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 2
It is in that spirit of responsibility and partnership that I address you today. This is my first exchange of views with this committee in my role as Executive Director of EFSA, and I very much welcome this opportunity for an open and constructive discussion. I would also like to recall your visit to EFSA in September, which I think we both agree was a great success: an open exchange of views that was extremely useful and reminded us of the value of maintaining a direct and open channel with the committee, its secretariat, and its members. EFSA places great importance on that dialogue; we are committed to keeping it active and constructive going forward. Almost six months into my mandate, EFSA stands at an important moment.
Legislative proposals, such as the Food and Feed Simplification Omnibus and the Biotech Act, currently before the Parliament and the Council, aim to strengthen the authority by improving both the effectiveness and the speed of our delivery. Let me be clear. We very much welcome these proposals. If adopted, they would bring meaningful changes to the way EFSA operates, notably by streamlining risk assessment procedures and enabling faster access to regulated products, including biopesticides, feed additives, and other products subject to EU authorization. Dear members, let me now turn to areas of EFSA's work that are particularly relevant to this committee, namely animal health, plant health, and feed additives.
Animal health in the EU is under increasing pressure due to climate change, environmental shifts, and the movement of pathogens across regions. Diseases are appearing in areas previously free of infection, and viruses are affecting new host species. In this context, EFSA supports the Commission and national authorities with scientific advice, surveillance, and epidemiological analysis to guide prevention and response. We monitor major threats such as African swine fever and highly pathogenic avian influenza, providing regular epidemiological reports to inform risk management. Recent EFSA analysis also shows that vaccination combined with early detection, rapid culling, and movement restriction is an effective way to control diseases such as sheep pox and goat pox.
In addition, EFSA is working on a comprehensive mandate on vector-borne diseases covering 25 priority diseases, including bluetongue and lumpy skin disease. Together, this work provides a strong scientific basis for timely, coordinated, and evidence-based decisions to protect animal health across the Union. In the field of plant health, EFSA supports the Union's preparedness and risk assessment for invasive plant pests that threaten agriculture, forestry, and the environment. We advise the Commission and Member States on emerging risks from new pests and imported plant commodities, underpinning EU plant health legislation. Our work is closely anchored in cooperation with member states through scientific networks, targeted grants, and shared surveillance tools, with the aim of strengthening early warning and early detection across the EU.
A strong focus remains on priority threats, where EFSA provides updated risk assessments, global host plant data, dedicated scientific support, and a European platform for coordination. Among these threats, I would like to mention Xylella Fastidiosa, for which EFSA is currently updating its risk assessment. The result of this work will be presented in June at an international conference that we will host together with European research projects and the Italian authorities in the southern region of Apulia. Let me turn to feed additives. Today, EFSA delivers around 130 feed additive assessments per year.
Since its creation 24 years ago, we have assessed more than 1,600 feed additive applications, providing the scientific basis for regulatory decisions. Overall, we observe a general upward trend in new applications, reflecting growing innovation in the sector—innovation that EVSA actively supports. For example, in 2025, the first-ever bacteriophage-based feed additive was authorized in the EU following an EFSA assessment. This marked an important step forward in alternatives to antibiotics in animal farming and contributes to addressing antimicrobial resistance. Beyond individual applications, EFSA also examines cross-cutting issues such as maximum levels of copper and zinc in feed, and the safety of selenium compounds and vitamin A for consumers.
These assessments directly inform EU risk management decisions. Dear members, my commitment to the European Parliament and this AGRI committee is very clear. EFSA will remain an independent, science-driven, transparent, and cooperative partner, providing the evidence you need to legislate effectively. We are preparing the organization to meet new expectations while continuing to deliver high-quality scientific advice. This means accelerating our processes, simplifying the way we work, and making better use of digital tools, including artificial intelligence.
Advanced technologies allow us to process large volumes of data faster and in real time, supporting both simplification and competitiveness. Speed, however, will not come at the expense of safety and transparency. Faster risk assessment must go hand in hand with strong protection of consumers, animals, and the environment. That balance is essential for resilient and sustainable food systems, and it is crucial for public trust. Because, in the end, all our work rests on that simple foundation.
If it's not safe, it is not food. Thank you for inviting me to this exchange of views. I look forward to your questions.
Thank you. Welcome.
Speaker 5
To you, Executive Director Kritz. We already had an interesting exchange a few months ago in Parliament. I'm very glad that we are able to continue with that discussion here today. I would perhaps like to start where you ended. And of course, the goal of our food production must be to ensure as much security as possible.
And if we want to be successful within Europe, but also with what we sell in the rest of the world, that has to do with high levels of safety. And this is something else that you said when talking about the food and feed omnibus. We have a great deal of hope that we could change things that aren't actually working so well in Europe at the moment. When we talk about plant protection, for example, you've talked about new generation plant protection means. And if we think about the fact that the work that has gone on in Efsan in commission for five to seven years to get this actually done, that means that we are able to use these things that will not be able to be used until the 2030s in agricultural production.
That's not enough. We have to make sure that these deadlines are actually reduced. And we also need to think about the risk assessment process, which is very important, but we also have to make sure that it is only employed in the areas where it is most important. I do have a question. In the most recent EFSA report, it was said that when it comes to imported products, the highest level of MRLs is about 5 times beyond what is allowed or what is commonly done in European production.
So, what is EFSA planning to do, especially regarding checks carried out at the borders as well? And the last question here in the parliament: we have legislation about the NGDs. Is EFSA also prepared in terms of what needs to be done to ensure that these types of plant products can be brought to the market within the proper timeline? Thank you.
Speaker 6
Thank you, President. I will speak in Italian.
I'd like to start by congratulating you on your appointment as executive director. As you've said, this was very important for all of us to visit EFSA in September. As you know, the agri committee is going to be on an equal footing with the ENVI committee on the food and feed simplification omnibus, which you referred to, and which has a lot to do with EFSA. Also, I'd like to ask you some questions about this proposal. You have identified increasing speed as one of the main goals of your mandate, and I'm wondering how you're going to be able to do that within a specific time frame for the various plant protection products which have not been properly authorized and are in the food chain, therefore affecting the safety of the food chain. Then, I would just like to know more about how you're going to adjust the authorization process, where you're going to be able to make savings, and where those extra savings can be focused.
