Committee on Fisheries 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
PECH European Parliament
Follow its sittingsPaulo do Nascimento Cabral
And if I may, there are differences with the old protocol. We're now talking five years instead of four years, seven years instead of four years, which is very positive in the long term for the EU. Obviously, we need to have transparency on the financial contribution. We need to ensure that we will have international cooperation, sustainability, and so on and so forth, which benefit both sides. Thank you very much, Rapporteur, for her work.
I'm sure this will have a very positive outcome. You can count on our support.
Floor to the S and D Shadow Rapporteur, Mister Eric Sagiacomo. Two minutes, please. Thank.
Eric Sargiacomo
You, chairman, and thank you very much to my colleague for the introduction and for the explanations on the fisheries agreement with the Cook Islands. It's true that at first sight, this seems to be a modest agreement. And yet, I think that we shouldn't underestimate the importance of the agreement for geopolitical and environmental reasons, particularly. This is only covering a few vessels, it's true, but that's decisive for our presence in the region. And what happens with fisheries is going to be of vital importance to the Cook Islands because 26% of the resources of that country depend directly upon fisheries, and it's the second area for generating income after tourism.
The Cook Islands may seem to be a picture postcard idol, but the reality is very different on the ground. And we're seeing both Chinese and American influence on the mining and maritime resources of the islands. China has already signed an economic development agreement with the islands. And that means, obviously, they're entering into competition with the US, which exerts influence. And you know how much Donald Trump would like to be able to develop underwater resources, in particular, raw metals.
So our approach is a more virtuous one, I would say. And this might help to calm the order of the major powers in the area. In Nice, there were 37 countries that met to discuss this, and you will understand that I feel we should be supporting this partnership. And we very much have a role to play through sustainable fisheries agreements in terms of new diplomacy, new voices in diplomacy on the world stage. And I'm sure what we do will work out positively and rapidly.
Thank you very much.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
To the rapporteur from Patriots if it's here. No. So we'll pass to ECR, mister Milazzo, not here also. Missus Kamara, not here also. So I'll pass the floor to the rapporteur from the left.
Not here, also. And then I'll pass the floor to the rapporteur for Mister Dreuse. The floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you, chair.
Speaker 7
I think that, well, I'm looking forward to working well together with you in the future. I'd like to congratulate you on your election today, vice chair. Now I don't necessarily share the main points you've made. We do have to work on this going forward. Now when it comes to fisheries agreement, it's good that this is on the table.
But just a few weeks ago, we were in The Seychelles, and it became obvious that there were other actors who were signing agreements with The Seychelles on the side. Now then, we hear, last year, that after eight years of agreement ten years, the agreement's over and the people are turning to China instead. They sign agreements according to different principles, perhaps, economic principles more than anything else. And the exclusive economic areas around the Cock Islands as well as source of enormous amounts of different minerals and rare earths, which are necessary for chip manufacturing, for example. And, the agreement with China will allow for deep sea mining as well.
And, yes, these are completely separate from fisheries agreement. You may well say that, but someone who can offer more will get more. The EU is just offering the blue economy. That's it. But, here we have the enormously fast growing economic sector of deep sea mining, which is up for grabs, and China was up for it.
China was willing to pay for this. And all we'll end up with is a net full of fish. Now I think we have to focus on the economic aspect of things, and that includes deep-sea mining. Now sexual support that we are offering has to be a fit for the times we're living in. The blue economy is important, yes, but we have to call a spade a spade and look at the sector as it is now and not how we would like it to be, using electronic gear, for example, mining for critical earths, deep sea mining.
And if we don't want to be left behind, if we want to change the electric vehicle scene in Europe, then we are going to have to invest in deep sea mining and sign agreements like those, which China and the USA are looking at today. Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, Mr. Dresden. Now I will open the period of catch the eye, some time for the members that want to participate in the debate. If not, I will pass the floor to the commission representative, Mr. Luis Moldo. We welcome you again here to our commission in the afternoon.
If you wish to comment, you have the floor for more or less five minutes.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much, and thank you for inviting us to this session in the afternoon as well. You put me in a very difficult situation because I think the outcome of the protocol has been brilliantly exposed by the rapporteur. So I don't, I'm not sure I have much to add. Probably, if you allow me, probably highlight the period of seven years that is very rare in forest FPAs. Like you said, this has the advantage of providing predictability, also reinforcing the presence of the fleet in the area.
It also has a positive impact because Cook Island is a good partner, and we see eye to eye in the regional organizations in the fight against IUU. So it has very positive repercussions beyond the SFPA. We have in the Exante or in the Exposed Exante evaluation, there was an invitation to adapt the fishing opportunities, which we have done. We were talking about this morning also taking into consideration the utilization rate. We have done that.
Sectoral support, I think the report, the evaluation was also adamant that we should give more time for the protocol to be able to better implement the sectoral support opportunities. This is already also done with the new protocol. So I think it's small, but extremely important protocol for the region. And I'm very thankful for this positive report by the rapporteur and Saudi rapporteurs. So thank you very much.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you so much, Mr. Moldo. Now I'll give the floor to Miss Aguirre Martinez, the rapporteur, to wrap up the debate, if you want to take the floor.
Speaker 3
Thank you so much. Only to say thank you to the Sados and all the team that have been working on this protocol. And.
I would like to very much thank the Shadows, the commission team, and the technical teams too that have been working to ensure that we have a renewed version of the protocol. Thank you.
Gracias.
Thank you very much.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
The deadline for tabling amendments is set for Tuesday, March 24 at noon. So this item is closed. Thank you very much for your contributions, and we will pass to point 10, item 10 on our agenda. A presentation by the European Commission on the proposal for a regulation establishing conditions for union support to our key maritime policies through the National Regional Partnership Fund. This concerns implementation framework from the common fisheries policy, European Ocean Pact, and our broader maritime and aquaculture policies for the upcoming 2028, 2034 programming periods.
I would like to welcome the commission representatives, mister Stelios Mitolidis, director from the GMRE, and remind colleagues that mister Nicholas Erps took over from mister Smith as rapporteur of this file. Please, Mister Mitolidis, you have the floor.
Speaker 9
Thank you, chair. Thank you very much. Thank you to the honorable members of the European Parliament. I will try to be brief, I think, in the introduction. As you know, the commission has proposed a new package.
It is an ambitious budget for a new era. The commission has proposed the most ambitious EU budget ever in size and design. This will enable Europe to act decisively through a simple, more agile, and more impactful EU budget. We are investing in common strategic priorities, and we are strengthening and modernizing the common policies by providing predictability, flexibility, and sending a clear commission, clear political message to Europe's unity, independence, and commitment to promote and defend its core values and the rule of law. With respect to the national and regional partnership plans, which is the first part, I think, of these elements of the four points that you have put on the table, we are delivering European priorities through a new integrated framework for cohesion, agriculture, fisheries, home affairs, and social policy.
€865,000,000,000 is available for these policies. Interesting elements to note, of course, there is €294000000000 for income support to farmers. There is a minimum of at least €2,000,000,000 for fisheries. There are about €450,000,000,000 for economic, social, and territorial cohesion, including fisheries, aquaculture, coastal, and rural communities. There is a social target of 14% that would apply to each individual NRP plan.
The commission also suggests to introduce a 10% rural target for each plan, and there is at least a certain earmarked for plans dedicated to climate and environmental spending. This would be a tailor-made programming, allowing member states and regions to define a mix of investments and reforms reflecting their specific national and territorial needs, including coastal and rural areas, islands, outermost regions, and sparsely populated areas in the eastern border regions. We are aiming at creating synergies by bringing together policies to deliver better results, for example, in cohesion, in agriculture, in fisheries, in social policies, where they can actually have a combined approach on funding, attracting, for example, young fishers and farmers by developing physical and social infrastructures in rural and coastal areas. We are also building on the success of the previous policies' programming periods. We are continuing with a shared management approach.
We have a multilevel governance, a participative principle on consulting in order to formulate from member states their national plans and in full involvement of regions. Within the framework, and as discussed, we are aiming to achieve the maximum possible level of added value. We are absolutely sure in that context that the amounts that they have been provided and the new delivery model will give flexibility to member states to deliver, but also, the necessary level of fulfilling the policy orientations as they set out in the national plans under article 22 in terms of fulfilling the policy objectives of the common policies and, in general, the policy of the European Union as they've been set up in specific policy frameworks at the European semester and in various other set of documents. All in all, the general message I think we want to pass is that this is a much more flexible delivery system that will end up with higher possibilities for our stakeholders to tap financial support throughout the plan. Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, Mister Mitolidis. I invite the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs to intervene if they wish to make a statement. And then the first, I will give the floor to our good colleague, Gabriel Mato from EPP on behalf of the rapporteur, Nicolas Herbst.
Thank.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, chair. Yes. I'm speaking on behalf of Mister Herbst, who is a full member now of this committee and is rapporteur on this file, which is a vital one. He's not here, but I'd like to welcome him anyway. And I'm speaking on his behalf and raised three issues.
And then as a coordinator, I'll ask for the floor myself. On behalf of Mister Herbst then, we would ask that we take into account the activities in the European Oceans Pact, the Maritime Fund's goal was to finance the CFP. So perhaps it can be explained why the commission is going, how the commission will ensure, in fact, that the CFP priorities are implemented. And the same goes for the oceans pact, because really that's just a communication as far as the commission is concerned. We don't know the details yet, really.
So the question here is, how will this work? And how can the commission guarantee that the implementation of support for the CFP and the Maritime Fund through these NRPPs respects the principle of subsidiarity and continue to ensure that regional authorities and coastal communities can play an important role, especially considering the centralization we'll have with a single fund. And then there was a non-paper from 20 member states on the proposal for a transfer of articles from the Oceans Pact into the CAP regulation or the CMO regulation. Are there other articles that might be transferred to ensure consistency? And isn't there a degree of confusion if we have two different regulations in this particular area that overlap?
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Three important questions. I'll pass the floor also to the shadow rapporteur from S&D, mister Nicolas Gonzalez Cazares. The floor is yours for 3 minutes.
Gracias.
Speaker 12
Thank you, and congratulations. Now we can't deny that the commission is consistent because everything in this proposal is a cut. This is the biggest cut ever in our history in the CFP, more than 60%. So don't bring up this topic. Don't say that the MFF gives more money for the fisheries policy.
Speaker 11
Let's save us these words. You can't say that in this committee. It's better not to say it. Moreover, on the regulation, we're moving down to 5 articles. That's also a cut.
So we really don't have the impression that fisheries are a priority for you. But for us, for our committee, and for parliament, fishing is a priority because fishing and agriculture don't deserve the commission's treatment. They're recognized in the treaties, and we need to look carefully. The member states are asking to act. The movement of articles to a regulation on the sectors means recognizing their importance.
We have to consider aid, control systems, everything. We can't water them down. They can't be a subchapter of the national programs. They need their own space. Now you have simply eliminated funds, and there's no reference to the funds.
I presume this is the simplification effort that you have been insisting on. But we have to remember the essential elements of the CFP. This is an issue that is based on scientific proof, on the work of our populations. There are important issues like aid and others, and they have disappeared from your proposal. There are priorities such as the renewal of fleets and the generational renewal.
Again, they are not mentioned. Now I have nothing against the Ocean Pact. On the contrary, I support it. But there is an issue to consider. You have established a policy, the fisheries policy, which is in the treaty.
You've put it in a communication, a communication that doesn't have any legal value. But it's not the commission to establish the rules because we are co-legislators, and we have to respect the treaties. And that's what we will do with our amendments. Thank you.
Gracias.
Yes. Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
For the wishes. Now I'll pass the floor to the rapporteur from ECR. Maybe, you want to take the floor? I could call you MEP Riesen. The floor is yours for three minutes, please.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Excuse me. But we're a bit lost. We say point 10, but the European Commission has spoken of point 11, speaking of NPRs, the NRPPs. I mean, there are problems with some articles. They've been moved, that shows that they are not a priority for the commission.
