Committee on 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
DEVE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
And as I promised, I have a list of substitutes.
Do I? So. I don't know if the substitutes are here. We'll find out. I was informed that Reinhold Lopatka will be substituted by Norbert Linz. Is it the case? There, I see Norbert.
Okay. Then Terry Mariani will be replaced by Mireya Borjas Pabon. Yep. It's a case. Welcome.
Then I see that Charles Gerence will be a substitute for Valerie Devaugh. No. He's here. He's here. Arthur, you're not here.
Speaker 1
So, Valerie is also here. No. She's not here. Okay. So Charles will be voting.
Yeah.
So we can cross that out. Yeah.
Yeah.
Speaker 1
Eric is here. He's here. Yes. Yeah. Welcome, Eric.
And then, yes. Question mark. I have a question mark. Okay. So you Damian Karmay is substituting, replacing.
Yeah.
Speaker 1
Are you replacing Mimo Lucano or Isabel Serra Sanchez? Because, yeah. You know? In my information, you are double soul. You have two souls. Here representing.
Yeah.
That's what we have, then. Yeah.
Speaker 2
We are happy with the substitutes? Thank you very much for the overview. I highly appreciate that members take the time to substitute if they can't vote. That's a wonderful parliamentary attitude. Very good mentality.
Speaker 1
Hey. Let's go then. Thank you very much, Lucas. Thank you very much, colleagues. We go to point number four, your strategy to face the new terrorist against democracy, and we will now vote on the dev opinion on the EU strategy to face the new terrorist against democracy.
I will briefly give the floor to Marco Tarkino to say a few words about his opinion. He's the rapporteur. Marco, the floor is yours.
Yes.
In Italian, thank you very much, chairman.
Speaker 4
Well, very briefly, no time is too short. But I just would like to thank my colleagues and the shadow reporters and also the work conducted by our office. I think that our contribution will be useful for this file. It's a complex one. And I think that our colleagues from Africa will be very happy to get our input from this. Again, thanks to everyone.
Speaker 1
Yes, thank you, Mr. Torqueno. Thank you for all the work that you have conducted here.
To vote, we will first check with the machines if there are votes if they are working. The question will be, do we miss our chair? Yes, no, or abstention? And it's public, so be careful.
Vote is open. Okay. We see the EPP voting. Hello? The vote is closed. And the result is well we almost missed the chair.
Nine misses or not. Seven abstained. Thank you very much. The machine is working. Okay.
Now we will go to the vote. Okay, colleagues. Are you ready? So, we start. Compromise amendment one, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. Well, we need to check. I open the vote.
Yeah. Open.
Speaker 1
I close the vote. And it's clearly adopted. Compromise amendment two, is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment three, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions adopted.
Amendment 119, who is in favor, who is against? Abstentions, we need to check. I opened the vote. I close the vote. And it's rejected. Compromise amendment four, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise amendment five, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment six, who is in favor, who is against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment seven, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment eight, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment nine, who is in favor, who is against? Abstentions adopted.
Compromise amendment 10, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment 11, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions adopted. Amendment number one, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions adopted. Amendment 50, who is in favor, who is against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment 12, who is in favor, who is against, abstentions adopted. Amendment three, who is in favor, who is against, abstentions adopted.
Amendment four, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions adopted. Amendment eight, who is in favor, who is against, abstentions. We check that. I open the vote. I close the vote.
It's rejected. Amendment number nine, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. Well, I need to check it. I opened the vote. I close the vote.
And it's clearly adopted. Amendment 53, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 60, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 57, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 54, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are adopted.
Amendment 58, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 59, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 65, who is against joking. Who is in favor? Just to cheer you up. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment 13, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions adopted.
Amendment 97, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. And the final vote is by roll-call vote. I open the vote. Which one? 97, we can check.
Of course, colleagues. I open the vote. 97. Amendment 97, we check, I close the vote.
Oh, yes.
Speaker 1
We just repeated. It's just defeated. I'm sorry. Thank you, colleagues. The final vote is by Roko vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. Missing colleagues. I close. I close the vote.
Close the vote. And it's adopted. Congratulations to our rapporteur.
Perfect.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much. Yes. Okay. Colleagues, we go now to the point number five, conclusion on behalf of the union on the implementation of the sustainable fisheries partnership agreement between the Union and the government of the Cook Islands.
Speaker 1
I will now pass the floor to Charles Garris, who is present today with us. If you want to say a few words, Charles.
Chair. I think we can go straight to the vote.
Speaker 1
We go to the vote. It's the roll call vote, and I open the vote. I closed the vote. And it's 14 in favor to against 2 abstentions. Congratulations to chairs. Thank you very much, colleagues, for voting.
Now we go to point number six, budget 2027, pilot projects and preparatory action for the pre-assessment by the commission, and we will be voting on the roll call vote on that. I open the vote. I close the vote.
And it's 14 in favor or against. No abstentions. And it's adopted. Thank you very much, colleagues working on that. File.
That's it. We end the point number six on the votes. We'll continue in one minute on point number seven. On humanitarian priorities and challenges. Thank you very much, colleagues.
Okay. Colleagues, we continue with point number seven. 2026, humanitarian priorities and challenges. I want to welcome Tom Fletcher, is the UN undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. To have you, Mister Fletcher, with us in these difficult times.
We are pleased to welcome you to the development committee for the second time since assuming your mandate to hold an important discussion on the 2026 humanitarian priorities and challenges.
The 2026 global humanitarian overview estimates that around 293,000,000 people worldwide are in need of humanitarian assistance. Yet the UN and its partners are planning to reach only 135,000,000 people, with just 87,000,000 of those considered the most urgent priorities.
Under the USD 33,000,000,000 appeal. Those figures illustrate both the scale of global needs and the difficult choices the multilateral humanitarian system is facing. As the humanitarian reset is now being rolled out, we look forward to hearing your views, Mr. Fletcher, on how the international humanitarian system can remain principled, needs-based, and as effective as possible in responding to those unprecedented levels of need.
As we are in the process of negotiating the next annual financial framework, we're keen to hear your recommendations on how, in your view, of course, the EU should shape its future humanitarian action.
To remain a credible and leading global donor and a key partner to the UN system. Without further ado, I will give now the floor to Mister Fletcher for your comments, and you have up to 10, 12 minutes for your intervention. And then I open the floor for my colleagues for a q and a session.
Mister Fletcher, nice to have you here. And the floor is yours.
Speaker 6
Well, thank you. Thank you so much, Vice Chair, and good morning, everyone.
It was a real privilege to be able to observe and not quite participate, but observe democracy in action at the moment when democracy is under attack in so many places, it's good to see a vibrant set of votes this morning.
And I've spoken on the way here to your chair. I can confirm he's just about alive and well in Lebanon at the moment. And charging around actively and having lots of adventures, which I'm sure you'll hear. All about.
So as the vice chair says, this is a very tough time to be a humanitarian. It's a very tough time actually to be a UN official. The values and the principles of Uganda terror in action and that the United Nations are under sustained, and deliberate attack. Some might even say vandalism. At the moment.
So I'll touch on what that means for our lifesaving work, what it means for the humanitarian reset that I briefed you on a year ago or so. And if you'll permit me, I'll also touch on the situation in the Middle East. In the light of the recent escalation since the end of February.
So firstly, in terms of the context, this isn't this is a time of brutality, of indifference, of anxiety, distraction, division. Polarization, and all of that makes our work much harder because it's civilians who pay the price. It's civilian infrastructure that gets hit first, it is, of course, the humanitarian that get hit first.
We have lost four colleagues in the last week alone in Lebanon and Syria and Sudan, but, of course, across all of the crises we work on, we're seeing that increase in attacks on civilians and on humanitarians.
90% of all drone attacks last year were against civilians. Not against armed combatants. And, of course, we're working in a period when we're not just overstretched, we're also under resourced.
I was a CEO of a business, I think you would have fired me by now. Because in the year that I've been coordinating the sector, we've lost about 45% of our funding. We've gone from a sector of maybe 50,000,000,000 or so to one I hope will get to maybe 25,000,000,000 this year, if we do well.
That's a huge setback. So alongside the reforms we're carrying out, which we started long before anyone dreamt of cutting our money, we're also having to downsize, reorganize the whole sector. All of the significant UN agencies, all the significant INGOs and NGOs are having to lay off a third or more of our colleagues. We're having to shut projects which we know are life-saving projects. It's a very tough context.
In the last year, in fact, since I saw you last, I've been in Gaza, Darfur. I've been on the front lines in Ukraine, Kupyansk, Pokrovsk, been in Goma. The DRC. I've been in Mandalay just after the earthquake. Driven across Syria after the fall of the Assad regime, causing southern Beirut and so many more of these frontline crises, most recently South Sudan up in Djongle, up in Isle State, where the fighting since I was there two weeks ago has now overwhelmed the communities that I was visiting.
In all those places, I'm meeting people who I know will probably die because of the cuts that I'm being forced to make. To our budgets. So in that context, I should underline a huge thank you to the EU and to your member states remaining a sustained, committed, generous, principled donor.
And I had encouraging meetings yesterday, with colleagues at ECHO and across the EU. I'll go from here to see Commissioner Lapi to thank her for that sustained commitment and generosity. The reset now is just over a year old. And the humanitarian reset was a reform program of the sector. From the humanitarian community.
It's not a reform that's imposed upon us. And it has four key elements. The first one is to defend our values and principles, defend international humanitarian law. A couple of years ago, this is the sort of thing that a UN person with a UN badge would come to a committee like this and say, and we would all nod and agree. But we wouldn't think that it was as vital as it is right now.
But it is absolutely vital that we are holding this line. Some years, we make progress on these issues, principles, and values. Some years, we just try and hold the line against a deluge of sustained attack on them, and that's where we are right now.
So I start with that defensive of our principles, values, and international law, the multilateral system. The second stage is, as the vice chair said, to prioritize much more clearly with the resources we have.
I hope that we will have the resources from the world to meet the needs of all 294,000,000 people who need it. This year, and we've laid that out in our global humanitarian overview in December.
But I also have to be realistic. Again, if I'm running a business, what business starts the year not knowing what money they actually have to respond to the challenges and the mission that they have ahead of them?
So I've set out, the sector has set out. Together, we've hyper prioritized our plan. It starts with reaching the 87,000,000 people severity four and five. In greatest need globally. We have a plan to reach them, which will cost $23,000,000,000, which is less than 1% of what the world will spend this year on guns and arms and defense. But we're determined that we will raise that money, and that we will achieve that mission.
We have new ways of measuring the outcomes to hold ourselves to account. And I can give you some good news that in January, we reached 7,000,000 people with life-saving support globally.
As a Humanitarian community, 7,000,000 people. That's the most important thing that's happened this year, by the way. It won't make the news. But saving 7,000,000 lives in one month is extraordinary, and we're determined to go on and do it again in February, March, April, May, and throughout the year. And I'll keep you updated on the progress of that work because you're such key funders and supporters of that effort.
It's thanks to your funding that happened. The next aspect of the reset is around delivering more efficiently. So we've spent the last year reforming the sector. We've almost halved the number of the clusters, the different coordination cells.
We're taking out the layers between the donor and the recipient. To make sure that we reduce the amount of tax on donor money as it goes through the system. And to the communities that we serve. And finally, we are pushing more authority and influence and money and power in the system to a local level.
In my experience, local communities have a much clearer idea than anyone of what they need. Education, immunization, food, shelter, water. I want to ensure that their in the room decisions are made about their future. And so we've reformed the country teams, to ensure they have more local representation. We've given more authority to our country teams and our humanitarian coordinators in the field. And we are ensuring that a higher proportion of funding goes to local organizations.
And in a period when we're all losing money, but I want to make sure that we have the scaffolding around the sector that protects those local organizations. This is a work in progress. We're building the plane as we fly it.