Then, there are further points that I'd like to develop about how you're going to use various biocontrol substances and make sure that, from the very beginning, we are aiming at a higher quality system. Thank you very much indeed, and very good luck with your work, which, as you said, is central for us.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much, Chairperson, and thanks to you as well, Executive Director. Je vais vous parler en français, et je représente ici aujourd'hui un grand nombre d'agriculteurs français. You know, in France, we have a debate going on right now about Tamiflu for certain crops, be it beet roots or others. These are also the products responsible for a loss of yield. There's a great debate going on in France at the moment, where our farmers are not allowed to produce those products.
Speaker 9
So they're already importing sugar from Ukraine or hazelnuts from Turkey. And in the future, we can see that this is going to happen with countries from Mercosur as well. So, I want to ask you some questions. First of all, could you explain how there could actually be such a distortion between the producer countries in terms of the recognition of the dangerous aspects of certain molecules? And what do you think about the prohibition or the ban of this product in France, considering the most recent rulings that have come out and the danger that this molecule represents according to EFSA as well?
And something else that's going on in France: could you confirm for us whether or not acetomipril, if used obviously at the recommended doses by EFSA, is not cancer-causing, as I believe to be the case? And the last comment, in a context where we talk about agri-health issues and they become more and more politicized, is that we would also quite clearly make sure that the opinions and decisions by EFSA are exclusively based on science and risk assessment, and not by ideological bias that we are all suffering the negative consequences of. Thank you.
Elsie Katainenov.
Speaker 12
Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentation. Mister Kris, I'd like to focus on the One Health approach, which brings humans and animals together to manage the interconnected health of the entire ecosystem. In today's world, this approach is essential to prevent, prepare for, and respond to global threats such as animal diseases. I'd like to highlight the importance of risk assessments for animal diseases and prevention measures, particularly in civil development and availability of vaccines.
Speaker 13
These are crucial for future research and innovation in the field. This topic is also important for our political group, Renew Europe. And I would like to ask, what is the current availability of animal vaccines across the EU? Has the funding mechanism for their development been improved? And furthermore, has there been any significant criticism or challenges related to the use of these vaccines?
Speaker 14
In Finland, we are in a relatively good situation regarding animal diseases like African swine fever and avian flu compared to many other EU countries. How come? It is mainly because we have invested in preventive measures and information sharing. Related to this, I wanted to ask how we can better share successful prevention practices and knowledge between different member states so that effective measures can be implemented more widely across the whole EU. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Next speaker, Thomas Weitz for the Greens, please. Thank you, Chair. And herzlich willkommen, Hercage.
Speaker 10
I would like to welcome you as well. Mr. Caritz is here to commit. We're glad to hear from you again. I've got a few very specific questions.
First of all, has there been any new information about the spreading of different lung, bluetongue, or lupus skin diseases, or others, via animal transport? I know they've carried out such studies in the past, so I'd like to know whether there is any new knowledge about the dissemination of those illnesses. And secondly, about the import of food from third states, with or without any sort of free trade agreement. Could you tell me whether there is a threshold for pesticides that are illegal in Europe, and if so, whether there is a recognition threshold or how you measure if those thresholds are being taken into account? So we can see that there are some imported goods that contain pesticides forbidden in the European Union, and very properly so.
The third question is about past experiences or changes in the past. Actually, in our committee, we have talked about the practices for admitting certain pesticides, and there are changes regarding the fact that, in the past, certain studies were carried out by different companies. They would only hand in certain studies that actually gave results supporting their approach. But now, we have to do it differently. A company has to register all the different studies that have been carried out if they want a certain compound to be approved.
Have you seen any positive developments in that respect? And the second question: it's also quite clear that EFSA doesn't actually carry out much of its own research, nor together with the member states. And so we believe that there should also be a larger budget for EFSAS so that it can carry out its own research and not only rely on the research carried out by companies. I'd be very grateful if you could tell us a little bit about what's going on in that respect as well, whether or not there have been any positive changes, anything else you'd like to tell us about this issue, and how we can support you further with that. Thank you very much.
Speaker 15
Thank you very much for your presentation, and congratulations on your presentation style. You listened here. We're here all day, so it's good that people come in and make things interesting for us. I think that has to be said. So, well done there.
In relation to FSA's budget and what potentially is coming down the line, hopefully, we will reject the Mercosur agreement. This is, you would imagine, going to put pressure on your resources. What extra resources will you be getting if this deal goes through? What role will you play on the ground when it comes to making sure that we don't end up getting something in Europe that, according to your own words, couldn't be defined as food? And there are obvious concerns among people about the Mercosur agreement and about the ability to keep some of these substances out of what we're eating.
And I don't know if you're familiar with it, but in late 2025, the Farmers Journal and the Irish Farmers Association exposed prescription-only antibiotics and growth hormones that were being used illegally in Brazilian cattle production. And we hear other stories; I won't go through them, as there are numerous ones, which would give people a lack of confidence in what they're eating and even less confidence in this potential deal going through. So specifically, in the questions I've asked John about Mercosur, can you give me some answers on that? Thank you. Actually, one other thing: you mentioned that when it comes to simplification, you'll be using artificial intelligence.
What exactly does simplification look like? And what else will you be using to make things simpler? Because, well, it seems to be the buzz phrase around here, and at times I'm wondering what's to boast about being simple. Surely, we should be sophisticated, not simple, because I think we're smarter than that. What do you mean when you say "simplification"?
Speaker 16
Mister Director, at first sight, we could say that food safety in the EU is something obvious.
But.
Speaker 16
Nevertheless, there are some doubts because we know that there are checks on imports from one member state to another member state. These checks are very limited because it is considered inappropriate to carry out additional checks if the checks are already carried out in the country of origin. And frozen food, for example, frozen butter or frozen meat. So, I have questions about whether the current limits are appropriate. And with respect to transport, the long-distance transport of pork from Spain, for example.
So, there could be some doubts about these long distances in transport. And we plan to limit the times for the transport of living animals. So, there could be more doubts. And with respect to importers, I have doubts about whether there is any will to carry out good quality checks. I have some information about how food from South America is checked.
So it is something that is worrying. And I have a question about insects. So, it is said that insects would be added to some food. I have questions about this. And then, swine fever.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. Moving on. Catch the eye in one minute. Mrs. Esther Ganz Garcia, our first speaker.