We have to look at the NRPs, and we see that in the chapter on agriculture, we do find a few articles that refer to fishing. But from a legal point of view, this is not consistent. It's not acceptable. Now on point 10 and the regulation, I have a question on Article 3.2 on the capacity threshold. Now the commission has given us the impression that it doesn't intend to change this limit, this threshold, but I think it's necessary.
We need more flexible conditions, especially if we want to change our energy sources. So, is the commission ready to introduce more flexibility on these thresholds? Then there's Article 3.3 on the maximum levels of intensity. We agree on the coastal waters. But what about the other sectors for the fleets?
Now the regulation we have been presented with doesn't say anything about this. Perhaps the commission can clarify its position on this point. And then efficacy, do you think it's a good idea? Do you think it's a good idea to put a 100% figure for maximum intensity? Certainly, the Court of Auditors will comment on this. Thank you.
That's what I want to say about point 10.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you so much, Mr. Russes. Indeed, it's point 1 0. I'll pass the floor now to the rapporteur from Renew, MEP, Asger Kristensen. The floor is yours for three minutes, please.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much, and congratulations with your election, Paul. Thank you. It's very good. I'll speak Danish. It.
is of the utmost importance that fisheries receives the adequate financing. Because if we don't do that, we risk a reprioritization of means, so the money goes into cohesion funds, etcetera, and other common initiatives. And fisheries will be left with all the cutbacks, losing out in the big scheme of things. It's also about the political weight that we throw behind our initiatives. As it has been stated on numerous occasions in this committee, we intend to support our fishermen.
And without adequate financing, they will be stuck with their backs against the wall without proper financing. That's why we need to keep working just as we do in the Committee on Agriculture and ensure proper financing. At the same time, it's important that we keep expanding on the relevant articles for fisheries, giving us the necessary means to act when necessary. If we don't have the adequate mechanisms at hand, we risk finding ourselves in a situation where our hands are tied behind our backs. So we need the proper legal and financial tools in order to be able to secure fishermen's interests in the future in the European Union.
Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you very much, MEP Christensen. Now I give the floor to the Shadow Rapporteur, the Rapporteur from The Greens, Isabella Lavan. The floor is yours for three minutes, please.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Chair, and congratulations from my side as well. It looks good there. Okay. So, to the commission now. On this proposal, yes, I think there are many questions around exactly what can be financed or not under this regulation.
Speaker 16
And I think that has to be really specified. Perhaps the fisheries conditions are more clear, but on the ocean packed elements in it, it's not so clear. I'm glad to see the reference to WTO rules and also SDG goals about not providing funding that can create overcapacity or overfishing, which is good. Also, it's positive that the Ocean Pact is mentioned several times. But still, yes, the Ocean Pact is very, very broad.
So maybe the commission can explain what types of measures can be financed under this regulation, and what types should be financed under the more broad MFF. On the rules for providing support in Article 4, I would like to see the do no harm principle mentioned. I think that's extremely important, and that is something that is mentioned in a number of other EU legislations. It should be there. Yes. And I mean, also, what we are concerned about is financing going to conservation, restoration, ecosystems, biodiversity, control, science, all of this.
Is this the regulation that commission means should finance all of that with this very limited portfolio? Or how does the commission foresee that these extremely important steps that we need to take in order to restore our oceans, I mean, under what finance regulation should that be done? Because I can also understand that many colleagues here want to see more support for aquaculture and fisheries only. And with the big diminishment of the portfolio, the budget, then there will be competing interests there. Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you so much, MEP Lovain, and thank you for your kind words. I will pass the floor now to the left rapporteur, MEP Luke Flanagan. The floor is yours for three minutes, please.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you. Sorry. Can you clarify, are we on point 9 or point 10? Because it's not obvious. Yeah.
We're on point two. What happened to point 9?
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
It's point 10. Although we cannot control what is said by the commission or the members, so it's point 10 now.
Speaker 23
Alright. I wanted to speak on point 9. Point 9. Yeah. So, when do we get to point nine?
I've been here.
Point then, and you are the shell. Sounds.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you. First off, I just wanna wish everyone a happy Saint Patrick's Day, even though I'm a pagan. So, anyways, we knew that the MFAT standalone fisheries funding program will disappear into the NRPF. We know that member states will have a lot more discretion and less EU level oversight, which opens the door for many national governments to sideline shared EU environmental and social goals. It also opens the door for national governments to sideline small-scale low-impact fisheries.
We've already seen how low-scale producer organizations struggle to access funding under MFAP, although I hope our new minister will change that, which is at the discretion of national authorities. The new MFAP proposes even more discretion for member states in relation to supporting small-scale fisheries, and I did hear it mentioned that there is an opportunity for more money. There's also an opportunity for less money. In fact, more opportunity in my experience. We hear that the 2,000,000,000 will be ring-fenced for the implementation of the CFP and the European Oceans Pact, but what does this mean in practice?
Will you, the commission, introduce clear conditionalities as well as social and environmental criteria to ensure that this funding supports a just transition to low-impact fisheries, small-scale fishers, and contributes to the protection and restoration of biological resources and marine ecosystems? Will you introduce a priority package within our NRPPs and other funding programs to support small-scale fishers and facilitate their access to EU funding, which we know they currently struggle to access? Another question, would you allocate specific funding to support low trophic regenerative agriculture in order to promote the diversification of nonfeed species such as seaweed cultivation? We know there is a decarbonization package in the competitiveness fund for all sectors, but how much of this will be dedicated to the decarbonization of the fishing fleet? How will you ensure that the do no significant harm principle needs to be operationalized and implemented in a coherent manner to avoid loopholes, and ensure that harmful fishery subsidies are phased out?
Up to now, we had a standalone funding program in the EU that is fully dedicated to the environment and climate action. And I am extremely concerned that the live program has been integrated into the new European Competitiveness Fund in the next MFF. In addition, we see a reduction of funding for the transition towards a regenerative blue economy, and we don't see any ring-fence funding for marine protection measures. We need to ensure there will be sufficient resources and autonomy to effectively address the urgent challenges of biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution. Not only do we no longer have an earmark fund for this, we don't even have a minimum biodiversity spending target in the MFF.
So finally, will you introduce a binding minimum biodiversity spending target of 15% and an enhanced climate and environment overarching spending target of at least 50%, with specific sub-targets for ocean climate action and the protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems. And if you can't answer them all verbally, can you send me a written answer, please? Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, Mr. Flanagan. A lot of questions to the commission. Now I would like to thank all of the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs on this important file. And now, also, I like to give the floor to other members of this committee for three minutes, more or less. The first will be Gabriel Mato from the EPP.
The floor is yours.
Speaker 10
Yes. Thank you, chair.
I will speak of 10 and 11. I think we've mixed them up with Cook and the others. But if I was a fisherman and I came to the committee day and I had listened to the commission, I would leave being happy, ambitious budget, more flexible, more possibility for everyone. We're going to reach the objectives. We are also going to consider the outermost region.
I would be very happy, but the truth is quite different. The reality is different. The commission's proposal is inadequate. It's also imbalanced, and it's provoking the fisheries and the agriculture sectors. It's a risk.
It's a risk for their work. It's not only a problem of financing, though the funds are a problem. It's not only the approach in the NRPF, but it's also the institutional ballots. It's also the future of the CFP because the commission proposal is giving the commission superpowers while reducing the role of the European Parliament and of the regions as well. The commission proposal to establish the support measures and to establish the rules for the maritime policies, I think it's quite mysterious, the way it's written.
The proposal gives the members safe, complete freedom to finance whatever type of measures. Well, then we need a clear answer. We need some examples of what can and can't be financed, because what concerns me is that the member states will ignore the do no harm. They will, or maybe they will, they won't introduce policies that create environmental problems. But there's a big difference with today's funds because now we have a clear list of measures that are not eligible, such as the building of shipping vessels, etc.
And now we have this do no significant harm as a principle, but the commission proposal doesn't give any information. It doesn't have a list. So that means that the commission might have quite a bit of freedom in interpreting this principle to do what it wants, because we don't really have goals that are binding. So to summarize, if it's not clearly defined by the co-legislators, then it becomes a discretionary choice by the commission, and this does not respect the Treaty of the EU. And I'll conclude on the fund.
We speak of financing agriculture. But here, it's a separate instrument. There are specific rules and €6,500,000,000, that's what's needed because we have to at least maintain or strengthen the budget for the fund because, moreover, there's the ocean pact. So I think that we can't say that this is wonderful, and that the fishermen will have access to new funds because this is just not true. Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
I'll pass the floor now to MEP Sadia Como from S and D. Two minutes, please.
Yes.
Eric Sargiacomo
Thank you, chair. I'd like to say something to the commission. It's not the first time that I hear this debate. It could be about agriculture or about fishing, and they always say it's wonderful. Now that's a strategy, of course, to just keep repeating the message.
But here, I think you're just trying to hide the truth. When I listen to you, I see that you can't tell us how much money will be available for fisheries, and what the money will be used for. Plus, I look at the management plans, we say the member states will see, but everything depends on a regulation. But now we're saying that the member states will be leading the game. So they will decide.
We had the local action groups for fisheries and agriculture, useful. And they've been waiting for the commission's reaction. There have been very important environmental projects, and these projects involved the territory as well as the member states, the regions, and the EU. But these are not even mentioned, so that's unacceptable. People will say that this is simplification, but we are all witnesses here of what is happening.
We spend a long time in meetings, and yet the procedure is very complicated. So whose life are we simplifying? Certainly not the co-legislators, certainly not the fishing community. Maybe we're simplifying the commission's life, but in any case, this proposal is unacceptable in all ways. Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you so much, Mr. Sajakon. I'll pass the floor to our colleague, MEP Sadler Smedes from MCR. Two minutes, please.
Speaker 24
It's very quick. Thank you very much, chair, and thanks to the commission for the presentation and the explanations provided. So happy to see you all smiling here in this committee, very warmly. First of all, I think, in itself, it might be positive that the Commission proposes separate regulation to support the CFP. However, this proposal remains very limited in scope and really needs further improvement, strengthening, and complementarity, I think.
Speaker 25
I believe that the most important element this proposal should include is a safeguarded and ring-fenced budget for the CFP in the next MFF with a minimum of at least the current level of 6,100,000,000, ideally and as suggested by the excellent opinion to the next MFF, the budget should be inflation adjusted to around €7,500,000,000. We need to make our fishery sector innovative and resilient. It needs major structural, it faces major structural challenges, including the urgent need for fleet renewal. With an average age of EU fish fishing vessels exceeding thirty years, we need investments. In this context, obviously, the proposing a reduction of almost 70% in funding, while at the same time expecting our sector to achieve climate neutrality and zero emissions raises serious questions. We've all been there and discussed that.
Speaker 24
It would be very useful if the commission could explain how these objectives can be realistically reconciled. Referring to the competitiveness fund alone, I think it's unlikely to provide a sufficient solution, given the strong competition from many other policy areas in many member states. Another concern is that the proposal appears to place the nonbinding European Oceans pact on the same level as the common fisheries policy. The CFP is an exclusive EU competence anchored in our treaties, and should therefore remain the primary reference framework. Furthermore, I think we need a bit of flexibility.
In my country, for instance, a small scale, but also coastal fisheries, also include vessels above 12 meters who want to decarbonize. If we want to have generational renewal and fleet renewal, we need a bit of flexibility and pragmatism in the length of such vessels. We, therefore, I'd like to call upon the commission also to reflect the diversity of the national and regional fishery sectors more in that regard. Finally, to conclude, what our fishers really need are simpler rules, less bureaucracy, deregulation, and clear and predictable support and aid conditions. This is really essential to ensure that EU support strengthens the competitiveness of our fishery sector.
Thank you very much.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, Mr. Smith. I was supposed to say that this after the intervention of our colleague, Luke Flanagan, but happy Saint Patrick's Day for all our Irish colleagues. And I'll pass the floor now to our colleague, Nia Murchu from Renew. Two minutes, please.
Yes.
Thank you, chair.