We've come a long way in a year. But we need your continued encouragement and pressure to pursue those reforms and make sure we are maximizing the impact of the funding that you give us.
To save as many lives as possible. I'll close and open up for questions by just saying briefly something about the situation in The Middle East. In the light of the escalation of the last two and a half weeks. And by the way, if the figures that congress are discussing are correct, then The US alone has already spent more money on this conflict in the last two and a half weeks than the $23,000,000,000 I need to save 87,000,000 lives.
This year. That's well, you can draw your own conclusions about the world's priorities. We're dealing with three circles of impact of this crisis. Firstly, on civilians. Including in Iran, and I'm in regular touch with Iranian authorities to see whether we need to scale up UN support inside Iran. We've launched a flash appeal on Lebanon, I've released $15,000,000 for the emergency fund for Lebanon.
I've just come from a conversation with our humanitarian coordinator in Beirut. We're also monitoring very carefully the impact of this crisis on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq. We have high existing levels of displacement.
Then you have a set of secondary consequences of this conflict. The rise in food prices, rise in energy prices, inflation, commodity prices, difficulty of getting fertilizers, energy, food through the straits, the difficulty of getting our humanitarian supplies through the straits. The disruption to our humanitarian flights, all of that makes our job much harder, reduces the number of lives we can save.
And so I'm pushing hard for us to get that humanitarian access, humanitarian convoys through the straits. And finally, you have an impact on the wider context of our work. This is again part of a sustained undermining of the international system and international law. And it distracts us from the many crucial crises that we're responding to. Which slipped further down the list.
Ukraine, South Sudan, DRC, Haiti, Myanmar, Yemen, and so on. And so there's a renewed effort needed to try to ensure that those crises get the attention that they deserve and that their people who are in such grave need deserve.
So this is a tough time, as I say, to be a humanitarian, to be representing the UN, but we are determined to meet this moment. And with your support and solidarity and partnership, we will do so.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Fletcher. I also believe we will. And with this, I open the floor for our distinguished members, dear colleagues, and of course, we start with our standing rapporteur for humanitarian aid, our committee standing rapporteur, Miss Leira Payne.
The floor is yours, Leira, for two or three minutes.
Speaker 7
Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you so much, Mister Fletcher, for being here again and for being also frank and honest. We really appreciate it. Let me now switch to Spanish.
Well, I'd like to begin by voicing the fact that I share your concerns when it comes to the humanitarian situation, which is coming to the fore in the Middle East, turning to Lebanon and other places in the Middle East concern us to a great extent.
And this is good for you to be here before the European Union, and that we voice our support for the UN system. What I'd like to put on the table here when it comes to this humanitarian crisis and, again, you've brought the facts to our knowledge here.
There are more crises than ever. The shortcomings in financing are worse than ever. And there's more weakness and violation of the world humanitarian system. With all this in mind, it's very important that we try to improve efficiency.
That's true. But it's also very important that we have diplomacy in the name of humanitarian efforts. Which is guided by humanitarian principles, and that this message gets across to the populations.
When it comes to delocalization, I think that is very important. We need to strengthen the local players in this context. I'd like to ask you on that point, how can we guarantee that the local actors indeed are going to play their fundamental role?
How will they get the aid to those who need it? Often, in many situations, these situations and populations are very precarious situations. And sometimes they're actually parties to some of the conflicts that are ongoing.
Another point, how can the EU play a greater role in deploying humanitarian aid to ensure that the principles of humanitarianism are being respected in this context, one where we see international law and the international humanitarian system as being undermined by the players and there were actually parties to these conflicts.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Merci, dear colleague. And with this, we start round with the coordinators, and we start with Lucas Mandel from the EPP. Lucas, the floor is yours.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, mister Fletcher, for visiting us and for sharing, I would say, a very academic overview, not politicized, but very clear. I just want to address one question since you're also acting as the Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, generally.
After U. S. A. ID cuts, which are a burden for humanity, I would say, what could be a next positive step? Is there an opportunity in your view that in the field of food security, the US can come back?
And can there be a, I would say, a transatlantic Euro-American approach to food security, since food security is maybe the less politicized, most clear approach of humanitarian aid. Of course, the World Food Program plays a crucial role. But generally, the umbrella of food security could be, let's say, the transatlantic revival of humanitarian aid? Is there, does it make sense to try to do this endeavor? Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Mandel. And now our coordinator from S and D, Udo Bullmann.
Udo Bullmann
Uda? Thank you very much, mister Fletcher, and please from our group and I think from the whole committee receive our gratefulness for what you are doing, what the colleagues are doing, and we really appreciate in these difficult times the attempts of saving lives and helping to most urgent needs.
The figures are striking that you presented to us today. Localization is one issue. The other issue is please let us know how far you are successful. It's not your fault, but how far you are successful in convincing the donors, the traditional as well as the new donors globally, those countries which have a democratic system, those countries have an affluent budget system.
To contribute to that. And, of course, I know that the UN is a difficult position, but on the other hand, we need your support to convince those people who can contribute. We would be interested in listening to you about your experiences on that.
Speaker 10
For your introduction. This was really important and would underline you are here with colleagues. We are here in the parliament fighting for the more much more efficient humanitarian action policy.
That's have to take into consideration. But really, I think it's if you see that two facts, yes, this is more than 300,000,000 people are around the world depend on the human assistance to survive. And meanwhile, the funding is decreasing.
I think we have to be careful about what's happened with the USA, clear. And, but also because the US, EU member states, the EU member states are traditional donors, are making our other, I would say, very nice form with other priorities. And at this difficult reality, we are facing the global crisis. In parallel, we are facing partly the crisis, a point of my view, the humanitarian aid system.
And how can we renew it as this is part of this discussion today and maybe after. And I am really highly interested to know about what is your really, I would say, vision about what can be done.
You mentioned Lebanon. I was the former Chief of Server for Election Observation in Lebanon. I'm highly interested how do you see that, what's going on today? Or yesterday evening, or yes, that is the second one, Lebanon.
And the third one is let me allow me to mention this, to mitigate human suffering, but not to address the root causes. But this is the problem of the humanitarian aid. How can we face the root causes? But all the time, the humanitarian aid had a fantastic work yourself as well. And your team is really fantastic at what they are doing around the globe.
But all, the what's about the humanitarian and prevention? This is a huge question about our credibility. Credibility of the humanitarian work. Do you see any kind of possibilities to make some progress on it? Thanks a lot.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, colleague. And the next one on my list is Charles Gerens from Renew.
Speaker 11
Yes. Thank you, Chair. Well, I'd like to put a question to Mr. Fletcher. On the role of the United States in the world humanitarian assistance system. Now about 60, 70 organizations have participation of the UN, but when you're taking over this task, what will they, well, will they be playing in this? Now in this council for peace, as it's called, whether it be a role reserved for Ocha.
Now one of our concerns here in Europe is to try to find an answer for the precarious and fragile states. Be it medium or long-term. Obviously, development, that's got to be key.
I think that when it comes to the United Nations, the thinking is much the same. How deeply involved are you in things like the UN Development Programme? And then also the UN Fund for populations.
Speaker 12
Could you tell us how that all fits together and how that's all managed and governed, your point of view. Well, thank you, colleague.
Speaker 1
Coordinators in the room. So with this, I give back the floor to Mister Fletcher for your comments, and then we continue Q and A. If you don't mind.
Perfect.
The floor is yours.
Speaker 6
Many thanks for such really important questions. So to Les' question, three issues here. Firstly, humanitarian diplomacy becomes more important than ever. A world that's pulling apart. And so a lot of my time is spent, for example, right now trying to negotiate that access through the Straits of Hormuz, talking to the Iranians and the Americans, and other players in the region.
Or discussing with the Sudanese parties that the SAF and the RSF. We get access to Al Fascia in Darfur or into the Cordifans to Dilling and other key locations, across Sudan. These are the sort of day-to-day conversations that we're having as part of that.
Humanity on diplomacy, local actors, I think three things that we can do. Firstly, to increase the percentage of our pooled funding that goes to local organizations. I've said I would like to get to 50%. The sector represented by the IASC is not quite at that number yet. I have to be ahead of the sector pushing, encouraging us along, but I also want to bring the sector with me as well, so we retain a kind of consensual approach to this. Secondly, we can give and ensure that local actors have a seat at the table.
Whether it's at the IASC principles or through the different country teams. Do always please make sure that you're discussing a crisis that you have an input from local experts, as well. And then the principle that we will be in our response local by default, international only when necessary. And that's a change of culture and mindset.
A sector which is currently international by default and local when we can. Finally, Len mentioned the principles and how the EU in particular can help us defend our principles and values.
Firstly, unearmarked multiyear funding, whether to pool funds or direct funding to humanitarian organizations, our frontline agencies, and NGOs, is the gold standard. And the more that donors focus on that kind of funding, the more agile and flexible we can be in saving as many lives as possible.
I think you know, there are some ways where we worry particularly about the direction that some of the member states are taking moves us slightly away from Amon. Principled approach.
So you know, I've spent a lot of time in Ukraine. I know the immense needs there, and we have a significant program in Ukraine. But many member states are politicizing our work by telling me to move money away from the Sahel and South Sudan and to Ukraine.
For political reasons. For European political reasons. And I can't accept a politicization of our work in that way. Our work has to be based on needs. And not politics.
I also have a challenge that many of the European ministers have to say, not the EU representatives who are excellent on this front. But many foreign ministers and development ministers across Europe are demanding more visibility for their contributions. They are saying give you this money, but we need to have a photo of our politicians standing next to the sack of grain or the medicine, or whatever. And that again, it undermines our values and independence. Many member states are demanding more tracking and accountability for our work.
Now this is really important because you need the guarantee that the money for which you're responsible is going where it needs to go. To save as many lives as possible.
But we're facing at the moment an increasingly overlapping set of requirements from different member states. We don't mind being held to account by the toughest possible guidelines and oversight. Ideally, we're not dealing with 48 different kinds of guidelines and oversight. Otherwise, we're tied up in bureaucracy, and it's heading a bit in that direction.
And finally, in terms of safeguarding the values and principles, please discourage member states from claiming that humanitarian funding is funding spent on asylum centers in their own countries. Or migration centers preventing migrants from getting to Europe, or money spent in capitals on expensive conferences. That is not humanitarian frontline work. Feeding people, getting medicine, shelter, water to them is frontline humanitarian work. So please help us push back against that politicization of our work.
Lucas and others mentioned the USAID cuts have been really key question this. So the US cuts were, I mean, brutal this time last year. And very sudden. You know, we suddenly had huge amounts, billions taken out of the sector. The US has started to come back into the sector, and food is a key part of this.
So at the December, they provided $2,000,000,000 to our humanitarian work across 18 different countries, which we're now starting to spend in Sudan, South Sudan, DRC, across many of these humanitarian situations. And a very significant proportion of that is for food. And, of course, for the amazing work, essential work of the WFP, who are our great allies in this work.
But you're right, Lucas, that I mean, the risk of famine is now growing, particularly because of the blockages to the Straits of Hormuz. So famine, for example, in Somalia, I fear is a real danger in the next 2 or 3 months. So that transatlantic effort to end famine would be very welcome.
Udo asked about other donors. So on the 23,000,000,000 target that I've set, which is only an initial target, we need much more, of course. I'm not dismissing the wider needs, we're starting here. On pledges, we're about a third of the way there.
In the first quarter of the year. So we're doing better than this time last year, which is encouraging. And a higher proportion of that money is hyper-prioritized. Against our life-saving work. Which is also encouraging.
So that's progress. But of course, we're still two thirds short of where we want to be. And to come back to my earlier analogy, you know, I'm trying to run a $23,000,000,000 plan, when I've only got 5,000,000,000 in the bank. And I don't know what other money is coming.