Speaker 23
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Buddha. I was lucky enough to go to the meeting in September with the EFSA bureau, and one of the things I found out there was something I have been very worried about for years. But it was very good to hear this information directly from EFSA. We're very worried about border controls, especially since trade agreements are now a priority for the European Union.
Speaker 20
We're worried because effective border controls are really not being implemented. And then, when farmers are protesting, they are right about some things. We're very concerned about this because it seems that they're not respecting the conditions that they have signed up to in the agreement. And I would like today to hear from EFSA about how EFSA can help us support food security at the borders with these trade agreements. And then, in the future, how can EFSA adjust its proceedings?
Speaker 3
And it would be very good to have a report back on that in the coming months. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 19
Thank you very much. Thank you very much to the executive director who has been telling us about his duties. It's very clear that he has to deal with animal and plant health. I'd like to congratulate you on the work that you've done on Xylella fastidiosa, as well as the work that you've done on different categories of animal diseases. That has then helped us deal with contagious lumpy skin disease.
And it's good that we can change the position within the categories of various countries and regions, since we're not all at the same level in terms of these diseases. I'd also like to refer to new genomic techniques. This is something that can be very positive for agriculture and livestock farming in Europe. It's something that is crucial for modern farming. It is going to be mentioned specifically in the omnibus.
And there, we need to look at various types of alternative materials where we can have simplification, and there can also be monitoring of plant protection products via drones. I think that's very important for the daily work that EFSA is doing. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Ms. Rappini, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Director. I was part of the delegation that came to see you in September, and we talked about something that I should bring up here.
You told us then that you do not yet have scientific studies on vaccines for all animal diseases. And I want to tell you that in Romania, we have culled tens of thousands of animals because of swine fever, bird flu, bluetongue disease, and so on. My question now is: since September until now, what has happened, or what time frame are we looking at to see results and have solutions for all of these diseases for which you say there are new viruses and new diseases? This is one thing. Then, another thing: you talked about safe food.
If it is not safe, then it is not food. And my colleague also talked about this. But what are we going to do? I am a rapporteur on the new customs code and over 20 border points. We cannot control these products because we don't have labs, infrastructure, money, or staff.
Speaker 21
Thank you very much indeed, Chair, Executive Director. I'd like to congratulate you on your appointment and wish you the very best. Now, the European food system depends on a basic principle. Products that enter the EU have to comply with European standards. This is not protectionism.
It is a guarantee of fairness. We impose these rules on European farmers. They're very strict rules, which, of course, have to be respected by anyone who wishes to import their products into the single market. It's absolutely crucial to guarantee that there is equivalence in this system, and this does add additional costs for Europe, of course, for farmers, but it does ensure trust in the single market. And this is why, looking at the recent EFSA study, 98% of the products in the EU have low or acceptable levels of insecticide, but compared to products coming from outside the EU, they actually contain residues which are completely banned in the EU.
So, I think we need to continue the good work we're doing within the EU, but keep a close eye on what is coming in from outside. We have to improve border controls. We have to ensure that we keep a closer eye on the origin of products and perhaps reinforce the EFSA.
Speaker 24
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to the Director. I was delighted to hear him highlight animal health because I wanted to pick up on something I've spoken about before here: bovine TB. Between 2023 and 2024, the number of bovine TB positive herds across the EU increased by 16%. And over the past five years, in areas officially under eradication programs, positive herds have risen by 42 percent. And in my eyes, this is not progress towards elimination.
Speaker 28
It's regression. The highest prevalence in Europe is in Northern Ireland at 9 percent. And while outside the EU, my own country of Ireland shares a land border where our incidence has now reached 6%, and I would really say that's probably even more. Yet, at the very moment, the data signals escalation; EU funding is unavailable, having been diverted to other priority animal diseases. In Ireland, eradication costs are spiraling, and farmers are carrying that burden both financially and personally.
Speaker 25
And I would ask the director, do these figures not constitute clear scientific evidence of a worsening trend, and do they not justify recommending that the commission reallocate funding towards bovine TB eradication? Thank you.
To Stollander, please.
Speaker 26
Thank you very much, and welcome to the new executive director. We hope to see you more often, and I hope you feel welcome here. I have a question about EFSA and its key role in enabling the shift towards a more sustainable agri-food system, specifically when it comes to biocontrols and innovative proteins. Because currently, the Afza evaluation queue is largely based on a first-come, first-served approach. And now we see that there are products with huge sustainability potential that sometimes stick in this queue for 10 years.
And I've spoken to many companies who then either go bankrupt or move their company to the US because they have more growth opportunities there. And I think we, as the EU, also want to be competitive, and there's huge potential in this company. So, what can we change? And I wonder if you see the potential in moving from a purely reactive risk assessment model to one that actively facilitates the transition to a sustainable food system. So, that will be a different approach from ESA.
Thank you.
Next speaker, Mrs. Singer, please.
Speaker 29
Director Chris, thank you very much for your presentation. As part of the food and feed simplification omnibus, we're talking about the future of the plant protection law, and we're wondering how we can do that without creating a lot of uncertainty. For instance, now there is going to be a classification of different kinds of pesticides. And whereas, if you have treated or coated seeds, they are not treated as having pesticides on them. This, then, raises a lot of questions.
Speaker 27
When we're talking about seeds, this is a way of exposing less of the land and using a specific amount of the target substance. But it seems that when we change the rules, we may end up using more pesticides rather than fewer. And I'm wondering whether EFSA sees these coated seeds as a way of reducing pesticide use, whether they see them as equivalent to the use of pesticides, and how they would justify that. And then, how will they carry out their assessments to make sure that these kinds of practically feasible solutions in agriculture are not lost? Thank you.
Please.
Thank you.
Speaker 35
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you very much, Executive Director Chris, for your presentation. You've been in your job for 2 months, and that was when Commissioner Vargelli presented the food and feed omnibus. Pesticides and biocides are playing a central role in that. We all know, here in this room, how the authorization process works, whether we're talking about chemicals or biopesticides.
Speaker 30
It always takes far too long. For many of the active substances, it is a huge challenge to get them authorized. This can only really be the beginning of what we are doing. We do need to keep adjusting our processes in terms of mutual recognition and the various certification requirements for pesticides. I am a shadow rapporteur on an own-initiative opinion on this subject.