Speaker 26
That's how we say it in Irish, same to you. So, congratulations to you. And, chair and colleagues, I want to raise my concerns also, as my colleagues have done before me, on how the proposed national and regional partnership fund for 2028 to 2034 is risking cutting crucial support for Irish fishing communities. Now the commission's minimum €2,000,000,000 budget allocation is far below the current EMFAF, European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. And we need to ask the question, will it reach the coastal communities and the small-scale fishers that depend on us?
Speaker 27
I doubt it, so I want some reassurance here from the commission today. Since the December Agri Fish Council meeting, the Irish fishing industry has been brought not to its knees, but to its ankles. Quotas have been reduced to unworkable amounts, and boats spend more time tied up than at sea. If we want sustainable seas, I say to the commission, we must also ensure sustainable livelihoods. That means, number one, predictable funding.
Number two, less bureaucracy. Number three, targeted investment in fleet modernization, decarbonization, and innovation. And number four, importantly, enhancing and ensuring the next generation make it through into the sector. Aquaculture too has enormous potential to strengthen Europe's food security, whilst reducing pressure on wild stocks, but only if we create the right conditions for responsible growth. The NRP fund must therefore be practical, accessible, and responsive to regional realities.
A one-size-fits-all approach, I say to the commission, has not worked. It will not work for Ireland's diverse maritime regions, especially in light of its treatment post-Brexit and, of course, hate precepts being lost last December. So, colleagues, I say to you, strong oceans depend on strong coastal communities, and let's ensure that the NRP fund protects them and not dilute them. And I say to the commission, please respond and reassure me and Irish fishers that you understand my points, and they will be taken on board.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you so much. Sorry for misspelling your name. I'll pass the floor now to Isabelle Le Calnec from EPP. Two minutes, please.
Yes.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Thank you, chair. You've spoken of an ambitious budget, 2,000 billion, 2,000,000,000. And then you spoke of the national plans, but you didn't speak of the 2,000,000, the small sum that is for fishing. It's allocated to fishing. And as you know, we are asking for at least €7,500,000,000. Now you've spoken of visibility and flexibility in this new approach, but we've said it and we need to repeat it.
Speaker 29
But this is to the detriment of simplicity. It's difficult for the fishing community, the beneficiaries, the NGOs, and the member states. This new approach is questioning the DNA of the common fisheries policy because it's the member states that now decide whether to allocate funds or not to these fisheries policies or to the oceans. And then there are the outermost regions. We had a meeting on these, and they're ignored.
Speaker 30
Then we don't speak of the modernization of the fleets. And we had a report on this. We know that they are a motor of competitiveness. We keep speaking of competitiveness. Now you will say that it's the European Competitiveness Fund that needs to be used.
Isabelle Le Callennec
But there, there's competition with all the other sectors. So please, you representatives of the commission, could you please respect the European Parliament? Because if you don't listen to us, could you at least listen to the Court of Auditors? Because they are criticizing this new architecture. They're also criticizing the impact on the EU's added value.
Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Now I pass the floor to our colleague, MEP, Mr. Milan Moon. The floor is yours. Two minutes, please.
Thank.
Speaker 32
You, chair. I would also like to talk about the sectoral regulation, as my colleague said. But I was wondering, in the commission's introduction, in the commission's direction, they talked mainly about the NRRPs and the funds. And I'd like to say the following. In this regulation, in this file, we see that there is a desire to make the next MFF more flexible, as flexible as possible.
Speaker 31
Now the MFFAF, with all its long list of requirements, has been reduced to a regulation made up of just five articles. It has been completely gutted. It's designed to give member states flexibility and says that these, does this mean the funds will be used to finance actions which have been rejected by member states or not? And it seems also that as of now or when this regulation comes into force, there will no longer be restrictions for funding. Let me give you a few examples and questions.
Speaker 33
European support for the modernization and decarbonization of the fleet. With the commission's proposal, you could use European funds to replace a motor in a vessel of more than 20 meters. Secondly, to support fishing activities, it seems that according to the proposal we have, there were no living conditions applied to this. Now my third example, aid for a temporal halt of fishing efforts. For example, if fishing stops over the last 120 days over the last two years, this provision is no longer covered.
Speaker 31
Those are just three examples of things that have vanished from the regulation, but there are many more. I believe that all of these measures and actions should be funded, but the silence here is deafening. Finally, I'd like to hear a little bit about the only requirement that is in the text. There will be no aid provided to operators that do not meet the objectives set out by the WTO agreement. Could you say how you believe this requirement would actually be implemented in practice?
Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Now I'll speak in Portuguese.
Thank you very much indeed to the commission for the presentation of their draft regulation. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to share the concerns expressed by my colleagues. It seems that the commission thinks all is well. But as we've seen in other committee meetings and other sectors, there are a great deal of concerns. It seems that the first step, the commission says everything is all well and good, but then they come back to us and ask the parliament to pass more regulation to correct the mistakes they've made in the first draft.
So please, I would beg the commission to allow us to improve the current draft so that it is fit for purpose for the fishing sector. The sector is going through a highly challenging period, not just because of high fuel prices, but because of our increased dependency on third countries in order to ensure strategic autonomy when it comes to food security. Now this proposal, as I see it, simplifies the situation far too much. I welcome simplification, but simplification doesn't mean trimming away everything that works very well, and doing away with its successes in the past. The principle of subsidiarity is not respected here.
We shouldn't outsource all our decisions to member states when it comes to the blue economy, or fisheries, or indeed the treatment of outermost regions. We have to take an overall look at the funds that exist to support the fisheries sector. We understand that. We have a global fund, but all sectors will be fighting for a slice of the pie. We're looking at borders, cohesion, agriculture, fisheries, and fisheries are going to end up as the poor relation when it comes to the MFF, and we cannot accept that.
Therefore, let me repeat that we need an MFF, which is fit for purpose of €5,000,000,000 to support the oceans, packed maritime policies, agriculture, fisheries, among many other aspects. And then this €7,500,000,000 package, we have to ensure that this is ring-fenced. There was a some ring fence for the outermost regions. If this is not done, this draft will not be fit for purpose, and we will not have strong fisheries policies which support our fishing communities and the coastal regions. Thank you very much.
Thank you all. Does the commission wish to reply to any of the huge amount of questions? The floor is yours.
Speaker 9
Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. I can sure try. Thank you. So I think, I would like to start by giving a little bit of feedback that would cover both the NRPP and the CFP thematic because there was a little bit of confusion.
So I think some of these messages are really important. And then with my replies, I will try to take into consideration a lot of the issues that they have given. If you have been giving me a little bit of time, I'm grateful for it. So I would like to repeat that the 2834 delivery model is a profound transformation on the way we work. So it is not an evolution.
It is a revolution on the way we are delivering, and we are doing it on purpose in order to provide flexibility, agility, and being able to take into consideration different national and regional needs that each member state has, while at the same time ensuring that the relevant union priorities are fulfilled and member states are delivering with funds on the necessary results by creating synergies. It is an extremely important, I think, element to underline between the different policy objectives. Member states, we have said it, we will have a flexibility to tailor their budgets in accordance with their national but also local needs. This is extremely important, as the way the commission has proposed the national and regional partnership plans. We are designing a system where the commission, member states, regions, and the relevant stakeholders will work together on the best optimum plan.
It is also building on the shared management model, so there is nothing new in the way we are actually having this delivery. We have very dedicated provisions ensuring effective regional involvement to address stakeholders' calls for simplification and predictability. There is this criticism. It is repeated vis-à-vis the €2,000,000,000. We want to repeat that this, let's say, comparison between the €6,000,000,000 and €2,000,000,000 is not fair.
It does not make a fair comparison. We believe the MFF has a total maximum, as you know, funding of around €6,000,000,000. The new MFF has changed this approach, a minimum ring fenced amount of €3,000,000,000 which is reserved for spending for some type of related to the common facilities policy interventions. But this is some type of intervention related to the CFP policy. We have and member states have, and they should be doing it, the possibility to increase this amount by drawing from the pot of €453,000,000,000 that they are in the national plans, which are not ring fenced and can be allocated according to member state priorities, niche and support for the areas that they were considered important. And within this context, of course, for fisheries and the aquaculture sector, the coastal communities, the blue economy in the ocean in general.
There is a lot of set of questions about the eligibility rules. And, it has been mentioned MFAP is a long well, it was a kind of regulation with 45 articles. The thematic regulation, which supports the implementation of the national of the NRP, is much smaller. This is clear that we, the commission in general, want to create a much easier delivery model. We are shifting from payments just on cost to payments made on the achievements of milestones and targets.
This is an extremely important message for the stakeholders to understand. The legal framework will no longer, and that's the reason it is there, that we don't have, include detailed eligibility rules. So eligibility rules, they don't exist in the way you have seen it in the AMFA of 2017 or in the way you have seen it in 02/2020, which was even more complicated. The aim is for the member states, for regions to design and implement measures according to their needs and priorities and to maximize the support for the sector across or for the sectors across different funds. This is an extremely important element that you could also see in the NRP plan.
What we do have is that member states have to commit to not providing potential harmful subsidies. The DNHH has been mentioned. The proposal includes indeed a set of rules on the principle of do no significant harm, which we will apply to the entire EU budget in line with the EU financial regulation. The D and S H principle aim has to have all the product programs and activities fulfilling the intended goals and set objectives according to the space, the sector specific guidelines, and ensuring that member states are not financing activities that cause and can cause considerable harm to the environmental objectives. In terms of issues that they are related to the interlink, I would say, between the two regulations.
And there was a set of questions why you are moving a part of the articles from the NRP regulation to the thematic or not. What we are, the commission has done a proposal. As you know, the council is proposing a transfer of a set of provisions. Those provisions are basically related to state aid and a set of control systems with respect to the CFP. It is the same approach that the council is also proposing vis a vis the CAP thematic regulation.
The NRP regulation is the main proposal that includes all relevant provisions. That was the basic idea that the delivery model was planned on, including definitions, objectives, and budget provisions. So the thematic regulations are complementing the overall, let's say, regulation. And for us, we don't see any further scope of transferring other parts of the NRP regulation to the thematic regulations. There was also a set of, I think, questions vis a vis the way one can actually say we are delivering on the NRP.
Then if you see the NRP regulation, it has article 22. This enlists all the requirements that the member states should take into consideration when they are designing their plans for interventions and measures. The idea is then that member states are reporting what they are designing in terms of interventions in their national plan. You can actually go as far as we are concerned on section 1.8, annex five on the national plans, where you would see specific spelled out categories on what exactly we are asked to finance. And you can also see with respect to links with other policies, if you see section 1.6 where we have generational renewal, which is also referring not only to agriculture but also to the fisheries and aquaculture industries.
It is important also to understand the link between the NRP, the general link, and the Ocean Pact. The legal proposal concludes and includes different provisions that demonstrate which specific dimensions of the sector have to be addressed. In article 22, as I said, we have the basic requirements. Annex five, section 1.8 of the plan lists all these elements that the member states have to explain. The Ocean Pact is indeed a strategy, which aims to bring together EU ocean-related policies under a single conditioned framework.
This is important. It covers marine protection. It covers the blue economy. It covers ocean-based economy activities. It covers coastal communities, island communities, research and innovation, maritime security, international laws, and governance.
The aim is to tap into the totality of the funding and to be able to have a coherent, as a member state, let's say, proposal on what they would decide to deliver with the plan. There were a set of issues related, for example, to the outermost regions. I would like to repeat, outermost regions have been moved to a separated dedicated chapter in the NRP. All the interventions related to the outermost regions are under this chapter, with the aim to ensure synergies, best, let's say, deliveries, and the ability to have better added value of the interventions. We had also a number of questions that were related to ECA.
I think the commission has taken very good note of the ECA's recommendations in building the proposals. We are preventing fragmentation of the delivery model. I know I'm finishing in three minutes. We want to be able to achieve with the national original plans a single roll book, under set management, the best possible, let's say, results, building on existing delivery systems, mandatory reporting and maximum traceability of the intended, let's say, amounts. Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, Mr. Metolitis. Very short, three minutes. So thank you for this. I'll pass the floor to conclude the debate.
