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 sittings
Veronika Vrecionová
It's not a roll call vote. Okay. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 17b. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise on paragraph 17(c). Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromised on para 70(d), who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Compromised on paragraph 70(e), who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise 17 g: Who is in favor?
Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted. 20 years, who is in favor? Who is against it?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise recital A: who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Recital A.B. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Récital AC. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise on Annex Two. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise on Annex Three. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 33. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
Let's check, please. I open the vote.
I closed the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
Sorry? Adopted. It was adopted. I didn't see it. I'm sorry.
No. I don't see it. Amendment 48. 48. Who is in favor?
Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 56: Who is in favor? Who is against it?
Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 59, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 67, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 70: Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 82.
Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 93.
Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 108.
108. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Amendment 124, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 129, who is in favor?
Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 132, who is in favor? Who is against it?
Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 140, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment 142, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Amendment 148, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 154, who is in favor?
Who is against it? Who abstained? Please, let's check it. I open the vote. You can close.
I close the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
Adopted. It was adopted. Amendment 1173, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 175, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Amendment 174, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? Please check. I open the vote.
I close the vote. It was adopted.
It was adopted. Amendment 184, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? Please check again.
I open the vote. I close the vote. Oh, pardon. No. Not yet.
The open vote is open. 484. 184. 84.
You can close.
I close the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
It was adopted. It was adopted. Amendment 188 was in favor. Who is against it? Who checks, please?
I opened the vote. 188.
You can close. I close the vote.
It is adopted. It was adopted. Amendment 194, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment 195. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstains?
It was rejected. And now we have here amendments 196, 197, 198, 199, 68, and 69 voted together. I, who am in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment Eight. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendments nine, ten, thirteen, and fourteen vote together. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 11: Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 12: Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 15: Who is in favor?
Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 16: Who is in favor? Who is against it?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 17, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 18: Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 22, who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 23, who is in favor?
Who is against it? Who abstained? Please check. I open the vote. Amendment 23.
I close the vote. It was adopted.
It was adopted. Amendment 24. Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment 27: Who is in favor? Who is against it? Who abstained? It was adopted.
And now, roll call vote. Final vote. I open the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
Close the door. And it was clearly adopted. Thank you very much. We are at the end. And now let's move to the next point of our negotiation, point four.
As you know, from 01/01/2025, requirements for organic imports into the EU have changed. After a transition period, which ended on December 24, imports from most non-EU countries can no longer be considered equivalent to EU organic standards unless a formal agreement on equivalence is in place. And also, the Court of Justice of the European Union reached the same conclusion. It is therefore necessary, first, to ensure that consumers are able to make informed choices when purchasing products from sales countries, and second, to ensure consumer confidence in those products and in the organic production logo of the EU. Furthermore, given that the recognition of sales countries expires on December 26, it is necessary and urgent to update its recognition until December 36 to avoid disruption in the trade of organic products.
Given the urgency of this file, the coordinator decided to apply the specified procedure. Today, we have the presentation of the Commission proposal, and I will give the floor to the Commission representative, Madam Werner. So, Madam Werner, the floor is yours now for 10 minutes.
Speaker 9
Good morning, honorable members, and thank you for the opportunity, dear Chair, to present the Commission's proposal for the revision of the organic basic regulation. As you know, organic farming remains our gold standard of agricultural production, and it delivers many economic and environmental benefits. I would like to use the time to give you a bit of an update on the context of this proposal, and then present what we put on the table in December. Organic farming protects soil, water, and biodiversity, but it also brings reasonably good incomes to farmers. Organic farmers are also led by younger managers, and organic farms are larger, more economically viable, and more innovative than our average farms.
Overall, data on organic farming are also rather positive across the EU. The share of land farmed organically has grown steadily. We are at about 17,000,000 hectares, which is about 11% of the total agricultural land, and that's up from around 5-6% back in 2013. And in the EU, we are the second-largest organic market globally. So, that's also the international importance of that proposal.
Demand continues to rise, with per capita spending more than doubling since 2014, and retail sales increasing steadily. So, it is an important part of the competitiveness agenda for the agri-food industry. And, of course, the Common Agricultural Policy supports organic farming. Under the current CAP strategic plans, 5% of the total public funding was allocated to support organic farming. By 2027, we expect 10% of the total agricultural land to be under organic farming, which would be a doubling compared to 2020.
The sector has nevertheless faced challenges in recent years. One of them that brought uncertainty was the court ruling, the Herbaria II ruling, as we refer to it. And the second challenge shared, actually, with conventional farming is the need to remove certain implementation bottlenecks that slow down business and impact the agility of the sector. This is why our proposal, presented in December, addresses these challenges by, first of all, providing clarity for the operators and reassurance for EU consumers that follows the court ruling on this Herbaria case concerning the organic imports from equivalent third countries. Second, and in link to this first point, we need to extend the time period available for the recognition of equivalence for certain countries until 2036, which is our proposal, so as to avoid disruptions to the international trade from which the EU organic sector benefits in particular.
And third, we wouldn't open any legislative proposal now without taking the opportunity to reduce complexity. Reducing complexity, simplifying, and strengthening competitiveness, we did this through targeted amendments because we don't want to reopen the whole discussion. We want to keep the philosophy of that legislation. And most of all, we want, of course, to keep the very high standards for organic production. In a little bit more detail, first, this court ruling and the Herbaria concern the equivalence regimes.
We have important trade partners with us under this regime, including the U.S. S, Canada, and Japan. And the EU ruling, the court ruling, underlined that it is a fundamental right for EU consumers to be fully informed, and we need to ensure a level playing field within this market. That's why there needs to be a clarification on the rules for the use of the organic logo and the use of the organic terms. The organic logo is one of the most recognized EU logos.
You know it well. It's this green and white leaf with stars on a light green background. The proposal clarifies that third-country products recognized as equivalent are allowed to bear the term organic, BO, or eco, whatever the language, when they are placed on the EU market. But it also establishes a list of additional EU production and control requirements that third-country operators must meet so that they can use the EU organic logo. And that really means that we have the full equivalence.
There are some examples, such as animal welfare rules or bans on producing via hydroponics. And without these conditions, the EU organic logo would not be allowed on the imports. Then, our proposal provides that organic food and feed processed in the EU using imported ingredients from these equivalent countries may also use the EU organic logo if the ingredients meet the requirements. But we also say that imported ingredients should constitute less than 5% of the processed product. This approach ensures a fair competition between domestic and imported products, responds to consumer expectations, and minimizes the risk of upsetting third countries from these imports we want to keep, of course.
A second part of the proposal, as I said, concerns the trade. We have 11 equivalent CERT countries today, and this recognition has to be renegotiated under this equivalence regime. It would currently expire at 6, and it therefore needs to be extended, as our trade balance is positive with these countries and we want to avoid a disruption that would damage the EU operators. We propose a 10-year extension until 2036. And then, thirdly, the simplification aspects.
Here, as I said, we propose a limited package of targeted changes. For example, the removal of the requirement of listing products for cleaning and disinfecting processing and storage facilities, changes to the eligibility requirements for small retailers and for groups of operators, thereby facilitating their access and reducing some of the certification costs, and also some updates on the requirements of livestock production, in particular poultry, including questions of access to open areas, but also withdrawal periods when there is a veterinary treatment. We opted in this list to include amendments that are largely consensual, broadly supported by the sector, and on which we have consulted widely. We also implemented dialogue and stress tests. There was already a ministerial debate in the AgriFish Council, and I think there is also broad support among the member states.
And therefore, I look now to you in this house also to ensure that we can have a smooth and quick adoption, with 2026 as the target date, before which we have to have the new legislation in place, lest we risk disruption of international trade, as has already been mentioned. And I thank you for having opted for the simplified procedure for your position on this proposal. And it also means that if there are additional amendments or changes proposed, we hope that they can be consensual and few in number. Before I close, I want to also mention other things that we are doing for the organic sector this year, over and above this legislative proposal. In particular, we published a roadmap for the review and simplification of the secondary legislation and also of the guidance, of which there is quite a lot.
Here, we aim to provide pragmatic solutions to some of the burdens or needs for clarifications that have been identified. In the roadmap, we have a few things that can be delivered in the very short term, and others that will come next year. And it also includes a number of reports that we have to provide under the legislation. And finally, we will launch the consultations to update the organic action plan to stimulate the continued growth of the sector by strengthening both the demand and supply sides. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you, madam. It was exactly 10 minutes. Thank you very much. And now, I would like to give the floor to our reporter, Camilla Laureate.
Camilla, you have 5 minutes, please.
Camilla Laureti
Thank you, President. I will speak in Italian if it is not a problem for you. So.
Like the Commission representative did, let me begin by emphasizing the importance of the organic sector for Europe and for many of our Member States. In terms of figures, for example, the area cultivated is also important for the environment and in terms of food because the food produced is healthy, environmentally friendly, and good for us. I mean, I know that the goal is to reach 25% of cultivated surface being organic in the next few years. A lot of information has been given by the commission. But what I want to focus on is the fact that often, when we talk about agriculture, we talk about generational renewal.
That's what we're worried about. And we're very aware that the organic sector can help us there because we have very positive figures related to it, too. Twenty percent of farms that are organic are run by young farmers, whereas in traditional farming, it's only 11%. So, this could be a way of pushing this generational renewal, which we need so much. Now, obviously, as we heard, we have to work rapidly to respond to the court judgment by December 2026 because this interruption of trade with the 11 countries that we consider equivalent is something that we simply cannot have.
The number one market for Europe is the United States. So, we are aware, on the Parliament side of course, that we really do need to work as rapidly as possible. Now, on some of the interventions that were mentioned by the commission, which are more targeted and technical, we'll be able to deal with those more reasonably quickly, I think. But when it comes to other areas, I think we are going to have to look at things more carefully. For example, the 50% flexibility on ingredients, the criteria that define groups of workers, and the criteria for small-scale operators.