I'm particularly interested. I'd like to know whether you agree with the DG Sanko's proposals. And if not, would you like to see more proposals? What kind of measures will you be taking to simplify the authorization process for pesticides? Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 32
You, chair. Vector-borne diseases have really shaken the foundations of animal health in Europe, and there are other diseases coming back. But we need to look at the classification of diseases, whether it would be a good idea to revise the classification of lumpy skin disease. Secondly, how animal health is dealt with within the European single market. The national system we have doesn't really make any sense because these diseases don't respect borders.
Then, also, we need to talk about research into vaccines. I'm wondering how you can help us deal with these three challenges. Thank you.
You.
Speaker 37
Thank you very much. I think that we need to have confidence in the work that you're doing.
Speaker 33
And so it seems that there have been many investigations that have been done on those products or compounds that have been sent out. So I'm very sad about that, and I very much hope that Efzight will take that into account in the work that they do in the future. It's also taking much too long to get new products recognized or authorized in the EU, whether they are biopesticides or chemical pesticides. No matter what kind they are, it takes too long, so we need to speed that up. Otherwise, we won't lose out to the USA.
Thank you.
Speaker 34
Thank you very much, and also thank you for the presentation. I want to ask you a question also about the so-called Food and Feed Omnibus published by the Commission on 16 December. So, first of all, from a scientific risk assessment perspective, it's moving from time-limited approvals to predominantly unlimited approvals. Is this really compatible with the precautionary principle? In EBSA's experience, how essential have periodic renewals been in identifying new risks, like endocrine disruption or developmental neurotoxicity, that were not evident at the time of the first approval, for example?
Secondly, the COM proposal would require member states to rely exclusively on the EU-level assessment of an active substance. In light of the Court of Justice's clarification that national authorities must consider the most up-to-date scientific evidence, does EFSA consider this approach scientifically sound? Could it delay regulatory responses to newly identified risks? And then finally, if systematic renewals are largely removed and reassessment becomes optional, who will proactively monitor emerging, independent scientific literature across all approved substances? Does the EBSA really have the researchers to ensure this new evidence and also to trigger a timely reassessment?
Speaker 44
Thank you very much indeed for sharing your points with us, and congratulations on your work. On the food and feed omnibus, I'd like to briefly try to understand what kind of implications this will have for your work. This introduces the possibility of unlimited authorization for some active substances rather than every ten years. That means that there could be four PFAS, neonicotinoids included in that system: acetamiprid. And we've just talked about how that's going to affect the pollinators.
Then there's the self-mandate of EFSA, and that becomes extremely crucial in this system because you would need to be able to react to emerging scientific evidence, as you would do for the PFAS. I'm wondering how EFSA can give itself a mandate, and what guarantees we have to ensure that this is used in a timely and systematic way compared with the current system?
Thank you.
Speaker 38
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, indeed, Director, for your presentation. Perhaps you've concentrated too much on the omnibus at the moment. Of course, the commission has been introducing simplified procedures for pesticides, which we definitely needed, but we need to make sure that we're not rushing too far ahead.
Speaker 43
We need to simplify biocontrols, especially for the least concerning substances. And then companies shouldn't have to go through very cumbersome procedures, which means that farmers are losing out in terms of copper. Then, I'm wondering how we can have unlimited authorizations for low-risk substances. How will we define that level of risk? How will we be able to use the latest scientific knowledge to define the risk?
How can EFSA then modify its position if it doesn't have any of these self-mandate initiative rights? And that would be something we need to know before we can approve the omnibus. You.
Please.
Speaker 42
Thank you, Cher. I will speak in Dutch. Yeah. On the Land Rover, Frontiartmag Street.
Our farmers are facing increasingly strict rules regarding pesticides and residue levels because of the Green Deal. A lot of substances are disappearing, and there are even more requirements placed on farmers than there are trade agreements. And that means that farmers are really threatened because what they've been using in terms of pesticides can no longer be used. EFSA has introduced MRLs for consumer protection, but consumer protection on paper is different from in practice. That's why I have a question about imports.
Speaker 40
How can they be properly tested at the borders? Will member states have the right analytical capacities? And how often are you seeing those MRL levels exceeded? Because we can't accept products that have been treated with substances we're not allowed to use. We need to make sure that we have effective controls and checks.
Thank you.
Speaker 39
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Director Chris. Let me begin by recognizing the excellent work of the EFSA. The Feed and Food Omnibus presents EFSA as an indispensable pillar of the wealth of a well-functioning system. It highlights EFSA's role as a center of expertise and a guarantor of high protection standards.
But at the same time, it points to structural constraints, including limited resources, a heavy workload from renewals, fragmented implementation across member states, and the need to use EFSA's capacity more efficiently to support innovation and faster decision-making. A recent OECD study comparing EFSA in the EU and FDA, EPA in the U.S. S. Describes EFSA as the scientific backbone of the EU risk assessment. However, it also identifies lengthy procedures, extensive data requirements, limited pre-submission engagement, and complex multilevel decision-making that delay market access.
Speaker 41
The OECD comparison with the U.S. S. It is instructive. Our objective in Europe should not be to lower standards, but to make our system more efficient, predictable, and innovation-friendly while learning from our U.S. S.
Speaker 39
Counterparts. So, I have three questions. How can EFSA further strengthen early scientific advice and dialogue with applicants to reduce delays and data uncertainty? Where does EFSA see the greatest potential to free up capacity for new assessments? And what support from legislators would most help EFSA deliver faster, more harmonized decisions while maintaining the EU's high level of protection?
Thank you.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. Before I give you the floor, dear Director, I would like to respond clearly on the capacity of European institutions to conduct border checks on the products we import. You've noticed that this is very important to us. The members of this committee are very focused on this, but we are not the only ones. So, please, we need a clear answer from you on this topic.
Second of all, a question from me on the decision you sometimes make to remove certain substances that can no longer be used in agriculture. Do you consider introducing new substances that can combat diseases that can no longer be eliminated because the old products have been removed? Because farmers can't identify diseases and bugs, please wait. Please hold off until EFSA puts forward a new product that can help us combat these pests and diseases. So, the farmers' work is impacted.
So please tell us, are you envisaging that when you remove a product from the market to replace it with another product that is, of course, not harmful, but that is also efficient in practice? Because otherwise, we will have an impact on farmers' competitiveness. And, of course, we do not want this at the European Union level. So, please, you have the floor for 10 minutes.