So thank you to all of you. This point is closed. If no one wants to intervene, no. So we'll pass to point 11. We continue our discussion about the multiannual financial framework with the presentation by the commission of the so-called National and Regional Partnership Fund.
The Committee on Fisheries is one of the 11 opinion-given committees, and Mr. Andrea Frankere Rodrigues of the S and D group has been appointed rapporteur. This regulation proposal is vital for the European fishery sector, as it marks a significant departure from the historic framework of EU support for maritime and agriculture policies. However, despite the assurances provided by the commission, we remain deeply concerned about the substantial reductions in the ring-fenced amounts allocated to fisheries. I would like to welcome the commission representatives, mister Stelios Mittalides, again, director from DJ Mare.
And please, mister Mittalides, you have now the floor. Thank you. For three minutes.
Speaker 9
I would be, I think I would be short because in this context, the points are a little bit cross cutting. Cutting. General message about I'm not going to repeat the benefits of the NRPs, but I think it is important to underline that regions are at the heart of the union, and in that respect are also recognized in the NRPs. We have special provisions for the support of less developed regions. Regions will be in the core of how decisions are being taken and shaped, programs will be shaped.
They will have a key role in design management in implementation of the programs, and there will be member states able to choose to structure their plans with national and regional chapters as there is the case today. Important elements on the NRPs, fewer programming documents. We have been moving from 540 programs to 27, a single rule book for self-managed funds. No more artificial silos with multiple funds, financing related activities, faster disbursement of the payments for achieving milestones and targets rather than cost based, building flexibilities for simple plan revisions, transparency in terms of significant increase of transparency with reduction of reporting obligations for member states and beneficiaries, continuity as we are continuing under the basic principle of self management and a single audit approach avoiding duplication of controls and audits to reduce administrative burden. Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you so much for this very brief presentation. Indeed, the points overlap a little bit, themselves. And I would like to invite the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs to intervene if they wish, of course, to make a statement. Mister Francois Rodriguez, you have.
André Franqueira Rodrigues
me start on a personal note because it's always a great satisfaction to see a compatriot of myself chairing a meeting here in this house. So congratulations, mister Paulo Donisment Gabriel, for your election as first vice chair, and I wish you the very best for your work going forward. Coming back to the matter at hand, I'd like to thank the commission, but also say that we're following this debate and this extensive exchange of views we've had with the commission. I'm left thinking of the fact that if you're heading alone down a street and you see crowds coming towards me and you assume that those coming towards you are the ones going in the wrong direction, it seems that the whole of this house is opposed to the commission's approach, but the commission seems to stubbornly insist that they're right. Now this is a decisive point in time.
It is fairly unusual that you have managed to unite all the political groups of this house against your proposal. That's quite an achievement when it comes to the NRPF. This is a serious step back for the fisheries sector. This is one of the exclusive competencies of the union, let me remind you. But I'm here today to ask questions.
So let me ask some questions. I'll divide them into two blocks. Firstly, on financing. The commission talks of a minimum of €2,000,000,000. This is a figure which isn't even legally based in the NRPF. It's just in an annex to the communication.
Could the commission confirm that the CFP will be fully supported when the financial architecture suggested doesn't even set a minimum level of financing, and there is no binding legal basis to do this. Can you offer us any minimum guarantees? Second question. At the same time, the commission has said on several occasions that there is a minimum sum, and they did this again this afternoon. And member states can use other sources.
Can the commission then tell me what the point of this is? How will the member states be able to mobilize funds to do this if the Commission can't do it itself? And why is this not written out in the proposal? Do they imagine that member states are going to finance financing or investment elsewhere? Then once again, the minimum of €2,000,000,000 mentioned by the commission, this refers solely to a shed financing.
But the situation is somewhat worse when we look at the real situation in the granted member states if you compare to current funds available under the MFAT. For example, Portugal will go from currently more than €380,000,000 to €140,000,000. Spain will go from under MFAF more than €1,120,000,000 to less than half, €421,000,000. And France will go from currently more than $5.67 to 260 odd euros. These are enormous cuts for the sector.
We're looking at more than 62% of cuts for member states as a whole. And my question is simple. How does the commission expect the sector to undertake the necessary measures for climate change, energy transition, social change, and the sustainability objective set out under the CFP with such an enormous cut in resources? And why did the commission choose not to have a minimum level of funding for the fisheries sector, given that the commission has now left abandoned the sector subject to the conditional funding on each member state? I wanted to refer back to something you said about the outermost regions.
Speaker 38
Could the commission explain what financial objectives there will be for these outermost regions? More detailed questions. I will leave the rest of my questions about the architecture for later. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed for your kind words as well.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Of course, I am available to work on behalf of all of you, including the outermost regions.
From EPP, Francisco Milan Moon. MEP Francisco Milan Mon, for instance.
Speaker 32
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Commission for that presentation. No. I can't agree with the commission on this file either. Firstly, let me repeat that I really don't support the change in the financial architecture. These traditional funds, cohesion funds, the CAP, the CFP, all will be merged into one macro fund.
Speaker 31
It's a terrible idea. These policies will lose out. They all have their particular characteristics, and they will be less visible. Looking at the act, the architecture of the MFF. Now next generation EU is the model being followed here, and it's a mistake.
I think this is a dangerous step. The regions and local authorities may end up being penalized because they are unable to carry out reforms on a national level as you've mentioned. For example, if we have a minority government where the government is unable to pass laws, this should not mean that a region such as Galicia cannot receive the funds, the fisheries funds. This would be unacceptable. We're looking at sector reforms and territorial reforms.
Then my second point, and let me repeat, as others have already said as well, I completely reject the cuts to the budget available to the fishery sector, and this has been repeated on several occasions. 67% cuts. This is absolutely unacceptable. We cannot support this. If my colleague from the ECR, mister Rousson, says we've lost out on over €715,000.
Now I'm simply bewildered by the fact that you've had the courage to do this. Now here are some other points that I don't like. Why have you applied different national contribution percentages depending on the region? How were these percentages established? 30%, except for outermost regions.
That was the standard. And then despite the fact that the MFFAF is also affected by the provisions mechanism, it seems that there was one single co-financing message for the MFFAF. I think we should go back to this 30% figure. The philosophy behind the cohesion funds and the fisheries funds is extremely different. So we should ensure a level playing field when it comes to conditions and go back to the 30% figure.
Secondly, I'm not happy with the way in which fisheries are treated in the NROP, especially in article four under the where fisheries is concluded under the COP. In paragraph 11 of article 33, there's one tiny reference to the CFP in an article which is dedicated to the CAP. We need exclusive measures for the CFP, then sanctions. Once again, the obligation to return aid and subsidies is provided if serious violation is committed in the five following years. But this doesn't exist in other sectors, such as agriculture.
Why has this provision been introduced for fisheries? This is a double penalty, which means that fishers do not have legal certainty. They have financial security. This is unacceptable. They even they are then discouraged from applying for subsidies.
Speaker 32
I hope that the commission will be able to answer those questions. Otherwise, we'll be studying Mister Rodriguez's draft opinion in detail when it is ready, and we'll be tabling some amendment much in line with what I've already said. Mister Rodriguez, I'm sure that we're going to work very well indeed on this together. Thank you very much.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Muchas gracias, MEP Milan Moon. Now I pass the floor to a shadow rapporteur from ECR, our colleague, MEP, Berthian Roussin. The floor is yours for three minutes, please.
Thank.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
You, Chair. I agree with the colleagues that said it is not a good idea for us to, in fact, fold the CFP into the NRP fund. And it's quite clear that if we follow the commission, that will actually be the end of fisheries funding. It will just become a minor part of a larger regional fund. So I think we in the fisheries committee should do everything in our power to ensure that there are a maximum number of references in the NRPs, which are then transferred into the fisheries regulation.
We've done that with agriculture. We have to do the same for fisheries. At this stage, apart from that, we have mainly questions on the amount. The commission's been talking about €2,000,000,000 being a minimum. But actually, if you look at the NRPs, that €2,000,000,000 is very difficult to find.
Where is it? Which article? Which article mentions the €2,000,000,000? What are you basing yourself on when putting that figure forward? Is it a mistake? Because if you look at the amount for agriculture, that is explicitly mentioned in the NRP.
So that's on financing. And then we've already adopted a standard saying that we needed 16,500,000,000 for fisheries. So let's try and put that right. The commission has adopted a model that's based on targets. But question, what are the commission's targets for fisheries?
I don't find them. You've got vague goals. You've got objectives, but I don't find any specific targets. Could the commission perhaps list them? The commission is also choosing to drop the subsidiarity criteria.
And one could ask how the commission then will, in fact, guarantee that we won't be adopting counterproductive measures. In other words, how will the commission ensure that the member states will in fact make the right decisions on what they're financing? Then Article 35, where we mentioned the activities that can be supported. Is that an exhaustive list? Or are you going to add further to it?
And then Mr. Milan Mon asked about co-financing, article 20. The co-financing rate is very different. And we don't know the percentages for the fisheries. Can the commission give more details?
Speaker 39
I have the hugest doubts, really, as well about these percentages. Thank you, Madam Loewen.
Speaker 16
Thank you, madam chair, and thank you to the commission for the presentation again. So listening to the commission, of course, there's emphasis on flexibility and adaptiveness, also on member states being able to have synergies in the different policies. But of course, this also increases the need for rigorous checks and balances to not create an uneven playing field. And I'd like to ask the commission a little bit to explain more about that. And I also want to say the best way to have a profitable fishing sector that must always be underlined is to rebuild the fish stocks.
So we have not only financial support to the sector, but that we actually have viability over time and the possibility for bankable projects with predictability of sustainable ocean. Now, the current MFAV has important marine aspects beyond more direct support to fishers. How can we safeguard the funds utilized for important research, data collection, etcetera, can be guaranteed with this approach with large national freedoms, so conservation measures and data collection? And lastly, how can we make sure that the relevant and sufficient funds are being allocated to conservation and protection at the sea basin level? We need more regional approach and sea basin approach so that we avoid that, for instance, three member states will do something in the Baltic, but the other five will not allocate enough funding.
We actually need more integration. So it's clear to us that we need a very tight control system on how funds are allocated and used, but also that there has to be conditionality and prescriptive targets for reaching our EU targets on both ocean recovery, but also climate and biodiversity. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 10
you. I'm not going to repeat the questions already asked. With the future MFF, you seem to want to do away with the common policies of the EU. Great. Great.
We've said that the commission's proposal for the future fund actually weakens the different sectors and makes it easier to have access to financing. It's the member states that have competence, and really that's not a good basis for negotiations because the co-legislators have to adopt an approach of renationalization and just tinkering around the edges. And then for fisheries, the sum is negative one. As we've already heard, we're talking about a two three cut in spite of the fact that the commission is saying that they guarantee this, that and the other. This is the reality because financing outside of the CFP is not mentioned at all and lacks certainty.
So what I would like is to send a very clear message as EPP coordinator on behalf of the Fisheries Committee. We are clearly opposed to the cut in the budget of around 67%. And we oppose the approach of a single national plan, with the logical resulting risk of renationalization of genuinely common policies of the EU like fisheries. Fisheries has to remain a common policy. So we are firm in our position that fisheries, aquaculture needs to be protected within delicate structures.
It needs to have earmarked funds, which need to be increased. So we need to ensure, therefore, that in fact we have earmarked funding for fisheries and for agriculture. And we also obviously need to improve the fleet, and we also need to ensure conservation of stocks. So the fisheries and aquaculture measures should not be in the European Fund. They should be in a sectoral fund.
And that particularly is the case for anything that has to do with interventions, with definitions, sanctions, and state aid. And obviously, this goes all the more so for the outermost regions, because we have to ensure that activities linked to them are in a specific chapter of the sectoral fund. This is what we've been calling for some time under something similar to per se for fisheries and aquaculture, earmarked funds, current provisions that we have.