But I'm not saying that to suggest that we're going to be working slowly. I mean, apart from anything else, we've gone for the simplified procedure to try to speed all of this up because we're aware of the looming deadline. So, we're going to work very hard in the time we have available. We have the simplified procedure, as I mentioned, but we do have the possibility to table amendments. So, in the time we have available before getting to the amendment stage, and to try to avoid there being too many amendments and to ensure that there are amendments that people can share, we are going to try to ensure that we hear from all organizations and associations that are our stakeholders in this. Obviously, we're going to be listening to all colleagues, and we'll be working very closely together during this period.
And the idea is to ensure that we can work as rapidly as possible and have amendments that are as targeted as possible, which everyone can agree to. So, we want this to be good for producers and consumers. And as I say, we want amendments that are targeted and effective. So, we're going to begin by listening. And then, obviously, we're going to table our amendments.
Thank you very much. I look forward to all the work ahead of us. And obviously, I will not be doing all this alone. I'll be working very closely with all the shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups. And obviously, politically, that's the most important thing: to ensure that we can get this done in time.
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much, Camilla. And now it's around; let's do rounds of shadows. And you have two minutes each, and we will start with EPP, Herbert Dorfmann. Herbert?
Herbert Dorfmann
Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Indeed, I'm not the shadow. Madam Wiesl is the shadow, but she cannot be here this morning. So I will read some sentences on her behalf.
So, I read a power of attorney's file. I would like to make a few brief points. At first glance, it may seem like a narrow technical legislative file dealing with labeling rules, certification, or specific production standards. But in reality, it concerns something much broader: consumer trust, fair competition, and the credibility of the EU organic sector. The commission's intention to address the consequences of the EC court ruling is welcome, as it helps provide leaders with clarity and avoid disruption in trade with third countries.
The same applies to the extension of the recognition.
Veronika Vrecionová
I'm sorry, but go ahead. Interpreter Sauskou, please slow down a little bit.
Herbert Dorfmann
The same applies to the extension of the recognition of equivalence of third countries, which is important to ensure the continuity of trade and the stability of the organic sector. I fully understand the Commission's intention here. However, an extension until 2036 means 10 additional years, and that is a very long period in regular terms in a rapidly changing environment. We should carefully reflect on whether a shorter extension will be fit for purpose while continuing organic trade. The organic logo is one of the most recognized food labels in Europe, and protecting its credibility is essential not only for consumers but also for our farmers and organic producers.
Therefore, we support the need for this targeted proposal, and we will, for sure, work together with the rapporteur to have it adopted as soon as possible. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Valérie Deloge
You, President, dear colleagues. The European Commission is presenting a modification proposal for Regulation 1884 regarding the production, labeling, and certification rules for third countries. The aim is to ensure the good functioning of the market for agricultural products, organic products, and to improve international trade. But you're trying to include organic trade for something which is in the European Union.
A little bit. Thank you.
Excuse me. What?
Valérie Deloge
My apologies. First of all, we need to think: is there a need for this? Perhaps this could also be produced in Europe. This lengthening until December 31 for the equivalents for certain third countries raises a fundamental question of reciprocity. If we're talking about equivalents, this isn't enough if, in fact, the rules, controls, and standards are not as high as those imposed on European producers. Organic products respect the most demanding standards in the world.
They are investing, they're adapting, and they're subject to administrative burdens. And so, it would be unacceptable for products arriving into the European Union to have the same label, even though they are subject to more lax conditions. The consumer also deserves full transparency. Labeling needs to be clear and unambiguous to ensure that the product being purchased corresponds to the requirements of organic products. We cannot threaten our food security or the quality of our label, and this is why we really want to have equal rules across the board when it comes to imports as well as effective protection of our producers.
Ultimately, the question is simple. If the European organic label is demanding for our European producers, it needs to be demanding for all players in the field.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Commission and the rapporteur for the background to this file. Chair, the commission says the amendments to regulation 18,848 are indeed required because of the court judgment, and I hope they will deliver real simplification for organic farmers across the European Union. Farmers who choose organic production already operate under strict rules, and what they need from us as legislators is clarity, proportionality, and an administrative system that supports their work rather than adding further complexity. But this discussion was also reviewed in the broader context of the European food system and the farmers who produce the food consumed every day, both organic and non-organic. Organic farming represents roughly 11% of EU agricultural land, while organic food consumption is estimated at around 8% to 10% of the total food market.
So that means up to 90% of the food consumed by our citizens is non-organic, produced by conventional farmers who also meet very high production standards. So, while protecting the integrity of the organic label is essential, we must also ensure that food labeling across the entire market is clear, transparent, and trustworthy. A message must go out of this room this morning that all food labeling must be unambiguous in its details. We have to send a message to the food safety authorities at the member state level and indeed at the EU level that there is no room for confusion in this situation. We must have clarity.
All products must show the country of origin, not just the logo. And I feel strongly that we must have an absolute lack of confusion about this. "Packed in Ireland" means nothing on the front of a package unless the country of origin is clearly identified for the production of food and the origin of the food. We have to move toward that situation. A key issue in this regulation today is the treatment of imports from third countries.
European farmers, both organic and conventional, must fully comply with EU standards. So, it's essential that imported products meet the same standards. This brings us to the distinction between equivalence and full compliance. On the previous system, third-country products could be accepted as organic if their standards were considered equivalent to EU rules, but equivalence does not necessarily mean that the same rules apply to the production of the food involved. As my colleague has just raised, we asked the question of the commission today: are they satisfied that the system of equivalence truly delivers?
Is the reciprocity present? Are the same standards being followed? How will we know?
Martin Häusling
Yeah. Well, thank you very much to the commission for this proposal. You have our full support. This is in the sector. There were a lot of intense discussions.
So, all of this work fed into the proposal by the Commission. And now, what we need is an agreement as quickly as possible. We can't take too long to reach a decision because otherwise, there might be a whole series of problems. So, if we don't make amendments as quickly as possible, the sector will have problems with imports. Now, what's fully clear is that this doesn't mean we need to rush into protection provisions.
There is this idea of equivalence. We need to have strict examinations because we can't just let any old product onto the European market. So, I understood that we'll see how many measures are used. We'll see how many countries have this equivalence, but we want to avoid problems with imports. And really, the sector expects us to take action quickly.
If we all submit many amendments, this will slow things down. I think we need to work as quickly as possible, and the groups should ensure that we aren't opening a whole Pandora's box and that we really focus on the specific points we've been asked to address. Now, what is fully clear is that the sector can only grow if consumer trust remains. There's no area in the European Union that has as much consumer trust as the organic sector. And I'd like to recall that I think we have 10% of cultivated areas.
We had this goal of 25% of cultivated areas, which we should bear in mind because, ultimately, the organic sector is a sector where we can really ensure that we can pursue our ideas on an environmentally friendly policy. So, this proposal has our support. And when it comes to cleaning products, yes, there was the proposal. But what's important and needs to be discussed is that what we need is the road map. The roadmap is something that we need to look at more closely during the procedure, something that may need to be corrected.
Luke Flanagan, the left-wing politician.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Yes. I'm standing in for Arash Saeed. He's our shadow reporter on this. European organic farmers are already under economic pressure due to rising costs, market volatility, and declining purchasing power. This proposal should then reinforce, and not weaken, their position.
The proposal extends the recognition of equivalent third countries. However, equivalence does not mean identical standards. And as other speakers have said, the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the limits of equivalence regarding the use of organic references and the EU logo. We must avoid a situation where EU producers compete with imports produced under less stringent or differently controlled systems. Consumer confidence in the EU organic logo is one of our strongest assets.
If labeling rules for imported products are adapted, they must be fully transparent and easily understandable. Also, in relation to fair competition, European farmers comply with strict production, animal welfare, and control requirements. It is unacceptable to ask more of EU producers while allowing imports under lighter verification systems. Fair competition requires robust pre-entry controls, not just administrative simplification. And at the end of the day, the public wants good food.
And if it isn't good food, you're not going to placate them by saying, "Well, it was produced in a simple way." Don't mind if you are sick. However, simplification must not translate into weaker safeguards. We will therefore advocate for stronger control mechanisms for imported organic products, enhanced traceability requirements, clear differentiation and labeling where appropriate, and regular monitoring and review of third-country equivalents. Thank you.
Stanislav Stoyanov
Thank you, Chair. I will speak in Bulgaria.
The purpose of organic farming is to protect biodiversity, soil, and water to support sustainable development, provide jobs, and promote growth. In countries like Bulgaria, however, the share of organic farming is quite low. And that has its causes in consumer confidence, the administrative burden on farmers, lack of awareness and incentives, and distribution chains that are way too long. So, these are the areas that we must address if we are to promote organic farming. And the commission's amendments must be targeted there: sustainability, competitiveness, predictability for the sector, clarity of rules, fair conditions, and a stable development framework.
With regard to imports, I support what others have already said here. We must first look into our own European output potential before we open up to imports from third countries.
Veronika Vrecionová
I'll take the floor because I'm a shadow of VCR, and I will speak Czech, please. I.
I welcome the attempts and the efforts to resolve certain issues, and I thank the commission for tabling this proposal. We need to respond to certain situations that create unnecessary complications in practice. I am still studying the proposal, and I will mostly focus on whether these changes will help control organs and farmers. Currently, I have two notes and remarks. Firstly, in some places, the terminology is quite unclear and can be interpreted in different ways in practice.
For instance, certain definitions that talk about animals, such as terms like adults, are unclear whether these terms should be judged by age, reproductive functionality, or sexual maturity of the animal. This can then lead to various member countries interpreting these terms differently. So, I think we should consider making these terms more precise. Secondly, in certain technical rules, for instance on poultry, there is the question of whether current limits are in accordance with reality on the ground. For instance, chickens in commercial farming can be, under certain circumstances, included in the farm only until a certain age because otherwise they could face higher mortality rates during transport.
Perhaps we should review these limits again to bring them closer to the reality on the farms and to improve the conditions in which animals are kept. And to conclude, a broader remark. In past years, we have seen that the rules of bio farming are complicated and difficult to apply in practice. Therefore, I would consider it useful to start a broader discussion in the future on making them simpler, for instance, based on commission reports. Thank you.
We start with KGCI, and the first is Mr. Koehler from the EPP. And you have one minute, please, Stefan.
Yeah. Thank you, Chair.