Speaker 2
What a rich bouquet of questions you have given me! Thank you very much. It also shows the diversity and variety that EFSA deals with because many of you had very clear questions. Thank you for that. But it also shows how many areas we cover, whether it's animal health, plant health, pesticides, NGTs, GMOs, food additives, feed additives, food enzymes, etc.
So, I'll try to group an answer as clearly as possible. Number one, NGTs: are we prepared? We will get a total of five extra posts. That's the plan to deal with NGTs. We have helped in the past, and we are continuing to help with the preparation for the NGTs.
At this stage, I would say yes, we are. Regarding biopesticides, there's a plan for 15 extra posts for biopesticides to be a repertoire for member states to help member states. Let me take the Member State and pesticide system question as a whole because it is very important. Look. At EFSA, we mainly deal with three different areas.
One is what we call a generic risk assessment. That's our animal health and plant health work, one third. The second third is applications for food additives and food enzymes. The third is pesticides. In pesticides, we rely on member states to do the assessment work.
We do the peer review, but it is the member states. And it was already my predecessor, Bernhardt, who pointed out that it's very interesting for something as politically charged as pesticides that in member states, there is not the same resource intensity, let's put it this way, as there is, for example, for medicines. Because in medicines, we have a centralized fee-based authorization system that is faster than in pesticides. Member states don't have the capacity to cope with all the incoming cases. We're talking about capacity here.
That's important to cope with all the incoming applications, which means that when we look at risk assessment time for generic risk assessments for animal health, animal welfare, and other opinions, they tend to be 250 days; for applications, 600 days; and for pesticides, over 900 days, which I agree is not acceptable. However, the delay, the clock stops mainly, though not solely, in the member states. We are also working on how to improve that. So, it needs a shift: are we willing to support the member states? Are the member states willing to support the system by intensifying their efforts and resources there? And that is also what contributes to speed. And, as I said, the plan for EFSA is biocontrol substances: 15 extra posts that will help with biocontrol substances.
And that's what we have at the moment. Then, we also had acetaminophen. We have done the work on acetaminophen. It's also ongoing regarding neurodevelopmental toxicity. We have asked for studies to be done, and EFSA is very clear on what should be done, but already two years ago, it lowered some of the doses that are acceptable.
Then we had two questions on the One Health approach and vaccines. Let me be very clear. The authorization of vaccines in the EU is firmly in the hands of the European Medicines Agency, but even it cannot authorize its own studies. The European Medicines Agency can talk to companies in order to initiate what is needed to obtain authorization. I know that because I happened to work there for a very long time, but they also cannot initiate their own studies.
And lo and behold, at this stage, we still do not have a vaccine against African swine fever. Due to the size and nature of that virus, it is one of the most difficult diseases to actually produce a successful vaccine against. Finland also said something about ASF AI and why they are in a better position. Let me put it this way: you are geographically favored. And I leave it at that because, yes, you have very good disease control systems, etc., but you are also geographically favored in terms of the location that you have.
And then there was a lot of talk about import controls and MRLs. And I need to be very clear here. We are the risk assessment body, not the risk management body, of the EU. What does that mean? We neither have the mission, the mandate, nor the personnel to do import controls, and we therefore are not involved in that at all.
Should we be asked about providing further risk assessment on the levels of MRLs, etc., that's all fine. But the control is firmly in the hands of the member states. I do say, though, that controls happening at the moment could always be stepped up further. We release every year our annual report on pesticide findings, which shows, and has been mentioned, that in all foods found on supermarket shelves, these levels are very low. And therefore, the one thing we can say with confidence is that, yes, our food is safe.
Regarding Blue Tongue, we had a question about the transport and the effect of transport. So yes, of course, here we need to have restrictions. These restrictions are usually put in place very effectively but are not always observed by everyone. But that's, of course, within the hands again of the national authorities who work very well, the CVOs. There were also a lot of questions that alluded to where we go into the responsibility of our chief veterinary officers.
We work very well with them, I should say, with our chief veterinary officers, and we give them the data that they need to make the right decisions, including on bovine tuberculosis. Yes, we have seen that increase in cases.
Speaker 2
Moment. Overall, there is not yet a mandate for EFSA to look into that, but it is certainly something we are aware of, and the risk manager is also aware of it. It's the risk manager, the CVOs, who will take a decision on what should be done here, based also, of course, on our epidemiological advice when asked. I looked further regarding the import controls that keep coming back. And I think for us here, it's really something where, again, I say this is for Mercosur, sorry.
That's what I wanted to say, Mr. Flanagan. There, we don't get extra resources, but we also don't foresee, for us, the scientific advice or risk assessment that is needed. These extra resources would have to be allocated if the risk manager steps up controls and decides to do that. In terms of AI, it is very straightforward. We use large language models to help us with the sifting of up to 50,000 papers, which we sometimes have.
We are still validating it. That should finish at some stage. But at the moment, we still validate it by humans, and it still saves time. And that then also leads to true simplification. Once we have fully validated the large language model called Distiller SR, we can trust it, and that's true simplification.
So that's the work we are doing there because that AI can be such a good prediction model once it has been properly validated. I'm sorry, I am also aware of the time. What I see here in terms of border control, I talked about transport and animal welfare transport, where we have given our opinions. And yes, with ASF, we are certainly also supporting the Spanish authorities where we had an incursion again. Here, we are now doing quarterly reporting.
So, you see, I always say it like this. On animal health and plant health, we do the work that the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control is doing for humans. We are doing that for plants and animals. On pesticides, we are doing the work that maybe ECA can do, we can say. We're also continuing the work of the ECA.
And on applications, we are doing the work that the EMA is doing for medicines. We are working on food enzymes and other applications. So, you see the diversity of what we have. I think, overall, our capacity to deal with that at the moment is strained. If it were not strained, we would be faster.
It needs to be said like this because there is also a plan to inject some more resources there if we have the possibility. We, on our side, have the use of digitalization. We have, because there were a few questions on that, really focused on our support to member states for pesticides, and on top, the pre-submission advice that was mentioned, which I very much welcome. This is as far as a paradigm shift, if it is allowed to happen. Don't forget, on the medicine side, this is happening all the time and it is common to have scientific advice for companies so that when they come to the regulator, they are already prepared.