Speaker 12
Mister Gonzalez Casares, thank you. Before I address the commission, let me send a message to the fishers. We are debating something that's vital to a European policy, which is funding, which is the budget. And where are the so-called patriots in this debate? Where are the far-right groups?
They say they always raise their voices on behalf of farmers, fishers. Where are they in this debate? BSN, PFE. Can't see them. Can you see them?
Well, let's mention this too to the fisherfolk. No. They couldn't care less about the cuts the commissions want for fishing. They couldn't care less that the commission is cutting the money going to fisherfolk. Bear that in mind, because when they go back home, they'll be saying, we stood up for you.
Speaker 11
But they couldn't be bothered to be here for the debate, but we could because we are worried that the commission is going to make a serious mistake with this policy. Starting with the €2,000,000,000 that's been mentioned so much, not included in the proposal for a regulation. But if they were, we'd be talking about a 67% cut. MFF, the largest cut ever of it. And considering the challenges, generational renewal, improving the viability of the fleet, decarbonization, how are we going to do it with these cuts?
Speaker 12
We need a bigger budget. As my group has been said, 7,000,000,000 to be able to help the sector to meet these challenges. And then the regulatory aspects, the proposals were weak there too. As a minimum, fisheries needs a specific chapter in the national plans as a priority policy enshrined in the treaties on the same footing as the CAP. I would say that anything should be moved to a sectoral regulation, and the aid for fisherfolk in a crisis situation should also be explicitly mentioned to the commission.
Where's the part on the control, regulation, and data collection? Can't find it. How will it be financed? Who knows? Each member state can do what it wants.
Speaker 40
What does the commission want? To break the single market? Thanks a bunch. Keith. Thank you.
Mister Schmidt.
I'll speak in Dutch.
Speaker 24
Thank you very much. First of all, congratulations to Ms. Mendes Cabral. And congratulations to mister Nesimental Cabral. And thank you very much to all of those who are voicing their patriotism.
And also, happy Saint Patrick's Day. Now I'm a patriot, but I'm also European. And the commission's proposal is actually bringing the death of the common fisheries policy. It's actually ensuring fisheries will not disappear. Is a single fund really the future for the European Union, considering the situation in fisheries?
We depend on imports for 70% of our fish. Is that what the future is going to look like, too? I don't understand why you don't want to move the articles from the ERP to a sectoral regulation. And turning to different coordinators here, I would say several of us actually have a majority of that. So the commission investment for fishermen folk, how will that work?
Regional plans, national plans? We are going to see fragmentation, and we'll also have more and more eco-nationalism too. We've seen families on TV who were crying on the screen at the idea of this. Is that really what we want for the future? I find this unacceptable.
We need to preserve our fleet. We need to ensure a future. Generational renewal is a must. And we need to avoid renationalizing fisheries, as the Commission seems to want. What's your plan?
Do you really want a new generation to invest in the sector, or do you want to destroy it? You really need to answer that question. Parliament, I think, should be sending a clear message. Mr. Rodriguez, I totally agree with you.
Speaker 41
We need harmonization between the two reports. And we need to ensure that the articles go back into the sectoral regulation, and we can cooperate on that if you wish. Thank you, madam chair. First of all, the impression people have of the commission's view of the new fund, and in particular the drastic cut to MFAP, is something that is seen as being very harsh by the fishery sectors. If you talk to people working in ports, many of them can't go fish because they can't afford the fuel.
Ana Miranda Paz
Generation renewal is difficult. They're seeing shellfish producers without a single penny from their profession because they can't afford to do it. And you've got governments that are from Mrs. Van der Leyen's family, but others as well who quite frankly are anti fisheries, as you can see in Galicia as well. Fischerfurker going through such a difficult time then.
This almost 70% cut in funds isn't actually something that is viable. If we want generational renewal, research investment to invest in coastal communities, etcetera. How are we gonna do it with so few funds? There are governments that would rather have other industry, highly polluting industry, for example. And that wasn't possible because the public was against it.
And then there are other political forces that actually want to defend fisheries, defend the environment, defend the right to produce and to live from your land, the sea, and not have to migrate. The case for Galicia. So this cut is hugely worrying. I think it's amazing the commission has come here to give a three-minute presentation on something that's going to have such a devastating effect over the next seven years, and we have to see it. And to end, my congratulations to Mr.
Speaker 44
Nascimento Cabral, an excellent colleague on this committee. Congratulations on us having a First Vice Chair who speaks Galician.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you very much. And to follow on with what I said, on the last point, what has been proposed is totally and utterly unacceptable, and it goes even, it's even worse. There isn't actually a guaranteed 2,000,000,000. But I have to say the helplessness on behalf of members of this parliament who put this commission in place to do anything about it is a total and utter gift to the far right. Because the far right's message seems to be, what's the point?
MEPs don't get listened to. It's totally undemocratic, and, well, Europe is bad. Well, obviously, it isn't that simple because I come in, I'm in the agri committee as well, everyone is totally and utterly disgusted with the proposals. Everyone is disgusted with the proposals here. So then why don't we just outright reject them instead of trying to turn an old court into a new court, and basically go a long way around what needs to be done, which is to totally and utterly reject this proposal?
And I think it's very important that if the EU is accused to be nondemocratic, then I think it's important for members of the European Parliament to point out that there are actually levers to prevent this happening. But I don't see the will to do it. And while all groups are in agreement that this is an awful proposal, all groups are not guilty of pushing this commission in there in the first place. I hear MEPs complaining and saying it's, oh, it's dire. We're gonna get Mercosur.
Well, look, often we hear people complain that politicians don't follow through on their promises. Commissioner Hanson came into the Agri Commission and said, I am in favor of Mercosur. Like, it's a bit rich to complain about a politician for doing something they actually promised they're going to do. So maybe next time, if someone says they're gonna do something you disagree with, don't vote for them, because we actually have the power to reject this. We had the power to appoint this commission that you're now complaining about.
Obviously, I want to work with you in the future, but I think we've got to face reality. They did not fall out of the sky. They got there by a democratic process. Don't particularly like the process, but it's a democratic process. Now they are not doing a single thing that any of us want.
What do you do? What do I do? What do we do in our country if a co-government doesn't do a single thing we want? We get rid of them. But if you don't, you're a gift to the far right because you're saying, we don't agree with what the commission is doing, even though we put them there, but we can't do anything about it.
Oh, poor us.
Senora Lekaleneck.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Madame Lekaleneck, thank you, Madame Chair. As you've heard, there are concerns, well justified concerns about the funding, but also the criteria. On the goals outlined, colleagues, can I suggest you look at Annex 1? Let me give a few examples. I counted 22 areas of intervention as things stand.
We've heard about the different indicators. Let me give you scientific data, data collection, knowledge of the market, all very important for us. We keep saying scientific knowledge. So the outcome indicators, number of calls launched, number of applications, number of points on the agendas for C STEP, number of goals on a quarterly basis, number of indicators, and so on. That's one example.
Second example, support for adaptation and resilience to climate change in fisheries, agriculture, blue economy. Obviously, we'd agree with that. So, what indicators do we have for that? Climate change, value of members of the population for resilience measures, etc. Well, try to prove that.
Try and prove you're eligible. Another example, compensation, external activities, environmental, etcetera, etcetera, all very important. We're living through that at the moment with the increase in oil prices, as we saw. But then, okay, moving on to the other indicator. Okay.
Number of jobs kept, number of companies still open. Difficult to quantify. Moving on further in the report, there's a line. Definitive stopping of fishing activities. In other words, the commission plans on continuing to definitively stop fisheries activities.
That's very serious. And then we've got decommissioning, number of people that benefit, unemployed, etcetera. Seriously, read it. Read Annex One. And I totally agree with you, even though we're not from the same political family.
If we continue down this line, well, basically, there won't be any more fissure folk in Europe. So stop. Enough, really. And I totally agree with us absolutely rejecting this proposal. And while it's time, if we open this up, we can start discussing it.
It's just no, we can't accept this. Just look at the indicators they've got in the annex, and just take one minute and think about the project promoters that are sending projects into MFARF at the moment. No, absolutely impossible. So please listen to us. I'm not getting enough impressions.
Speaker 3
But we are going to have huge problems for European fisher folks, which will probably translate into no votes in the next election. Thank you very much, madam chair. Well, what I think is quite clear is that all of us in the room, and I would pick on what Nicolas said, those of us that are here, far right, no, because they couldn't give a damn about this subject. But what is important for us, we've said clearly, we see nothing positive in the proposal we have here, and we are against it. And that should make the commission think.
And if we sum that up, it's quite simple. We've got a cut in funds, centralization, lack of a European focus, no reference to the outermost regions. So the approach presented, what they're trying to get us to adopt won't actually be something the sector can accept in any way, shape, or form, and so we can't either. Thank you very much, Chair. Just to add a couple of points.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
I try to avoid what's already been said. I think it's quite clear that there's a majority rejection of the commission's proposal. I'd like to talk about the end of community policies that was attempted with agriculture. The attempt now is with fisheries. And the common fisheries policy is a common fisheries policy.
It's a European policy. It's not an addition of 27 member states' policies. Working together, 27 countries with a broader approach, which includes European strategic autonomy. Second point, at a point in time when people are saying from outside that Europe is taking leadership roles in strategic autonomy and ocean governance, having a 67% cut is not really a very good sign. Clearly, we've listened to the explanations on the minimum about €2,000,000,000 that's protected, and then using others funds.
But that is something questioned by other sectors. And it's not guaranteed in any case. And at the end of the day, if a government has to choose to build a school or to renovate the fleet, it's obviously going to build a school. And fisheries, once again, will find itself in a vulnerable situation. Competition between sectors is neither acceptable nor appropriate.
Then another point on the outermost regions. In 2014, when MFAP was set up, we included the outermost regions in the MFAP. And that meant that was a major benefit for the outermost regions in guaranteeing funding. What we're seeing here is the opposite. We're losing autonomy.
We're losing flexibility. And we also use losing our bridge into the MFF. So we have a derogation, as things stand, into the outermost regions. We have a specific program too that we've used in the past and that we've also put in the midterm review of Pose. And then the final point has to do with emergency measures, which are required to make up for the hike in fuel prices.
If you look at the hike in food prices in the EU over the last two, three years, as well as fuel prices, that's something that seems to have been forgotten. But Europeans are still talking about it. And Portugal, which is a fisheries nation with two outermost regions, and it has received about 20,000,000, not enough. Thank you. And now speaking as a member of the European Parliament, first of all, we shouldn't forget that all of this is in a structure that was approved by the member states in the Council in November and December.
Speaker 39
So there's no one that was not involved in this approach with a common envelope. And that's what we're faced with. And what we in parliament now are trying to ensure is that we, in fact, put the situation right. So why are we in this situation? Because there are not enough resources, because they don't want to have new policies, and they don't want to disappoint the productive sectors.
And then we've got the next generation EU as well, which has to be paid back, which has a knock-on effect on the CAP and the CFP. And Fisher is in a worse situation. Why? Because we've lost out. We've lost out with renationalization, like the CAP.
We've lost with the cut here, which obviously is bigger than any other policy. We've lost by losing MFAS, which is a problem because that actually had a formula, which was much more complicated for funding to make up for the disparities between countries. And that's a problem, actually, that will have to be made up for elsewhere. And we're also losing out because if this money goes into general funds, it'll be very difficult for fisheries because fisheries do have problems in fighting for money in common funds. So no, we don't want an observatory, thanks.
We would like practical fisheries policies in the EU. I'm optimistic enough to hope that we can change this with the determination of the parliament. And if commission is open to that option and if we have earmarked funds and ensure that in this common fund, have an earmarked function for fisheries, 6,000,000, 000, 7,000,000,000, the amount that's actually required. So I'm an optimist, but this is the work that needs to be done. It wasn't done by the member states, so parliament will have to do it together with the commission to bring this episode to an end by 2028, 2030 if we must, so that we have opportunities for fisheries and for aquaculture in Europe.
We have to correct this, and the commission has to work with it. Thank you. Dijkimare has the floor. Mr. Mittalides to answer all the MEPs.