My way. So it's that constant uncertainty that I'm playing with. So we need to go out and encourage more funding from traditional partners. There is, we're told, more US money on the way, but I'll come on to that. And we're told there's more EU money on the way, and that is a hugely welcome more member state money on the way.
We have half 1,000,000,000 from the UAE. But I hope we'll have announcements from the Saudis and others in the region. We need to go out to the private sector. And raise more money from the private sector. We need the public.
As well to help fill the gap. As part of the 87,000,000 lives campaign, we're appealing for public funding to fill in where the states are not doing what they need to be doing.
Gorgie asked about the vision really for the next stage of the reset. At the moment, I think I give us a pass mark on reform. Six out of 10. In the last year. What we haven't done is the reimagination of the sector.
We're managing a moment when we're losing almost half our resources. We're under attack. Needs are going up. But we need more time and energy for reimagining what the sector looks like, as I hope we come through this period.
I imagine we'll be doing more direct multipurpose cash, be doing more work on the consequences to get ahead of climate change. Climate change hasn't gone away because of a few elections. We're dealing with more and more climates.
Disasters. Be doing more with data and innovation, be doing more to bring a movement of citizens behind our work, not just states, and we'll have to do work to make sure that the algorithm makes sure that artificial intelligence is humanitarian.
At the moment, artificial intelligence is being shaped by people who are not humanitarians. So the risk is it is even less humanitarian than humans, which makes my job, our jobs, much, much harder.
Lebanon, the needs are growing. We failed to get a convoy to the South a couple of days ago because of the security. Taking hits against our people, against our peacekeepers.
Really worrying. And I think I fear will get worse when you look at the very belligerent messages coming out of Israel right now. Some ministers are saying they will do Southern Beirut, to the Dahiyeh, to the South of Lebanon, to the Beqaa Valley. So very dangerous, I think it's really important that we note that the Lebanese government has said they're ready to talk to Israel.
This, you know, is a real step forward. That we could have a real shift in the way Lebanon and Israel interact. And root causes, agree completely. We've gotta do more on root causes.
Only emergency guy. I'm like the fire service, the ambulance service. And increasingly, I'm also being asked to put the fire out and work out why the fire started. It's difficult and I'm being asked to do that with half the money. So we do need more people thinking about the root causes and working on them.
Finally, Shaul, very briefly, on the US role, I do a lot of work with the peace and voice, Masab Bulos, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, so on, which is important to the humanitarian diplomacy that Lair mentioned.
At the moment, my big conversation with the US is my concern over something they call protecting human flourishing and foreign assistance. Which are new conditions that they're putting on future aid allocations, the old aid allocation we got in December, but potential future allocations. These are conditions that we can't accept. They would constrain our principles, and so we're expecting that we will need to insist on a waiver from those conditions.
But I agree also, Shalom, development front, we need to do more. UN eighty, we're reforming the development system as well as the humanitarian. We have a shared platform initiative to do shared logistics, shared premises, shared supply chains.
I'm working very closely with UNDP and will visit Damascus with my friend and colleague, the new administrator of UNDP, Alexander DeCrow, later this month to demonstrate that shared work between humanitarian development partners in action.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Thank you very much, Tom. Thank you for your comments. Are there any other colleagues wishing to take the floor? That's Charles again. Okay.
Go on. For one minute.
Speaker 11
Yes, thank you. Well, I'd like you to say a bit more about the budget. Now you mentioned the target of 23,000,000,000. If memory serves, it seems that when you have a humanitarian crisis, everyone, I mean, the governments turned to Ocha to see if there is a request to come to the aid of the affected country. Now you mentioned 23,000,000,000. Is that the support which is your usual official budget or our allocations which come forward during disasters are also covered and provided for by this out of 23,000,000,000?
Speaker 1
So how much is actually run by your office? I give back the floor to Tom.
We are really running out of time, I give the floor to Hans Das, deputy director general for DG ECHO for his brief discussion and information from the commission on that.
Floris, yours for three minutes maximum, Derek. Thank you.
Speaker 13
So much, Mr. Vice Chairman. Thank you very much, Tom. There is indeed no doubt that this is a particularly tough moment for the humanitarian system globally. For all the reasons that you mentioned, rapidly increasing needs, funding cuts, and a continuous consistent undermining of international humanitarian law. All of these are placing unprecedented strain on the humanitarian system's ability to respond effectively and uphold the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence. The need for decisive and timely collective action has never been more pressing.
We need to pool our resources. We need to align efforts. We need to leverage complementary expertise, and we need to unite our voices. And it's only in this way that we can strengthen our collective impact and respond more effectively to complex, evolving challenges.
The EU is fully with you. We fully support OCHA's efforts to reform the humanitarian system along these lines and make it even more agile, and more responsive to the needs of millions of people. The decision of the EU to allocate an initial amount of €1,900,000,000 in 2026 to humanitarian aid is a demonstration of that unwavering commitment to save the lives of people in urgent need.
We're determined to remain a predictable and principled, some call it a boring, donor and partner. Together with EU member states, we will continue to provide needs-based and principled support to those most in need and to support the UN central role in coordinating the international response to emergencies in the spirit of effective multilateralism.
Later this year, the commission will adopt a communication by May. Our commissioner will be in her structured dialogue in the committee here this afternoon, and will tell more about it. That communication will be the opportunity to set out the EU's vision on humanitarian aid with three priorities, and all of them have been mentioned by MEPs at different moments.
In the discussion this morning. Respect of international humanitarian law, and the need to enhance our diplomatic efforts. Secondly, efficiency, effectiveness of humanitarian action to reach more people with less resources and maintain the credibility and the sustainability and the public support, the popular support for our humanitarian system.
You will hear us speak more and more about efficiency in the future. This is about reducing duplication. It's about strengthening coordination, optimizing cost-shared supply chain. It's also about localization and working much more with local actors.
And finally, addressing fragility, as mister Gurren said earlier, where we need an increased partnership with peace and development including international financial institutions and the private sector. To conclude, you can count on us.
We will not step back, and we will continue our steadfast support and partnership with you to address these challenges and achieve meaningful impact. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, director. And for one minute, I give back the floor to Tom. One minute.
Speaker 6
Thank you. Charles, the 23,000,000,000 is the December estimate for what we need this year for the hyper prioritized plan. 33,000,000,000 for the broader plan. And, of course, we need much, much more. We adapt the plan as we go with flash appeals that supplement it dealing with Lebanon, Gaza, and other crises as they emerge.
Hans, thank you for your work and for being personally a thought leader on supply chains and procurement and so much of the essential work we're doing. We need boring partners in a world of reckless adventurers and game show statecraft. Please stay boring as well.
This is not a technocratic exercise. You know, as I was in Al Fasha a few weeks ago, I met a mother who all her family had been killed.
She'd gone next door. All her neighbors' family had been killed. Apart from one 2-month-old child. Malnourished, she'd lifted that child up, carried him nine days. She'd been gang raped on the route, had her leg broken, but she still got to us. To save that child's life.
And I was able to hold that child, feel that child holding my finger, and know that child would live. But she said she was saying to me, is the help coming? So this is not a technocratic exercise alone.
We have to reimagine. We have to be there with solidarity and generosity, ensure that help is coming. And so I really value this committee's leadership and wisdom and expertise, but overall, kindness and solidarity for the world that's out there and the challenges we face.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Thank you very much, Tom. Thank you very much for being with us. Please stay reassured that we will be maybe a boring but an ally, and we will be staying in solidarity with your work. Thank you for being with us.
Thank you, colleagues. We will resume our meeting in one minute.
Colleagues.
Speaker 1
Please take your seats. We will continue with another very important meeting. So we don't have much time. We have only one hour for that as well. So I know you have a lot of questions and comments.
Yeah.
But we can skip them.
Speaker 1
Commissioner wants to skip them, but we won't do that. We won't skip our questions and comments, commissioner. I'm sorry. I was joking.
Only joking.
Speaker 1
Only joking. And you are used, these are your second time here now for the constructive, yes, constructive dialogue, second time. Okay, colleagues. We start with point number eight. Structured dialogue on the commission on work program and this exchange of views with our great friend, Commissioner Josef Sicka, Commissioner for International partnerships.
It's good to have you here, commissioner, already for the second time I said, on structured dialogue, but you've been, you know, the committee. You know the members very well. We work a lot on different files. We look forward, of course, to today's debate. Which is an opportunity for our members to comment on the implementation of the current commission work program, and to formulate expectations for the next one.
It's also an occasion to follow up on the committee's commitments made during the commissioner's confirmation hearing in 2024 and to convey any other political messages related to the status of the EU development policy. The outcome of this debate will be, will form a part of the summary report which the conference of committee chairs will adopt in June.
So it's a very important meeting. Before giving you the floor, commissioner, allow me to briefly outline the context for today's discussion. First of all, our committee together with A FET committee has started its work on the Global Europe Institute, an instrument that will guide, develop, development cooperation and other external policies for the period 2028 to 2035. We have already had exchanges on the instrument, and we will have many more. However, it would be useful if you could share your expectations on how the instrument will improve the international partnership.
You are also aware that this parliament still needs to be pursued regarding the right balance between flexibility, which US commission demand, and predictability, which we will probably demand, and the corresponding parliamentary steer and oversight. So further clarification from your side would be very much welcome.
In 2024, one of your key commitments was to bring Global Gateway from start up to scale up through mobilizing private finance for sustainable investment in partner countries. Those are not my words, but they are your words. With a view to, and I quote you again, fully contributing to the SDGs, while improving its, I also quote you again, transparency and accountability.
As you know, the DEVA and AFET committees have recently adopted a comprehensive report on the past impacts and the future orientation of the global gateway strategy, which will be put to vote in plenary next week. This report addresses issues related to the governance structure, the geopolitical considerations of the approach, as well as the strategy's contribution to the EU's development objectives and how this is monitored and measured. We would be very happy to hear your views on those topics.
Finally, we will also pay particular attention to the Global Health Resilience Initiative, which has been announced in the commission work program this year to ensure that the EU has the necessary tools and mechanisms to respond quickly to possible emerging health threats.
Would be grateful if you could already share with us some information on the ambition and scope of this initiative. For instance, how it intends to contribute to strengthening country-led health systems and local manufacturing capacities in the global South? And to what extent the strategy will be based on transactionality and tight aid by European so-called.
So now, without future delay, I pass the floor to our great commissioner for his introductory remarks. And then I open the floor for the Q and A session, very much expected by the commissioner.
So the commissioner, Sickela, Josef, the floor is yours, and good to have you here.
Speaker 15
Honorable members, the title of the 26 commission work program is Europe's independence moment.
And recent events show that this title is well deserved, whether it's the conflict in Iran, Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine, or tense negotiation surrounding Greenland, the message is quite clear.
Europe, the European Union must act quickly to promote a united and independent Europe. So that the concept of win-win value-based partnership prevails over the zero-sum games. Nowadays, international partnerships play an increasingly important role. Let me highlight three key priorities.
First, we will advance the EU's efforts to address fragility. Nearly a quarter of the world's population lives in places where insecurity, hunger, inequality, and climate shocks turn daily life into a struggle for survival.
Together with Hajal Abib, we are co-leading the publication of a new start working document on an integrated approach to fragility. As part of the broader humanitarian aid package due next May. Through this work, the EU will reaffirm its commitment to working in fragile context. We support long-term engagement with the aim of helping countries move beyond age dependency and creating the conditions for sustainable development.
The EU must remain engaged even in politically strange context such as Afghanistan. These engaging would stress millions of lives and livelihoods and would also run counter to the European Union interests from security to migration management.
To make a real difference, we need to better integrate our humanitarian, development, and peace efforts in an exos approach. And we must coordinate efforts to make full use of Team Europe. And while Global Gateway cannot be deployed in all fragile contexts, in many, it's a part of the solutions.