This is not something we are allowed to do at the moment. It would be a game changer if we were, but it's up to you to decide whether it is possible and allowed. I'm sorry I couldn't cover everything in the time, but maybe there will be a second round. I'm not sure what time it is, but I will stop here now for the time being. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Director Kritz, for your explanations. It wasn't by chance that I asked the questions you didn't ask me regarding the situation in which you should decide to remove a product from the list. Will you give farmers other products to help solve their problems? We have farmers back home, and now we go to them and tell them they can't use certain substances to treat their seeds, but do they have any alternatives so they can carry on their work? This is a very important issue that we need to consider.
Speaker 47
But yes, you didn't answer me. Maybe you'll provide a written answer. You have the floor.
Speaker 2
Thank you. No. Thank you very much. That's a very important question indeed, because we do not decide to take anything off the market. We do not think this is the risk manager's job.
We are asked whether it is part of a renewal or a separate mandate as the risk assessor to give an opinion on the safety of the active substance. That opinion, independently arrived at with the latest studies and transparency, includes a public consultation, which is very important, and part of that is then published. Once it's published, it is up to the risk manager to look at the impact, assess the overall situation on the market, and make that decision. There is also a very good reason for that differentiation, where we have a clear separation between risk management and risk assessment. So, I can honestly say we give the best scientific advice to our ability, but the decision of whether or not it stays on the market is, and should be, with the risk manager.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We are at the end of this point. Thank you very much, Mr. Krish, and we are looking forward to seeing you here again. Thank you. And thank you, Vice Chair Buddha, for your help.
Thank you very much. And please, we just know the voting time, the beginning of the voting time. So I just remind you that you have here your voting card in the machine. Don't forget it, please. And I have this here.
Okay. And now, I don't know if you are all ready, and if we can start. So first, please, I would like to ask everybody who is not interested in voting to leave the room or to take a seat. Forest reproductive, yes. Okay.
Yes. Okay. So we start now with voting on the forest reproductive material. It will be a roll call vote. And I open the vote.
I closed the vote.
Speaker 1
And it was, I don't know, adopted. It was adopted. Thank you very much. And now we will vote on the chemical products. And it's not a single vote.
No. No. Okay. And compromise one. Compromise: one who is in favor, who is against, who abstains; it was adopted.
I don't see it. Amendment 15, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 20: Who is in favor?
Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 21: Who is in favor? Who is against it?
Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 22, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment 24: Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Amendment 26. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected.
And now, final vote, it's roll call vote. Yes?
Speaker 52
I am so sorry. I've lost my voting card, and I was wondering how I can deal with it? My other is going to check it, to find it, or to have another copy.
Speaker 49
But I think it will not change the result. So please, I ask you to accept her vote by hand sign.
Speaker 1
Okay. We can do this. Okay. I didn't understand you. Yes.
Sure. We can accept it. Please show your hand. Yes? So, Rocoon, we are at the final vote.
I open the vote.
Renew has one more.
One who has to abstain.
And it was adopted.
Speaker 1
It was adopted. Clearly adopted. Okay. Now, we have another point: guidelines for the '27 budget. It's a single vote.
Roll call vote.
It was adopted.
Speaker 1
It was adopted. And the last vote is on the international agreement on olive oil and table olives.
It's a roll for both.
You can close. I close the vote.
Speaker 1
And it is adopted. So, colleague, thank you very much. We are at the end. And just now, in 15 minutes, we'll start our joint committee procedure. So please be back in fifteen minutes.
It will, because we have to wait now for all our colleagues from the other two committees. We cannot start earlier. So please, we will start at half past four. Okay. Thank you very much.
Hello, colleague. I would just like to ask you to please take a seat because it's time to start. I have heard that some of our colleagues are in the lobby. Please, if you can, invite them to come and start. So, maybe, colleagues, I will start.
We have here the first point: adoption of the agenda. Dear members, dear colleagues, I would like to welcome you to the second joint committee meeting of the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Regional Development, and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which follows the first exchange of views on the regulation that we had with the commissioners in charge last month. If there are no objections, the draft agenda is adopted. I think, yes. I don't see anybody.
The chair's announcement: we have interpretation in 20 languages, and I would also like to thank all our interpreters for their help, as well as the staff of the parliament and all our committees who have organized this meeting. Today, our negotiation is going well. The meeting will be web streamed as usual. So now we are at the point of establishing the European Fund for Economy and Territorial Cohesion, Agriculture, Royal Fisheries, and Maritime Prosperity and Security for the period 2023-34. Their colleagues are here on behalf of our three committees. I would like now to welcome the members of the European Court of Auditors, Madam Turtelbaum and Mister Blanco Fernandez, and thank them for being here today to present the court's opinion on the National and Regional Partnership Fund.
I would also like to welcome Madam Ivanova, member of the Court of Arbiters, who kindly accepted to join this exchange and reply to requests related to CAP. Together with the Court's opinion on the CAP for 2834, which was published earlier this month, this opinion on the NREP fund comes at the right time to provide our committees with expertise, point to challenges ahead, and flag potential risks related to the new funding architecture proposed by the Commission. Your outsiders' views, if I may say so, will be very useful in the preparation of our report on the commission proposal and at a large stage in discussions. They are particularly relevant for the agri committee, which I am chairing, given the links between our fund and CAP regulation and the need to ensure coherence between their provisions. And it's also my pleasure to welcome here Madam Monica Holmeyer, Vice Chair of the Batch Committee and, of course, Chair of the Regig Committee, our colleague Dragos Benes.
Sorry, it was written here that your Vice Chair would be here. So, welcome here. And now, where am I? Yes. And I would like just now to give the floor to Monica.
Three chairs are too many.
It's too much. It's too much. Yes.
Speaker 61
So, thanks a lot. Dear colleagues, also from my side, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of you and to the three members of the European Court of Auditors, and thank them for presenting the court's opinion on the National Regional Partnership Fund. In addition, I welcome the representatives of the European Commission, Ms. Christiane Canenblay, Director, NDG Badge, Mr. Oliver Sita, Director of NDG Agri, and Frank Seberg, Director of NDG Regio, and Ms.
Speaker 55
Ruth Pazerman, Director, NDG Empel. From a budgetary perspective, the proposed fund merges long-standing policies, introduces a single planning instrument per member state, and proposes new flexibilities, mostly to the Commission, that would significantly reshape how resources are allocated, managed, and controlled. Therefore, the opinion of the court is indeed truly instrumental, as it provides us with an independent and technical assessment of a proposal that represents a fundamental redesign of the next multiannual financial framework, helping us identify potential risks, governance gaps, and control challenges at this stage. While there is still room to improve the legislative proposal and explicitly assign an important role to the parliament as co-legislator. Hence, we must ensure that simplification does not come at the expense of transparency, that flexibility does not weaken parliamentary scrutiny, and that performance orientation is backed by solid accountability and auditability.