Thank you.
Speaker 9
Thank you, chair. Thank you very much. And thank you also to all the members, the honorable members, for the questions and positions that they have taken. I will try to be as brief as possible, and thank you, on some of the issues that have been mentioned. I think some of them are recurring.
The amount of funding and where does it come, I think it is clear that the commission has notified the court legislators with a letter of the president on the €2,000,000,000 as being the minimum amount allocated on some of the common fisheries policy actions. So this has already been done on September 17. The publication of the communication of the MFF has also mentioned it clearly. There is a body of questions related to the common fisheries policy. The commission is fully committed to the common fisheries policy.
There is no doubt about that. And the commission fully believes that the implementation of the common fisheries policy can take place as a common policy through the new delivery model. I repeat the modalities of the delivery model. You have member states that are setting up their plans. They do their consultation at the regional, local, and national level.
These plans arrive at the commission. They are analyzed in line with article 22, which says that they have to fulfill part of the significant part of the totality of the objectives that they are setting the NRPP. There will be very specific references there about the European semester, country specific recommendations, policy frameworks of the commission. Commission makes the analysis, discusses with member states, and will propose to the council for the adoption of the NRPs. This is more or less the delivery model.
So the commission is going to be ensuring that what member states are reporting in the specific subsections with respect to our policies as they are setting up on annex five, subject 1.8, but also to all the related issues, generational renewal, coastal communities development, island development, rural development with respect also to our officials is taking member states are taking into consideration the policy objectives that the European Union has. So there is no re-nationalization. There is no reduction of the amount. We repeat, it gives multiple opportunities through synergies to achieve even more in terms of funding. The existing co-financing crates, as they have been set out, the legislature has decided, or the proposal that we are giving to legislators to decide, is based on co-financing grades that they are set in terms of regions.
This is a well-established delivery model that comes from the cohesion policy. Article 35, paragraph 11, has some of the interventions that are taking place under the common features policy. It does not have the totality. The totality, you can go on section 1.8 where one can actually see a full list of what it is necessary to be done. Specific rules in terms of ensuring the funding amounts and the five-year rule.
This is with respect to serious infringement. This is an established policy that the colleges leaders have introduced for many programming years, and I think that it is important, and we believe that it should be kept as it is. Outermost regions, I repeat, the basic principle is to ensure synergies, complementarity, and added value. The commission has been proposing in that respect to move all the support from all types of existing funds in one chapter in the NRP to ensure better delivery of the support to the outermost regions, which the commission considers that they are specific areas for intervention. There was also a set of questions about the performance indicators and the performance regulation.
I'm happy to reply to the next point. I suppose there is another one. So there, we can actually discuss that. On the elements of the way of where it is, the control and data collection. Please, I repeat, one needs to read the very explicit request that the national plans have in chapter 1.8 to support member states to explain how they will support data collection, fisheries control, fight against IUU fishing.
We have put it as a commission explicitly there to make sure that this is an important element where member states need to explain how they think that they will support those part of the elements. And I said, the commission is going to be scrutinizing in the process of analyzing the plans, the proposals that the member states are making. Emergency measures, they exist in the current proposal under the NRP. So this is not something that has gone unnoticed. We have it already, of course, under MFAV.
You know it's Article 26. But the general idea of actually the NRP is to facilitate fast response to any type of crisis based on the experience that we have actually gained. Overall, I think it is clear. The commission believes that the status quo is not an option. In general, commission believes that the new delivery model can be beneficial and will be helping the totality of our fisheries communities, aquaculture communities, broader ocean, let's say, activities to achieve more rather than less.
Thank you very much.
André Franqueira Rodrigues
You, Jan. Yes. I think there's an awful lot of questions that weren't answered, many more questions unanswered than answered. Let me highlight here that it is clear that there is full agreement in this house in the opinion of the commission's proposal. Now I said that there are many questions open.
Financial questions, the architecture of the proposal, there's an awful lot of questions to be answered about the institutional architecture of the proposal. And I'm really committed to working together on this so that we can tackle together these enormous challenges we have ahead of us. This is a proposal that would have been able to respond to the needs of the fishers, fishing communities in the Outer West regions, but that's simply not going to be the case, given the current commission proposal. To be perfectly honest, and this is what I've taken away from this discussion, it has removed financing from the CFP. It has removed financing from fishers, and it does not meet the needs of fishers, who are working in a sector that has had several more challenges and needs more needs change.
I wanted to come back to one of the comments that was made. Our responsibility as elected members of parliament is not just to reject. It is to look for alternatives. It is to try and build solutions only where not to be possible for us to build or suggest alternatives together, only at that point would we consider rejecting the proposal outright.
Speaker 39
Yes. Thank you. And now let's move on to the next presentation on budget expenditure tracking and performance favor and other horizontal rules for the union programs' activities. We'll speak of the budget expenditure. We'll have Ms.
Isabel Lekanik, who was appointed on 01/05/2026. And now, I'll give the floor to the representative of Digimare, Mr. Mito Rides, who will present this proposal. And then the rapporteur and the others will also have the possibility to speak. Mister Mithoridis.
Speaker 9
So on the performance regulation, the commission proposed an enhanced, simpler, and more consistent performance framework, enabling to support horizontal principles such as climate and environment, do no significant harm, gender equality, and social policies, and to track budget expenditure and monitor performance. This will enable a strengthen of the performance-based management of the EU budget. Thanks to this simple performance framework, the framework will deliver harmonized results across MFF programs, moving from program based approaches to an activity based approach. The performance framework will deliver increased transparency, accountability and consistency of performance information, as well as reducing administrative burden for both the member states but also for beneficiaries, which is much more important. The proposal for the performance framework operationalizes the requirements of the 2024 financial regulation.
Applying horizontal principles consistently across the EU budget will ensure coherence, fairness, and impact, making it easier to align all programs to cover core EU values like sustainability, equality, social rights, while reducing the complexity and the administrative burden. For climate and environment, the regulation proposes a horizontal principle that sets a binding target that at least 35% of the EU budget must be contributing to climate and environmental objectives, tracked through a unified system using EU coefficients. The regulation also introduced harmonized rules for applying horizontal producing pools like the do no significant harm, gender equality, social standards along all EU budget programs. And in that context, the NSHY will be guided by a simple, simplified framework that ensures clarity, avoiding duplication, and allowing for justified exemptions. Thank you very much.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Mister Gracia, senior Alekalenek. Yes. Thank you. And now Miss Alekalenek. Yes, thank you, Chair, and thank you to the commission representative.
We have to say that we don't interpret this regulation on performance in the same way. The main principles that should guide you, and they are the ones that guide us, are readability, clarity, simplification to access, and access to the projects. Now these are the objectives. We have to think of what the EU wants to finance and the sectors to finance. We need to define the sectors we want to finance.
And plus, we have to say that there are three pillars to sustainable development. There's the economy, there's the social aspect, and there's the environment. Now the fishing industry is not a sector like the others. It has a strategic role for food security. Now, on governance, I have a few questions.
What will be the distribution between DG Badge and the sectoral? DGs, you're answering today, DG Mare, DG Regio. Now reading the text, we see there are horizontal principles and indicators, which will determine which projects are eligible and which aren't. I gave some examples before. But at what level will there be an evaluation?
Will it be the commission? Will it be the member states? Will it be the managing authorities? He will control whether the goals have been reached. Now I remind you that the court of auditors has said it will be very difficult to carry out the monitoring and verification.
Now, on the horizontal principles, the performance framework must consider the three pillars of sustainability. We keep saying we need more competitiveness. What about the social aspect? We need to strengthen it. And then there's the environment.
And there are indeed the climate criteria, biodiversity, but it's very difficult to define them sometimes. Now, on the principle of do no significant harm, it's a pillar of the Green Deal now. And we have the same goal. We want to guide towards sustainable activities. But there's a paradox because there's a risk of not financing the transition and the transitional activities.
And yet, at the heart of public policy, there should be a transition. So do no significant harm will be interpreted through a guidance note by the commission, which will be based on a public consultation. So you need to consult public opinion to see what to include in the commission guidance. So I would like to know, these rules on do no significant harm are destined to the private sector, but will they be applied to public funds as well? And who will establish the guidelines in the commission, the Secretary General or is it the DG Budget?
And these guidelines that the commission has announced, they're supposed to be for January 1, 2027. Will they be checking the eligibility of funds? And how can you guarantee that it will be possible to act for fishing if criteria are excluded through the do no significant harm? I apologize if I have so many questions, but we need answers. How will the principle be used for direct funds and for the competitiveness fund for Global Europe and the Commission?
How can it reinforce competitiveness if it's not a horizontal principle that includes competitiveness and the economy that have to guide the funds? Now on Alex one, I gave you a few examples before, but this isn't fun at all. Now on indicators, can you tell us how we are to use this annex when we have shared management and direct management? Because there'll be both. And on Annex one, where we speak of respecting result indicators and output indicators, will this be the condition for blocking the funds?
But what happens if you don't achieve a certain figure? That means that the funds will not be given out. And then, climate and environment. What happens if a member state doesn't reach this 43% of expenditure for the climate and the environment in the NRRP? So I don't know if the people who are listening to us can actually understand what we're reading and examining.
Because here, these are funds for fishing, for agriculture, and for the ocean, because those are the sectors. Now I find the president, the chair's idea, great. We should make some proposals. Now, on the intervention sectors, we need to reach an agreement. And on indicators, we need a presentation of the MFAP that we do not have.
We need this information. Let's have an evaluation of MFAP. Let's see what works, what doesn't work. Let's decide together what we want to maintain. We'll have our intervention sectors.
We'll see the criteria because I fear that with this method, with this way of working, and I have to say that I'm really worried when I listen to the commission, but I fear that the commission won't change its proposal because listening to you, I have the impression that you think that this is the best possible proposal and the best possible words. And we have all said this, even from different parties. We do not agree with this decision. Thank you. Yes.
Eric Sargiacomo
Thank you, and now let's hear our shadow apertures. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, colleague, for having said what you think about this framework for tracking budget expenditure and this performance framework. We don't agree with the architecture, so that means that it will be difficult for us to agree with the other aspects.
Now, as my colleague said, the European Court of Auditors also raised some issues concerning the tracking of expenditure. Now we all know that European funds should be properly used. We want them to be used considering the goals that we have established. And we want everything to be transparent, but I'm not sure that the way with these decisions will reach these objectives. Now there were four regulations in order to try to understand what's happening.
But to be honest, we've seen simpler solutions. We speak of simplification for the beneficiaries. But reading the regulation, I have many questions. The inspectors in the member states, the regions, and the municipalities, how can they simplify things with the regulation where we have performance indicators that can't evaluate the financial basis? And then, from a legal point of view, I have many questions.
We have policies that refer to specific articles in the Treaty of the EU, and the CFP is one of them. So how can we have horizontal indicators when these are specific policies? How can we evaluate them and the expenditure and the performance framework when we have horizontal goals instead of specific indicators? I think it's not possible. Are we bringing better regulation?
I don't think so. Let's consider the European Court of Auditors. They have to check what all the institutions are doing. But what role will the European Parliament play? Because we're supposed to evaluate the performance as well.
There are too many questions for this text, which is supposed to provide answers, and which is supposed to make it possible to evaluate the use of European funds. So as you've understood, we have many doubts. And we wonder if the only important indicator for the commission is not that of putting an end to the CFP. Thank you. Yes.
Thank you. Mister Norwek?
Speaker 47
You, madam chair. Yes. Where to start? I mean, we all ask for a more simplified, flexible MFF when we started this discussion. And I think that's important to keep in mind also when we then discuss the various parts of the legislation going into the MFF.
And in my opinion, working also in other committees on this MFF, I mean, here with the performance tracking indicators, we actually talk about the key legislation when it comes to the whole MFF because this is where we find out if we actually spend the money correct. And I think it is worth mentioning we always had different indicators we have to live up to when we actually see here now with this horizontal approach, actually, a simplification also for the final beneficiary. So far, so good. Whereas, I mean, there's still a lot of weaknesses, and that's where I think we should be really aware. That is, first of all, with the green spending target, how do we actually achieve that?