Stefan Köhler
I'd like to speak German. President, thank you very much, Commission representative. I'm pleased that we have the opportunity to discuss this regulation. We're talking about wanting to create legal certainty, so we need to act as quickly as possible. But we also need to think about the meadow obligation, and we need to ensure that in Bavaria, we are very proud of our organic production.
We have a huge cultivated area used for organic produce. But if we don't focus on the quality, this can be a major threat. And I'm aware of the fact that there are 300 farms that used to be organic but have switched to conventional farming. And so, trying to get to 25% of the cultivated areas being organic, I think we need to make efforts and combat these switches from organic to conventional farming. So, I would be pleased if the Commission could come up with this roadmap and get it going as quickly as possible so that we can offer better opportunities for our farmers.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Christine Singer
Thank you very much, President. Thank you, Mrs. Werner. I will say something similar. I understand very well that we want to take quick action. In light of the Herbaria judgment, we need quick legal certainty.
But at the same time, the issue for many farms in Germany, which is particularly important, is the implementation of the necessary measures. Access to pasture is a major issue, and this is something that needs to be taken into account because it is not included in the current commission initiative. The commission said that they want to carry out clarifications regarding this issue by June 2026. However, the farms are wondering whether the amendments will be sufficient because they are not legally binding, and this will not create legal certainty. So, can you give a clear answer to the farmers that there will be a practical solution when it comes to this obligation?
Because there is very little trust currently, we do not want to have a situation where we will be talking about individual amendments to the text, which will draw things out. We really need rules that ensure high standards, but at the same time, allow us to work in practice. Thank you.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much, Chair. Miss Wehner, thank you for being with us. Unfortunately, your first sentence already shocked me because you mentioned the golden standard of EU farming; the golden standard for sustainability is organic farming. And then, I think the commission has completely lost connection with reality. Yes.
There are certain very good aspects for the environment in organic farming, but also lower yields and more land use are needed. So the world is on fire around us, and the commission continues on this stubborn road to increase our organic farm production. So, I think the problem here is that we have to understand that if there is no market, it will not work. In The Netherlands, less than 3.5% or less than 4% of food consumed is actually organic. Organic producers are converting back to conventional because they are losing money.
So, when you come here to lecture us about the golden standard of sustainability, please go do your homework, visit farms, really do it, because I have the feeling you don't. Organic farming will only work, and farmers will make a good living if there is market demand, not a commission that pushes their ideology top-down. Remember how it worked out for Sri Lanka. Thank you.
Gilles Pennelle
Thank you, Chair. If I may, let's just come back to what happened last week: the commission's decision to apply Mirko SOAR. Here in the AGRI committee, they are working against the sovereignty of this house and against the ECJ. I mean, I agree with what has just been said. This debate is completely ideological.
Saying we're going to get to 25% of cultivated surface in organic farming is just a utopia. It's completely unrealistic. In reality, let's see what is happening in France. The dairy farmers, who started organic, want to get out of it because they want to get to the same price. So, let's not talk about utopia.
This whole discussion is completely not based in reality. So we've understood from this proposal that the commission, at the end of the day, wants to increase imports, whereas we already have a very fragile organic chain system. These conditions are important for imports; consumers won't be able to clearly differentiate between organic and non-organic. So, Utopia. Hmm.
Maria Grapini
Thank you. I will be using Romanian. Yes. Many things have already been said by the previous speakers. It is really strange.
The commission professes certain things here, but I need some answers. The CAP will be self-sustained. How? We no longer have a CAP. The agricultural funds have been emerging to other funds, and the commission's position is amazing.
Even the Court of Auditors said that your position does not stand. We said that your position does not stand. Then you say we need a simplified procedure because 2026 is the deadline. So, you didn't know that 2026 was the deadline. I really hate these tight deadlines.
We cannot play with consumer protection or with jobs. Here, we are talking about safeguarding. So, who controls the equivalence of these imported goods? You are talking about clarity and simplification in agriculture. How will this be done?
Just fixing a label and writing "organic" on a product doesn't mean that the consumer is protected. So please provide me with a very clear answer.
Vice Chair Buddha, please.
Daniel Buda
Thank you, Madam Chair, dear colleagues. We share the same reality. We all see that organic farming, whether it is in Germany, Romania, France, and so on, has to shut down because they don't have enough market for their perishable products that do not sell quickly. Unfortunately, we haven't built enough awareness among consumers that these products are much better than others. That doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate.
I'm very interested in this certification, just like my colleague said, because we need very clear guarantees since there are two issues here. First of all, we need to be fair to our farmers and make sure that no product coming from outside the EU is allowed to enter unless it meets the same quality standards. And we need clarity for the consumers. We need to have the right mechanism to be able to inform consumers that the product, even if it has equivalent quality, is produced outside the EU because, as a consumer, I may want to support EU producers. I want to buy EU products.
This is why we need more than just a logo. We need to know the place of origin of these products, whether they're made inside the EU or outside the EU.
Céline Imart
Madam Chair. The amendments here, well, we're going to have some simplified procedures that we're expecting in the organic sector, which is in difficulty, especially when it comes to breeding conditions. And especially when it comes to labeling for organic farming, that is also important. Transparency is important. Consumers need to know if the product is respecting European rules or if, in third countries, the rules are equivalent.
When it comes to December 31, the postponement, there is recognition for equivalent countries. If this prolongation is due to legal security reasons, then it cannot weaken any of our requirements or conditions. We do need to make progress on the labeling of the country of origin. Question. Could you say how the commission will strengthen monitoring, respecting equivalence rights, to make sure that there are fair competition rules when it comes to the production of organic products?
Thank you.
Thomas White?
Thank you for the information.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you, Chair. If I may, a minute. I'm just going to clarify a few things. From Bavaria, we have seen difficulties, and we've seen differences between Austria and Bavaria since 2009. We have seen a creative implementation.
We've heard the commission say that we have to stick to the rules. Obviously, we need clarifications for our farms, but there are still 250 new farms in Bavaria. Why? Because things are developing further, plus 4% in the next few years. So let's not say here something that isn't true.
And, obviously, we know what sort of agriculture you want, Miss Van Loeh. I think you've forgotten your calculations: you need a lot less input for organic than traditional farming, and therefore it's highly productive. But we know what your position is on the issue. Then, Mr. Penelet, I am standing here for all farmers in the EU, but you are from the right, and you were discrediting your French farmers. The healthiest food for France is from organic farmers, and you're attacking them here, which speaks volumes.
Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you. We are at the end. And now, I would like to give the floor again to Elizabeth Werner for her replies and answers. You have four minutes again, please.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much for the opportunity to react. I think a lot was also said about the situation in the sector. I would make just two points on the substance. The first is that our proposal is about a better level playing field and stronger information for consumers. And it is precisely these equivalence agreements that we need to conclude with the third countries, which will ensure that there are the same standards and that there are adequate controls in place.
And that's also why we need time, because we will enter in-depth into the discussion with these third countries. We are already at technical exchanges with them to conclude this agreement, and we are going to look into the diversity of their legal frameworks as well as their organic production systems, including their control systems. And this is why these agreements are important for the level playing field and for ensuring that consumers can trust what is indicated on the product, either the term "organic" or, if additional requirements are met, that they can also have the logo on this product. The second thing I wanted to point out is that indeed, all EU food meets the highest safety standards, but organic is precisely about additional production standards. And this is why trust in these products is essential for consumers and for the farmers operating in this sector.
Finally, our roadmap is about pragmatic solutions, including for grazing. And it is precisely not to change the basic principles but to find solutions to some of the problems that we can address with clarifications. Last but not least, we are, of course, also available for bilateral exchanges and for looking with you into some of the more detailed aspects that are mentioned. And I look forward to working with the rapporteur and the committee. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. And, Camilla, if you want to take the floor, please.
Camilla Laureti
Yes. Very briefly. So, first and foremost, thank you. Thank you to all the colleagues who have taken the floor. Clearly, we don't have identical positions, but that's something that happens all the time.
So, I think in the meetings that we'll hold with shadow rapporteurs throughout this procedure, we should base ourselves on data and figures, and we'll obviously check the sources. I mean, you can't really argue with figures. Let me just mention two of the figures that were given to us by the commission. The increase in organic farms in Europe. Since 2018, we've seen a 30% increase in the number.
The goal is the same for everyone because we are the agriculture committee. And so, clearly, we want to and should be defending farmers, whether organic or conventional. I mean, in this case, we are talking about organic farmers. And obviously, this involves people. As the Commission said, the organic label is one of the most widely recognized labels we have.
And it's because of that that we really cannot disappoint our consumers, because they buy things that are covered by that logo, knowing what's behind it. So that's something important for everyone. Then simplification, transparency, reciprocity, and equivalences. Our work is basically going to be based on these four concepts. There is one thing that was brought up by many colleagues.
Mister mentioned it as well. This ten-year prolongation is too long. Now, this idea of a 10-year prolongation could actually be an opportunity to rediscuss the agreements with the 11 countries with which we have equivalence agreements. And the problem with a shorter prolongation would be that we wouldn't have had the opportunity, perhaps, to discuss all of this with all those countries on the basis of simplification, etc. So that might give us time to look at those 11 agreements that we have with third countries.
But obviously, we'll discuss all of this. We'll obviously discuss these matters with organic producers' organizations as well as associations that represent consumers, etc. Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And I'm looking forward to our next discussion on this issue. And let's move now to our last point of today, our committee meeting. So, the Court of Auditors has published... I'm sorry? No.
It was okay. I am sorry. The Court of Auditors has published its opinion on the Commission's proposal for the next CAP. This opinion largely corroborates the doubts and concerns expressed by our committee. Indeed, the court highlights the complexity of the structure proposed by the commission under the guise of simplification.
It shows how this complexity is very likely to lead to uncertainties for both farmers and member states, distortions in the functioning of the internal market, and a lack of traceability of payments. According to the court, the Commission's proposal could ultimately lead to inconsistency between member states and jeopardize the CAP's common objectives. While stressing that, for the first time since the CAP was founded in 1962, there would be no specific fund for agriculture and the traditional two-pillar architecture would be dismantled, the court recommends amending the proposal by moving some provisions from the single fund to the CAP regulation to maintain the coherence of the agricultural policy. Therefore, I really welcome Madam Ivanova from the court here. Madam Ivanova, I look forward to a substantive presentation and discussion on this important topic, and I have no doubt that all my colleagues expect the same.