Speaker 54
We look forward to hearing your assessment and your recommendations. And with this, I pass the floor now to my Co-Chair of the Regional Committee, Thierry Dragos. You have the floor.
Speaker 56
Thank you, Miss Vice President. Dear members of the Court of Auditors, dear representatives of the European Commission, dear colleagues, I would also like to welcome you to the second meeting of the Joint Budget Regi Agri Committee working on the proposal for a regulation establishing the future NRPP plans. As already mentioned by my co-chairs, the opinions of the Court of Auditors represent valuable and reliable support for the call legislators, as they provide observations and suggestions regarding the architecture of the proposals, their governance, financial implementation, and the need to address potential risks. For the Reggie Committee, the Court of Auditors is always a reliable partner as we share the same goal of improving governance, accountability, transparency, and sound financial management of cohesion policy, and thus enhance its European added value, ultimately increasing citizen trust in the European project. As we all know, the proposal we are discussing today is significantly changing the way in which a large share of the European Union budget is planned, allocated, managed, and controlled.
Speaker 57
As co-legislators, we are extremely interested in presenting the court opinion on the NLP fund proposal. I will first give the floor to Miss Tartelbum, member and dean of the Court of Auditors. Miss Tarthelbum, you have the floor for 5 minutes.
Speaker 58
Thank you very much, mister and missus, chairs. We developed his opinion at the Parliament's request on the European fund. It's a major part of the EU budget: €865,000,000,000, or 44% of the total budget. We've based our analysis on a detailed assessment of the proposal and audit experience over many years. These are areas where we have repeatedly identified weaknesses in administration, an excessively high rate of error, and too much complexity.
Speaker 59
That also applies to the Recovery and Resilience Facility, from which a good deal of the structure of the new budget is taken. Now, we will run through some of the main messages of our opinion. First, there have been changes in the MFF architecture. This is a single fund that integrates various key EU policy areas, like agriculture, cohesion, and migration, into a single regulatory framework. This is centered around the national and regional partnership plans for each member state.
Speaker 60
The delivery model has also changed. Now, most EU payments to member states will depend on the fulfillment of predefined milestones and targets, rather than the current reimbursement of eligible expenditure. Second, the proposal redefines the roles of the Commission, Council, Member States, and the regional authorities. The council would now approve the plans following a commission's proposal. The commission's role and oversight of EU funds would change.
Speaker 58
Member states will be assigned the management of the spending via their plans and will assume much more responsibility for things like the allocation of funds and assurance. While regions will still be involved, member states will have much more flexibility regarding their role. Third, the European fund merges funding for different long-standing policies, such as cohesion and emerging priorities, including defense under the plans. We stress the need for a legally recognized definition of the key concept of the EU added value. There is a risk that EU added value may be interpreted differently, affecting comparability between the different programs.
Speaker 59
The EU dimension of spending could be better promoted, for example, by encouraging investments in transnational projects, including cross-border infrastructure. Fourth, the fund covers many priorities, and the question is how to find the balance between them. This fund spans almost every current EU priority, from cohesion to agriculture, defense, and security. All of these priorities must be addressed by the plans, but they have discretion in how much they address. They also have to meet ring-fencing requirements.
That discretion may mean that how EU priorities are addressed varies, while the ring-fencing may mean that member states are constrained in meeting their own priorities. It remains unclear how the Commission will assess whether the different priorities are adequately addressed in the plans. Fifth, flexibility on paper may not mean flexibility in practice. The proposal aims to give the member states and the commission more flexibility both in how they address the original policy objectives and how they adjust to changing priorities. We know that elements such as ring-fencing and horizontal targets may reduce this flexibility in practice.
The proposal also allows for loans to member states up to a total of €150,000,000,000. These loans, however, are guaranteed by the budget headroom, meaning they may require member states to make additional payments into the EU budget. And finally, simplification for the commission does not mean that the burden is reduced for everyone. The proposal streamlines the commission disbursement of funds. However, more work may be needed at the regional and national levels, and beneficiaries will still have to meet implementation requirements defined at the EU and member states' levels.
This means that the commission's simplification may not translate into greater simplification at the national and regional levels. These items are from my side as well as the ones that Alejandro, because it was the two of us on this opinion, is about to discuss. And in our opinion, there will be a key to understanding and improving the commission's proposal. Thank you very much.
Speaker 56
Thank you, Dr. Bohm. We will continue with Mr. Blanco Fernandez, member of the Court of Auditors. Mister Blanco Fernandez, you have the floor.
Speaker 62
Thank you, Mr. Dean. First of all, I would like to say that the Court of Auditors has taken this opinion very seriously, and this is why you have four members here. The four of us, even if two of them are not signing the opinion, have contributed to the opinion, with Ivana as our expert in performance and Iliana contributing to the agricultural part. So this is, as I said before, a joint effort from all the members of the European Court of Auditors. During my brief intervention, I will address four key areas: performance, payments to member states, absorption of funds, and accountability and assurance.
Regarding performance, let's say that this is the best or the main difference with the cohesion policy or the policies as we knew them before. So now, we have to measure performance. But it is true that in order to measure performance, you have to really establish what you want to achieve and what results you want to get. And what we see is that if you have very broad intervention fields and very weak indicators, this might not reflect the reality at the regional and national levels. And at the end, the comparability of the different national plans is going to be very difficult, or even the addition of the different measures will be difficult.
You see, in our report, we have several examples that will illustrate a little bit what we mean by that. If you just say, as a result, the number of enterprises that have been supported, you might have very different types of support in the same number of enterprises. So this will complicate the comparability of the different plans. So again, we also see a very difficult problem with the assurance and audit risk if we cannot have clear milestones and targets that will assure that the different actions have taken place. So, if I move to the payments to the member states, it's a little bit linked to the other part.
So when I have the payment that is linked to the achievement of milestones and targets, and not to declared expenditure anymore, the importance is in how you are going to define these milestones and targets. And what we see is that there is no clear methodology to establish a comparison among the member states and among the different plans. There's no way that we can compare the support of enterprises that is done without any other guidance. So, this will complicate the definition of the efficiency and effectiveness of the value for money in the future because the payments might be triggered by something different, but we still need to protect the interests of the taxpayers' money. So, regarding budget predictability or the absorption of funds, we have to take into account that in the proposal, there are certain elements that we cannot compare with the past.
