was mentioned as well, there was a comment made that there would no longer be checks and no longer checking of pesticide reviews.
This is not correct. We have replaced the existing system of renewals after certain numbers of years with a targeted reassessment system, which means there is still an assessment, but it is more targeted. It will still happen. It will be more in terms of a program that will be established. Could, for example, focus on substances that are harmful to bees if necessary.
And with this, we will be much more able and quicker to respond to new developments in science, and it doesn't mean at all that we are no longer reviewing pesticides. Because there was a question about where to find this, I would like to point you to Articles 18, 18a, and 21 of the regulation. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Oh, so I thank you very much, DG Agri and DG Sante. Thank you very much, and thank you to all colleagues for a very interesting discussion. I'm sure that we will continue this discussion because it's very important. But now I wish you a nice rest of this day, and see you tomorrow at 03:00 here in the end. See you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.