And then, after Madame Ivanova, I give the floor again to the DG Agri, Madame Verner, and I welcome you again here. So, Madame Ivanova, you have now—I'm sorry. How long do you have now? Ten minutes for your presentation. Please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 41
Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, honorable members. Indeed, it is a great pleasure for me to be here today to present to you the opinion of the court on the common agricultural policy and on the common market organization, not only because of the importance of the subject, but also because it is the first time that I will present an ECA product in this committee, and I am very happy to do that. The envisaged reform represents a far-reaching structural change. We looked at whether the proposed provisions make the policy simple to implement for beneficiaries, whether they preserve the elements of commonality of the common agricultural policy, and whether they also ensure accountability and transparency.
As you know, the CAP is proposed as a part of the European Fund, on which we published a separate opinion earlier. This marks, though, the first time since the CAP was founded in 1962 that the EU will have no specific fund for agriculture; it is part of another regulation except the CAP regulation itself. And I want to be very clear that this is a substantial change to the way the agricultural policy will be funded. A second major change concerns the increased flexibility granted to member states. Here, we see both advantages and disadvantages.
On the positive side, the proposal provides member states with a common toolkit of interventions from which to build their plans, and member states are given flexibility to design those plans to address the challenges they face, including tailoring them to the farmers' needs and territorial constraints. However, this also creates a risk of losing the common character of the policy. A significant divergence among member states may hamper the alignment of CAP spending with EU priorities and lead to distortion of competition and an uneven playing field. This is where I think Parliament could play a key role in clarifying the scope and elements of the Commission's role in steering the process in the legislative exercise. This would ensure that member states' plans focus on CAPS objectives in a coherent manner.
Thirdly, with regard to direct payments to farmers, the Commission makes mandatory the principles of degressivity and differentiation, with the aim of providing more targeted support. A new governance structure is proposed at the level of the European fund by including a new coordinating body, while allowing member states to retain the existing bodies, such as the paying agencies. However, monitoring expenditure may create some uncertainty, particularly in terms of traceability. And these changes are not merely technical. They redefine how the cap will be financed, monitored, and controlled.
In examining the proposed provisions for the CAPP, we identified several important risks. First, the proposed legal architecture appears more complex than the current one. That said, we consider the simplification efforts at risk of being undermined by the fact that the CAP interventions are spread across several legislative proposals, and this may create confusion for national authorities, as well as for beneficiaries when they attempt to understand and implement the regulatory provisions. Even for us, for our auditors, this proved challenging. The 2025 interinstitutional accord between the presidents of Parliament, the Commission, and the Presidency of the Council to move certain articles from the European Fund regulation to the CAP regulation is welcomed by us and is considered a step in the right direction.
We believe that moving other relevant provisions with a view to further reinforcing the completeness and the common character of the policy would also be a good thing. We also observe the risk of fragmentation. Increased flexibility may lead to divergent approaches among member states, making it more difficult to preserve the truly common character of the policy. Furthermore, the timelines and funding conditions are not yet fully clarified. This may generate uncertainty for administrations as well as for beneficiaries.
At this stage, the overall level of CAP funding lacks clarity. As under the current proposal, it can only be determined after the adoption.
Speaker 41
National partnership plans. And our message here is very clear. More flexibility requires more clarity, greater transparency, and strengthened control mechanisms. We also draw attention to the implications for budget planning from the perspective of financial management, which is absolutely important and necessary. First, the approval process could become longer.
We now have an additional actor in the process, which is the council. This could potentially delay the effective start of the measures. Clarity on the allocation of funding is also essential. We will only find out what the planned cap spending is once the NRPPs have been adopted by the council. There, we will see what amount member states have dedicated to CAP from the non-ringfenced amount, but farmers and rural areas need predictability in order to plan and invest.
We also highlight the challenges related to monitoring European funds. A more integrated budgetary structure must not weaken the traceability of expenditures. The commission has proposed basing some CAP payments on the achievement of milestones and targets. However, the proposal is not clear about exactly which interventions are concerned. Moreover, we have expressed a clear position that simplification should not come at the cost of accountability, and funding needs to be traceable from the EU accounts down to the final beneficiaries, in particular when payments not linked to costs are applied.
Predictability is a key condition for the stability of the agricultural sector, and any reform must preserve this planning security. But in order not to be only negative, I also have a slide with some positive elements. And it's important to stress the opportunities that the proposal also holds. Maintaining the nature of the supportive activities contributes, we think, to the stability of the policy framework. An approach better tailored to national specificities can improve the effectiveness of interventions.
Also, maintaining the focus on performance could enhance the European added value provided that the indicators are clear, measurable, and comparable. And the challenge here is to ensure that these opportunities materialize without weakening coherence or financial accountability. So, with that, I will stop here, Madam Chair, and I'm looking forward to your comments and questions. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Madam Ivanova. Thank you for your very interesting presentation. And now, I would like to give the floor to Norbert Linz because he is a reporter. Norbert, you have 5 minutes, please. Thank you.
Norbert Lins
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Chair. Miss Ivanova from the ECA, thank you very much indeed for this report from the European Court of Auditors. I think it has come at the right point in time now that we have seen the beginning of the CAP negotiations. Let me just explain where we see the challenges in this new commission proposal, where you talked about the legal architecture, how the different funds link up, the political funds, how they're going to be brought together even though they are supposed to follow different implementation techniques and for different reasons. You said it's not going to lead to less complexity, but rather to more complexity. Might do it anyway.
Member states' challenge, therefore, is to look at the different targets and fulfill them from the same fund. You mentioned red tape cutting. Well, there are some implications for the Commission, apparently, but for member states, the regions, and the beneficiaries, specifically the farmers, we don't really see any cutting of red tape. You very clearly said that there is going to be more planning insecurity when it comes to the actual amount of money per member state, and we can only know that once the NLP plans have been decided. So we'll have the ring-fenced COP, but lots of the financing, we won't know what it will be or whether it will actually be available for farmers at the end of the day.
There's lots of room for an offer for member states. You know, so then we're not necessarily thinking about 7-year periods, but rather national annual budgetary restrictions. You talked about flexibility. You differentiated things there. On the one hand, you're positive when it comes to differing conditions in different places, different situations, and mistakes, but obviously, it also leads to unfair competition between farmers.
Monitoring and traceability: you mentioned these points, and I think it is difficult to monitor all of this. From the Budgetary Control Committee, we have heard from them. And so, more control possibilities from member states might be a risk, not necessarily just benefits. This may be one of the weaker points, so we'll have to identify them. And then, with the payments, we're not always clear on the targeted payments and where they will be used. Also, we will have to look at comparability and equal treatment.
So, you did provide a few ideas for solutions. You said that strengthening the CAP could be a chance, a possibility. You looked at the commonalities and the possible risks. We might be able to reduce them. In council, I think a similar discussion is ongoing.
The French proposal in the council, I think, has been supported by 20 member states. Do you think that would be a good solution here to maintain and strengthen comparability? You gave a few concrete examples where flexibility might lead to distortion in the market. But again, I'd like to say a hearty welcome to you. Thank you for this report from the ECA, and, you know, over the past couple of years, we were sometimes critical of the ECA reports we received.
Well, a majority, anyway, in this committee. But I would like to say thank you very much indeed. I think it's very useful, right at the beginning of the COP negotiations, to have this report. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Norbert. And now, I give the floor to Vice Chair Sergio Como, the CMO rapporteur. So, you have 5 minutes.
Eric Sargiacomo
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms. Ivanova and your colleagues, for the meticulous and painstaking work you've done on this proposal for the future CAP. It's important for us to have top expertise available so that we can improve the commission's initial proposal. Now, I am the rapporteur on the CMO regulation. And as such, I'm going to focus on the elements that relate to the CMO. In the annual report, you cover the four main issues that we are going to deal with, and I am going to go through those now.
Firstly, the school scheme. Now, this is an excellent program that has shown how important it is. Its obligatory inclusion in national plans is a step forward. It'll enable all member states, including those who are perhaps less virtuous, like France, to fully benefit from the potential of this tool. It'll mean that we can move forward with this tool, expand it, and ensure that we can adapt our tendering rules to favor local produce.
Now, moving on to sectoral interventions. I fully share the analysis given to us by the auditors. It's a good thing that provisions on producers' organizations are returning to the CMO. This is where they were prior to the 2021 reform. Let me take this opportunity to also say something about the transfer of articles from the European Fund Regulation to the CAP or the Common Markets Regulation.
I think everything relevant should move, and everything that relates to funding should be included in the national plans. But there are certain points that relate to sector interventions for fruit and vegetables. That doesn't work, as is the case for the wine industry. I think we have to look at the specific nature and the history of each sector. And I think having the funding managed at the national level, as is the case for wine production, is interesting as a tool.
It's also because, in member states, producers' organizations' involvement is low. However, this renationalization does mean that sectoral policies are at risk in the Commission proposal. There are some measures which are outside ring-fencing, and there is going to be obligatory national co-financing. Some of those involved are concerned that member states will, therefore, mobilize less funding for these sectors. So, I think we need to reflect on some kind of non-regression clause for these operational programs that are currently 100% funded by the European Union.
In any case, those in the sector are requesting reassurance on the continuity of these programs. And this brings me to strategic stocks, my third point. What has happened in recent days and the increase in gas prices once again show that having stocks available is the basis of independence and sovereignty. All member states have around 90 days' worth of oil stocks available, and it's a good thing that the Commission has put this idea of strategic food stocks on the table. I struggle to believe that these plans, however, should be optional, as the commission proposes, in particular because it seems that we should be mobilizing competitiveness funds to finance new storage infrastructure or the refurbishment of this infrastructure, particularly in France.
I am one of those who propose that a minimum of $20,000,000,000 should be established so that it can be spent on stock storage refurbishment. I would say that it's the lack of emergency stocks that creates distortions within the market, rather than the opposite. And now, this brings me to crisis management. As the Court of Auditors said, it's good that we distinguish market crises from natural disasters. And we have two different tools to respond to these situations.