If now we are going to pay because of the achievement of milestones and targets, yes, we can pay faster. But this is what we want to achieve with European policies: just a fast disbursement from the European budget, or do we really want to have things working in place in the member states, in the regions? Because, yes, the payments might be faster, but we still need to ensure legality and regularity. We still need to fulfill the condition projects and not the ones which require a bigger or higher length, and this will create complications when we try to measure the effectiveness of the policy. Finally, regarding accountability here, which is also interlinked with the previous slides that I proposed, it is the same: we cannot just trust that the Commission approves the Exantia National Plan, then the member states declare that they have achieved certain milestones and targets.
In some cases, the criteria to declare one achieved or not are not well defined. We have seen this in the past with the RF. So this is what we need: the commission controls and defines ex ante the criteria to declare the different milestones and targets achieved. We also need the commission to continue being responsible because this is fair management. We cannot forget that.
The commission needs to be responsible for the achievement or for the payments that are made to the member states. We have to ensure as well that there are checks of legality and regularity because legality and regularity still need to be controlled, and somebody needs to be responsible for proving it. And then, we also need to give guidance to the member states. They really need to understand what is happening if, in a transaction that has triggered a payment because of the achievement of a milestone and target, there are irregularities in public procurement, because this money continues to be irregular. Yes.
They have achieved the milestone and target, but the money is still paid based on an irregular contract. So these are the four points that I wanted to share with you today, and we are more than happy to answer all your questions now. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Blanco Fernandez. I will now give the floor to the European Commission for five minutes, Miss Christiane Kanenblade, Director in DG Budget.
Speaker 56
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for this opportunity for the exchange. I think this is very helpful for all of us. Thanks also to the court for the findings. We take good note.
Speaker 63
And also really happy to engage in this discussion here, but also to reassure that we have taken well into consideration the recommendations we issued before. So we're not starting this discussion today, also when we prepared our proposal. I just wanted to react to a couple of points that were mentioned here. I think more will come while we are discussing. But the one thing we are really trying to do with these national and regional partnership plans, and some of the slides, I think, showed it quite clearly and said it very clearly also just by the visual it had.
We wanted to create here one coherent strategy by bringing together these different EU funds. We need to have one strategy with cohesion and agricultural policies at its core, but also one part where we really look at all relevant Union priorities, which are in shared management. Once more, I want to reiterate, because there were questions before, not today, but questions before, that none of the union objectives are gone. They're all still there. They all still need to be tackled, but we're moving away from the idea that we need to tackle them separately. We're looking here at synergies and also at how they can be achieved in the best way at national and regional levels because not every region, not every nation, not every member state is the same.
Speaker 64
There are different starting points. There are different priorities and different means to achieve the common objectives. And this is really what we are trying to do here. We're trying to create synergies to spend the money we have better in order to get there. So what we're aiming for is an integrated programming process to avoid and prevent the fragmentation we have right now.
Speaker 63
This is something which the court also referred to several times and which is also seen in the opinion. Here is one step forward to really avoid the fragmentation that we are having, ensuring the complementarity of the policies, the creation of synergies by creating this joint fund, and bringing this forward by having the possibility to work together with the relevant authorities on all fronts in order to make sure that we can really work here in one go, which brings me to the simplification element, part of this whole exercise that we're trying to achieve by creating one single rule book. One of the big deficiencies we've seen in the current framework is that we have 14 separate frameworks. We have 14 separate rule books and 14 different eligibility criteria. We have different ways of managing our funds.
And by creating one single rule book, we will surely get significant simplification gains and also transparency gains by having one set we can rely on. We will have the payments linked to milestones and targets, which was already reflected. This is a change, obviously, in the way we spend, but we see this really as a possibility to reduce the administrative burden for both the authorities and the beneficiaries because we're looking more at attaining outputs, improving predictability, and also focusing really on performance, not so much on how much we're spending and how much we might perceive as the way forward. Then, also in this context, I know that we will discuss a lot about how exactly these milestones and targets will work, but we really tried here to create a coherent and consistent framework on how to apply milestones and targets. On this one, we can also go into a bit more detail. But there are also many possibilities for member states and authorities to use that simplification by looking at higher prefinancing rates and simplified cost options.
These are elements that can hopefully help everyone bring about real simplification and turn the regulatory framework into something that benefits all. A quick word, really, on the way we addressed our proposal once more. While there is a change in the approach, absolutely, we also clearly wanted to rely on what is working well and what has not worked so well so far. So, we have a continuation. Not everything has changed.
So, we are still continuing on the basis of shared management. In many ways, this is a known effect. We still have a proportionate risk-based approach to how we do it. We have our single audit approach, which is well known and also has clear responsibilities for member states and for the Commission in order to ensure that everything can be audited and traced well. We also saw that some of the elements need to be improved, and we worked on that.
We worked on the transparency side of things regarding the information of final beneficiaries, which really improved significantly with the proposal we put forward. We also have a strong focus on cross-border investments in the national and regional partnership plans. It was one of the things which was mentioned here as one of the key requirements that need to be looked at when drawing up the plan. We really reinforced the role again on the regional dimension. I think on this one, we have discussed a lot already and also clarified how this would work.
I don't want to spend too much time here on the intervention, but I just want to say I think we are moving in the right direction. We will look carefully at the findings, and I'm confident that this will get us into the safeguards we need in order to have a good and accountable way of spending the money in the best way for the European citizens. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Miss Hannanblay. We will now start the exchange of views with members of the European Parliament, and I hand over to my co-chair, Miss Rechenova.
Speaker 65
Thank you very much, sir. So let's start now with our three co-reporters, and I have to inform you that each of you shall have three minutes. So, first batch EPP report, Carlo Ressler. So I repeat, you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 1
Chair. Thank you also to the members of the European Court of Auditors for presenting the opinion. This report, in my view, really offers a sober and valuable assessment of what is, without any doubt, to become one of the most important reforms of the next multi-annual financial framework, especially with this proposal to shift to a single national plan that will bring together an unprecedented range of EU priorities. And, in this sense, while the commission argues that this integration may enhance coherence or synergies, the report shows that it also blends policy areas with not
Only.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.