Second, I am leading the efforts of the Commission to launch the Global Health Resilience Initiative. The world is changing quickly, and global health is coming under increased pressure. Funding is falling. Health systems are stretched and the global health architecture is fragmented. We've even seen access to health funding used as a bargaining chip in the competition for global influence.
And Europe must step up building on our 2022 global health strategy and global gateway. The resilience initiative will set out the EU's priorities and show how coordinated partnerships can make a real difference.
We will focus on several key areas. Strengthening health systems so they are sustainable and resilient. Diversifying supply chains for essential medicines and technologies, boosting prevention, preparedness, and response to health threats. And countering disinformation, and rebuilding trust in science. We will act at global, regional, and country level, because resilience is only meaningful if it reaches people on the ground.
And finally, will carry on Monday to scale up the global gateway. The lines between political and economic interests continue to blur. We've seen value chains, weaponized tariff wars, and the race for critical raw materials accelerate. This makes global gateway investment critical, guided by the belief that progress for Europe and progress for partners can go hand in hand. For instance, the Global Gateway initiative to scale up the ASEAN power grid delivers on a long-standing priority for the region.
We are working with partners to connect national electricity systems so that clean, affordable energy can flow across borders. For our ASEAN partners, it means more reliable electricity, lower energy costs, and jobs. At the same time, it serves the EU strategic interests. It enables the large scale integration of renewables, and it creates demand for European technologies and standards. This is one of hundreds of global gateway projects underway in the world.
Honorable members, on top of these priorities, we will also continue to advance critical efforts such as preventing irregular migration, ensuring reliable supplies of critical materials for our industries, or the development of TEU Gender Action Plan four.
As you know, these efforts come with a price tag. So let me say a word about the budget. I presented the global Europe proposal during the joint Dave and Aft committee meeting in January. The combination of long-term goals and short-term shocks requires that we strike the right balance between predictability and flexibility. Predictability is one of the EU's biggest assets.
We need predictability to foster lasting partnership.
To have a forward-looking approach, at the same time, we need flexibility to respond swiftly to evolving needs and unforeseen crisis.
I look forward to working with you as the legislation process goes forward. I count on your collaboration to defend an ambitious instrument, one that provides a strong budget to support the union's external action until 2034.
Partners around the world need Europe's reliable cooperation, and Europe needs strong partnerships to reinforce our independence. So thank you, and I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much commissioner for a bunch of your comments and invitation for further comments probably from my colleagues. With this, we will proceed with the first round of questions by the coordinators.
And, I see now Lucas Mandels, I understand Nilskering will be replacing him. Yes.
Speaker 16
Nils, will you do that? I speak in German, so please use your headphones.
Speaker 17
Not. Everyone needs to use the headphones. That's true. Thank you. Mister Sakelab, for being here today for this exchange.
Never has it been more important. It's very important that we're clear what the challenges are, which the European Union has to overcome as things stand. When you look at all the crises across the world, we can see that this is a very important exchange on humanitarian aid that there are different ways in which we can use the money, but it all comes back to the same problem. It is ensuring that there are enough financial resources there at the end of the day to deal with the challenges which do exist.
You talked about the need to upscale. That's important. For the European Union to try and attract more private investment because we are confronted with a difficult budgetary situation. And in order to deal with the challenges, we need more resources there. But we need to avoid a situation where member states are being squeezed too much.
We have to deal with the issues at EU level without putting too much pressure on member states, and it is important that message gets through to the council. We have to deal with the challenges, of course, but what's really important is that we have the financial resources there.
So if we don't do that, then many of these programs won't go anywhere. We need to establish structural incentives. We need to motivate SMEs, for example, to invest in African value chains.
I think that this is the best contribution which we can make as Europeans to establish sustainable valuable value chains in developing countries to strengthen those economies. We can see against the backdrop withdrawal from the by the United States.
We've got a really critical situation. So I really like to know from you, what do you think we can do to ensure that sustainable jobs in developing countries and in our partner countries are established.
Speaker 1
VP, and now we go to SND, the coordinator Uda Bulman. Uda, the floor is yours.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much, commissioner, for being with us and for your introductory remarks. Let me admit that I think that perhaps never the job of a commissioner for international was more complex and more challenging than today. We know that. But let me tell you, I feel totally motivated by the idea to call the commission's work program an independence moment.
I feel reminded of something that I learned in my capacity as the chair of the South African delegation. Our friends and colleagues introduced me to their philosophy of Ubuntu. Ubuntu in the Bantu languages means I am because we are. Which is not to be misunderstood as the idea of a very flat and meaningless concept of transactionalism. It is rather saying that sovereignty where Europe is longing for can only be achieved with others, together.
What normally should be the experience of the European Union's member states also. So what is it about our concepts, our flagship global gateway concepts, that can become a trademark for our best practices of equal footing partnership with our partner countries? What is really the character? What defines that? And what can we learn from your first experiences of the flagship concepts in Global Gateway to transform them also in the second generation to make them more effective and to include the European Parliament even in a more decisive manner in tracking our successes and in programming?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, miss. And now we go to Georgi Helveny from PFE. Thank you, the colleagues.
Speaker 10
The commissioner, thank you for your presentation. We are all the time happy to see you here and have this kind of dialogue. And this year, of course, we have the huge agenda from the critical raw materials, the further also of the global gateway, and, of course, the ongoing negotiation of the new external finance instrument.
And I am really very happy about that. You mentioned the global architecture and I hope it will be realistic. I am here in this committee already more than 10 years.
I heard some good ideas, and I hope you'll be much more realistic. The work program for 2026 promised the global gateway that will reinforce the EU standing as a trusted and reliable partner by promoting the EU strategic interest worldwide.
But I missed the initiatives also in the Global Europe proposal to promote educational and vocational training. This is very concrete. Also, this from the foundation can build the economic prospects on.
And one remarks, health is very important, education is important. But everything before is the security. If no security, it's no sowing, harvest. That's what we have to take into consideration. My question is, dear commissioner, what measures will you take to keep the education and vocation training as tools to faster stability and economic prosperity of the EU development cooperation again.
Thanks a lot. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Georgi. Thank you for your time in this discipline. And now I give back the floor to the commissioner for eight minutes. We want you to be as much as possible detailed, so we give you a lot of time for these runs. So back to you, and then we continue with the other coordinators.
Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you very much, Phil and Danckauf, Fedi, Fragen. If you allow, I will respond to all of them in English. Even I would be able to respond to the first one in German.
I will start with an announcement from The New York Times. US considers withholding HIV aid unless Zambia expands minerals access. This is the world of today. And this is basically not the game we want to participate in.
So you are asking where are the benefits what we can offer. I would simplify it in a few basically words. Mutual benefit, partnership, co invention, it means we want to empower our partners, not impose. And really not impose means also not to impose. It means rather educate and definitely not entrap.
The. Best thing how to come, what is good for the countries, is always to ask our partner countries. Let me tell you what they tell us. They don't want a donor-recipient dynamic anymore. They want this partnership of equals based on mutual interest.
They require us to have an honest dialogue about what our interests are, and how our partnership can advance them. This is what we are doing with the Global Gateway. We want to build these partnerships to advance mutual interest and support strategic autonomy and resilience in the EU and partner countries.
And the critical raw materials are a prime example. Our action in the sector secures the EU supplies while developing processing, refining, and recycling capacity in our partner countries. So we also work on fostering a conducive ecosystem to enable more sustainable investments. This includes building infrastructure including transport and energy access, providing technical assistance, skill development, education.
I will come to this. And, yeah. This is basically the solution. There was a question when it comes to our health resilience initiative, the Global Health Resilience, if it will be realistic. Pragmatism and realism is my nickname. Yeah.
So as long as I will be involved, I will basically try to invent things which are doable, which are feasible, and which are also somehow measurable in a certain period of time, because if you cannot measure, you cannot steer. This is basically one of the rules I learned in my previous activities.
So what will it be about? We are currently working on the details of the initiative and will communicate in due course. The EU has been and will remain a reliable and responsible partner. We have already set up a robust European health Union since 2020.
To apply the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, and this includes also our regulation on serious cross-border threats to health, setting up the European Health Emergency Preparedness, the response authorities, and an end.
Our work on the new initiative will build on that and enhance this solid health framework. So the initiative will present proven approaches based on the EU experience and partnership models to respond to the needs of our partner countries.
And when it comes to the education, the former commission, Opelenen decided to dedicate at least 10% of the funding of the programs managed by the DG INTPA to education from 2021 to 2027.
For the period '21 till '24, 12% of the INTPA managed programs contributed to education. 12%. This is a major achievement considering that education made up 7.7% of funding managed by the DG in part over 2014 to 2020.
And also, there is no specific education spending target in the global euro proposal. Scaling up the Global Gateway is my priority, and education is one of the five key sectors we target in the Global Gateway, and our partner countries are basically asking for. So this is part of our value proposition. Of our proposal, but this is also a big part of the demand coming from the countries. And you know, to close this part, there is a huge momentum.
Yeah? Okay. You can say partially by default. But the demand for Europe's Europe is growing. There are countries looking on our leadership and waiting if we are ready to take over this leadership, mainly the countries which cannot be described as powers.
Because we are offering an alternative to this G1, G2, or G3 approach. Alternative to like making a decision under pressure being blackmailed, like I basically mentioned based on the New York Times. But it means to be flexible, to be fast, and to have at least a basic alignment also here.
What are basically the core values and the core issues for us. Because if we remain fragmented and will not be able to align on the key priorities, this window of opportunity we have now will again close in a certain period of time. And to be successful, we also need the instrument. We need a budget, we need the funding.
In this combination, I described earlier, well balanced between the forward looking approach between being able to do commitments, but also be flexible to react on this world, which is basically now like steered by unexpected events.
And partially very, very bad and very sad. So we need really a balance between predictability and ability to commit and the flexibility. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Good. Thank you very much. Now we go to the second round of our coordinators, and we start with Renu, Charles Garennes. Has the floor for two minutes for his comments.
Speaker 11
I. Would like to ask you about European Union's role in the new global configuration since Donald Trump has been president of the United States. When he made his first announcement, I really thought that was going to be an opportunity for Europe to impose itself. And I think that is the case even more so today. Our role as a leader is going to be consolidated.
So is Europe able to fulfill this role? What do you think? President Trump has established his board of peace, which he is leading himself.
He is going to say he is saying that he is going to lead these operations. Do we have a role to play there? Does Europe have a role? He. Has said that he has a vision for Gaza. He has some kind of Mediterranean club. This is not necessarily the vision which Europe has.
Do we have a role to play? So are we going to be a real actor in the future, or are we going to remain a junior partner? So do you think we are being the player which we should be? That is the big question.
If we look to the future, and the reconstruction of Iran, Syria, what is going to, what is Europe's conditionality going to be? What role are we going to play in this? How are we going to impose ourselves with our values and with all the knowledge which we have? It's from the Greens, Eric Marcotte, for two minutes.
Speaker 20
Eric? Thank you.
Chair. I am going to be speaking German. Right. First point. Are different infrastructure projects underway?
Some of them in conflict regions, some of them in stable regions. For example, we have an LNG project in Mozambique. I think it was in November that a massacre took place there, and the security forces were involved in that. That has stopped. And I think since January, that has been operating again. So in cases like this, how can we, as the European Union, establish against the backdrop of awful events like this? How can we be sure that EU money is not being invested in projects which are tied up with war crimes?
I think this is an issue looking at humanitarian aid as a whole. There is a tendency to talk things up, to describe them as being better than they are. I think this comes from the pressure which we have in politics to show that we have successes.
But I'd really like to know what you have to say on this. My second point, I think it's next week or the plenary after, we're going to be looking at the global gateway report.