I'll also share the auditors' view when they welcome the triggering of payments for natural disaster criteria, but they regret that there are no triggers for payments for market issues at this stage. So, we need an ex ante strategy when it comes to crisis management, set out by the European Commission. For every sector, we need a handbook. We need to reflect on the kinds of crises that are possible and the tools we need to deal with them. There's no silver bullet here.
We really need to reflect upstream on the links between the different tools we have available. To conclude, let me say that we're talking about simplification here, but we have nevertheless entered into a procedure that is incredibly complex, and it is going to multiply the concerns and uncertainties of the co-legislators and those involved in the various sectors. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you. And now, Shadows. First, I have EPP, Shadows CMO, Daniel Bouda. Please.
You have 2 minutes.
Thank you.
Daniel Buda
You, chair. Thank you, ECA, for the presentation. Colleagues, as already said in this house, we're usually critical towards the ECA, but a big thank you this time around because, once again, they confirm what we've been repeating in this house: that we do need a CAP that's predictable for the farmers. Sadly, the European Commission has completely ignored our request. And I would like to send a message to the European Commission.
There are financial constraints, the financial dimensions that we can understand, but we cannot understand the lack of predictability. And when the ECA, which is supposed to go and check how the funds are spent, says that they won't be able to do so. Now, what happens with the final users who will be responsible for putting these into practice? There will be a decommitment of these funds because farmers will not want to invest. They won't resort to these funds because they don't want to take risks.
If predictability is missing, then a sort of freedom is missing. So, predictability is key. Now, why do we need this predictability again? Now, in terms of the CMO about the school vegetable scheme, you want co-funding of 30%. Some member states won't be able to do so, so there will be challenges because the member states won't be able to fund these school schemes, which defeats the communality of the CAP.
Now we see that we're going through a serious and deep crisis, and we're being a bit superficial when it comes to the Middle East conflict. What will happen if tomorrow farmers don't have the gas to plant their seeds? So there will be a lack of food downstream. So, this is why predictability is so key.
Raffaele Stancanelli
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the representative of the Court of Auditors. Thank you for your work. Now I have read the opinion very carefully, and I have noted a few things based on the presentation that we have been given. So, let me go by headings. The court has looked at some critical points: the elimination of a dedicated CAP fund and then overcoming the move away from the traditional two-pillar structure.
Structure. Now, this and other changes, according to the court, mean there will be less predictability in overall funding, more dependency on national decision-making, a reduction in the visibility of resources intended for the CAP, and potential delays in payments for farmers. So, I think you can see the terrible situation that's coming. I mean, the court has shown us that in their technical report. So, moving on, the court has also said that the new mechanisms can lengthen approval times.
B. Delays in plans may lead to delays in payments. Thirdly, greater traceability will cause problems for member states, or trying to ensure traceability will be problematic for member states. So, there are going to be major issues for farmers. Now, on financial predictability and the substitution of expenditure, the court says that this threshold of 25% of resources reduces the possibility for long-term investment. And obviously, you'll be aware of what that means for the farmers.
Now, this discretion given to member states may well lead to disparities in support provided, increases in differences between farmers, and may well move away from the traditional nature of the CAP. So let me, I haven't got much time. But in light of this Court of Justice opinion, should the Commission not accept what we've been saying in this committee for about a year? We should have a different CAP than the one being proposed because it goes against the interests of European farmers. Thank you.
Valérie Deloge
Thank you, colleagues. Well, the opinion from the Court of Auditors on the future of the CAP should cause us concern because there are legal and technical terms used, but there is a simple issue behind them. How can we ensure clear, fair, and effective support for our farmers? The European Commission is presenting its reform as a simplification, but the Court of Auditors is telling us exactly the opposite. The risk is that the system will become more complex, more uncertain, and more difficult to monitor.
First and foremost, the reduction in the CAP is utterly unacceptable. Having a kind of package of budgets without clear plans means we are completely unaware of what is intended. I mean, farmers want to know how much they're going to get, under which conditions, and when. If this new organization delays or makes the payments more complicated, farms that are already struggling as a result of the increase in costs, climate problems, and international consequences are going to be even more affected. Another subject of concern relates to the flexibility that is being given to member states.
If each member state implements different rules, farmers will no longer be on a level playing field, which will produce unfair competition at the European level. The CAP is a common agricultural policy, and there need to be fair rules for everyone. And then, as I say, the amounts dedicated to agriculture won't be fully known until the approval of the national plan. So, there's a lack of visibility here. Simplification shouldn't mean less transparency and less control over public funding.
We need a clear, fair, and stable CAP that protects the revenues of those who feed us. That is what we should defend at all costs. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you very much. And both shadows from ECN are not there, so I take the floor instead of them. And I speak again. Czech.
Yeah.
Veronika Vrecionová
First of all, I would like to thank the Court of Auditors and Madam Ivanova for the work you have done. Control of public money is absolutely essential, and it is doubly more so in the case of agriculture because it represents a major amount in the European budget. Farmers need clear rules for clear support so that they know where the money goes or flows. That is why such audits are so important. I have a few questions.
The new CAP promises to eliminate bureaucracy. Do you think that this new model will bring a simplification of administration for the farmers and will allow for full traceability of European money to the final beneficiary? We have long spoken about European agricultural subsidies. Based on your findings, can the capping and degressivity stop the problem of the money staying with the big holdings and the connection of different companies? This may be a problem in certain countries. Can we trace the connections between different companies?
And can we find the final beneficiary? Thank you.
Barry Cowen
Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the Court of Auditors for this report here today. I think, you know, I, among others, have been critical enough already about the Commission's handling of the budget allocation and the new CAP proposals, not to mention how they didn't even wait for the Parliament to complete its own initiative report on the next CAP before publishing their own proposals. And look, there is no doubt that there are elements of the new framework that are obviously very difficult to accept. But I also think we have the power to build on this proposal and correct some of the fundamental issues. And we can start, for example, by transferring the articles relevant to agriculture from the NRPP into the CAP.
So those issues, for example, such as the definition of eligible hectares or active farmers, are handled by those with the appropriate agricultural expertise rather than officials, maybe in finance ministries. To deal with the report, one of its main criticisms is that increased flexibility in the next CAP could create more divergence between member states in terms of how they fund farmers. But I would contend that the cap has never been truly uniform. And flexibility, of course, allows us to adjust policies to the national realities in member states. This is critically important, and we need to avoid what would otherwise be a one-size-fits-all approach.
But it cannot come at the expense of the common framework that keeps Europe's farmers competing on equal terms. And that's why we need, you know, a well-financed, ring-fenced budget that allows commonality and is not dependent on the financial ability, political will, or whim of governments to support farm families. Thank you.
Jérémy Decerle
You, Madam Chair. And I'd like to thank the Court of Auditors for having looked at this proposed future CAP. I mean, there are positive elements, I think, in all of this: the new digressivity and the crisis preparation, but that's not saying very much when you compare it to the negative points here. My colleagues have mentioned many of these. In the Court of Auditors report, it says that all the value added to the CAP will depend on what member states do, and that's not certain.
We can't have that. Because, in other words, that means that we're going to be moving towards 27 different and diverging policies, whereas the CAP was created... It was created as a common agricultural policy and as a tool to strategically boost Europe. Renationalizing does away with predictability for farmers, but it weakens Europe geopolitically too, and that's unjustifiable. We can't have that.
There's not even any guarantee of simplification, as your report clearly states. As Mr. Cowan says, I would also mention the absence of a definition of active farmers. Now, in a few minutes, the commission will probably once again explain to us how wonderful its proposal is. I hope that you have at least begun to understand that this draft is a poor one.
And here in the European Parliament, we are going to prepare a deep-rooted correction of your draft. Thank you.
In CAB, Shadow.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you, Chair. And first of all, a big thanks to the Court of Auditors. Your reports are always welcome, whether they support our position or not. And I can also build well on the intervention of colleague Linz. Yes, we fear renationalization.
We fear market distortion. We fear that monitoring, tracing, and controls are becoming really difficult. And the overwhelming amount of farmers, but also institutions, are honest and deal straight with the money. And we need to control mechanisms to make sure that fraud and misuse are detected and stopped because otherwise, they undermine the image of the whole sector. And also, the second pillar, that is something that we will miss.
Look, we have 2,600 leading regions. Leader projects are the projects that enable regional value chains and cooperation between farmers, processors, tourists, and direct marketing schemes. This is one of the very few instruments where the European Union is felt by local citizens, where citizens can participate in decision-making processes, and where the European Union becomes obvious, seen, and respected for what we do for the regions. And you really want to leave that to the national governments, whether they want to continue it or not. We need incentives for farmers and access to incentives for farmers if they want to go further when it comes to climate, animal welfare, and biodiversity.
Can we secure that from the European side? Well, if we leave it to national governments, we cannot secure it. So in this context, there are two possible solutions for that dilemma. Either we get back the whole CAP fund and the second pillar to make meaningful legislation that also builds on what we have been building in the last years, or we have decisive ring-fencing in the national and regional partnership plans that clearly ring-fence the money for the farms so farmers can plan, rely on the promises we are giving them, and are not dependent on one government or another that may decide in their favor or not. I hope you listen to what comes from here, Agricommittee.
We are very much aligned on the majority of these points. Thank you very much.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you very much, Chair. I have some questions for the ECA, and I would like to speak Italian.
I'd like to thank the court for its opinion, and I would like to reiterate that I agree with the comments made by our rapporteur, Mr. Jacobo, on strategic talks about stocks. But I do want to think about this, perhaps more generally. I mean, we should be using these tools not only to react to crises but also to restructure and stabilize markets and prevent crises, shouldn't we? Continuing to present this debate in terms of crisis management, from my point of view, risks boosting the idea that market instability in agricultural markets and fluctuating prices are the results of external factors.