It is a green spending target. When we look down at the indicators, there are a lot of weaknesses in the annex proposed by the commission, and something we should really work on in this commission. So we make sure that the funding we spend is actually going into a sustainable fishery, into restoration of marine ecosystems, so we have a fishery for the future as well. So that is something that I think we should be very much aware of. And then especially the do no significant harm, a very important principle that can be easily or very difficult to be answered.
And I think what my colleague from EPP was mentioning a few of the questions that can arise when we talk about this, but it can also go in the other direction that if we weaken this principle, then we spend money really the wrong way. I have one question to the commission, and it's a bit after the discussions we have had in this committee on the former topics. And that is how can we be assured to have a green spending target going across the MFF if we start talking about ring fencing and stand alone and so forth? Because isn't that being weakened quite a lot if we take money out of the national regional partnership plans where we can have this tracking. But if we all of a sudden start to talk about ring fencing and stand alone, how is this principle then being followed?
So that should be my one question. I look very much forward to the work we're gonna do in this committee to make sure that the money we spend is spent in a sustainable way, that we ensure that when we talk about green spending, it's actually green spending, and not least that we don't have significant harm when we spend EU money also for fishery. Thank you.
Señor
Speaker 32
And I'd also like to thank the commission, and thank you to my colleague Le Kalenick. I think that she has presented the points very clearly, has expressed concerns and questions. Now the do no significant harm principle, when we speak of environmental objectives. I know that there's public consultation, but how are you discussing these principles that apply to fisheries? Because there's a taxonomy regulation in 2020.
And here, we speak of a framework for sustainable investments, but that's one thing. And it's another thing to apply this principle in general, and to fisheries. There is the risk that many fishing activities will not be financed by the European funds. But this is important. We are co-legislators, and we should have a stronger role when we have this definition.
Speaker 31
Are you speaking about a guide instead of a legislative act, even if it's a delegated act? Now this is a small sectoral regulation, which would give member states a lot of flexibility. But I'm afraid that this flexibility will disappear because then there will be the guide with do no significant harm. So I would like to know what the exact idea is. What are you thinking of when you apply it to fisheries?
Speaker 49
What is the timeline? What is the calendar? Can you when will we have the information? Thank you. Mister Luizen?
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you. This proposal creates many doubts in our group as well. We also have many questions, and I'll just cite a few. Now on a legal level, we're adding another level to the existing situation. Now you've spoken of horizontal principles, climate, environment, social policies, gender equality, and these are above and beyond what exists now.
Now if we think of these four principles, then we see that it's quite unilateral. Where is the issue of the economy or food security? They are not included in the main principles. So this is my question. Is food security still a priority for the commission?
And if it is, where is this priority in your proposals? Where do you show this? And then we have the DNSH principle. It's very nice on paper. But what is the consequence of this principle?
Won't it lead to many cases in the court? Because citizens will go to court, I presume. And we'll have to show that our funds do not create significant harm, but who has the burden of proof? The beneficiary, the fisher, do they have to show that there's no significant harm or is it the commission? So it's an interesting idea, but it will be very complicated.
So I'd like to know what the commission thinks. Who will bear the burden of proof? And what will the consequences be? So if at a European level, we have authorized a fishing vessel or a fishing instrument, and someone goes to court saying, I don't trust this system. It can be damaging.
It can create harm. In the end, won't this lead to a situation where we're banning a vessel or something that was authorized by the Commission? We have to think of this principle and the consequences of its application. And then on performance indicators, there's a long list. And the Court of Auditors says they are output indicators and not performance indicators.
So we look at the list, and it brings up many questions. Will there be the possibility to have innovative projects? Because they might be outside of this framework. And can we cover them?
Luke Ming Flanagan
It is very difficult for the people who pay our wages and pay the money into all these funds to survive. So it's never been more important that what we spend our money on is spent well. And if you listen to the European Court of Auditors, they are not happy with what is proposed. From what I can see, it's particularly opaque. And just to take up a comment that was made by the repertoire on the last report, I'm not, I don't come in here to be belligerent and just disagree with everything.
I actually support a lot of stuff. I voted in favor of the last cap. I am pragmatic. But when something is so far away from reality, you have to ask yourself, do you spend your time trying to reel it back in, or do you just say, do a reset so we can do our work efficiently and not spend the next few years trying to reel in this unrealistic proposal? And the European Court of Auditors, I have to say, I have an absolutely wonderful time for them.
And I don't just agree with them when it suits me. I agree with them, full stop, because they look at the facts. But from talking to the European Court of Auditors about all of these proposals, whether it be in agriculture or fisheries, they're starting to wonder what the purpose will be of them anymore. And we are looking at, over the next seven years, spending about 1,400,000,000 on the European Court of Auditors. And they're pretty much telling me that they're about as useful now as a chocolate fireplace.
of them and put the
Luke Ming Flanagan
Money into fisheries? Because they serve no purpose the way you've set it up. And I'll say it again, I'll work with anyone. I'll try and amend stuff that I don't agree with. But when you start from a place, as I say, that's so unrealistic, it just creates extra work, extra confusion, and makes it more difficult to get back to what people want.
Because, ultimately, what we should have had here is what the European citizens want. The people who elected them here aren't happy with the proposals. The European Court of Auditors isn't happy with the proposals. But all we hear when we come in here, and previously, I praised you when I agree with you, but all we hear is no. No.
No. It's actually wonderful. Absolutely wonderful. It's just so detached from reality. It's scary, and it plays into the idea that we're not very democratic.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. Thank you for the comments that they have been put forward, and I will try a little bit to give, to the extent possible, of course, replies. The most important element, I think, is what is the performance framework? It is an enhanced, simpler, more consistent framework to actually achieve what is important on tracking expenditure and monitoring performance. This is not new.
We had it in the previous programming period. So it's a basic principle that we have. We are giving here a harmonized approach of provisions, principles. This is not an eligibility criteria. It has been mentioned whether it is an eligibility criteria, whether if we go directly to the annex, we can understand it as an eligibility criteria.
That's not the purpose of the common methodology for tracking budget and expenditure. We are moving from a common from about 5,000 indicators to 900. In essence, as far as the funding relates to fisheries to what was happening under MFAV, the basic ideas have been retained, and they are kept in the annex. So there, we don't see any significant change, but we are harmonizing the approach. We will have a single report on performance.
We will have a single gateway for all the portal, for all the information that it is going to be received from the commission, and that will be easier for the commission to actually monitor the situation. It will be the indicators. So the performance indicators are applicable for every type of funding. This is clear, direct, and shared. It is also clear that the 35% target is a legal target that has been set up in the regulation.
The DNHH, there were a lot of questions. They are indeed mentioned under article 5 of the performance regulation. We are not intending to introduce additional obligations through these guidelines. Instead, the guidelines have as a name to enlist things which could harm the environment. These guidelines go beyond fisheries, of course, and they will be horizontal.
The commission, it has been mentioned that we are working on this. There is a timeline. The idea would be to have them adopted by 2027. They will be implemented also, for all types of funding, whether it is on all three pillars of the MFF proposal. So all in all, I would say, and this is building up.
It has been mentioned the taxonomy based on the experience that we come from, we get from the taxonomy to have something which is harmonized, simple, unified, so the union can actually track the performance, but also to have the ability for member states who are the ones who will have to take the decisions in selecting operations because this is under shared management. We are when we are talking about the NRPs to select operations in a way that rules are fulfilled in line with the D and SH principle. So there will be indications for the member states where they can say, at the end of the day, this is not allowed, but you can do a, b, or c at the end of the day. And that would be clear, simple, into a document that everybody will have available. So all in all, are doing here a great, let's say, simplification of a very complicated system with the aim to be able to track, monitor, and be ready to demonstrate that output results indicators are contributing to the policy objectives.
Thank you very much.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Madam. Yes. Thank you, Chen. Thank you for those answers. What strikes me is that when you talk about eligibility criteria, what project leads are interested in today are these criteria.
Of course, there are checks afterwards, but I think there are 7 different levels of checks. So perhaps there's something it's worth looking at again. But what we're interested in today, and this has to be at the heart of the definition of eligibility criteria. This really is what we're expecting from the CFP. I have a question on the portal and the One Stop Shop.
Now I imagine you talked about the IT system because you're talking about simplification. I'd like to know whether you are already thinking about the compatibility of the different IT systems within the EU. Often here, we're talking about the commission, the regions, and national authorities. They often don't use the same IT system. So that's going to come with a cost as well.
And then finally, you said you were basing your work on taxonomy. Now, does this mean you have information about the valuation of the MFARF? Because if you do, we'd like that too. If we want to have a constructive dialogue with you and, I mean, where you've been listening to what we've been saying all afternoon. There’s a vast gap between what the commission is suggesting and what we represent in the European systems want to see in the CFP.
Our starting points are very far apart indeed. Now if we want to work together, as Jess says, we need to pull our data, and we need to be able to assess where we stand at the moment. That doesn't exist at the moment. Now we've had some very heated discussions on this topic. And I would beg you to accept that what we're saying does have a grain of truth in it as well.
We are in constant connection with the stakeholders on the ground, and I'm sure the commissioner is as well. And I would like to pay tribute to him because he is often out there talking to people on the ground. So thank you very much indeed, and please do appreciate the work that we're doing as well. Thank you. Let's move on, then.
Speaker 39
Point 13, establishing global Europe. The reporter for this opinion is Joanne. I'm sorry, says the chair. I find your surname quite tricky. Oyane Aggarogotia Martinez.
Afit and Devi were the lead committee. And, Pesch will give an opinion to the report of those responsible committees, that Devi and Affit. And the Pesch coordinators allocated the opinion to the renew group as well. I'll give the floor to Mister Mitolides, Digimari. It's you again.
And then I'll give the floor to the reporter and the shadow reporter. So, mister Mitolides, when you wish.
Speaker 9
So on the global Europe, some very main messages. The commission proposal for Global Europe instrument regulation identifies future thematic priorities for international partnership as well as the geographic scope of EU actions. It includes three touches, let's call it, of blue, which represent, for us, a significant, let's say, message for the sectors or for our sectors. First of all, one of the key aspects of the new Global Europe instrument is its objective to support the EU international policies as expressed in the EU synergies or policy frameworks under the EU institutions. For the ocean, the International Ocean Governance Agenda and the European Ocean Pact, these are our policy frameworks.
Our objective at international level is to project the six priorities of the Ocean Pact and strengthen the EU Ocean diplomacy into international rule-based governance. The proposal the commission is doing identifies the European Ocean Pact as our compass for work for the next years as one of these policy frameworks. We trust that the Global Europe Instrument in that way will help us deliver on the pact's, let's say, objectives. Second, we are also very confident that the proposed regulation will push forward the implementation of international agreements, an element that is very important under the international fisheries governments. This is another core guiding objective of the new Global Europe instrument.
The commission proposal specifically mentions the Paris agreement, the coming Montreal global biodiversity framework that is important, tools for our policies. The agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity, biological biodiversity, and areas beyond national jurisdiction, the famous BB and J, is also mentioned. And for those, its implementation for member states and for the Commission is a priority for the EU. Finally, the Global Europe is a broad financing instrument that will support these objectives, first and foremost, through a geographic focus with geographical envelopes under the different policy priorities, which can then be served with the tool and depending on regions and country contexts. Annex two of the Global Europe on the specific objectives reflects the specificities of our partnerships with the different regions, spelling out priorities for our economic, climate, and environmental cooperation with the partners.
Ocean-related topics are clearly identified. We sustainable blue economy sectors, maritime security, and climate change impacts on ecosystem. Overall, the commission believes strongly that we have a very good basis for the enhancement of the EU's capacity to engage with third countries, international organizations in advancing international cooperation on ocean policies, and therefore promote the ocean pact at international level. And we count on you for your support for this, of course. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Ergoitia Martinez. Thank you, chair. Now the first thing we have to do now is, of course, thank the commission for your explanations. They've helped us a great deal. And then we have to take a look at what isn't fully covered by global Europe, but does warrant a comment.