Already a very comprehensive report. How do you as a commissioner in the commission as a whole, how are you looking at this report? How are you taking into account the position of the parliament? How are you going to do this, and how can we establish a dialogue to ensure that the many points which we have in this report are going to be implemented?
Thank you.
Marc Jongen
You. Commissioner Sakela, it's great that you're here today. You spoke about irregular migration. You said that that's an important point. Which we have to get under control.
So I've got a question on that. But in an indirect way, I'm going to talk about legal migration, which can be abused. The agreement which was signed with India in January is a significant one for the EU.
There's trade facilitation, but there's also going to be greater mobility for skilled individuals through Erasmus Plus and through European Legal Gateway offices. The EU has issued nearly a quarter of a million visas, and has greatly increased the number of legal migrants who can come from that country.
When we're looking at this, this system is supposed to be for highly qualified individuals, but it is open to abuse. According to the Welt, the number of people getting through with much lower level of qualifications is quite high.
Around half of the migrants who come on these visas stop working in the jobs they're supposed to be working in after a very short period of time and start to claim benefits.
So my question is, how many migrants does the commission expect to arrive as a result of the signing of the agreement with India, and how is the commission going to ensure that legal migrants come in, because we do need these people, and how you are going to avoid a situation in which Acker visas for people with university qualifications are not abused. In a way which it was not intended.
Speaker 1
And now back to you, commissioner. Eight minutes again. So we are very generous today.
Speaker 15
Yeah. But the questions are also very, I would say, complex. And so Cut on you. But how to become a player from the position of the player payer. This is it good to sit in the board of peace where basically all the statuses are linked to a private person.
There is another, like, constitutional or legal support from this structure coming from the US legislative. There are different positions of the different member states. I can share with you my view and quote the famous, I think this is a British quote, "to be alone than in a bad company."
And if you ask me very personally, I am keen to sit together in the board with mister Putin. Who I see as a war criminal, who belongs to be basically sitting in the curve but not in the Board of Peace.
We were represented there. We had our observer there, and we have basically we have to evaluate the development. I think the crucial issue is how to become from a payer a player. And I think we are on a good track, but we have to improve two things. The one is basically to increase in the future our ability to be fast and consistent and consequent.
Yeah? So we as a Europe, we are always good in basically statements, but, you know, less in action. This is, I think, one of the things which we have improved. And also to strengthen our resilience.
We are so far not able to solve certain things, but I think we are on a good way to increase disability partially by purpose. Because we basically focus on this partially by default, because there is a demand for an alternative offered by China, Russia, or the US. And, I think if we want to protect the rule of law, if we want to protect multilateralism, and the current international order, we have to seek the allies who are like minded, and basically, the majority of them are.
And therefore, it is also important to work with Pacific, which is far away from here and where we were not present, because this is not only about population, which is below 1%, but this is about 7% of the votes in the United Nations. So this is something we also have to consider when we are basically targeting to protect the multilayerism and the rule of law.
When it comes to difficulties with basically incidents and with very sad things which are happening and are not basically in line with the values we protect, I can mention basically three examples.
The one is very recent, and this is Mozambique, which I was sitting with yesterday with the President of Mozambique and with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Of course, the first thing we are usually doing is cutting the direct budget.
Support. So we can stay engaged in the projects where we have the direct control that we know basically what is the purpose of the financing, what is the result. But usually, the restriction on the direct budget support is the most, like, powerful and also workable tool we have because we can say we are ready to turn back, but we want to see investigation, action, consequences and then. And if, you know, so this is one of the examples.
The second one is Tanzania. Yeah? Where we also have, basically, civil issues. So we have with Tanzania a long-lasting partnership reinforced through the global gateway investments. The aftermath of the country's presidential election in '25 was characterized by widespread violence and killings.
So in response, EU and in a statement by the 27 member states expressed its concern in November, and there was action. We took note of the resolution of the European Parliament in November, I met with the Tanzanian Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2026 and I convey the clear message that in the current circumstances, the EU must adapt how we cooperate and first by adjust 25 program focusing it on investments oriented project without direct transfer to government.
So basically, the same two. Last development in Senegal, Senegal country where we mean STEAM Europe the EU, the member states, spent in the past €1,500,000,000 in projects. Very good cooperation.
We have two issues, and one is basically part of the response to you. We have two issues, the illegal fishery and not basically, yes, the illegal fisheries, which are damaging basically the water. It is not sustainable, and we have the issue with readmissions that they are helping us a lot on the migration but, you know, we had the difficulties basically that they do not want to receive back, but basically, the people with not having a legal status of the migrant and being illegal in Europe.
We presented to them a very attractive investment program, but I was very clear that the program is linked basically to solving these two very important issues. For Europe. And when it comes to basically legal migration and how to prevent basically misuse of the legal migration, so on one side, the brain drain from the countries. On the other side, really that we employ the experts or the workers we need.
This is about the model management, and I was pleased to hear in the last college that basically the border management system we, the European Union, is going to implement is the most modern one, most advanced worldwide, because we will become the first continent having the control not only of who is coming in, but also who is leaving. So when you have a disconnect between basically the permit, the visa, then you can react because it will be like IT managed.
And this is basically then also onto the member states because as a former minister of industry, trade and Energy in Czechia, I was heavily involved in basically bringing experts or workers in a country with the lowest unemployment. I was basically asked repeatedly by all the chambers of commerce and the employers to bring more people to the Czech Republic, more experts, and we were basically targeting the countries, targeting the skills and the education, discussing with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Interior how to check the certificates that really the people, the experts are coming and there is an overlap between the offer and the demand. So this is then the combination of the work between the Commission and the member states that we simply allow to come to the people where there is a demand, where there is a need, in accordance with basically the needs of the member states.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, commissioner, and I open the floor for my colleague wishing to take the floor. If there are any other colleagues wishing to take the floor, please indicate.
I see some colleagues wishing. So we start with Hildegard Bentele from the EPP. Hildegard, the floor is yours for two minutes.
Thank you.
I hope to be much shorter.
Speaker 22
I would like to ask also as the Global Gateway rapporteur about the progress with regard to the investment hub, which was installed last September, October. During the Global Gateway Summit, which I think was a very good step forward. And I would like to ask what's your experience six months later with the investment hub, with the member states who should also be involved much stronger. And then another issue I would like to, you know, draw your attention to the fact or to the possibility or to my request and wish. I hope colleagues share this.
To integrate also water as an issue under the Global Gateway, because as you know, since this term we are dealing with the water resilience strategy. It also has become a very important issue for Commissioner Roswell.
It is a very important issue we are currently having on David Affett's opinion about the importance of water governance with regard to peace and conflict. And there will be the UN Conference on Water at the end of the year. It's a very important event.
So if you could say a few words, if it's possible to integrate water under the Global Gateway, since we know climate deals mainly with renewable energy. But if you could integrate water into this initiative, that would be, I think, an important step forward.
Speaker 23
Cecilia, thank you, chair, and thank you very much, commissioner. I have two quick questions. One is regarding the proposed use of conditionality on migration. Which, personally, I find not so fair and very dangerous. But my question is, how will the commission ensure that such mechanisms do not penalize civil society or the most vulnerable of the population? So specifically, what safeguards will be embedded in the future instrument to ensure that essential services remain protected even when the conditionality on migration is triggered? And the next question is more generally on the overall credibility of the EU.
In our external action. Because since two years, we have been witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza that was not by accident, but the result of a 100% result of the actions of EU partner, the Israeli government. The failure in suspending the EU association agreement even in presence of blatant war crimes. My concern is this is undermining our credibility in our external election and in our partnership. So my question is, you have maybe the same view. Don't you think that failure to act may undermine our credibility and our role as a player, as you were saying, with other partners worldwide.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
Gracias, Cecilia. Are there any other colleagues wishing to take the floor? Any comments? Now then, back to you, commissioner, for your comments and concluding remarks. If you can combine the two, we will be very happy for 8 minutes.
Speaker 15
So, first of all, the Global Gateway Investment Hub, when I was implementing the tool, was basically asking for understanding and patience that the tool is not a perfect one, but, following my holy rule in my work: implement now, perfect tomorrow, we were implementing and basically, the reactions are from enthusiastic to very positive. So who was interested is appreciating this, like, two ways approach. There are proposals coming, what to add, how to improve it, and then. So from this point of view, of course, we are working with all the ideas in order to come subsequently with this perfect tomorrow, and we will perfect it subsequently.
Countries which were not interested before us remain uninterested. There are in some countries still the discussion including some big countries. Shall we go alone or shall we take part talking about the disappointments from the past, not getting out of this what they expected because I'm telling them, you know, Europe is weak without Germany, and Germany is not strong enough without Europe. So, I would like, but they are creating the national team, and I hope to have also more collaboration with all the countries within the Team Europe approach.
Water, we have water logically as one of the most important parts, and the call to have it incorporated in the structures is a fair one, and we will edit officially because there are three key elements. Where one is our main interest, but two are the precondition for success in the partner countries.
Yeah? And all of them are we can discuss if these are commodities, if these are like public goods or human rights. Yeah? That there are different views. And this is electricity, and this is water.
Because in the main part of the world, in the big part, mainly in Africa, access to electricity is still 440%, does not have access. So we have to electrify Africa. And we have to do it in our way because the Chinese or the Russians, they will do it, you know, in the more dirty way. So this call for perfection, you know, if we ignore like, a nuclear, all their gas resources, we will fail in decarbonizing other continents because they will logically use these tools in order to electrify faster because they will get 500,000,000 additional people within twenty years.
So not having electricity for 40 and getting 500,000,000 additional people, you know, it needs a fast action. Yeah? Not only ideologies. Yeah? And the second thing is water.
Water, the drinking water need means desalination in many areas, and desalination is one of the most electricity intensive processes known in the world. So water and electricity are very much linked.
Water management, we are doing very good things, you know, in Central Asia in Africa, but water should become, and water management, water treatment, water protection, a very important part of all our effort when it comes to protection, climate protection, and sustainability.
And migration and returns, is this fair? Is it not fair? Well, there is a strong call from plenty of member states and the voters. Yeah? So we see all the patriots of this world making a basically big topic from the migration. And if we do not react, we might lose the mandate in the future to continue to do the right things.
And you see how fast, you know, certain good things can be dismantled. Yeah. I do not want to raise the examples now. So the Global Europe would allow the Commission to adjust the volume of funds to be allocated or paid to the partner countries. Yeah? It could suspend payments or a program if there are serious shortcomings in the partner obligations to readmit its own nationals from member states, in line with the visa reg regulation.
This is about the law. This is about the rule of law for all. And such decision would only be taken after consultation with the partner country, and would never affect humanitarian aid.
Yeah? Irregular migrants could be returned to a third country because there is also this return regulation which allows the transfer of irregular migrants to a third country with which there is an agreement, so called the return hubs, and the migrants could be returned to a third country with which there is a bilateral EU-level agreement. Certain conditions need to be met. Including the respect of international human rights in accordance with international law.
And, yeah, providing protection to the people is a global responsibility. You know, helping to protect the borders is saving lives. Yeah? Because you know, if we allowed some of the people to leave on these very fragile boats, then sometimes, this is too late. So when it comes to third countries, the third countries that are safe and that can offer protection must also play their part.
This is what the safe third country concept is about. And the Commission's proposal aims to make its application easier for the member states, and the concept can now also be applied when a person has transited through the country where they could have applied for international protection or when there is an agreement or an arrangement with a safe third country.
But this proposal comes with a strong safeguard. The new rules will accelerate Azilun process while fully preserving the legal safeguards for applicants and ensuring fuller respect of the fundamental right.
Well, so I hope I was able to respond to all your questions, and thank you for this. I hope also constructive discussion. I heard your recommendation. I heard your concerns. I will keep that in mind as we advance on our work in the months ahead. It's clear to me from our conversations that we all agree on the key concepts.