They are not linked to market regulation, and that is not the case. And every time there's a crisis, we lose more and more farms. In this case, I mean, to improve European-level public spending, wouldn't it be better to talk about market regulation tools? So, measures to manage supply, which structurally stabilize prices, with a central role to be played by producers' organizations? Because a fair and stable price is what we farmers want, rather than subsidies, so that we can stay in business.
So, I mean, we could use subsidies to fund reactions to the climate crisis and mitigation measures. Now, there's a further issue with regard to the nationalization of all this. Aren't there going to be problems when it comes to competition in the internal market linked to the different financial capabilities of member states if it's the member states that decide on the level of payments? And the same goes for other interventions. We're going to generate competitive asymmetries.
I mean, wouldn't it be better to have minimum and maximum levels of national co-financing? Thank you.
Luke Ming Flanagan
When the farmers protested on Plas Luxe, I don't think their goal was what the first line of this report slide says, which was, for the first time since 1962, the cap will not have a dedicated fund. Two minutes to talk. I don't know if a minute of silence should be appropriate after that because, let's be honest, this is a disaster. We no longer have a dedicated capital fund. How the hell did we let this happen?
The farmers certainly were not protesting so that we could end up with no cap fund. I think everyone can agree with that. And if everyone can agree with that, then why the hell is this happening? Because we seem to be in a situation here where we used to have a say, and now we're told, "Well, everyone here disagrees with it," but still, it seems to be going ahead. And I don't think it says a lot about how this whole democratic institution works.
Another thing that we were told it was going to achieve, and we've been told this before, was simplification. And Phil Hogan, who has now been touted for a new job that will make him an even bigger millionaire, was the one who came out with that. And where is the simplification? Now we're talking about doing it again. Surely, if you're going to do something, you should deal with the amnesia of not remembering that you were going to do it before.
That would be kind of important. And when it comes to accountability and how this money is spent, I mean, the European Court of Auditors couldn't be any more damning. And while everyone on this committee is very supportive of giving money to agriculture, the whole parliament isn't, and one of the things that the parliament depends on is accountability. And if there's no accountability, it makes an argument to take even more money away from agriculture. And finally, in relation to the structure, we're now talking about potentially bringing a whole lot of articles back into the Agriculture Commission to decide on because they were taken out of it.
Can the commission please explain to us what the logic was behind taking away deciding types of intervention, specific requirements for CAP intervention, crisis payments for farmers, crop-specific payments for cotton? I could go on. Was there logic in taking it out of our competence and putting it into the competence of other people? What was the logic? Because I presume there must have been some logic. It doesn't sound very logical.
We're each paying logically. Can you explain what the logic was? Because, for me, I just cannot understand. Thank you. Thank you, Luke.
Anja Hazekamp
Yeah. Thank you very much.
Much indeed, chair. Thank you very much indeed to the European Court of Auditors. Thanks for the presentation. You check whether European money is being used properly, and obviously, this is important for our society. Obviously, this is also important for European taxpayers' money: to make sure it's not being used for polluting types of agriculture.
We do need to help farmers in Europe when it comes to transferring to a more sustainable system to make sure we are moving towards more plant-based farming. I think we can make a lot of progress when it comes to nature, climate, environment, and animals, but unfortunately, not much is said about this. You've said that you want support for the protein sector because we are dependent on imports. Every year, 150,000,000 tons of fodder go to waste. With the import of soy, I think we are co-responsible for specific problems like slavery, child labor, and violent groups carrying out these measures in other countries.
So, we need to have a ban on soy imports. Fodder is produced here, but it needs to be sustainable. We do need to make sure that, well, in Europe, two-thirds of cultivated land is for fodder feed. I think we need to use more for actual human food consumption. And when it comes to protein—plants, chickpeas, lupins, quinoa—we need to make sure they get the right support as well.
So, I'm very much looking forward to your answer. Thank you.
Arno Bausemer
Thank you. Well, there's a lot of talk today about the rule of law and, excuse me, the security of planning. And I think that farmers who are listening in will be wondering about the details. I mean, our colleague from the Court of Auditors did mention some of them, but it was in general terms. I mean, what I'm not hearing is the consequences of taking Ukraine into the European Union if that were to happen.
And so the consequences, what costs that might have, and how we'd fill the gaps if there were any, because that would mean there'd be even less money available for our farmers. They're working hard every day on their farms, and they get less and less security in terms of planning. And then a second point, which was mentioned by Mr. Panel, it is Mercosur. I mean, here again, the planning of security and rules is being called into question.
Citizens expect us to represent their interests. Farmers were demonstrating in January in Strasbourg, and they expect us to represent their interests as well. And they were successful to a certain extent when we said that we would send the Mercosur agreement to the Court of Justice for assessment. But these are things that the commission simply does not seem to worry about. The old parties call themselves democratic.
They think that they are the only democratic party. But what's the situation in terms of democracy in the European Union when citizens' demands and also the courts are simply ignored? I mean, we have a massive problem here. We really need to defend democracy and legality here in the European Parliament.
So, Yanov.
Stanislav Stoyanov
Thank you, Chair. Continuing with Bulgaria.
The form that the new CAP has been acquiring is a cause for serious concern. The European Court of Auditors is quite clear in its message. The reform risks weakening the common policy and its effectiveness. And I fully share the concerns relating to administrative complexity being shifted onto national systems, the lack of transparency regarding the distribution of funds, and, not least, the abolition of the two-pillar structure. And the farmers have warned us about all this, and more than once.
And the Court of Auditors' analysis is yet another confirmation of these concerns. The equal footing among Member States is being lost, and this threatens ineffectiveness and distortions. And in the context in which we live today, with rather volatile markets, farmers need stability and predictability. Moreover, the free trade agreements that will open up the market to imports that do not comply with our standards require safeguards, and the CAP used to provide them more or less. But what is in the pipeline now does not promise the certainty, income security, and stability for European farmers that would ensure they stay competitive worldwide.
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Much. And now, KGI. So, you have one minute each. And first is the colleague panel, Patriots.
Gilles Pennelle
Thank you very much, President. I listened very closely to the ECA opinion, and I agree with the first thing they said. This is really a turning point, the first time since 1962. We had the commission statement back in July, which was like a bomb in the agricultural sector. So, I really have a question.
Is agriculture still a priority for the European Commission? I would be tempted to say that isn't the case. They want to get rid of the centralization of the budget, reducing the budget and creating uncertainty and a lack of visibility. The commission is showing that agriculture is no longer a priority. And the largest agricultural fair in the world, which took place in Paris, where I didn't meet many ideologists but people who listen to farmers, and I heard the same news.
We're fed up with bad news from Brussels. We want visibility to create a future-oriented sector with the youth of today. The European Commission is abandoning agriculture, so the European Members of Parliament will have to protect farming and agriculture, and you can rely on our group to do our utmost.
André Franqueira Rodrigues
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, the Commission's proposal doesn't improve or simplify the lives of our farmers; quite the opposite. It is causing them problems, and it's the biggest problem they've faced in the last 60 years. I mean, there is greater complexity and more uncertainty. Those who live from agriculture will end up with less predictability and more instability. For ultra-outermost regions, such as the Azores where I come from, there are further instruments, and instruments such as POSE may also end up suffering.
So, we'll be less protected, and there will be more uncertainty. So my question is: in the experience of the Court of Auditors, does this new draft policy enable us to have clear rules, predictable financing, involvement from the regions, and ensure that funds reach farmers on time? Is that going to be possible or not?
Thank you.
Csaba Dömötör
Thank you very much. Thank you to the representative of the ECA for the report. Our concerns have been confirmed. This is the first time since 1962 that there has been no dedicated fund for the CAP. This is very clear.
The situation is even worse than we imagined. Why does this no longer have its own fund? It is no longer clear. The budget is also being decreased by 20%, and there is less room for maneuver for the farmers. So, there will be no additional funding for the sector.
And it also means that the Member States will not be able to move funding from one area to another. So, this reshaping of the funding possibilities will have a major negative impact. The situation remains very difficult, and our position will not change. There will be very unforeseeable consequences for this sector. Thank you very much.
Herbert Dorfmann
Thank you very much to the ECA and Mr. Ivanova is responsible for this report. There are a number of points criticized by the ECA, far more than the positive elements of this reform. And I agree with the content of the ECA report and the points made by the Court of Auditors. These are the points that we've discussed here again and again.
And here, it's not just about individual measures. We're dealing with fundamental issues. Will the policy indeed be compromised? No. Will the tasks be easily carried out?
No. Will it be more flexible? No. So, there is a whole series of substantive doubts raised by the ECA. And so my question to the commission is: what is the commission going to do?
Are they just going to shelve the report, pretend it didn't exist, or will they learn from the report and realize that some of the approaches they've chosen aren't going in the right direction? Thank you.
Maria Grapini
Thank you. I'll be very direct. I have 35 years of experience in the private economy, and I think reforms need to make things better. And this reform is destroying the single market. And the commission is saying that it wants to strengthen the single internal market.
But when we see this neutral report, not from the parliament but from the court of auditors, you might think they point out 10 risks; maybe there are more. And just one good thing: flexibility for member things. Bad things, one good thing. How can we believe that you want to reform things? Reforms are not meant to provide work to civil servants. Reforms are meant to make things better.
And I've asked this before: is the commission's proposal constitutional? Because we need to look at the treaty. We've had this Common Agricultural Policy since 1962. We have less money. You want to put it in the same basket.
And we don't know who spends what. What happens to traceability, simplification, and predictability? Everything is being destroyed by this proposal. I will never be able to vote in favor, not as the Vice President of IMCo, not in anger. But I am waiting for the commission to take our position and Eckers' position into account.
Thank you.
Very.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I'd like to thank the Court of Auditors. And I think the report shows what we have always said. I mean, a more complex mechanism, more complex architecture, less predictability, and a lack of stability for our farmers and also for member states. And that's why the CAP proposal from the Commission has failed in terms of simplification. We need a robust budget, a two-pillar structure, and separation between national and regional plans.
We can't turn the CAP into 27 different national policies. It's not the ministers of agriculture who should be dealing with the future of agriculture. The Court of Auditors' report is clear. Doing away with POSE and putting other funding into national plans reduces the complementarity of these tools and the rigor of their implementation. And the same goes with minimum co-financing for POSE, which goes between 15-70%.