Firstly, financing the sustainable fishing partnerships. These don't fall completely within the scope, but they are related. They're complementary. They will cover other actions financed under Global Europe. Then on the EU's participation in regional organizations, regional management organizations.
Of course, this will happen directly under the fund, but they fall outside the scope. But there will be, implementing measures which will be financed by the EU via the National Resilience and Recovery Plans, and I think these should be taken into account as well. Something else I'd like to flag up is that we need sufficient funding for the activities related to fishing and agriculture within the framework of Global Europe. There are other external actions carried out by the EU related to the fishing and the S and Ps. Under Global Europe, there are activities related to fishing, agriculture, but they can't be seen solely as environmental measures.
We do have to look at that, yes, but we have to focus on increasing competitiveness and growth as well, on economic development. This is crucial. And here too, we would like to allow for a mutually beneficial new association between the different parties and different sectors of the EU together with partner countries, ensuring that it is a mutually beneficial relationship for both parties. We also want to strengthen this message that we need to guarantee the actions under Global Europe to strengthen international order, a rule-based international order at sea in this case, especially given the current challenging context, raising the profile of the EU on a global level and to increase competitiveness of our maritime sectors so that we have a fair competition and a level playing field for all. And to close, perhaps I could say something about the timetable we have foreseen.
The opinion will be set for translation on March 19. It will be presented in April in the Pesh Committee meeting. Deadline for amendments, April 22. Thank you very much. Thank you to the reporter.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Move on to the shadow reporters, starting with vice chair, mister Donacimiento Cabarao. Thank you, chair. I'll be speaking Portuguese. Thank you very much indeed to the commission and to the rapporteur for that in-depth presentation of the file. We do believe it's of the utmost importance, not just because it looks at the external aspect of the EU, but it's an important sector for all of us here defending the fishing sector and our fishers as a whole.
Global Europe as an instrument is an important financing instrument for the next MFF. Using this instrument, we intend to respond to challenges overseas and integrate manuals, increasing our visibility. We want to enhance international cooperation when exploiting fish stocks in a sustainable manner and contributing to the protection of maritime environments under the BBNJ agreement. The fight against IUU fishing needs better control mechanisms and cooperation with third countries. Promoting level playing field with our for our European producers means that our rules have to be respected or the equivalent has to be respected overseas.
And our health, environmental, economic, and social standards have to be upheld. When looking at sustainable fishing, this isn't covered directly by the Global Europe instrument, but it is related. We believe that we can contribute to the sustainable management of resources and continue to supply food for the EU. Obviously, we have to look at the challenges of maritime security and the challenges represented by climate change. The sector is particularly vulnerable to this, and the external relations of the EU should contribute to a fair and sustainable economic sector.
Looking at the outermost regions and island regions, we believe that we need to be particularly included, especially in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, working together with third countries on the advanced platforms developed by the EU, working with mechanisms such as the Global Gateway. We need the necessary financial resources in order to carry out these actions, including marine scientific research, ocean research, and including further research into the blue economy. To conclude, this funding should also be targeted at actions related to the international governance of the oceans in line with the EU's objectives designed to protect biodiversity, prevent climate change, but also the sustainable management and use of marine resources. In accordance with our declarations in the past, we should be supporting a just transition towards a climate-neutral economy, which can tackle climate change, result in a sustainable and circular management of resources. The agreement on sustainable use of marine biodiversity outside the areas of national jurisdictions such as the BBNJ is also important.
Then we have a €15,000,000,000 reserve, and I hope this can be used as well for the sector thing. Thank you very much, Mr. Lu.
Giuseppe Lupo
You know, in our work on the report on the MFF, we've already spoken of this issue of the external dimension of the fisheries policy. We have proposed to strengthen it with funds of at least €1,500,000,000 in Chapter 3. And this is because the external dimension is not an accessory, it's a strategic component. It's necessary in the CFP. And that's why I would like to repeat that for us, it's important to launch new sustainable fishing agreements with Northern African countries as well.
Now I have a practical question, very concrete. The commission, you've indicated that the financing for the regional organizations and the sustainable fishing agreements and ocean governance at an international level should all come from the Global Europe Fund. But from what we can see, the reference is the chapter of the MFF, but there's no explicit reference in the regulation on Global Europe. So my question is the following. Do you believe that this estimate should be explicitly stated in the Global Europe regulation? Or do you think that we should act through another legislative instrument in order to guarantee the financing and the legal framework, which needs to be clear and stable, obviously.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Madam. Thank you very much indeed, chair. National plans competitiveness at Global EU. Here, we have the new architect of the 2028 and 2034 budgets. Now looking at fisheries, yes, I can compare this to what we've already heard.
The amounts available for EU funding, the amount earmarked for the external dimension of the CFP, well, have all funds been consumed in the 2021, 2027 period? Have we assessed the impact for the EU on third countries? And let me give you an example for ocean governance that fights against IUU, the level playing field. Before we come up with new proposals, have we fully assessed the external dimension of the CFP? Let me give you an example.
This morning, we talked about the fishing agreements. I asked what budget they were funded by today. I didn't get an answer. And so I'm gonna let me ask the question again. In the fishing agreements, the EU pays in advance to those countries where the EU fleet is able to fish.
They also provide support for sustainable development in those countries where we have the right to fish. Do we have an assessment of the use made of these funds? Could we have the figures, the sums used for this financing? Because the commission is very demanding when it comes to working with the EU officials on the standards that control, and we have to be just as rigorous with third countries. So I think now is the time to ask that question.
Now the external dimension of the CFP will exist going forward as well because it all exists under Global Europe. But we don't know just what the sums will be. We don't know what they were, and we don't know what they will be going forward. So my question is, some of us were in Nice last year, and the president of the commission promised €1,000,000,000 for the oceans. So looking at this architecture, which was presented to us a few months ago, where can I find this billion euros, which apparently has been earmarked for the oceans?
Is it to be found under Global Europe? Is it to be found under the competitiveness fund? Should I find it under the national regional partnerships? Thank you very much. I hope you have answers to those questions, and I will listen very closely if you have any.
Speaker 32
Well, Madame Le Colenic has asked the questions I wanted to ask. I have another question on the financing of the SMFPs. Now we understand that, for the time being, they'll be covered by Global Europe. Does that make up €1,000,000,000 under the MFF? That's a solid amount of money, but I would also like to know where it can be found.
Señor Aleben.
Speaker 16
Thank you very much, Anna Miranda, who is the shadow, for this could not be here. So I just very briefly say that I think it's very good that we have dedicated targets and not just targets, but funding for international policies for the ocean, and that the Ocean Pact priorities are in Global Europe. Also, international agreements, Paris Agreement, BB and J, and so on, and that the EU should be a leader. We are one of the biggest, we have the biggest EZs, so it's only natural that we do that. One specific question on the sectoral support.
Well, the SFPAs have already been asked about. But I think with this architecture of Global Europe, with the sectoral support, this has been an ongoing discussion. I mean, really, sectoral support should be under development cooperation because it is targeted to support vulnerable populations, food security, and strengthening local fisheries possibilities. So could the commission say a little bit on the thinking around sectoral support? And could that be, could it be totally integrated into the development cooperation rather than being linked to access agreements?
Speaker 39
Mister Mitolides, a question from my side as well. That wasn't very clear. The sustainable fisheries agreements are crucial given their geopolitical nature, increasing the presence of the EU in strategic regions and promoting very high standards on governance and sustainability in key issues such as Morocco, Mauritania, Greenland. We understand that we don't have the sustainable fisheries management partnerships under the Global Europe, or are we mistaken? No, where are those funds going to come from?
That is something which the whole committee seems to find confusing at the moment. The reporter has worked hard on this, as with the shadow reporters. They've done a great job. And I think this question has come up on several occasions. We need to ensure there is funding for this new generation of SMPFs.
So that's a direct question. I think it warrants a direct answer. Because if the commission does know the answer, we'd like to know it as well. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. I will just try to reply briefly on some of the elements that have been highlighted. I think it is important to understand the two different, let's say, delivery models between the global and Europe. I have, by the way, my colleagues there from DG in Pahira. And if need be, they can correct me, for sure.
Global Europe instrument is a successor of the NDICI. So there was a need to have a legal basis, bringing in additional elements, having a different approach, having an increase of the amount of money that has been attributed. SFPAs and the RFMOs have an existing legal basis. So, these are agreements that they have signed by the EU and the really related obligations. Therefore, the EU internal legal act is not needed.
And this is why for the SFPAs and the RFMOs, those are not integrated in the Global Europe instrument, but they are mentioned on the separate budget lines within the Global Europe contributions of the RFMOs under the CFP specific regulation. We have done the figures because the amount was actually asked where have you found the €1,000,000,000 more, whatever it is mentioned for the SFPAs. I think it is clearly communicated, and you can find it in publicly available information that the commission has communicated. In stable prices, the amount attributed is 1,180,000,000. This is 10% more. Or in current prices, it's €1,300,000,000, which is 27% more vis a vis 2021, 2027. There were also a set of actions, questions that they have been set with respect to the SFPAs in general.
The SFPAs, in general, continue to exist. Commission has a very clear position on that. There is a commissioner's commitment to deliver on the new generation of SFPAs in his mandate, as you already know. We are working also, as you probably know, on the vision for 2040. That would be an element, of course, to take into consideration.
And we are also working, and I'm sure you are aware, on the new communication on the external dimension of the fisheries policy, which is also coming to taking place within the year, probably in 2026. So there is no change. We are there, as it has been set up and within the context that the commissioner has explained and communicated in various functions in this chamber. For the rest of the issues, I think you have mentioned quite a lot of policy obligations and objectives. I think the elements that have been mentioned, the enhancement of international cooperation, the fight against IUU fishing, the promotion of level playing field, maritime security, general issues in terms of climate change, they are addressed either at the thematic, what we do as EU with our member states, of course, but as how we will interconnect and interact with the RFMOs, but also in the basic principles of the international ocean governance and the Ocean Pact, which has all those elements inside that we are aiming to actually achieve within the Global Europe with third countries.
Speaker 56
Thanks, Guilherme. Just to add, very briefly. So indeed, what is proposed for the next MFF is very similar to what we have today. So with a separate budget line for the financing of SFPAs and compulsory contributions to our FMOs. One difference is that in this MFF, this budget line sits in an internal heading.
Speaker 55
When it comes to the next MFF, the commission proposal is that this budget line will sit in heading three, the external heading. For the rest, as was said already by Vasilienos, Global Europe, like I indicated today, of course, will contribute to the external dimension of our Oceans policy in various dimensions: multilateral, regional, bilateral. And do all this, I think a number of elements feature in the commission's proposals as was already listed before. So that's in a nutshell what is proposed. And money wise, indeed, of the amounts compared to the current MFF are proposed by the commission.
And the commission hopes that the parliament will be in a position to support these increases because these are the financial needs that are needed to match our political and policy ambitions. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Yes, Mrs. Aguirre Goitia. Yes, very briefly. My thanks to all the shadows for the work they've done, and colleagues for their questions. One last request.
I think we've heard the same questions and we've had explanations of all the programs. But there were questions about where the funding for each program is coming from, which was great. But could the commission send us a table, maybe with the amounts and where they'll be funded from? Because not everyone is here. And it's very nice if we forget this information.
Speaker 57
Theoretically, it should be easy to find, but all of us seem to have had the same problem with that. So that would be great. Thank you, Mr. Mitolides. Anything?
Speaker 9
No comments. Thank you. We will provide, of course. It exists. Of course.
Speaker 39
Well, no. Thank you. That means we've come to the end of our agenda. The next committee meeting in Brussels will be in April. So I'll be seeing you very soon.
Hope you enjoyed today. Hope it was useful. I would say it's been useful. Useful for our fishers in the European Union and fishers throughout the world, indeed. Have a nice evening.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.