The international partnerships are not a side issue for Europe. They are central to our security, prosperity, and our role in the world. We must stay engaged in the fragile context, strengthen global health, resilience, and deliver global gateway projects that create benefits for both. For our partners, and for Europe and European households and citizens and businesses. And Europe's independence does not mean standing alone.
It means building strong and balanced partnerships around the world. It also calls for strong partnership between the commission and this parliament. So your support will be essential as we work on the global Europe instrument, and I really look forward to continuing this work with you, and thank you very much for having me today here and for all basically the ideas and exchanges we have.
During the official meetings.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Thank you very much, Commissioner Sickela. Thank you, Josef. And as a rapporteur, thank you. Well deserved.
As a rapporteur on the global Europe instrument of this committee, I look forward also to working with you on that, but we have other instruments like mentioned by you, Global Health Resilience, and then I look forward.
Udo has said that I fully agree that this job has never been so difficult. But we hope we, together, we will help you to deliver on many issues mentioned today, and I wish you all the best.
Thank you for the constructive discussion, and we look forward to see you for the third time, yes, soon. Thank you, colleagues. And we continue in one minute. We resume our committee meeting.
Thank you.
Good.
Speaker 25
I think that we can start. I can imagine that the rapporteur is eager to start and the shadows are also eager to share their positions and views on today's David agenda 0.9. We have the amending regulation and we have our rapporteur here. It's the proposal for a regulation amending the EU regulation on critical raw materials from 2024, which our committee will submit to the EN3 committee.
As you may recall, Dave was an Associated Committee when the CRM Act was first proposed with shared competence on the articles which concerned strategic partnerships and strategic projects in third countries. The proposal for amendment is part of the commission's resource EU action plan from 2025, which aims to accelerate the progress towards the objectives of the CRM.
CRM Act increased the EU production of both primary and secondary critical raw materials, enhance the EU ability to withstand supply disruptions and diversify the EU CRM supply chain. Chains, may I say.
In Turalia, the proposed amendment aims to clarify the obligations of large companies as regards supply chain's risks. It also empowers the commission to identify mitigation measures and adopt a delegated act specifying the risk mitigation measures that companies would have to take.
If significant vulnerabilities to supply disruptions were detected. The proposal states which information the commission should base the risk mitigation measures it proposes. Including some aspects of relations with third countries.
Without further ado, I will now give the floor to Devra Pottor, madam Marik Mai, from the S and D to present her draft opinion. Please Marit, the floor is yours.
Speaker 26
Thank you, chair. You, colleagues, and also shadows.
As you have explained, the proposal from the commission is to amend the critical raw material acts on three areas, and one of those three is the one that is relevant for the data competence. That is the amending of Article 24 on company risk preparedness, transferring those from the member states to the commission, the identification of larger companies covered by the rules on risk assessment and risk mitigation obligations.
So respecting the competencies of Deve, we have the following proposals on the draft report of opinion for the DEE. First, the identification of the large companies that are being transferred from member states to the Commission should also be informed by Parliament's resolutions. Second, to ensure that risk assessment and mitigation for sustainable access to raw materials, large companies should take into account the vulnerabilities in their supply chains. Third, these vulnerabilities include long term risks that outweigh short term financial costs, such as disruptions to supply chains, cost by civil unrest, often resulting from insufficient considerations for local communities and for the environmental impacts locally. Fourth, the applications for strategic projects should ensure that projects do not fuel conflict and apply the do no harm, no significant harm principle, including in the permitting phase.
Mitigation measures should be based on meaningful stakeholder engagement, including with local communities, with civil society organizations, in order to enhance the long term viability and sustainability of the project. And last, the commission should promote full transparency and traceability across the entire supply chain to ensure alignment with the EU strategic priorities and engagement in resource-rich partner countries and regions, and to secure the union's sustainable access to the raw materials.
Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you so much. And I have been made aware that I have to give the floor back to you, which is a pleasure to present us with the ITRE rapporteur's draft presentation of the draft as well.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 26
Yes. Thank you very much. On behalf of the Itra rapporteur, he thanks the DAVID committee and the rapporteur for being here today. To discuss the Critical Raw Materials Act. These targeted amendments proposed by the commission try to address key challenges in securing strategic raw materials, especially for rare earth permanent magnets.
The Rapporteur supports a strong coordinating role for the commission in monitoring supply chains' vulnerabilities and ensuring a consistent approach across member states. Including holding large companies accountable. The rapporteur's draft for the Deva opinion calls for stronger institutional cooperation, alignment with international commitments, conflict-sensitive risk assessments, and meaningful consultation with local communities and civil societies.
And I fully support this. I'm sorry, I have a double hat here. I fully support this with both myself and, speaking on behalf of So far in Itre, the focus has been on predictable implementation and strengthening the entire value chain. Including Regular and Targeted Projects, Project Calls, Support for Integrated Projects, Tools to Derisk Investment, and Incentivize Post-Consumer Waste Recycling in Europe.
Moreover, I can tell you that the ITRA draft report due on Wednesday also highlights the strategic approach to international partnerships, assessing cooperation to boost diversification and resilience, mindful of the union's international obligations.
Europe's approach, based on reciprocity and capacity building in partner regions, provides a sustainable framework closely linked to the Davis work. This is also what the European Court of Auditors has highlighted.
So to conclude, I look forward to working closely with the DAVID Committee, and my office is always open for ideas from DAVID members to improve the EU strategic raw materials policy.
Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Mrs. May. And, it sounds very reassuring that the ITRE rapporteur is willing to listen to, and he is obliged more or less, but at least he has the right mindset when it comes to our opinion as well.
And it's time for the walk through our shadows as well, too, and the only one that I can see present in the room is Madam Bentley. And I'm very happy that you are at least here.
And it's a pleasure to give you the floor to walk us through also your thoughts on the draft.
Speaker 22
Thank you very much. Thank you, colleagues. And I have a history, a legacy with the CRMA since I was the rapporteur in Yidra and also the shadow in Yidra, and also the rapporteur on the David opinion. We failed, colleagues.
There was no David's opinion on the CRMA because we couldn't agree. So that would be my first point I would like to make. I hope this time, Deve will be able to come up with a position.
So this is my first take. I know Mohamed very well. My time when we worked together, and I'm, of course, ready to listen to it, Deve, since I'm incorporating Deve myself. But just one take and one assessment.
What we see now is that companies are pretty reluctant to report. That's the state of play. This is why the obligation has been, you know, put from the member states to the commission because they don't, you know, deal with their reporting obligation.
What I've seen from your proposals is that you enhance what the member, what the company should do. They should go even deeper and look into conflict management, and so on.
So I'm wondering if this is the right approach if companies are already reluctant to report and fulfill their obligations. If we now put an additional request on it. Just a question.
But I think what we should do, referring to Commissioner Sinke, he's super active in also raw materials partnerships and raw materials diplomacy. So I think we should insert, and I think you made a reference, you didn't say it, but you made a reference that we should offer to companies who have difficulties with their supply chains and who lack a plan b to the projects we do under Global Gateway, and tell them, listen, you know, the EU is investing money into projects.
Please look into the new sources we have found for you. Look into the new partnerships so that we help companies diversify and comply with their obligations. So I think that's a point you didn't raise, but I know you made it.
I saw your amendments, which I fully support, and I would even make stronger.
There's not a member who wants to speak.
Speaker 25
Thank you so much, Madame Bentelev, for this very valuable input. I don't know if there is any other member who feels like they have an input they want to share with us.
Otherwise, I'll give back the floor to madam Merritt. Why don't you go to the commission now? Yeah.
Speaker 25
Sorry. Mr. Jo Anne Canton? Head of Energy Intensive Industries and Raw Materials, can you? Somebody wants to know. There. Mr Takino was speaking. Mister Takino was also speaking.
So before giving the floor to you, I'll have the pleasure to give the floor to Mr. Takino. Please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you. Yes, thank you. Sure.
Well, just to look on to some of the latest news, in The New York Times today, there's a report or an article about the partnership between The United States and Zambia and they're staying aid giving.
Support to the political parties. And this is something that is basically aimed at turning a blind eye and providing aid. What with access to the rare materials. I just want to mention that.
So again, there's a role for us here. There are also opportunities. We can take a different tack than what’s been taken there. Because paradoxically, unlike other powers like the United States, we can actually help things move forward if we continue to make a contribution to these countries.
That's my contribution to this discussion.
Speaker 25
No. Of course, given the world and the situation we are living in and also our activity, as David, committee and the commissioner, I think that we have a very good chance to actually contribute to something positive, both for the global development but also to our companies as well.
Now I have the great pleasure of giving the floor to Mr. Jo Anne Canton. Who is the head of the European Commission Energy Intensive Industries and Raw Materials Unit. DG Grow, for three minutes.
Please, Mister Canton, the floor is yours. And thank you for being here.
Speaker 28
Thank you very much for the invitation, dear Mrs. Chair. Thank you very much, dear shareholder reporter, members of the European Parliament for this opinion or draft opinion.
It's a pleasure to share with you a little bit of some reflections on the commission intentions with this proposal. You explained, this was part of the Resource EU action plan. Resource EU was adopted and announced within a five week time frame. The intention was to react to the latest decisions by China at the time to restrict access to rare-earth materials. And in this context, we looked at all possible levers to, let's say, boost the European response and better prepare the European economy and European industry to this situation.
In this context, we felt that it was necessary and required to do some targeted amendments to the Critical Raw Materials Act. It's not an old piece of legislation. From 2024, but we still felt we need to adjust on two points, two main points, let's put it that way. One is the one we're discussing today in relation to Article 24, in relation to what we ask companies, basically, or large companies to do.
Because what we realize is that the Critical Role Materials Act already includes some obligations. But the implementation, the enforcement and the way these obligations translate was given the reactions we got from industry following the restrictions from China. Was, let's say, not perfect. In other words, companies, large companies, are not investing enough in risk mitigation measures. They're not investing enough in reducing their dependencies on single suppliers, in particular from China.
So we wanted to take a more active role in terms of coordinating the efforts. And we also wanted to make sure that we would provide additional incentives for large companies to invest in risk-mitigation strategies.
With the possibility through a delegated act at a later stage to be even more prescriptive in a sense in terms of what we want to. The first step is not to be too prescriptive, it's just to say we need to do more. And if necessary, if we identify a challenge, we would do more. The second aspect, and I'll go very briefly on that, is in relation to the rare earth supply chain, the permanent magnet supply chain. This is a key aspect for us also because permanent magnets are everywhere in the economy, and this is where we had the trade restrictions.
The Critical Raw Materials Act already allows us to do some things. We wanted to reinforce this, both in terms of labeling and in terms of recycling and recycled-content obligations.
But I'll focus on Article 24 because indeed the amendments are mostly about that. Three or four remarks on what was presented today. First, in general, we very much welcome, of course, the possibility to work with the Deve committee on this topic.
I just want to flag that from our perspective, there's a couple of amendments that are going a bit beyond the proposal of the commission. Notably in relation to what to do when selecting the strategic projects, which is covered by Article seven, which is not one of the articles that we propose to amend.
Second aspect is that we take good note of the fact that the EP that you would propose, that EP resolutions are taken into account when identifying the large companies. Just want to flag that from our perspective and from the text of the existing Raw Materials Act and the Commission's proposal, it's a very mechanical exercise that we need to do.
We have a number of technologies and sectors. We know the definition of large companies. Then we would say, okay, all these large companies fall into the scope of this proposal.
So just to flag that for us, it's not really there's not a lot of room for maneuver on our side. It's basically listing companies that exist and are involved in these sectors.
Third aspect is in relation to the potential obligation for the large companies. So I take good note of your intention of forcing to consult the local stakeholders before adopting the measures.