I mean, it's currently 100% funded by the EU budget. So, we also need a proposal for small farmers within the CAP proposal. Outermost regions are now not going to be able to continue production in many cases, and that's unacceptable. Territorial cohesion, food security, etc., are important. We need a CAP and also a POSE that are complementary.
Thank you.
Earlier?
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the European Court of Auditors for the further report. Colleagues, it's hard not to be cynical listening to the findings of the Court of Auditors and then watching the response from the Commission. A lot of people in this room spent a lot of time last year working on our vision for the future of agriculture and policy. The commission came out and ignored us, absolutely ignored us, and published their own proposal even before our colleagues had finished doing it. Waste of time.
Veronika Vrecionová
I'm sorry. Could you slow down because of the interpreters, please? No problem.
Ciaran Mullooly
Sorry, dear. Now, in the aftermath of that, we had a major push towards simplification, and we tried to make sure things were not as complex as they were for farmers and for agriculture. And the European Court of Auditors tells us today that it is worse. It is going to be worse if they go ahead. They speak of the new governance system, the new governance structure, and the new coordinating bodies, and they make it very clear that they will cause difficulty, confusion, and delay.
Will the commission listen to this? Does the commission listen to anything? We ask that our Merxur trade agreement be considered by the European courts before they go forward. They ignored us last week. Ignored us again.
When are they going to listen? When are they going to go back to the basics, as we saw in the Common Agricultural Policy, rewarding our farmers for food production and supporting them in key areas of environmental schemes? It is hard to be positive. And I accept one thing: chair. Just one very brief point with regard to the EU school scheme.
I am a fan of the scheme, and I support the move towards local procurement. If it is properly funded, local food procurement is important. That's the game.
Thank you. Thank you. Céline, Imar ?
Thank you.
Céline Imart
Thank you very much, President. The EC opinion on the 2028-2034 pact is clear and unambiguous. The existence of three different regulations will make the situation more complicated and will reduce the visibility that farmers need. Where can we ensure that we have the P of policy and the C of common? There is a very difficult situation.
We need something that is not going to require a balancing act. But at the same time, we see that funding is being reduced for agriculture. National jet management of a policy, which is disappearing, is becoming more complicated because we're moving towards three regulations. They are saying that the commission will need to fully carry out its piloting role to prevent weakening the CAP. In such a situation, I'm not sure if this question can really be answered, but I would like to know how the situation can be improved, in the European Court of Auditors' view, to limit the damage to the joint, common part of the Common Agricultural Policy?
And if the commission continues with this renationalization ideology, what impact will this have? Thank you.
Thank you.
Cristina Maestre
Thank you very much. The ECA is telling us that we are correct. The world is being turned upside down. Farmers today are very worried about the effect of what's happening in the Middle East and the oil price increases. Now, this wasn't known when this proposal was being made, but we knew that there was a lot of tension across the world: commercial tension, climate change, and so on, as well as what we've learned from the war in Ukraine.
However, instead of strengthening the farming sector, the Commission is reducing funding, and this is changing the model. All the speakers and members of the Committee on Agriculture have said this. So, my question to the commission is: well, what is happening? We cannot allow a situation where this proposal is maintained. The ECA is saying this.
It's unfair. It's going to create inequality, and it isn't strengthening the sector. We must not forget the mission of modernizing the situation. We're no longer talking about competitiveness; young farmers are abandoning the possibility of continuing farming. They're not talking about the rural areas, which are part of the second pillar.
And nor are they talking about investing in and supporting the agricultural sector. So, what is the commission thinking? As the situation is today in the world, we need to ensure access to food, and perhaps the Commission should just withdraw its proposal. Thank you, President. From what we've heard from the council, it seems that there are two priorities in the current, complicated world situation.
Speaker 77
There is an increase in free trade and the extension of the European Union. The situation in Ukraine will definitely lead to a lowering of our agricultural prices and greater volatility. Do you think, in this context, it is appropriate to talk about a stabilization of price visibility in the next generation, while at the same time the ECA is unambiguous in saying that the budgets are decreasing and there will be renationalization, which will lead to distortion of competition and a more difficult situation? Thank you.
Daniel Buda
Very briefly, colleagues. Farmers are watching us this morning, and I just got a question from the farmers in Romania. What is the situation regarding capping subsidies? Many farmers have loans for five or seven years, and banks are already asking them what happened with the predictability of the future amount. Will they have access to these funds, or do the loans need to mature earlier?
Then don't forget about perceptions that the logic is not correct. We create challenges for farmers. Capping will lead to many large farmers shutting down. So, what is the effectiveness of the European money? These farmers have used the European money, and they may go under tomorrow.
So, was the investment from the EU into those farms a profitable one? I would say no because they will go under.
Veronika Vrecionová
Of this, KGI. And I would like to give the floor back to Madam Iriana Ivanova. And you have just eight minutes for your answers and replies. Thank you, madam, you have the floor.
Speaker 41
Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will try to answer all the questions in 8 minutes. And thank you really for the great interest and also for the depth of your questions and reflections. And let me start by sharing something with you based on the experience of the past couple of days, ever since the publication of the opinion.
We presented it a few days ago in a joint meeting between Baj, Reggie, and the AGRI committee. I was in the French Senate a couple of days ago. Next week, I am in the Luxembourgish Parliament. And here now, I rarely happen to see such a reaction and such unanimity in the skepticism that you express, which is also in line with the tone of the opinion, but this doesn't happen very often. So, that does tell us something: probably something is wrong and needs to be changed.
And I will start in the order of the questions. We'll try to answer them all, Madam Chair, but we'll also group some of them because they were similar. First, with the rapporteur Herlintz, you raised the first main issue in relation to simplification and complexity. And is it really cutting the red tape? Is the simplification just for the commission or also for the beneficiaries?
Now let me first address the issue of the allocation and the amounts. Although we are not supposed to pronounce ourselves on the amounts, it was very difficult to compare the current situation and the current availabilities with what is being proposed because they are just not comparable. What we know now is the $293,000,000,000 ring-fenced amount. We know there is a 10% rural target from the non-ring-fenced amount, which is about 48,000,000,000. And then we know there is some contingent availability from the flexibility money from the non-ring-fenced part, which is about €45,000,000,000. But how could you compare that when you would know the total amount only when each and every member state has approved and adopted their NRPP, their national plan, because the cap is not standalone anymore?
It is part of something bigger, which is the adoption of the national plan. So first, that is certainly not helping for certainty. Second, the predictability that many of you spoke about is difficult to confirm because you also have additional actors in the play. Now you have the council, which has to adopt by a council decision, not as before through commission decisions. The agricultural plans were adopted.
Now, you have to have a council decision, so that may further delay the process. You also have new actors at other levels, such as the introduction of the coordinating bodies. Some of you mentioned that. Until now, we have a very well-established system of how the paying agencies work, and they do a good job in that. But with the introduction of the coordinating body, that may add another administrative layer and additional complexity.
So, when you put the question like that, "For whom is the simplification?" well, it depends on your viewpoint. If you count just the number of programs that have been reduced, yes, they may be fewer. But is the life of the beneficiary easier? I'm not so sure because now you have all the articles scattered across different regulations. Before, you knew where to look.
Now, you have them in different places. For some of them, it makes sense. But for others, as many of you mentioned, especially those specifically related to agricultural matters, they should be in the CAP regulation. And that is why we welcomed the idea, the proposal of transferring, for instance, the definition of active farmer back into the CAP regulation, because we think it is a good thing. It would add coherence and comprehensibility.
We also think it would be a good thing to transfer further articles related, for instance, to the control systems of farm stewardship in relation to climate measures, and also to articles related to the integrated administrative control system, the so-called IX. This is related only to agriculture. Why does it need to be in the fund? Because it doesn't concern anything else. So these two examples, because there was a question: what could be done concretely?
These are two examples of what could be done concretely to transfer articles. Then, the second big issue you mentioned was the flexibility versus the commonality. And along the discussion, it was challenged in the way that it's not necessarily a bad thing, and I never said that flexibility is a bad thing. It has its positives. Obviously, you cannot tackle forest fires or floods the same way in southern countries as you do in Scandinavia.
Obviously, you'd need a tailored approach. So this is the merit we acknowledge, and we see the logic in that. But let me give you another example. Imagine if too much discretion is given. If you have two big apple producers in two similar member states, until now, if member state A producers receive, let's say, the minimum 30% support from this new proposal, and the second member state B receives 60% support, how do you think that will be reflected in the final price?
And how do you think that would impact the level playing field and the competition in the internal market? Obviously, the ones that could afford lower prices would flood the market, and that would distort it. So, this is a very simplistic example, but I think it is a good illustration of why we flag this as a risk. And that is why we point out the importance of the strengthened steering role of the Commission, because in the current framework, the CAP recommendation did not have such binding power. With this new proposal, the role of the commission is truly strengthened.
But what is missing in the regulation is a clear definition of the scope and the basis of these recommendations that the commission will make, because there has to be a mechanism to control and steer that process. And if it is not clear on what basis you will make this recommendation, well, I'm afraid it is just goodwill, a good wish. But let's see how that will materialize. So, that on flexibility versus commonality. Then the rapporteur on the CMO, Mister Sergio Como, thank you for the comments. Indeed, we have an agreement on the EU school scheme.
We also see it as a positive thing to facilitate the reuse of funds in the event of low absorption, and it may be difficult for member states to maintain the same level of funding in the absence of dedicated EU funding. So, it's good what the proposal is doing. Also, on the sectorial interventions, the commission proposes that provisions on support for interventions in certain sectors should be reintegrated, which we were proposing as well. So, on that positive note, I can agree. But you also mentioned the non-ring-fenced activities that, in a way, will be in competition with all the other things that are there.
You have cohesion and policy there. You have defense. You have other activities that, as we mentioned in the other opinion, are dedicated to fund regulation. Everything that is in the non-ring fenced part will be competing. This is a very important point and a significant risk that we have to highlight. And then, on crisis management, we also agree that distinguishing between market crises and natural disasters is a good thing, and we share the same view.
Then, on the allocation again within member states and the comparison, it is not even clear what the allocation will be within a member state because it is left fully at the discretion of the countries. So, comparison is virtually impossible. The EU added value, as one of you mentioned, will predominantly depend on the discretion of the member states and how they want to exercise their flexibility. This is what the EU's added value will depend on. Of course, that's why we say the role of the commission is so important because if you look at, for instance, the climate measures, the agroenvironmental, the eco schemes, which are combined now, which is a good thing, there, you have to have some tool to guarantee that the EU objectives will be met because you move from conditionality to incentivization now to voluntary activities on behalf of the member states, left to their discretion.
So, how will the Commission ensure that the EU objectives are followed and met? That is why it really needs a good strengthening and steering role, to make sure that these objectives are not forgotten. Then, another colleague mentioned the elimination of the two-pillar structure. Is it really so crucial? I wouldn't say whether you have one, two, or three pillars is the thing.
That is not the problem. The problem, as you said, is the predictability and certainty that the farmers need. And right now, no one knows how much money will be available. There is an estimate. There is a good guess.
I think.
It's a very important discussion for us.
Speaker 41
I finish with the climate and then how the situation can be improved because I think we have to be constructive as well. I mean, we are here not only to criticize its Court of Auditors, but also to offer some solutions. So, the first thing that I mentioned is the transfer of articles, given the situation we're in. We're in the middle of the process. The transfer of articles is a good thing.
We recommend further transferring the control systems on farm stewardship and on the IACs, and really looking at strengthening the role of the commission and the scope and basis of their recommendation. It's in the regulation now, but it is not clear enough and not strong enough. And I stop here, and thank you very much, Madam Chair, for your patience.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much, madam. And we are also now very interested in the reaction of the Commission, so, Madam Elizabeth Werner. You have 5 minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, and I value the possibility of exchanging on this report this morning. I would also like to thank Mrs. Ivanova and her colleagues also formed the opinion that they have produced. Let me start a little with the logic of these proposals. Please remember that today, we have 3 main regulations governing the Common Agricultural Policy. We have one regulation on the strategic plan.
We have the one on financing and monitoring, and we have the common market organization. In the commission's logic, we would, in the future, have the NFP regulation, which should be all about financing and control conditions. We should have the CIP regulation, which would be about the policy, and we continue to have the CMO regulation with some adjustments between the two, as outlined. So, our logic. I would like, if you allow me, to approach three points: the commonality, the predictability, the complexity, and then the commission's reaction to all of this.
On the commonality, first. With the new MFF, it is true that member states have flexibility, but we have safeguards. We have a list of common objectives. We will also have CAP country recommendations from the Commission to the member states to steer the alignment of the plans with these objectives. We have robust objectives in the CAP.
We have policy requirements. We have strong common rules, such as, for example, on farm stewardships, on the conditions, and on the control systems. And that is what, in our view, will ensure that, while the plans are tailored to the member states' needs, they meet the common EU objectives. I also want to say that the most important interventions continue to be 100% EU-financed. That is also a strong guarantee of commonality.
The commission will thoroughly assess the plans before making a proposal for the council to adopt them, and that should also contribute to ensuring a level playing field. And I think the court also recognizes these interventions and the governance here. On predictability, this is mostly about the budget and the discussion. And I think it's actually entirely normal that when you are in the midst of negotiations, you don't know exactly what the final outcome will be. But the moment the plans are ready, there will be absolute clarity for the period of the MFF for the seven years about what the farmers will expect and how much will go to which interventions.
And I would actually claim that this is exactly how we have it now in the CAP strategic plans. Before the plans were done, of course, the farmer didn't know exactly how much would be available for each type of activity. So, I see quite a lot of continuity there, also in the planning. And continuity, based on the current plans, would actually, from our point of view, be a very good option because the plans are functioning, and all the interventions that are possible today will continue to be possible in the future CAP. Now, on the complexity.
The complexity, first of all, I want to say, on the budget, it was very important for us that we have ring-fencing. Ring-fencing those measures that are directly income-relevant for the farmers. And I would urge you to please acknowledge that in the CAP, there are plenty of exceptions to the general NRP rules precisely to recognize the specificities. For example, the payments will be made based on the outputs. We will continue with the management and control framework that we have today.
That has been one of our priorities, and that should also be a reassurance for you on the accountability side. The targets and milestones will apply to only a small number of CAP interventions. I would also like to weigh in on the question of whether there is simplification for the farmers. And I would also like to refer back to the last slide, Mrs. Ivanova has shown in her presentation that there is a recognition that we have a lot more simplified cost options.
We have lump sums. This should reduce the burden on farmers. We also have fewer reporting requirements. We have the stewardship that effectively does away with the GARICs, and we have no more entitlements. We recognize certain practices, such as organic, as being equivalent and therefore automatically compliant. This should all contribute to ultimately bringing simplification.
We also, I would like to say, have clear deadlines for the adoption of the plans, which we think also brings predictability. I do recognize, of course, that the timing is very tight and that this will be an issue. Finally, what is the commission doing now? I would like to say yes, we have listened to the reactions to this. There have been two letters, as you know, from the president concerning the amounts, as was explained by Mrs.
Ivanova, but mostly, it is really concerning the transfer of a significant number of articles from the NRP into the CAP regulation. This approach has been welcomed and further reinforced. This is important for the identity of the CAP and a strong legal framework, and it addresses, in particular, the questions of the definition of farmers, with the idea in the commission's proposal, in the letter, also to have a definition of active farmer in the CIP regulation. I would like to make one last point, also driven by geopolitical developments in the Middle East, on crisis preparedness. And I'm looking at our CMO, Rapporteur, Mr.
Szczakomo. The crisis preparedness should be much stronger, both in the CAP and in the CMO regulation. We need to anticipate much more. We need to make sure we have adaptation being put into the plans. And I think it's also very important to have security plans and food stocks prepared.
The commission is monitoring very closely the situation and what this means also for the agri-food sector. Right now, we see the biggest threat as the surge in energy prices, which quickly reflects via fertilizers into the total costs for the farmers. And there is a real worry that this will then be passed through and, of course, also lead to food price inflation. So, we're watching this with concern. Finally, if you'll allow me, I would like to pick up on the example given by Miss Ivanova on the apples.
To recall, the majority of our CAP support is actually not linked to the produced output. We're not paying per apple produced. And already today, we have farmers working under very different conditions because there are different land prices, different labor prices, and different taxation issues. So, if there is one thing that we really want to say, it is that we have a steadfast commitment to a CAP that is common, simple, flexible, and more targeted to make sure that we have competitive, sustainable, and resilient farming sectors and rural areas all across the EU, in a system that works for every one of our territories and regions. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you very much, madam. And, just now, I give the floor again to Norbert Lenz. Please, you have 5 minutes.
Norbert Lins
Thank you very much. I don't think I'll need 5 minutes. I think today we've seen that our criticism over the past few months has been confirmed in the reports of the ECA. We see that there are lots of elements in the new commission proposal that we'll have to question. I think there's a lot of work to be done when it comes to the CAP report, similar to what will happen with the CMO.
And even though we can completely ignore what happens in the council, you know, formally, we are co-legislators and we can come up with our own mandate here. Still, discussions will be ongoing in parallel. So, in the Council and Parliament, you know, this is a very highly political text, even though we're talking about technicalities. We will have to make quite a number of substantial changes and make sure that it remains a CAP. We're not playing games here, in institutions. We must always remember that we're talking about farmers, their families, their businesses, and the farming sector in the EU.
We're talking about rural areas that are all important to all of us. And, basically, we're talking about making sure we're on the same hymn sheet and how that all feeds into an MFF. And therefore, we shouldn't be shunting things off into other new sections. When it comes to all the discussions, come up with new conditions. I think it's the same for CAP and regional policy.
I don't think anybody is calling that into question here. Saying we need a revolution in these very important policy areas, well, I can say that we do need the majority. So the request from us to the commission, and from this ECA, I think, is: don't ignore us. Colleagues have expressed their concerns. Please take them seriously.
What's been said here in Parliament, but also, I think, in the Council, the farming ministers. We do need to look at cooperation, how that will be created over the next few months, so that at the end of the day, we have a proposal that allows us to move forward. That means there are no mutual blockages, that we have a common understanding, and that we can move onwards and upwards. Again, we have to do that or attempt to do that together. I'll leave things there. Thank you.
Eric Sargiacomo
I'll be extremely brief. Norbert Linz has already said quite a lot. We do need to work together. Whether we're talking about the CAP or the CMO, these are two pieces of an increasingly complicated jigsaw puzzle. There are certain objectives that relate to the functioning of the EU, and therefore, through a budgetary roadmap with the objectives, I...
Less money into a key policy area, we can't, through that, change the main objectives of the treaties. We've talked about the CAP. We've talked about the pose. What about cohesion? That's indirectly linked to all of this, especially when it comes to developing rural areas.
So, we can't just stay with the Commission proposal as it is. Obviously, work will be done with the colegislator council, and I presume we'll have a lot of meetings to discuss all of this. There will be differing opinions coming in, but maybe send us what we have said today. I think each and every one of us has to listen to what farmers are asking for. You know, they want efficiency in the CAP.
They want things to be simple, simple for them and for the beneficiaries. Just to remind you, article 39 aims at that. Obviously, you have farming production. We have farming incomes, but also access to health and food. So, you have to look at that as a whole.
And, obviously, we need a specific tool within the budget, as it is within the treaty. So, work in progress.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you, our colleagues. So, we are at the end. Thank you also, Madam Ivanova. Thank you also, Madam Werner.
But I think that, in the end, all doubts and concerns expressed by our committee, as well as those published by the Court of Auditors, are still on the table. So I'm looking forward to our next discussion. Thank you very much, colleagues. And let me know where it is. Oh, here.
It's here. I have one piece of information for you. As announced by email on Monday, the point of consideration of amendments to the competitiveness fund is moved to our next agreed meeting. So thank you very much, and I just opened another business. I don't see any colleagues.
And in this case, I have the latest information. The date of our next meeting will be 18-19 March in Brussels and August, also in Brussels. Have a nice rest of the day, and bon appétit. Bye.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.