Think we have to see about that. Just to flag that for us, the mitigation measures are about investing in diversification. So today, I supply from China. Tomorrow, I want to supply from another source. From another country, from Europe, or from another third country.
Or invest in stockpiling, because by stockpiling, I reduce the impacts of supply disruptions, or I invest in innovation and substitution. I don't need the raw materials. So you see, there's a spectrum of measures that can be taken to mitigate the risks that are identified.
For you to consider. And the last point is the question of the risk assessment. I mean, you focus on the vulnerabilities you took, conflicts, environmental hazards, social unrest. That you know, for us, we are completely agnostic when it comes to these risks. We want to be able to take into account all sorts of risks.
Geographic, geopolitical, economic, doesn't really matter from the perspective of this risk assessment. All these risks should be taken into account so that we can provide, I mean, companies can be prepared to all possible scenarios with the response and solutions.
Voilà, I leave it at that, and thank you again very much for the invitation. Looking forward to the next steps.
Speaker 25
Very well. Thank you, Canton, for this very brief and right-to-the-point walkthrough of the issues that the commission is concerned about. I would like to finally give the floor to Mrs. Maritmaj once again for two minutes just to wrap up the discussion and maybe also have a response or questions to the commission.
Up to you madam Marit, how you want to use the last two summarizing minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Yes. Thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you very Shadow and commission, also a colleague, Takino, for speaking on this. I think, really important topic. Let me start by saying to Miss Bentele that I think when we talk about the strategic projects, when we talk about the projects that are within the Global Gateway, we, of course, always want these projects. To be also taking into consideration the principles, for example, of do no significant harm, or the principle that these projects should not fuel conflicts. So I think it's important.
I understand and I also put it in, sorry, in the amendment that this would be a possibility. For companies, if they want to invest and if they find it difficult, but if they do it through these ways, and I think also parallel if they do it through different ways, they should always take these elements into consideration and also take what the European Parliament has asked and has said in relationship to Critical Raw Materials and in relationship to our relation with these countries and countries of origin of these materials that we should also think of what we have asked in these relationships. And part of it is always to take into consideration local communities, to take into consideration the effects of what we are doing to the local communities, to the local environment.
Because we want, we need these critical raw materials for our next steps in the energy transition or in the digital transition. But, of course, moving forward here does not mean that we have to leave scars on the other side.
So I think this is the element that we are mentioning here, and I think this is an important element also from the perspective, especially of the Deva Committee, because this is, of course, what we are working with. We are working from the DEVA committee in partnership with our countries in the Global South.
Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you for this kind reminder, madam Marit, and we have come to the conclusion of the discussions on this report. And I would like to remind you that the deadline for amendment is Friday, March 20 at 12 PM. Or at noon, and the committee vote is scheduled for April 14.
This concludes point nine on the agenda. And we just take some minutes to let our MV colleagues also enter the room and settle down. We'll start again, I hope, at five past half.
Thank you, colleagues.
Okay.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Good morning, colleagues. I have a good morning. I have no modification to propose to the draft agenda. Can we adopt it as it is? Okay. Thank you. Thank you for joining us for this DAVE MV meeting on the consideration of the graph report on the SDGs implementation.
I have some chair announcements. Interpretation as usual, active interpretation will be provided in several languages in order to facilitate the work of the interpreters. I would like to encourage colleagues to speak slowly when given the floor.
If there are no objections, we can consider adopted the minute of the joint DVM meeting of 2020. 25.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Mister Maran, and welcome to this joint committee meeting. And we are on our point four on the agenda, and we are going to discuss the implementation and delivery of the sustainable development goals in view of the 2024 high level political forum at the UN in New York. And we will proceed to the consideration of the draft report on implementation. And the delivery of the sustainable development goals.
And our core are my colleagues, the NV chair, Mr. Francesco Maran and Mr. Lucas Mandel from the EPP, representing the Committee on Development. The joint report by the DAVE and the MV committees once again leads on the parliament's efforts to promoting the implementation of the 2030 agenda and its sustainable development goals.
As we all have acknowledged, the world is falling short in meeting these goals in the face of mounting global challenges and attacks on multilateral collaboration, the European Union's strong commitment to defending and advancing the SDGs is more important than ever.
Not only for maintaining its international commitments, but also for encouraging collective action that can move the global community towards a more sustainable and fair future. Even beyond 2030. Without further delay, I now pass the floor to my MB Co-Chair, Mister Pierre Francesco Maran. Please, the floor is yours.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Yes, colleagues. As my colleague Salani already stated, the EU leadership in supporting the implementation of the SDGs is needed more than ever. From the side of the envy committee, I also welcome the long-standing close cooperation between our two committees on this important issue.
This joint report will form a parliament position in view of the next high level political forum on sustainable development, which will take place in New York from 2026, and where our two committees will send a joint I have the honor of being the rapporteur for this report together with my colleague, Lucas Mendel.
Speaker 25
Thank you so much, Mister Man Maran. Now we'll start the round of both the Kora Portover, but also the shadows. I would like to start with giving the floor to Mr. Lucas Mandel for three minutes. Please, Lucas, the floor is yours.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Jia Abia. I would like to thank also Cora Poteur, Pierre Francesco Maran for the excellent cooperation on the preparation of this important report. However, I would like additionally to table some amendments.
My amendments aim to strengthen the implementation dimension of the Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring that our approach remains pragmatic, results-driven, and adapted to today's geopolitical realities. First, accelerating SDG implementation requires a more coherent and security-conscious approach.
Strengthening the link between the humanitarian, development, and peace nexus, with a stronger focus on resilience, stability, and conflict prevention. Second, sustainable development cannot succeed without good governance. The rule of law, anti-corruption measures, and sound public financial management. These are essential foundations for effective and credible development policy.
I also propose stronger monitoring, accountability, and results-based implementation, both at EU and global level, so that commitments translate into measurable outcomes. In addition, my amendments highlight children as a priority group, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Through targeted investments in education, health care, and protection, which are essential for long-term human capital development and stability.
Regarding SDG six, I emphasize that universal access to safe water and sanitation is fundamental for public health, dignity, and stability. We must address water pollution at the source, strengthen wastewater treatment, improve data and monitoring, and reinforce your leadership in water diplomacy, including support for boundary water cooperation.
On SDG 9, I stressed the importance of resilient and secure infrastructure. As well as the critical role of private investment, innovation, and public-private partnerships. Including through the Global Gateway Strategy. Mobilizing private capital will be indispensable to close the SDG financing gap. Finally, I underline that achieving the SDGs requires stronger international partnerships, better coordination with international financial institutions, and a greater focus on sustainable investment, competitiveness, and innovation.
Looking ahead, any post-2030 development framework must remain realistic, measurable, and focused on delivery, ensuring that sustainable development leads to tangible improvements in people's lives. Also looking forward to continuing excellent cooperation with the NV Corporateur mister Pierre Francesco Maran, and I thank you very much.
Speaker 25
Thank you, dear Lucas. And I will have the pleasure to give the floor to the cooperator to Pietro and Jessica Maran. For three minutes.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Yes. I changed my hat, and we respect the time. It's a privilege to present this draft report together with my colleague, Encora Porto, Lucas Mandel, that I thank. I would therefore like to start with one observation.
Over the past decade, the SDGs have improved millions of lives. Access to education has expanded for over 100000000 children. Millions of people have gained access to safe drinking water, and global electricity access has reached 92%. However, despite this, we are currently off track to meet the SDGs. Progress remains uneven and is increasing, its challenged by a volatile geopolitical environment.
The ENV committee plays a central role in translating the EU's environmental ambition into legislative action. And our work on the energy transition, climate action, and water protection is a key tool for delivering the 2030 Agenda.
I would therefore like to focus my remarks on three key points that we included in our draft report. First, on affordable and clean energy. Accelerating the transition toward renewable energy is truly the key to guaranteeing Europe's strategic autonomy. But on top of this, affordable and reliable energy is a horizontal enabler that can help achieve all 17 SDGs.
Moreover, in the context of the 2030 agenda, we must do more to address energy poverty, to ensure that the energy transition is fair and inclusive. A second point on sustainable cities.
By 2050, 68% of the world's population will live in urban areas. This will clearly be one of key challenges of this century. Having served as deputy mayor of Milan, I've always been convinced that above all the importance of sustainable urban development, it requires energy efficient buildings, sustainable public transport, and integrated planning that protects biodiversity.
Achieve these local authorities, we require financial and regulatory support from national and international institutions. The achievement of the SDGs will fall largely on the shoulders of cities, and we must not leave them alone.
Finally, a concluding remark on the role of EU leadership. Leadership is measured by action, not by declaration alone. As many counties cut back on development financing and put into question the international order, the EU must step up.
The challenge today is to build alliances and mobilize investment to close the $4,000,000,000,000 annual financial gap to achieve the SDGs. We have the tools but what we need now is determination to turn commitment into delivery.
Dear colleagues, there are just a few of our ideas. I look forward to working with all the shareholders to ensure we approve an ambition and forward-looking report. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Pierre Francesco. And thank you, Lucas, for taking on this challenge to get the house together in one common position. And I hope that we can achieve that ahead of the mission there.
Now I would like to give the floor to the shadows both in Dave and in Envi, starting with Vishadura Pottor in Envi, madam Ingo Bore Terlak. Please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 32
Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and dear colleagues. We are approaching an important moment in the 2030 agenda. With less than four years ago, to go, it's clear that progress is not moving fast enough. At the same time, the challenges we are facing, from climate pressure to geopolitical tensions, are only increasing.
Speaker 33
Would like to start by saying that I'm very glad to see a strong focus on water this year.
Speaker 32
FTD6. And I think this is very much needed. What has seen something very basic running from our taps on a daily basis, and it's clean. But it's essential for our health, for our food, for our economy, and for our security. At the same time, we need to take the next step.
It's not only about access to water, but it's also about how we manage it. Strengthening water resilience by improving monitoring, protecting the water cycling, and investing in infrastructure should be a clear priority.
More broadly, I believe resilience is key across the SDGs. Our systems, whether it's in water, energy, or industry, need to be able to deal with shocks and continue to function. That is what will make our progress sustainable in the long term. I think this is more timely than ever. On energy, this means making sure that it's not only sustainable, but also reliable and affordable for people and businesses.
Well connected energy systems in Europe are essential for them. On industry, we should continue to support innovation and sustainability. But also make sure that our industries remain strong, and they only remain strong by making them future-proof, sorry, because that is competitiveness.
And finally, we have to be realistic. Achieving these SDGs requires investments, as my colleagues were saying. Public funding alone will not be enough. So we need to be better in involving private actors and strengthening cooperation.
So overall, I'm positive about the report and its direction. But I will put forward some targeted amendments to further strengthen key elements, in particular on resilience and implementations. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Ingeborg. And I would like now to give the floor to the shadow from the Divvy Committee, Madam Marielle Laurent. Please, the floor is yours.
Murielle Laurent
Thank you, chairman, dear colleagues, this report is at a decisive time just four years away from 2030, and it's alarming. Very few are satisfactory, and some of these goals, and some of them are going backwards on the eve of 2026.
We should send a strong message. The European Union should strongly commit on the international scene and assume a leadership role to put the SDGs back on track. This leadership cannot only be based on geopolitical or geo-economic ideas.
The theme is inclusion and human rights must come back to the center of our actions. This is a necessary condition to implement the SDGs to build resilient societies to combat poverty effectively without leaving anyone behind.
Like other colleagues, I would like to stress SDG six, access to water and sanitation, is fundamental and a pillar, and it is one of the things we are lagging behind with the most. Water is important for poverty reduction, for peace, security, and education.
We should not forget the freight fragile context affected by displacement of people, where water diff deficit fragileizes it, renders our living conditions much more fragile. So women and children are mainly the those most affected by crisis. And we need to have a gender approach if we want sustainable and lasting results.
With regards to SDG 17, this is central. The success of SDGs is based on successful partnerships. Civil society should be an essential partner, and its role should be protected. Multilateralism, inclusive cooperation, governance, more than ever, indispensable.
And this is in line with the amendments I will be putting forward to conclude. This report brings to mind something that is essential: The SDGs as the most comprehensive approach to dealing with our global challenges.
Development should be at the heart of our actions. We should guarantee the cons coherence of our policies, and this is how the European Union can assume its responsibilities. Thank you very much Madame Laurent.
Speaker 25
And I don't have anyone from the Patriots here today, if I'm not mistaken. Neither from Envy nor from Deve and none from the ECR Group, if I'm not mistaken, neither from MB nor from DEV.
So I would like to give the floor to myself on behalf of Renu as a shadow reporter for this. And I will start. I would like to start with thanking the core rapporteurs for their report. And of course, like everyone who already spoke, it marks a very important year, but also a very important goal when it comes to the SDGs. And given the situation that we have globally, it goes without saying, the European voice will be of instrumental value for the upcoming four years.
For me, two additional dimensions must be integrated more in this report, and I'm talking about both gender equality on the one hand and fragility and conflict on the other hand. First, the unequal access to energy, water and sanitation, and particularly the consequences of that lack for women, children and vulnerable groups, its asymmetric impact on these groups. The fact that women often bear the main responsibility for gathering water, providing sanitation and hygiene for the family, and are often more negatively, of course, impacted by the lack of it. Women's access to water and sanitation has a significant impact on their health. Employment and their education, which is why the EU should take actions to always see SDG five on gender equality as a cross-cutting accelerator.
For all SDGs. At the same time, it is worth noting that 685,000,000 people worldwide still live without electricity, and well over a billion people are considered to be energy poor. Access to energy and water are both increasingly weaponized in conflict, despite the special protection afforded to them by international humanitarian law. Here, I also wanted to call on the EU to strengthen investments and access to sanitation, water, and energy in fragile and conflict-affected contexts.
And I hope that these two focal points of my amendment will contribute to have a better European Parliament position. That is more aligned with the SDGs and with the needs that are globally there.
On behalf of the Greens, I don't see anyone either. And on behalf of the left, I have Mr. David, Mr. Damian Carema. Please, the floor, he's not here? Yes.
He's.
Oh, okay. Yeah.
Speaker 35
Thank you, madam chair, dear colleagues. Thank you to the rapporteurs for their work on this text. It's a very good basis. I will put in amendments to strengthen some issues that are fundamental for the left. Mainly with regards to access to water, which you underscore, and also sustainable development, which is something that we are not achieving on these SDGs. And of course, we see climate changes affecting reserves of water, and these are things that we need to look at.
For the left, water should be considered a common good or a human right, and not a product. Like water and air, nobody would want to think about privatizing the water, the air we breathe.
We cannot accept multinationals making their shareholders richer. Through this and for water being used in a private manner in the area of agriculture. So there should be public management of water.
We should learn from our mistakes. And we should promote this aspect with regards to the environment 12 of the 17 SDGs. Are linked to the European Green Deal. The European Union, therefore, has a responsibility to achieve the, our the what we've set as goals and not go backwards. We should also have an ambitious approach for technology transfer and the achievement of SDGs in the area of environment, mean that we need to respect the development policy. We need critical materials.
Obviously, for the energy transition, but this should not be done to the detriment of biodiversity and, going against local populations. We want to have an approach that takes account of climate change and also the principles of an international commission on fair taxes for multinationals, and they should contribute to fiscal justice in the countries where they operate.
And Africa has lost in the last five decades over $100,000,000,000 in illegal financial flows. Which is more than the ODA in that period, we should avoid this tax evasion of multinationals and others so that this will be a tool to achieving SDGs and compensate for the drastic reduction in public development aid.
Can we, perhaps, postpone the date for the amendments just two days up from now is a bit short.
Speaker 25
Thank you, dear Damian, and I would like also to give the floor to my esteemed colleague, Nikolas Frantoris, on behalf of the Greens as a shadow rapporteur on in from MB.
Speaker 36
Thank you, chair. Dear colleagues, first, I would like to thank the core Aportez for your draft report. And for your work so far. The SDGs represent collective goal commitment to tackling the world's most urgent challenges and constitute our shared blueprint for a better, more sustainable world. Yet the latest UN report shows a stark reality.
Only 35% of SDG targets are on track. Or showing moderate progress. This means that nearly two-thirds of the goals are either stagnating, moving too slowly, or even progressing. While there has been some progress, especially in SDG seven on affordable energy, where renewable energy deployment has expanded rapidly. Other areas are lagging alarmingly behind.
SDG six, for example, on clean water sanitation, one of the worst performing SDGs. Water pollution is becoming an even more pressing issue. And without urgent action, it will continue to undermine the well-being of millions.
This is an area where the EU can lead not just by policy, but also through international water diplomacy. Equally troubling is the fact that SDG nine, focused on building resilience and fostering innovation, is marked by uneven progress. While some regions are advancing towards secular economies and sustainable industrial practices, others are still heavily reliant on polluting technologies.
Regarding SDG 11, we need concrete action to make cities and human settlements inclusive. Safe, resilient, and sustainable. In this context, we must focus on risk associated with rapid urbanization and lack of affordable and sustainable housing.
The lack of basic services and goods, as well as on climate-induced displacements. Moreover, we need urgent action to face the SDG financial gap, which stands at almost 4,000,000,000,000 US dollars annually. And is a fundamental barrier to achieving the SDGs, especially in low- and middle-income countries. With high debt burdens.
We cannot ignore the growing geopolitical instability and conflict. Which pose a significant threat to SDG progress and further deepen the divide between developed and developing nations.
We start ready to work together.
Speaker 36
Towards a comprehensive and a vision result in view of the 2026 high-level political forum. Thank you very much, this good collaboration.
Speaker 25
Thank you, dear Nicolas. And I would like to give the floor now finally to Mark Jungian, both on behalf of being Dave and Envi Shadow. Please, Mark, the floor is yours.
Marc Jongen
Our group is critical of the sustainable development goals as a whole, and this is well-known. We're also critical of the implementation. I would like to ask whether these approaches really make a contribution towards sustainable development, in particular, focusing on SDG 6, 7, 9. The two last goals, affordable and clean energy in industry, innovation and infrastructure, clearly show that these are not possible without the proper infrastructure in place, and this has consequences in Europe, but also has an impact for the industrialization and sustainable development in other parts of the world.
Looking at the further development of renewable energy, this one-sided energy policy which focuses on this and excludes nuclear energy does not help sustainable development in Europe or in the world as a whole.
In Europe and in countries in Africa, there is a real focus on the need for reliable energy supply in order to ensure sustainable and stable societies. So the access to energy, these are vital issues to also taking into account the developments in artificial intelligence.
If Europe is to be credible in an international forum, then we have to have three principles in our policy. We need to be open to technology, and we need to ensure that energy is affordable.
Maybe it's possible to earn money for as long as possible in Europe with the current policies, but this is not credible at a global level. If we don't change our policy, we are going to lose our position to China with whom we are in tough competition.
On the cutbacks to USAID, at the gaps which emerged in the SDGs as a result of that. We talk as if Europe could fill this gap, and this is simply not realistic.
We must ensure that policies put in place in the interests of European countries, these must be better taken into account.
Speaker 25
Well, thank you there, Mark, for the, for your sharing your opinions. I will jump the cash the eye at the moment, and go straight to the commission, and Madam Herrera, thank you so much for being here. And then we will have a round of Catch the Eye after her presentation.
Please, Madam Herrera, the floor is yours.
Speaker 38
Thank you very much to both chairs for having invited the commission to contribute to this discussion with our input.
As secretary general of the commission and lead service for the coordination of the entire sustainable development goals file throughout the work of the commission. We have, of course, read the draft report carefully, and we have taken note of your concerns that largely match our concerns as well. And we have transmitted your remarks and your calls to the services that are primarily working with each of the policy areas that are being discussed here.
Let me start with one issue that has been already mentioned by the MB chair, which is leadership. Indeed, Europe has been, for a very long time, in a leading position when it comes to the discussion on sustainable development globally.
Actually, the principles of sustainable development are well enshrined in the treaties, and they were well before the Agenda 2030 existed. We know that these are difficult times for multilateralism these days. This has also been mentioned.
But even though we're precisely because of that, we would like to reaffirm our full commitment to this agenda. As you know, SDGs are an integral part of the president's political guidelines, and they feature in the mission letters of each member of the college. Which means that the development of any policy put forward by the commission has to take into account the sustainable development goals dimension of that policy initiative. And this is something that from our coordinating position in the sec gen, we take very much into account.
Allow me to focus a bit precisely on the meeting that is ahead of us in New York, the high-level political forum. The commission is a great supporter of this forum because we can see that it is an inclusive platform, key for the review and the acceleration of progress towards meeting the objectives for 2030.
It has already been mentioned here. We are not in the right path in many of the sustainable development goals, and we consider that the HLPF is instrumental in being able to accelerate this discussion, not the least because it's a multi-stakeholders forum that facilitates engagement and exchange between a lot of different actors that are relevant to this discussion. It was also mentioned here.
Public actors alone will not manage to push this agenda forward. We, the private actors, will need civil society. We need everyone who is ready and willing to help. The general theme of the 2026 HLPF is that transformative, equitable, innovative, and coordinated actions for the 2030 agenda.
And its SDGs for a sustainable future for all, which actually links perfectly with the EU objective of achieving a continuous improvement in citizens' quality of life and well-being, without compromising, and this is maybe something to be stressed, without compromising the well-being of future generations.
And if you have been following recent initiatives adopted by the commission, we have just put forward an intergenerational fairness strategy. That precisely has the objective of embedding this element in our policies.
We are therefore very pleased to see that two of our member states, Estonia and Italy, are featuring among the 36 presentations of voluntary national reviews that are going to take place this year, and we constantly encourage also other member states to do so because the VNRs are a very useful instrument for peer learning, for participant, for accountability, and for harmonization. So we think that is an instrument that should be fully used to the full of its potential.
I'm already concluding because I am probably already beyond my time. Just by reassuring all of you that the 2030 agenda remains our global roadmap, to tackle the many crises and the many challenges that the world is facing, which are as deeply interconnected and interdependent as ever.
And we are, of course, fully focused as you are, and we would like to work together in that direction on accelerating the process as much as we can ahead of the 2030 debt.
Date. Thank you very much. And, of course, I'm happy to for any reactions, if there are any. Thanks.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Madame Harrer, for this intervention and for your feedback. I would like to open the floor to our colleagues who if anyone has the catch the eye. No? So I would like to give the floor back to our corruptors for concluding remarks and maybe also answering the Greens' ask for postponement of the deadline for amendments.
Lucas, I'll start with you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much for the in-depth discussion and the substantial thoughts. To make it brief, I think we will have a strong report on the SDGs and also a good stance for our observation at New York at the UN headquarters in July.
And I very much agree, give my consent from my side for EPP for postponing the deadline for amendments to Monday next week, in order to make everything possible that we feel will be possible.
Pierfrancesco Maran
I thank you all for the shareholder report. On my side, it's important we present the parliament position in New York next July with a strong majority and the large debate, as we saw today.
So, agree. We give some more time for demand. So it will be if I change my head and so thank you also for the co-chair. We had today, we announced that the deadline for amendment is the 90, is the Monday March 23 at twelve. While, sorry? While the vote in joint committee will take place on the June 23, 2026.
Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much, dear. Francesco. And with this, we conclude today's meeting. Thank you for this exchange, and the best of luck to our corruptors and the shadows. And see you in New York.
I'll maybe see you earlier. I don't know. Meeting. Thank you so much, colleagues.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.